5 ms·

> What do you want, a world government? Well, if it were reasonably run, why not? Imagine a world where the trillions going into the military were spent in oth

> What do you want, a world government? Well, if it were reasonably run, why not? Imagine a world where the trillions going into the military were spent in other ways? Where people weren’t arbitraged across artificial boundaries? Would that be so horrible? So much more terrible than what we have now? Of course, it will never happen. See earlier poster’s point about people not being able to cooperate.

throw_m239339 7y ago
> Well, if it were reasonably run, why not? Imagine a world where the trillions going into the military were spent in other ways? Where people weren’t arbitraged across artificial boundaries? Would that be so horrible? So much more terrible than what we have now? These trillions would be spent oppressing you for a change. A "world government" cannot be anything but a complete bloody dictatorship.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- neuro_image3 7y ago
  The libertarian propaganda runs deep in the west.
- Retric 7y ago
  Rejecting the premise does not invalidate the argument. It’s at least possible for a world government to be reasonably run.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Where's the evidence? This thread is decrying the response of one of the world's largest governments. Good thing the rest of the world doesn't depend on the US CDC or we'd all have a big problem. One world government doesn't look like some utopian committee of experts making perfect decisions each time. It looks like Trump and Xi but multiplied by a million.
    - Retric 7y ago
      I am not saying it would generally be a good idea. Obviously it could be a terrible thing. However, considering the best possible option out of all possible futures as a theoretical exercise it would look like something else.
miscPerson 7y ago
> Where people weren’t arbitraged across artificial boundaries? The boundaries aren’t arbitrary; they reflect ethnic differences between groups. Homogenizing people is an abhorrent suggestion — and without that, large governments don’t really work. > Well, if it were reasonably run, why not? This is extremely unlikely, because history has shown us that remote, centralized governments are generally both arbitrary towards citizens and ineffective at addressing regional needs. Big, centralized government has killed 100M people in the past century. > Imagine a world where the trillions going into the military were spent in other ways? There’s basically zero chance that would happen, as a central world government would need a lot of force to keep regions following their edicts. That you even suggest it shows that this isn’t a serious proposal. > Would that be so horrible? So much more terrible than what we have now? Yes, absolutely. You seem to have a fantasy, not a serious view of how that would operate or the consequences to human well-being based on historic precedent. It’s not that people don’t cooperate, it’s that what you’re proposing is dangerous and harmful, so people cooperate to oppose it.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  > The boundaries aren’t arbitrary; they reflect ethnic differences between groups. > Homogenizing people is an abhorrent suggestion Ok, just for the sake of throwing gasoline onto the fire, why do you think that boundaries are a natural thing, and why do you find the mixing of ethnic groups abhorrent?
  - miscPerson 7y ago
    Boundaries are an expression of each tribe exerting an area of influence. A boundary forms where two areas of tribal dominance collide. You can watch animals pee and poop on things to mark theirs, among other signals. I didn’t say boundaries should be completely non-porous (as your comment implies), but rather that we don’t want to eliminate human ethnic/cultural diversity and that requires boundaries which enforce rate limited exchange. To borrow an analogy, there’s a reason cells have membranes. Intermingling at a rate which allows each tribe to maintain its integrity is natural, and has evidence going back longer than writing. As does outbreaks of violence at exceeding that rate. For example, Brexit was an act of political violence because the UK immigration exceeded the rate at which the society could naturalize immigrants leading to horrific events like “grooming gangs” of immigrants raping native children. Typically at the point gangs of migrants are raping natives, we drop the word “immigration” and talk about “invasion” or “colonization”. Similarly, other lurches towards nationalism in Europe and the US. Homogenizing everyone into a single global culture, which would be required to have a single government without boundaries that rate limit migration, would be verging on genocide. Your comment assumes a very negative interpretation of what I said.
Mirioron 7y ago
Yeah, you wouldn't spend that on the military. It would be spent on "the world police" that require rifles, APCs, tanks, jet fighters, and carriers to "enforce the law". The larger you make your administration the greater the chance of corruption and the less individual people matter to the leaders.
int_19h 7y ago
How would you make a government of 8 billion people reasonably run? I mean the mechanics of it - if your definition of "reasonably run" includes being democratic, and the arrangement is the usual representative democracy, it's not going to be very representative in practice, because a single person can't meaningfully represent millions.

