Federal world State and continental federations.

[PLINIO]

(have patience, i'm italian and English is not my first language )


1. FEDERAL WORLD STATE.
The term globalization indicating a large increase from the end of the twentieth century of political, economic, social and technological relations between the States of the Earth. The phenomenon of globalization is an inevitable process due to the social, technical and technological human development, it makes no sense to try to prevent it, but rather can only choose how to handle it.
To do this you need a reform that will transform the UNO into a true federal world State. Each federated State should remain largely autonomous and sovereign so substantial, the task of the federal world state must be limited to that of an institution that represents the human community and that dealing with a few clear objectives for common macro-policy. Humanity is a community of different people but what unites them is much greater than what divides them.
First, the World Federation will be to protect the States from possible damage of an uncontrolled globalization and unregulated, to establish fair rules for trade and competition between States which do not create areas of high richness and areas of extreme poverty. There can be no peace without a modicum of justice and prosperity throughout the world. Two other goals of common world macro-policy are global environmental protection and global security, an observatory to monitor the situations or States are potentially dangerous to the entire planet, whereas the enhanced power that arises from the current level of technology.
A further objective is to promote the use of a single global language, which would make the possibility of instant communication between people of any area of the planet. The world unique language removes the hindrance to perfect free circulation and sharing of cultural, historical, moral, political and economical richness of the planet. Currently on the planet Earth thousands of different languages are spoken. It doesn't matter if the choice will be made through a committee of linguistic experts or a popular referendum or both: what is matter is the adoption of unique language that will produce huge advantages compared to the trifling discomfort of brief linguistical transition. Initially the world single language will have to be taught in the schools together the local language. This phase is already in execution since several years with the embracing of the english language as a second language in many States. An optimal solution considering easiness, effectiveness of the sintax and that english already represents the most widespread way to communicate in the world. In this pick it would be foolish to put question of localism before the great advantage of a common language. With the single world language every book published, every newspaper, every television broadcast, every text written in the network of the Internet and with other means, it would be immediately understandable by any person on the planet, rather than being understood only by a small minority of human community. In long term it will be natural and obvious carries out a second step, the unique use of the world language, because it will bring about evidents advantages for all the citizens, in communications, in trade, in tourism, in politics, in public administration, and whatever the field. This second step is a desiderable choise that it will have to be taken in democratical way by the citizens. A single world language is really essential, just as equally important is an institution that ensure the proper conservation and rationalization of the language. In the current individual languages there are many misunderstandings terms, sometimes with very different meanings. Let alone when, already with this intra-linguistic confusion, you should learn a second language or a third. In practice in the current situation when each person listens to a speech or he studies a text, this person reads a different meaning: this linguistic fragmentation, and this vagueness is a ridiculous and primitive situation, a real barrier to communication and human understanding, an obstacle to the development of a human united community.
The current world situation where there is mostly incorrect economic globalization exacerbated dangerously social injustice and undermine security. In a global market exploitation of workers, lack of adequate social protection to working hours, wages, working conditions, constitutes a serious harm to those companies who comply with workers' rights: we can see how from the late years of twentieth century China take advantage of this mechanism to win the business competition. Therefore today's cases of social injustice does not result from globalization, but the lack of a correct political and economic globalization: the absence of a unique law that is binding on all. Member States not adopting the minimum standards of social rights must be subject to sanctions and duties. This way we can create a virtuous circle that implements the wealth of nations by peaceful means.

2. INTERMEDIATE TARGETS.
Intermediate objectives of the World Federalist Movement are the creation of large continental federations such as the European Federation, the African federation, the federation of South American States and the federation of Asian Countries.
Europe Nation.
The unique european State is an important, historical attainment for all european citizens and for all the world. It is a prominent choice because it put end to the actual division that provide for existance of weak, minute and some microscopical States that even if they're collaborating they can't neither count in world politics nor compete with the geodemographical giants like Usa and China. World society needs multipolarity and it doesn't need of USA monopolarity or the USA-China bipolarity; world politics needs Europe and Europe needs to be in world politics. European people would constitute a society composed of about 700 millions of inhabitants, a powerful nation, a land of big range under a unique law, an huge market rich of opportunities. Why we have to continue to be separated when really we share similar or equal ideals and same history?
We want a federal and national european State that includes all States that are european for geographical, historical and cultural reasons: all the States from occidental coast, from Portugal, to the oriental side, to Russia; from northern side, from Norway, to Greece. Only these States can be considered European. Other States such as Turkey and Israel absolutely can not be european for their different cultures respectively Muslim and Jewish, for their geographical position, for their history. To realize unique european State the political powers of Europe must draw up the European Constitution. A partial draft is already represented by the European Constitution signed in Rome on 29/10/2004 by the 25 member Countries, but this draft is inadequate. The European Constitution have to establish the national, federal, social, republican and catholic mien of the State; it must establish the organization of presidential government, the unicameral appearance of the parliament and the organization of the judiciary power; it must establish the federal organization with the competences of the european State, of the regions and of the municipalities; it must communicates the rights and duties essential of the european citizenship. Constructing the federal european State means strengthening what the european have in common, that is greater than what divides them. We can observe like the federalism in Usa allows all citizens to feel strongly americans despite there are many differents between the federated States.
We want an only coin, the Euro. This way is already at good point with the circulation since 2002 of the Euro. So it has to continue, fostering adoption of the Euro to new States they will join the european republic.
The merit of a person is given to own principles and to the scale of the projects that he carries out. The project of the national Europe is a deep feeling of a common destiny, a feeling that it exists since several centuries in many europeans of different political trend, to live in a big Homeland, national, federal, social, republican, catholic: a bright and ardent torch of world civilization. The single european State is a very achievable goal, this kind of unification has already been in similar situations in various european States like Italy for example: before italian unification in Italy were very different empires, different languages and dialects. Even in China before unification there were States with different languages and dialects. The europeans are already the same people: same christian roots, the same or very similar cultures and traditions, there aren't States with very different political structures, there aren't different economic systems, the single currency is already used. This is just not to have a horizon that stops at the roof. All those opposed to the european State are in fact against the sovereignty of the european people, are people in the service of foreign powers who have an interest in maintaining a weak and divided sovereignty of Europe.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The phenomenon of globalization is an inevitable process due to the social, technical and technological human development, it makes no sense to try to prevent it, but rather can only choose how to handle it.

I could not disagree more. Globalization is the single greatest threat to the diversity of human cultures, and it is not inevitable. Our rich histories, our traditions and our laws, are more important to our continued development than multinational corporate hegemony. What you propose here is not the preservation of European values and ideals, but the destruction of the nations of Europe, and America and Asia, as cultural forces. Tearing down the boundaries between sovereign States, as has happened in the United States and is beginning to happen in Europe, means dismantling the means by which they preserve their cultures. You say yourself that Turkey and Israel can never be European; what will happen to Europe when Turks and Israelis are as free to settle and do business in Europe as Europeans are? Indeed, what will happen to Italians when the seat of their government is no longer in Italy? Every step of progress for which you have praised the European Union is one more piece of Italy gone; a worldwide federal government would inevitably do the same to Europe, as the American federal government has done to the United States.

Humanity is a community of different people but what unites them is much greater than what divides them.

A handful of common genes is nothing compared with even a hundred years of shared history, much less a thousand. Humanity is not a single community, but a mass of thousands of communities, distinct and vibrant with its own culture, and we are richer for that; it is the differences in perspective that drive the development of our cultures, and the conflicts caused by our differences that drive our technological progress. We are what we are, and we have accomplished all that we have accomplished, because of thousands of years of constant conflict.

edit: One last thought--

A further objective is to promote the use of a single global language, which would make the possibility of instant communication between people of any area of the planet. The world unique language removes the hindrance to perfect free circulation and sharing of cultural, historical, moral, political and economical richness of the planet. Currently on the planet Earth thousands of different languages are spoken.

