JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in:Secular Sevens
originally posted in: World Government
Edited by Diplomat: 12/27/2013 7:01:14 PM
2
>It seems inevitable that we should eventually reach the stage of a single, worldwide government. I disagree; at least for now, national, ethnic and religious divides are far too volatile to allow for a singular government to arise in the near future. It will be a LONG, LONG time before the world reaches the cultural homogeneity to allow for a united Earth government to arise. There might be certain events that expedite the progress, such as extraterrestrial contact that forms new perceptions of self and group (i.e. instead of Tom the American, it's Tom the Human). The idea of the "End of History" has been touted for quite some time, since the early 90s. It's actually affiliated with the rise of neoconservatism. >If it is a world government, or at the least some sort of Euro-American government, which comes to fruition, it seems like the only option is for it to be authoritarian and fundamentally anti-liberty. Why? You're saying this without offering any sort of substantial logical foundation for your position. Is it because of intergroup tensions? Historically, these have been managed by an authoritarian government, such as Saddam's Baathist government keeping a lid on sectarian tensions in Iraq. >Also, one idea that came to mind while thinking about it is to have the State as a function of society, instead of an institution. Are the two really mutually exclusive? An institution is an organization that executes a function. Police provide security, hospitals provide care, and airlines provide transport. There needs to be an entity that directs the flow of work in a meaningful fashion for society to function properly.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]Why? You're saying this without offering any sort of substantial logical foundation for your position. Is it because of intergroup tensions? Historically, these have been managed by an authoritarian government, such as Saddam's Baathist government keeping a lid on sectarian tensions in Iraq.[/quote] Actually, I did. [quote] It may be the case that a government is established on the principles of civil libertarianism, social equality and economic freedom, but how likely is it that it will continue like this? Just look at the U.S.; even without capitalism as an influence, [u]the State is an institution and it is always in the interest of such institutions to consolidate power and reinforce authority. [/u] [/quote] Also, with respect to the idea of government becoming a function: you're correct. Institutions provide functions. But why could it not be possible to keep the function, but reduce the [i]perception[/i] of the function as an institution? Either by decentralisation, increased democracy or whatever.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Diplomat: 12/27/2013 7:32:47 PM
    >The State is an institution and it is always in the interest of such institutions to consolidate power and reinforce authority. Okay, I must have glossed over that. I apologize. I agree that it is within the interest of institutions to increase power, which is exactly why there are checks and balances in many governments. I mean, if the United States and co. has been able to balance out power and liberty (comparatively to, say, China or Russia or Iran), then wouldn't it be possible to maintain that on a worldwide basis? I'm not saying that government will ever be perfect, but if there are state institutions today whose power is curbed by regulations, then couldn't that happen in the far future as well? Even when you factor in organizations like the NSA, I would say that the average American is better off today than a century ago. >But why could it not be possible to keep the function, but reduce the perception of the function as an institution? I think I understand what you mean. In my opinion, the function is not an institution, it is an assigned role. The institution is the organization that is delegated the functionary role. You cannot reduce the perception of the function as an institution, because they are two separate bodies that are merely intertwined by their magnetic natures. You can do two things, however: First, make the institution smaller. Second, reduce the amount of functions that the institution provides. Thus comes the debate of the nature of government: how small should the government be, and what functions should it be assigned? Does that make sense? PS: liking this thread

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon