Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[zabu of nΩd]

You can bribe most with more power/money, and do away with the rest.

Edit: and when I say "do away with" there are lots of different ways to do that. You can have resistant governments ousted by their populous, or military takeover, descreet assasination, "terrorist assasination" etc.


It would either eventually turn into "the Party" or the whole thing would disentigrate back into what we have now or worse.

zomg world governments doomd to failurz!!

Try being a little realistic instead of just assuming worst-case scenarios.

 

[Dak]

Human + Power + Time = Problems. That is being realistic.

 

[skeptik]

Comparing what is, for all intents an purposes, an economic agreement to make Europe competitive against larger nations (as in GDP), and internation governance is way off the mark.

First of all, the chances of this actually happening in such a doomsday scenario are highly slim at best and won't be any time soon. Secondly, according to the article you posted:

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

Pay attention.

 

[Dak]

Why don't you actually think about what you read:

The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model.The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

Oops, let me correct that:

The United States has already set up a continental government for 50 states, which could be a model. The USA has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force

OMG, like, the Europeans are totally innovative.

Edit: To follow on with this, look at the corruption we have even in the US government, and I am sure there is plenty in the EU but not living in it I don't have first hand knowledge. Now pile on another set of over-arching laws and bureaucracy and it is seriously fucked up.

 

[skeptik]

God you're fucking stupid. I hate that you are defending me. Do you honestly not understand the tremendous fundamental differences between the United States of America and the European Union? If you don't, then I'm just not going to bother responding, because then you're just fucking dumb beyond comprehension.

 

[Dak]

Sorry, I edited late.

I do understand there is a difference between getting Germany and France to cooperate (just using those two for expediancy) and getting Texas and New York to cooperate.

Regardless, the bottom line is that putting what will amount to ultimate power in the hands of anyone, or even any group, will only end in disaster. Either for the one with the power, or the ones subject to it.

Edit: There is no way you can disagree with that realistically. If you believe that you can centralize that much power with no ill effects, I have a map to sell you to the gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[skeptik]

Any "world government" that ever comes about I'm sure will only be loosely tied together in which each individual country maintains its own sovereignty and will. The US would never agree to such a gross appropriation of power to begin with. If the EU was truly a model for a world government, it would not be absolutely catastrophic, though obviously it could be significantly better. But then again we don't live in a perfect world, and we have to put up with the shit that's out there. Would a world government be an improvement upon the current state of the world? I don't have the answer to that. But I'm also not 100% absolutely averse to the idea if it's applied relatively prudently.

 

[Dak]

Any "world government" that ever comes about I'm sure will only be loosely tied together in which each individual country maintains its own sovereignty and will. The US would never agree to such a gross appropriation of power to begin with. If the EU was truly a model for a world government, it would not be absolutely catastrophic, though obviously it could be significantly better. But then again we don't live in a perfect world, and we have to put up with the shit that's out there. Would a world government be an improvement upon the current state of the world? I don't have the answer to that. But I'm also not 100% absolutely averse to the idea if it's applied relatively prudently.

You make this statement looking at the world exactly as it is now. Of course right now the U.S. would object. The world changes. There will be a point where people will demand a [strong] centralized world government and it is going to be bad news. This is an extremely realistic outlook for these reasons:

1: We are already seeing that national governments can't handle global problems. No disagreement there. Sooner or later it will be obvious and the populous will demand strong global governance, or at least readily accept it as a solution.
2: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once it is in place, there is no check or balance, the average population turns into little more than worker bees for those in power.


Or then again maybe the human race, after thousands of years of fighting over anything, with it's history of despots and tyrants, suddenly enters a utopian peace where everyone gets along and all leaders have only the common good in mind........ sure, I am being completely unrealistic about a bad ending. This is much more likely.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

goddamn, how do you get through the day without slitting your fucking wrists until you die of blood loss. talk about pessimism...

 

[Death Aflame]

goddamn, how do you get through the day without slitting your fucking wrists until you die of blood loss. talk about pessimism...

He is right to some extent.

The problem does not lie in how we are governed, but the fact that we are governed at all--top down control necessarily creates coercive, controlling relationships. In other words, the issue is hegemony in itself, to which the solution is affinity.

 

[Dak]

goddamn, how do you get through the day without slitting your fucking wrists until you die of blood loss. talk about pessimism...

Why do you always refer to suicide as an answer to difficult problems? Suicide is weakness and selfishness.

 

[skeptik]

Because staunch pessimism is a symptom of suicidal habituation.

 

[Ender Rises]

You make this statement looking at the world exactly as it is now. Of course right now the U.S. would object. The world changes. There will be a point where people will demand a [strong] centralized world government and it is going to be bad news. This is an extremely realistic outlook for these reasons:

1: We are already seeing that national governments can't handle global problems. No disagreement there. Sooner or later it will be obvious and the populous will demand strong global governance, or at least readily accept it as a solution.
2: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once it is in place, there is no check or balance, the average population turns into little more than worker bees for those in power.