Our cultural and historical richness is a part of our language, and our languages are a part of our cultural and historical richness. Language is more than just a way to transmit ideas, it forms the shape and tone of those ideas. If we all adopted a single language, so much of the richness of our cultural and historical diversity would be lost, because we would no longer have the words or the grammar for it.

 

[PLINIO]

I could not disagree more. Globalization is the single greatest threat to the diversity of human cultures, and it is not inevitable. Our rich histories, our traditions and our laws, are more important to our continued development than multinational corporate hegemony. What you propose here is not the preservation of European values and ideals, but the destruction of the nations of Europe, and America and Asia, as cultural forces. Tearing down the boundaries between sovereign States, as has happened in the United States and is beginning to happen in Europe, means dismantling the means by which they preserve their cultures. You say yourself that Turkey and Israel can never be European; what will happen to Europe when Turks and Israelis are as free to settle and do business in Europe as Europeans are? Indeed, what will happen to Italians when the seat of their government is no longer in Italy? Every step of progress for which you have praised the European Union is one more piece of Italy gone; a worldwide federal government would inevitably do the same to Europe, as the American federal government has done to the United States.



A handful of common genes is nothing compared with even a hundred years of shared history, much less a thousand. Humanity is not a single community, but a mass of thousands of communities, distinct and vibrant with its own culture, and we are richer for that; it is the differences in perspective that drive the development of our cultures, and the conflicts caused by our differences that drive our technological progress. We are what we are, and we have accomplished all that we have accomplished, because of thousands of years of constant conflict.

edit: One last thought--



Our cultural and historical richness is a part of our language, and our languages are a part of our cultural and historical richness. Language is more than just a way to transmit ideas, it forms the shape and tone of those ideas. If we all adopted a single language, so much of the richness of our cultural and historical diversity would be lost, because we would no longer have the words or the grammar for it.

Thanks Korymir for your answer.
it is amusing to note that speaking about this issue with a Usa citizen, who has a political right point of view, I receive the same answer that i receive to debate in Perugia, Italy, with persons who recognize them in post-fascism: all the world is already the same country.
In italy (and in europe) the more strong resistance to a global government comes proper from the more right-conservative parties (the most part but not all). More precisely, the most part of these parties are against even the single European State (so in this way they support the supreme global power of Usa).
(However I precise that even I support a political right point of view but not of that type)
I give ever the same answer to your issues:
regard to the world State: if a thing is right, then it is right for all the world, not only for my little piece of territory (italy). Otherwise it would mean that you are a relativist. I really don't know for what strange reason it would be right fight for a culture in my country and at same time accept a world with an other culture. I'm catholic: the Truth is one. It is Truth for my country and for all the world.
I support the true right/conservative idea: the ancient idea of imperium, not the current idea of anarchist movement, in which the world is divided in many little tribe-States, and every tribe-State is free to do all they want. This is caos, not order. This method, with our current technical development, it will not bring us to well-being but to the destruction. In past the most danger is a large number of deaths in wars: now the danger is the total destruction.
Let be the anarchists and the libertarians to support the "autodetermination of nations".
We want order and justice in all world, and we will have this victory only through the world State.
I'm federal but not anarchist. With a strong federalism the federated States can preserve largely own culture: but I repeat that we need a world empire to manage global question and to promote the Truth. The federalism of the world State is different from the little federalism of Usa, or of Europe, or of Russia: these are nations but the world empire is an array of nations.
regard the single language: i do this example: americans speaks all the same language but I don't believe that you have the same cultural point of view of all americans, of communist americans or of other types of americans. nevertheless you say that: same language = same culture. This demonstrates that language is not culture but only a mean to comunicate the culture.
do you want to fight against the technical development? It is inevitable that all States try to develop own economy. This development already creates a certain "global culture". What would be these important cultures that you want to preserve? Usa, Europe, Russia are already the same country.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

it is amusing to note that speaking about this issue with a Usa citizen, who has a political right point of view, I receive the same answer that i receive to debate in Perugia, Italy, with persons who recognize them in post-fascism: all the world is already the same country.

Ha! It does undermine my argument, doesn't it?

In italy (and in europe) the more strong resistance to a global government comes proper from the more right-conservative parties (the most part but not all). More precisely, the most part of these parties are against even the single European State (so in this way they support the supreme global power of Usa).

The USA won't be the world's lone superpower forever. Russia is coming back, China and India are rising up, even Brazil is a credible contender. And the USA is already in decline-- our economy is down, our debt is out of control, and we are losing the confidence of our allies. With the USA in decline, several of the larger European nations could once again rise to world powers, without sacrificing what makes them unique and special.

I give ever the same answer to your issues:
regard to the world State: if a thing is right, then it is right for all the world, not only for my little piece of territory (italy). Otherwise it would mean that you are a relativist. I really don't know for what strange reason it would be right fight for a culture in my country and at same time accept a world with an other culture. I'm catholic: the Truth is one. It is Truth for my country and for all the world.

I am a relativist, and I do not deny it. The peoples of the world are different, and they live by different truths. I do not believe in a singular Truth, but instead I believe in following a single truth with all purpose and determination. What truth a person follows matters little, as long as they follow it with their whole heart; it is not correctness that makes them strong, it is strength that makes the truth correct.

I support the true right/conservative idea: the ancient idea of imperium, not the current idea of anarchist movement, in which the world is divided in many little tribe-States, and every tribe-State is free to do all they want. This is caos, not order. This method, with our current technical development, it will not bring us to well-being but to the destruction. In past the most danger is a large number of deaths in wars: now the danger is the total destruction.
Let be the anarchists and the libertarians to support the "autodetermination of nations".

I believe in empires, too. But empires must be strong, and they become strong and stay strong by having to struggle. Without enemies, empires become decadent and weak. If all the world is one empire, what will keep that empire strong? That is why I support many small tribes; not so that they may have their self-determination, but so that they must fight to survive. Just because we have weapons that make total war too terrible to contemplate does not mean that we still do not need war.

We want order and justice in all world, and we will have this victory only through the world State.

Order and justice are in the eyes of the beholder. Just as every nation has its own truth, every nation has its own order and its own justice.

do you want to fight against the technical development? It is inevitable that all States try to develop own economy. This development already creates a certain "global culture". What would be these important cultures that you want to preserve? Usa, Europe, Russia are already the same country.

No, I want technical development. I just don't want the future to destroy the past.

The only culture I want to preserve is my own. I don't care what other cultures exist in the world, except that other cultures must exist for my culture to have something to push against.

 

[German guy]

Hey guys!

I guess I'm in a kind of middle ground between you two. On this ...

Our cultural and historical richness is a part of our language, and our languages are a part of our cultural and historical richness. Language is more than just a way to transmit ideas, it forms the shape and tone of those ideas. If we all adopted a single language, so much of the richness of our cultural and historical diversity would be lost, because we would no longer have the words or the grammar for it.

.. I couldn't agree more. It's important to preserve the cultural diversity and richness. So attempts at forcing all cultures under a "one size fits it all"-model is certainly wrong.

But cultures influence each other, and they grow. So I am just as much opposed to attempts at artificially keeping languages and cultures "pure". Culture must grow and change naturally, without authoritarian interference in one way or another. Different cultures influence each other when there is contact, inspire each other and grow richer by contact with other cultures. Every culture that exists has been influenced by that kind of external fecundation, and that process must be allowed to happen in the future as well.

I like the idea that one day, mankind will be united in a united kind of governmental structure. But I think it's a few hundred years too early to think about that.

But I agree that Europe should be united. There is much more that unites the European peoples than what devides them. But if that happens, precautions must be taken that the unique cultural diversity is maintained except for natural development towards convergence, and anything that concerns culture must remain on national or regional level. There must not be a single language except maybe for administration purposes on the pan-European level, and no central government should force decisions regarding culture or education on the member states or regions. So I guess a federalism with very strong emphasis on the member states is the way to go.

