4 ms·

Not if you use force

cowtools 4y ago
it is strictly impossible to establish a one-world government through force, at least given our current technology. If a country has the army of robots needed to make it happen, then you have two problems.
- steve_taylor 4y ago
  It’s impossible to establish a one-world government without force.
lazide 4y ago
Good luck doing that on renewables and positive vibes!
- themitigating 4y ago
  We can sacrifice for the greater good.
  - lazide 4y ago
    That ‘we’ sure is carrying a lot of weight. From the context of this thread, it seems likely most of the sacrifice would be from folks in Turkmenistan, who would be told to change at the point of a gun no? Likely leading to a non trivial death count from violence or starvation. I’m pretty sure you didn’t ask them if they were Ok with that sacrifice. To quote C.S. Lewis - “ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.”
    - themitigating 4y ago
      In a democracy the population is responsible for voting in the government. In a dictatorship the population is responsible for not overthrowing the government.
      - lazide 4y ago
        You’re still being incredibly vague on who you expect to sacrifice and how for the course of action you propose. Mind giving more than platitudes?
        themitigating 4y ago
        I'm sorry. Let me throw out the hypotheticals in my head and these are not based on any real situation. 1. What if a small Eastern European country created a large nuclear reactor but didn't care about safety meaning that the probability of a meltdown that would effect Europe was X percentage. At what value of X is it acceptable to invade assuming all other methods of persuasion have been attempted. 2. If a country is polluting Y amounts of something that increases global warming by X and all methods of persuasion have stopped is invasion ever justified at some values of X and Y. You are considering the probability of and level of suffering of two events. A. The invasion B. The suffering caused by environmental damage. There has to be some conditions in which it is morally justified to invade a country
        lazide 4y ago
        Considering Russia did #1 in Chernobyl and all they got was their own (well Ukraine’s) land irradiated and a lot of strongly worded letters, the bar is practically a lot higher than you seem to think it should be.
hackerlight 4y ago
Worldwide treaty to impose import duty carbon tax based on average country-level per-capita emissions. So exports coming out of Australia or Canada would cost the most. These two countries lose their international competitive advantage. Companies in these countries get angry at their local government. Local government acts to reduce emissions. A nice thing about this is it doesn't even punish poorer countries that much, despite the fact that they haven't transitioned as quickly as richer countries. Because they're poor, their economic activity is lower and they don't generate as much emissions, so the import duty would be lower.

it is strictly impossible to establish a one-world government through force, at least given our current technology. If a country has the army of robots needed to make it happen, then you have two problems.

steve_taylor 4y ago
It’s impossible to establish a one-world government without force.

lazide 4y ago

Good luck doing that on renewables and positive vibes!

themitigating 4y ago
We can sacrifice for the greater good.
- lazide 4y ago
  That ‘we’ sure is carrying a lot of weight. From the context of this thread, it seems likely most of the sacrifice would be from folks in Turkmenistan, who would be told to change at the point of a gun no? Likely leading to a non trivial death count from violence or starvation. I’m pretty sure you didn’t ask them if they were Ok with that sacrifice. To quote C.S. Lewis - “ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.”
  - themitigating 4y ago
    In a democracy the population is responsible for voting in the government. In a dictatorship the population is responsible for not overthrowing the government.
    - lazide 4y ago
      You’re still being incredibly vague on who you expect to sacrifice and how for the course of action you propose. Mind giving more than platitudes?
      - themitigating 4y ago
        I'm sorry. Let me throw out the hypotheticals in my head and these are not based on any real situation. 1. What if a small Eastern European country created a large nuclear reactor but didn't care about safety meaning that the probability of a meltdown that would effect Europe was X percentage. At what value of X is it acceptable to invade assuming all other methods of persuasion have been attempted. 2. If a country is polluting Y amounts of something that increases global warming by X and all methods of persuasion have stopped is invasion ever justified at some values of X and Y. You are considering the probability of and level of suffering of two events. A. The invasion B. The suffering caused by environmental damage. There has to be some conditions in which it is morally justified to invade a country
        lazide 4y ago
        Considering Russia did #1 in Chernobyl and all they got was their own (well Ukraine’s) land irradiated and a lot of strongly worded letters, the bar is practically a lot higher than you seem to think it should be.

hackerlight 4y ago

Worldwide treaty to impose import duty carbon tax based on average country-level per-capita emissions. So exports coming out of Australia or Canada would cost the most. These two countries lose their international competitive advantage. Companies in these countries get angry at their local government. Local government acts to reduce emissions. A nice thing about this is it doesn't even punish poorer countries that much, despite the fact that they haven't transitioned as quickly as richer countries. Because they're poor, their economic activity is lower and they don't generate as much emissions, so the import duty would be lower.