4 ms·

I don't have an opinion on how having nukes saves lives, but in either case I think there is a better solution. An international, democratically legitimized wor

by madez 9y ago

I don't have an opinion on how having nukes saves lives, but in either case I think there is a better solution. An international, democratically legitimized world council that has the competence to bind nations governments and override their decisions. Akin to the EU, but globally. That is an alternative, successful way to keep peace. The security council of the UN is not up to the task because of many obvious shortcomings. But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
That world council has to get buy-in from every nation, either voluntarily or not. Voluntary won't happen. And the "non-voluntary" part means, essentially, going to war to keep the peace. > But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing. Compared to being ruled by something akin to the UN? (Not the security council, the full UN.) Absolutely, my nation is a good thing compared to that. Compared to being ruled by the EU? Maybe even compared to that. (And you wouldn't get something as good as the EU, for the same reasons that the UN wasn't as good as the EU.) Now, true, not every nation can say that. And we weren't talking about affairs within the nation, but affairs between nations. Still... I'd say that assuming the nation is a bad thing "assumes facts not in evidence", as they say in court.
dahdum 9y ago
The world is currently moving away from democracy, so the ideal of a democratic world council may not be possible for generations, if ever. I agree it would be the best way to prevent war, but a slide into autocracy there could hamstring humanity for centuries. Even without autocracy, global views are already anti-LGBT, and otherwise do not reflect the progressive values of western democracies.
basementcat 9y ago
Even with the single world government, there will still be factional violence. Ethnic tensions and tribalism won't magically go away. People who believe that their voices haven't been heard still violently riot in even the most democratic of nations.

by madez 9y ago

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

That world council has to get buy-in from every nation, either voluntarily or not. Voluntary won't happen. And the "non-voluntary" part means, essentially, going to war to keep the peace. > But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing. Compared to being ruled by something akin to the UN? (Not the security council, the full UN.) Absolutely, my nation is a good thing compared to that. Compared to being ruled by the EU? Maybe even compared to that. (And you wouldn't get something as good as the EU, for the same reasons that the UN wasn't as good as the EU.) Now, true, not every nation can say that. And we weren't talking about affairs within the nation, but affairs between nations. Still... I'd say that assuming the nation is a bad thing "assumes facts not in evidence", as they say in court.

dahdum 9y ago

The world is currently moving away from democracy, so the ideal of a democratic world council may not be possible for generations, if ever. I agree it would be the best way to prevent war, but a slide into autocracy there could hamstring humanity for centuries. Even without autocracy, global views are already anti-LGBT, and otherwise do not reflect the progressive values of western democracies.

basementcat 9y ago

Even with the single world government, there will still be factional violence. Ethnic tensions and tribalism won't magically go away. People who believe that their voices haven't been heard still violently riot in even the most democratic of nations.