Economy and defense, though, could and should be fully united in a European federation or even a kind of United States of Europe, because on those two fields, Europe's peoples can gain more by uniting than by going alone, and it wouldn't cause them to give up any cultural uniqueness, except for the changes that happen naturally due to closer ties and exchange between the members.

Europe has the basis to unite that way -- cultural basis is similar, political values are similar, economic and geopolitical interests are similar. A true union is the next logical step. I'm not sure if such a union could possibly include Turkey or Israel ... maybe it could, at least in case of Israel, whose culture is very much influenced by Western culture due to Jewish roots in European diaspora and whose political values are similar to those in Europe. Not sure about Turkey... on one side, they have adopted many political ideas from Europe, but I am not sure how close their culture has been connected to the West.

 

[samsmart]

<lots of stuff>

I don't believe that global government unification is inevitable. While it is true that geographical cultures and societies tend to join each other into a larger government for such purposes as to compete against common rivals or enemies, it cannot be taken for granted that the whole world will be able to do so.

I tend to take an ultra-scientific view of things, and I tend to believe that individual societies and the governments that have ruled them have evolved into what they are now because they have been forced to adapt in that way due to environmental factors as well as those regarding their neighboring countries. Basically, governments have evolved into what they are because the demands of their region and resources have demanded that those society make the governments they currently have.

To create a One World Government would be disastrous for this, mostly because of the impracticality of it. For instance, why should people in Hong Kong be able to determine what people in London do? Why should people in Somalia dictate policies to the people of Puerto Rico?

They shouldn't. Because the further away a people is from a region, the less in touch with the issues affecting them they are. That's not narrow-minded thinking. That's the truth.

Now, I don't mind the continent of Europe federalizing if they choose to. After all, it makes sense that the continent has some level of unification for economic reasons. And because of their economic unification for efficiency, they're going to have to have a federal executive to enforce those laws.

However, that does not mean the whole world should federalize. The people of this world have too many differences, too much variety to be forced to live according to the laws of one central world government. As soon as the central world government makes a ruling on a matter, there will automatically be those opposed to it and attempt to resist it.

So it's better to just let like societies to be alike and different societies to remain separated. Unification on a global scale can only lead to bad things.

Take an attempt for unification that occurred in the ancient world: the Roman Empire. It became so large and so grand and so difficult to administrate that it broke in two. This is why a one world government would never work - it's just too large to do so effectively.

 

[PLINIO]

If all the world is one empire, what will keep that empire strong?

- first, a strong ideology as guide, founded on the values of virility, research of wisdom, high consideration of honour and physical strength, and also catholicism. Catholicism has an imperial vocation, because Catholicism as religious of the State does not deny other religions, it has a certain tollerance of other religions and at same time it "composes" the diversities under a unique supreme law. for example during the christian kingdom in Italy the Empire who had a catholic religious of State the Empire did not erase other comunities like italian Jews. The vocation of the world empire is just this: to compose the different comunities under a unique law, without erase entirely their cultures. It is this the difference between federalism and anarchism.
don't you think that it is primitive the idea that the human comunity has only the internal war between the nations as mean to develop itself? Sooner or later we need a new paradigm of development.
- and second, struggle the internal enemies: all the enemies of World Empire :mrgreen:

Order and justice are in the eyes of the beholder. Just as every nation has its own truth, every nation has its own order and its own justice.

So I think is proper your relativist point of view the main reason of your opposition to World State.
Are you even against a world State that lets the nations to remain largely free? a world State that manages only very few political issues but not interferes in other issues? The ancient Roman Empire used a strategy like this.

 

[PLINIO]

To create a One World Government would be disastrous for this, mostly because of the impracticality of it. For instance, why should people in Hong Kong be able to determine what people in London do? Why should people in Somalia dictate policies to the people of Puerto Rico?

i don't support that idea.
i don't support the idea of a "Single" world government that erases other States. The world State don't erase the other political levels, the other States. The world State has its competences and the other States have other own competences.
I support the idea of a stronger United nations organizations, an idea that changes Uno to a federal world State, but largely federal.