throw_m239339 7y ago

> Well, if it were reasonably run, why not? Imagine a world where the trillions going into the military were spent in other ways? Where people weren’t arbitraged across artificial boundaries? Would that be so horrible? So much more terrible than what we have now? These trillions would be spent oppressing you for a change. A "world government" cannot be anything but a complete bloody dictatorship.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
neuro_image3 7y ago
The libertarian propaganda runs deep in the west.
Retric 7y ago
Rejecting the premise does not invalidate the argument. It’s at least possible for a world government to be reasonably run.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Where's the evidence? This thread is decrying the response of one of the world's largest governments. Good thing the rest of the world doesn't depend on the US CDC or we'd all have a big problem. One world government doesn't look like some utopian committee of experts making perfect decisions each time. It looks like Trump and Xi but multiplied by a million.
  - Retric 7y ago
    I am not saying it would generally be a good idea. Obviously it could be a terrible thing. However, considering the best possible option out of all possible futures as a theoretical exercise it would look like something else.

miscPerson 7y ago

> Where people weren’t arbitraged across artificial boundaries? The boundaries aren’t arbitrary; they reflect ethnic differences between groups. Homogenizing people is an abhorrent suggestion — and without that, large governments don’t really work. > Well, if it were reasonably run, why not? This is extremely unlikely, because history has shown us that remote, centralized governments are generally both arbitrary towards citizens and ineffective at addressing regional needs. Big, centralized government has killed 100M people in the past century. > Imagine a world where the trillions going into the military were spent in other ways? There’s basically zero chance that would happen, as a central world government would need a lot of force to keep regions following their edicts. That you even suggest it shows that this isn’t a serious proposal. > Would that be so horrible? So much more terrible than what we have now? Yes, absolutely. You seem to have a fantasy, not a serious view of how that would operate or the consequences to human well-being based on historic precedent. It’s not that people don’t cooperate, it’s that what you’re proposing is dangerous and harmful, so people cooperate to oppose it.

leto_ii 7y ago
> The boundaries aren’t arbitrary; they reflect ethnic differences between groups. > Homogenizing people is an abhorrent suggestion Ok, just for the sake of throwing gasoline onto the fire, why do you think that boundaries are a natural thing, and why do you find the mixing of ethnic groups abhorrent?
- miscPerson 7y ago
  Boundaries are an expression of each tribe exerting an area of influence. A boundary forms where two areas of tribal dominance collide. You can watch animals pee and poop on things to mark theirs, among other signals. I didn’t say boundaries should be completely non-porous (as your comment implies), but rather that we don’t want to eliminate human ethnic/cultural diversity and that requires boundaries which enforce rate limited exchange. To borrow an analogy, there’s a reason cells have membranes. Intermingling at a rate which allows each tribe to maintain its integrity is natural, and has evidence going back longer than writing. As does outbreaks of violence at exceeding that rate. For example, Brexit was an act of political violence because the UK immigration exceeded the rate at which the society could naturalize immigrants leading to horrific events like “grooming gangs” of immigrants raping native children. Typically at the point gangs of migrants are raping natives, we drop the word “immigration” and talk about “invasion” or “colonization”. Similarly, other lurches towards nationalism in Europe and the US. Homogenizing everyone into a single global culture, which would be required to have a single government without boundaries that rate limit migration, would be verging on genocide. Your comment assumes a very negative interpretation of what I said.

Mirioron 7y ago

Yeah, you wouldn't spend that on the military. It would be spent on "the world police" that require rifles, APCs, tanks, jet fighters, and carriers to "enforce the law". The larger you make your administration the greater the chance of corruption and the less individual people matter to the leaders.

int_19h 7y ago

How would you make a government of 8 billion people reasonably run? I mean the mechanics of it - if your definition of "reasonably run" includes being democratic, and the arrangement is the usual representative democracy, it's not going to be very representative in practice, because a single person can't meaningfully represent millions.