- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,072
- Reaction score
- 22,923
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I'm not sure about posting this when no one watched the video of Sen. Whitehouse's speech on the Supreme Court - seems to be a lack of interest in an important topic like that - but.
Here's a basic question on geo-politics: is the world better off with one 'world government' - whether actually just one or one dominant power - or multiple powers?
There are some pros and cons to each.
One risk on the 'one government' side is that tyrannical governments seem to tend to become quite powerfully entrenched, made unstable only by other powers, which wouldn't exist under that one government situation. Think about the tyrannies - the CCP, Hitler, the USSR, many smaller dictators and so on - and how many would fall without external pressures. They seem very able to hold power internally. So the 'one world government' seems all the riskier for becoming a 'permanent tyranny'.
With that happy note, let's look at the alternative a moment - the price for those external powers that can destabilize a regime, is war - and in a nuclear age. With multiple competing powers, whatever the attempts at peaceful co-existence like the UN, there will be ongoing conflicts where the 'bottom line' on resolving them is military force - as we're literally going through right now with Ukraine and threats of nuclear war.
So that, also, has ongoing problems with those multiple powers having ongoing conflicts, trying to increase power at others' expense.
That is one benefit to the 'one government' - preventing those conflicts and wars.
So are those the dark choices? Permanent tyranny or permanent threats of war?
We should note that as hard as it is to 'design' some structure that's good for people, that's not even how it's done - we have a haphazard situation that's the result of power and wars, not a 'designed' global governing structure.
As much as we might want to find a 'good' country to rule well, there's the truism that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
It's easy to find the world's greatest champion of 'freedom', the US, with a lot of history of being the enemy of freedom, of lies and support for tyranny and wrong war, for selfish and corrupted reasons at times.
We've found systems that function ok, in places, at times - fifty states get along well enough and don't seem close to war - but on the other hand that's under a federal government we're barely able to keep elected, with a lot of corruption, and which has been run by terrible governments.
We have the threat of nuclear war making it important to eliminate nuclear weapons before the destroy the human race, yet we're not close to doing to, even as there is nuclear sabre rattling going on now.
We've had a hard time even spreading 'enlightened civilization and governance' to places like Afghanistan with trillions of dollars spent. I don't think this has really been figured out, even if we think we've found some better things like democracy.
Here's a basic question on geo-politics: is the world better off with one 'world government' - whether actually just one or one dominant power - or multiple powers?
There are some pros and cons to each.
One risk on the 'one government' side is that tyrannical governments seem to tend to become quite powerfully entrenched, made unstable only by other powers, which wouldn't exist under that one government situation. Think about the tyrannies - the CCP, Hitler, the USSR, many smaller dictators and so on - and how many would fall without external pressures. They seem very able to hold power internally. So the 'one world government' seems all the riskier for becoming a 'permanent tyranny'.
With that happy note, let's look at the alternative a moment - the price for those external powers that can destabilize a regime, is war - and in a nuclear age. With multiple competing powers, whatever the attempts at peaceful co-existence like the UN, there will be ongoing conflicts where the 'bottom line' on resolving them is military force - as we're literally going through right now with Ukraine and threats of nuclear war.
So that, also, has ongoing problems with those multiple powers having ongoing conflicts, trying to increase power at others' expense.
That is one benefit to the 'one government' - preventing those conflicts and wars.
So are those the dark choices? Permanent tyranny or permanent threats of war?
We should note that as hard as it is to 'design' some structure that's good for people, that's not even how it's done - we have a haphazard situation that's the result of power and wars, not a 'designed' global governing structure.
As much as we might want to find a 'good' country to rule well, there's the truism that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
It's easy to find the world's greatest champion of 'freedom', the US, with a lot of history of being the enemy of freedom, of lies and support for tyranny and wrong war, for selfish and corrupted reasons at times.
We've found systems that function ok, in places, at times - fifty states get along well enough and don't seem close to war - but on the other hand that's under a federal government we're barely able to keep elected, with a lot of corruption, and which has been run by terrible governments.
We have the threat of nuclear war making it important to eliminate nuclear weapons before the destroy the human race, yet we're not close to doing to, even as there is nuclear sabre rattling going on now.
We've had a hard time even spreading 'enlightened civilization and governance' to places like Afghanistan with trillions of dollars spent. I don't think this has really been figured out, even if we think we've found some better things like democracy.