Take an attempt for unification that occurred in the ancient world: the Roman Empire. It became so large and so grand and so difficult to administrate that it broke in two. This is why a one world government would never work - it's just too large to do so effectively.

I think that the reason that put end to the Roman Empire was the technical impossibility to communicate effectively over a large territorial space. And the different of languages, that were a solid wall to a common feel of unity.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

- first, a strong ideology as guide, founded on the values of virility, research of wisdom, high consideration of honour and physical strength, and also catholicism.

Certainly a solid foundation for a strong nation.

Are you even against a world State that lets the nations to remain largely free? a world State that manages only very few political issues but not interferes in other issues? The ancient Roman Empire used a strategy like this.

Yes. I am even opposed to the United Nations, as impotent and ineffective as it is now.

 

[samsmart]

i don't support that idea.
i don't support the idea of a "Single" world government that erases other States. The world State don't erase the other political levels, the other States. The world State has its competences and the other States have other own competences.
I support the idea of a stronger United nations organizations, an idea that changes Uno to a federal world State, but largely federal.

But the issue with federal governments is that, like all governments, they attempt to take on more and more power. This has always been an issue in the United States, which is the first modern federal government. It is becoming an issue now with the European Union, whose constituent governments must decide how much power they will allow it to take from their own individual sovereignty. And the same thing would happen should a federal world government be formed.

I think that the reason that put end to the Roman Empire was the technical impossibility to communicate effectively over a large territorial space. And the different of languages, that were a solid wall to a common feel of unity.

You don't think that it couldn't have been that the city of Rome, as well as other major cities of the Empire, demanded more and more resources from outside itself to prop up the standard of living for its citizens while maintaining a welfare state helped along with slavery? Or the corruption of their politicians? Or how they allowed a fewer number of their politicians to hold greater and greater amounts of power in order to expedite decision-making for a government of such great size?

 

[PLINIO]

But the issue with federal governments is that, like all governments, they attempt to take on more and more power. This has always been an issue in the United States, which is the first modern federal government. It is becoming an issue now with the European Union, whose constituent governments must decide how much power they will allow it to take from their own individual sovereignty. And the same thing would happen should a federal world government be formed.

We can resolve this issue: the people have the power to vote any further rise of power and any reduction of power. If the majority want it, what is the problem? I don't reject the popular majority. If the people want to mantain a world State with few powers, then ok; if the people want to increase these powers, ok.

You don't think that it couldn't have been that the city of Rome, as well as other major cities of the Empire, demanded more and more resources from outside itself to prop up the standard of living for its citizens while maintaining a welfare state helped along with slavery? Or the corruption of their politicians? Or how they allowed a fewer number of their politicians to hold greater and greater amounts of power in order to expedite decision-making for a government of such great size?

Sure there are even other reason to the end of roman Empire. In my last post I have quoted only part of those i think are the main reasons.

 

[Goshin]

Not intrested in any kind of world government.

 

[obvious Child]

Not intrested in any kind of world government.

Not even a Heinlein kind? I wouldn't have a problem with a Heinlein described world government. Small government, low taxes, voting and office restricted to those who have demonstrated they put the need of others ahead of their own.

 

[Orion]

Not even a Heinlein kind? I wouldn't have a problem with a Heinlein described world government. Small government, low taxes, voting and office restricted to those who have demonstrated they put the need of others ahead of their own.

It would never happen that way, or if it did, it would never stay that way. That kind of power would not remain contained for long.

I am against world governance because it would mean mass assimilation of cultures, national identities, and communities. As Koriymr pointed out earlier, even something like language is not simply about communication. The words themselves contain history and cultural ideals, which is why things are lost in translation. We shouldn't be striving for one-world culture because we will lose a lot of information and wisdom in the process. I think we operate better as a cultural mosaic than as a melting pot. In a lot of ways standardization is the death of creativity.