Or then again maybe the human race, after thousands of years of fighting over anything, with it's history of despots and tyrants, suddenly enters a utopian peace where everyone gets along and all leaders have only the common good in mind........ sure, I am being completely unrealistic about a bad ending. This is much more likely.

Or you could... you know... have a global government with checks and balances. You make it sound like the people who support and in the future would support an emperor or dictator rather than something along the lines of a worldwide Congress/Parliament.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The problem does not lie in how we are governed, but the fact that we are governed at all--top down control necessarily creates coercive, controlling relationships. In other words, the issue is hegemony in itself, to which the solution is affinity.

Indeed, and letting everyone govern themselves will absolutely work, given how incredibly crazy and stupid most people are. And this isn't pessimism, before you jump on that. I don't think you've ever worked in retail

 

[Ender Rises]

Yeah, anarchism, which is what that is, simply wouldn't work no matter which way you slice it. There are always going to be rulers, be them economic rulers or government rulers or religious rulers. No amount of affinity is going to change that.

 

[Dak]

Indeed, and letting everyone govern themselves will absolutely work, given how incredibly crazy and stupid most people are. And this isn't pessimism, before you jump on that. I don't think you've ever worked in retail

For once I agree.

Or you could... you know... have a global government with checks and balances. You make it sound like the people who support and in the future would support an emperor or dictator rather than something along the lines of a worldwide Congress/Parliament.

On a scale that large even if you had something akin to a congress it would be beyond the scope of understanding and control of the average person. Hell, how much do you really understand now of what goes on in international meetings. What CNN reports?
Once a governing body is removed from direct accountability, it will quickly become oppresive. A global government can't have a true checks and balances. Even if a governmental system was created similar to the US system of checks and balances it would quickly become corrupted because there would be no reason for all branches not to collaborate because there is NO threat to it's existence EXCEPT from the people. But once that threat is neutrilized through a Big Brother like system or through mass exterminations to bring the world population to a controllable size, the ruling class, however they achieved power originally or by whatever name they are called, can lounge in decadence [forever].

 

[Death Aflame]

Yeah, anarchism, which is what that is, simply wouldn't work no matter which way you slice it. There are always going to be rulers, be them economic rulers or government rulers or religious rulers. No amount of affinity is going to change that.

It can and has worked on numerous occasions. I needn't remind you that most of human history (i.e. pre-history) was organized in anarchistic ways before so-called 'progress' wiped those societies off the face of the earth (think Native Americans before colonization, for instance). And before the uninformed try to paint anarchism as some sort of moronic Romanticism, don't bother, aside from anarcho-primitivism (an obscure branch of Green Anarchy propagated by John Zerzan) this couldn't be further from the truth for most anarchist thinkers/activists.

I also feel that you dismiss Anarchism as praxis far too easily--assuming that there has and will always be imbalanced hierarchical structures to contend with, while certainly 'reasonable' in the current circumstance, is far more pessimistic than anything Dakryn has said/posted (that I have seen) in this thread.

 

[Death Aflame]

Indeed, and letting everyone govern themselves will absolutely work, given how incredibly crazy and stupid most people are. And this isn't pessimism, before you jump on that. I don't think you've ever worked in retail

While I understand this is intended to be humorous, and it is, allow me to address the serious part of your critique, specifically about the assumed 'nature' of human beings.

From An Anarchist FAQ:

Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So "when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]

As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?" Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism "stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]


There is much more to this refutation here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca215

That is, if you care to explore it further.

 

[cookiecutter]

(think Native Americans before colonization, for instance).

These societies were also very often characterized by violence between tribes/groups.

 

[Ender Rises]

It can and has worked on numerous occasions. I needn't remind you that most of human history (i.e. pre-history) was organized in anarchistic ways before so-called 'progress' wiped those societies off the face of the earth (think Native Americans before colonization, for instance). And before the uninformed try to paint anarchism as some sort of moronic Romanticism, don't bother, aside from anarcho-primitivism (an obscure branch of Green Anarchy propagated by John Zerzan) this couldn't be further from the truth for most anarchist thinkers/activists.

I also feel that you dismiss Anarchism as praxis far too easily--assuming that there has and will always be imbalanced hierarchical structures to contend with, while certainly 'reasonable' in the current circumstance, is far more pessimistic than anything Dakryn has said/posted (that I have seen) in this thread.

What "style" of anarchism do you propose? Obviously not arachno-primitivism... do you propose a removal of government and a shift to a pure free market economy, where private businesses build the roads and deliver the water, etc.? Do you propose somehow getting rid of property, where everyone is equal and nobody owns anything? How do you propose to get there from here? It is ingrained in us from birth that property, from land and houses to objects like TVs, cars, computers, etc., is one of/the most important aspect of human existence. How do you think we will get rid of that belief? I dismiss anarchism not because of human nature, because I don't claim to know what human nature is. I dismiss anarchism because I simply don't see how we could get there from here.