I don't deny that the world elites in industry and government are pushing us towards globalization and world governance, but I detest the notion that it's "inevitable" and necessary as part of human evolution. I find that to be propaganda and nothing more. Humans in their very nature remain divided and so that is how we should remain. I would rather keep our diversity in tact than destroy thousands of years of diverse accomplishments just so that a small slice of the populous can make even more obscene profits.

This era of corporatism will fall apart and rot before we unify under one global government. The way we live is non-sustainable in the west and part of that has to do with the current corporate governance of the economy as well as the consumer culture. They may have big notions of world corporate empire but there are already signs that the current economic order will not survive the decade.

 

[Goshin]

Not even a Heinlein kind? I wouldn't have a problem with a Heinlein described world government. Small government, low taxes, voting and office restricted to those who have demonstrated they put the need of others ahead of their own.

If only I believed that such a government was possible, and that it would stay small and unintrusive... but unlike Alice I have trouble believing six impossible things before breakfast.

A third of the nations that comprise the current UN General Assembly are dictatorships, oligarchies, communists, or something similar. Can't get anywhere like that.

The poorer half of the world would like to use global tax codes to plunder the richer half. We've seen enough of that already in the US. No thanks.

I have a hard enough time dealing with the fact that a representative elected from Massachusetts or California can affect how I live my life far away in Dixie. Imagining how a World Senator from Beijing might impose upon me with cultural, political and economic ideas alien to my own is inconcievable.

I just don't see it.

 

[obvious Child]

If only I believed that such a government was possible, and that it would stay small and unintrusive... but unlike Alice I have trouble believing six impossible things before breakfast.

A third of the nations that comprise the current UN General Assembly are dictatorships, oligarchies, communists, or something similar. Can't get anywhere like that.

The poorer half of the world would like to use global tax codes to plunder the richer half. We've seen enough of that already in the US. No thanks.

I have a hard enough time dealing with the fact that a representative elected from Massachusetts or California can affect how I live my life far away in Dixie. Imagining how a World Senator from Beijing might impose upon me with cultural, political and economic ideas alien to my own is inconcievable.

I just don't see it.

So you're technically not aganist all forms. Have you read Starship Troopers? Quite an interesting take on government.

 

[Orion]

So you're technically not aganist all forms. Have you read Starship Troopers? Quite an interesting take on government.

Yeah, where you're only a citizen if you go put yourself in direct line of fire. No thanks.

 

[PLINIO]

I have a hard enough time dealing with the fact that a representative elected from Massachusetts or California can affect how I live my life far away in Dixie. Imagining how a World Senator from Beijing might impose upon me with cultural, political and economic ideas alien to my own is inconcievable.

I just don't see it.

The laws are not approved by one single parliamentarian, but from the majority of the parliament.
As I said the World State doesn't replace the federated States: most of the competences remain to local States, only few competences go to world State.

 

[the makeout hobo]

So you're technically not aganist all forms. Have you read Starship Troopers? Quite an interesting take on government.

The problem with "earning citizenship" through the military is that you end up with people from the same background and experiences who have learned the same responses to problems.

 

[samsmart]

The problem with "earning citizenship" through the military is that you end up with people from the same background and experiences who have learned the same responses to problems.

Not only that, but such a government also ensures that the military is the only sector to be supported through tax dollars, and such things as law enforcement, emergency services, health care, and public education could be underfunded. Such a government doesn't necessarily ensure that only responsible people are allowed to vote - instead, it could be argued that such a government would create a permanent welfare class through the military.

 

[samsmart]

The laws are not approved by one single parliamentarian, but from the majority of the parliament.
As I said the World State doesn't replace the federated States: most of the competences remain to local States, only few competences go to world State.

I'm not going to say that I speak for Goshin, but I don't care. It's not that I object to a single parliamentarian approving laws, but rather the possibility of a majority of parliament who don't even live in my region dictating the laws I should live by.

For example, I object to the fact that Asia, Africa, and Europe combined would have the power to tell North America and South America what to do and how to live. Why should a majority of people who don't even live in the same region I do have that power?

Also, you keep saying that a Federal World State wouldn't have as much power as we fear. Could you go into detail what powers you would want such a Federal World State to have?

 

[PLINIO]

I'm not going to say that I speak for Goshin, but I don't care. It's not that I object to a single parliamentarian approving laws, but rather the possibility of a majority of parliament who don't even live in my region dictating the laws I should live by.

For example, I object to the fact that Asia, Africa, and Europe combined would have the power to tell North America and South America what to do and how to live. Why should a majority of people who don't even live in the same region I do have that power?

Also, you keep saying that a Federal World State wouldn't have as much power as we fear. Could you go into detail what powers you would want such a Federal World State to have?

It is absurd: the World State has no utility to violate the decisions of pure local government.
I have specified the powers of World State at my first message...

To do this you need a reform that will transform the UNO into a true federal world State. Each federated State should remain largely autonomous and sovereign so substantial, the task of the federal world state must be limited to that of an institution that represents the human community and that dealing with a few clear objectives for common macro-policy. Humanity is a community of different people but what unites them is much greater than what divides them.
First, the World Federation will be to protect the States from possible damage of an uncontrolled globalization and unregulated, to establish fair rules for trade and competition between States which do not create areas of high richness and areas of extreme poverty. There can be no peace without a modicum of justice and prosperity throughout the world. Two other goals of common world macro-policy are global environmental protection and global security, an observatory to monitor the situations or States are potentially dangerous to the entire planet, whereas the enhanced power that arises from the current level of technology. Other competences and powers of the federal world State they should be clearly defined only by popular consent: is the people who decide whether to increase or decrease the powers of the federal world State.
A further objective is to promote the use of a single global language,

So excuse me, but i don't see in your answers true reasons against to the World State... I have seen only reasons against a particular type of World State, a State that erases local States...that it is not what I supported at my first post...
Certainly in some fields, the World State has the powers, but these are fields of global interest, these are not issues of pure local government. i speak of issues that must be managed from a World government, otherwise we have a danger for an healthy development of entire people of the world. See for example the dangers of unfair competion in trade, with china can do low prices thanks to a deprecable system of work.

 

[Goshin]

I'm not going to say that I speak for Goshin, but I don't care. It's not that I object to a single parliamentarian approving laws, but rather the possibility of a majority of parliament who don't even live in my region dictating the laws I should live by.

For example, I object to the fact that Asia, Africa, and Europe combined would have the power to tell North America and South America what to do and how to live. Why should a majority of people who don't even live in the same region I do have that power?

Also, you keep saying that a Federal World State wouldn't have as much power as we fear. Could you go into detail what powers you would want such a Federal World State to have?

I am Goshin, and I fully endorse this message. :mrgreen:

When Sam and I actually agree on something, you might want to take note.

Actually I might use the same arguments against the current overweening power of the US Federal government, where Reps from New England and the Left Coast can force changes in how I live in Dixie, ahem. :mrgreen:

It is absurd: the World State has no utility to violate the decisions of pure local government.
I have specified the powers of World State at my first message...

So excuse me, but i don't see in your answers true reasons against to the World State... I have seen only reasons against a particular type of World State, a State that erases local States...that it is not what I supported at my first post...
Certainly in some fields, the World State has the powers, but these are fields of global interest, these are not issues of pure local government. i speak of issues that must be managed from a World government, otherwise we have a danger for an healthy development of entire people of the world. See for example the dangers of unfair competion in trade, with china can do low prices thanks to a deprecable system of work.

You say all this as if you think you can ride the Tiger once you've released him from his cage. Many a man has found that task to be far more difficult than they imagined.

(In other words, there is no reason to believe that such a World Government would remain bound within its original constraints, or even that it would be thus constrained in its origination other than the fact that you think it should... a majority might think otherwise.)