Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: missing a point

Expand Messages
  • anton
    Dear Jim, world government is not dangerous itself. Dangerous are principles and methods of governing, called political system. But - who determines, whether
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jim,

      world government is not dangerous itself. Dangerous are principles and methods of governing, called political system. But - who determines, whether political system is based on democratic or authority principles?

      Some of the thinkers say, "every nation has earned its government". In case of world government, it's a world nation - complete humanity. I may be naive, but I believe in humanity.

      Those, who are scared for world government - aren't they scared for themselves? Or are they just realistic in their opinions about humanity?

      Sincerely,
      anton

      --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
      >
      > I think some people are missing a point in the discussion of possible dangers of a world government. That is somewhat logical so it doesn't reflect anything negative about people who are missing that point. Most people who talk about the dangers of a world government are using that as an argument against world government, so it is logical to assume that anyone who mentions any dangers of a world government is opposed to a world government.
      >
      > However, when I mention possible dangers of a world government, I nevertheless still support the establishment of a world government, so I am just the opposite of most people. I am doing something quite different.
      >
      > I am saying that we need top find a way to reassure those who fear the possible dangers of a world government so as to convince them to start supporting a world government. To do this, we have to discuss their fears.
      >
      > Now in past history, governments have often done things harmful to some of their citizens, so the people who fear world government are being logical.
      >
      > So how can we reassure them?
      >
      > My thought is that we develop ideas for a really good set of checks and balances, which would keep a world government democratic and safe.
      >
      > The checks and balances built into the government of the United States would be a good starting point. The American checks and balances are pretty good, although from time to time, they are by a small amount too weak.
      >
      > Therefore, I think we would have a good chance of coming up with something strong enough to reassure those people who oppose world government because they fear it. What we could do would be to start with the American checks and balances, and then add enough additional checks and balances to make a world government strongly safe.
      >
      > I will note that saying that if something goes wrong, someone can always give up their house, job, etc. and hide for the rest of their life... will not reassure most people.
      >
      > Jim
    • Gary Shepherd
      Hi It would be irresponsible to claim that there would be no dangers, or negatives related to the existence of a Democratic World Government (DWG). However,
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi

        It would be irresponsible to claim that there would be no  dangers, or negatives related to the existence of a Democratic World Government (DWG).  However, it would be equally irresponsible to overstate those negatives, in such a way to indicate that they outweigh the many positives or benefits that a  functioning DWG could offer. Everything in life has positive and negative aspects, and it is our obligation as human beings to weigh those two things in the balance when making decisions.

         

        The problem in the past has often been that discussion of the benefits of DWG has largely concentrated on only a single issue: the prevention of war. Likewise, the discussion of the dangers of DWG has almost exclusively been about the threat of it becoming authoritarian or tyrannical.  Needless to say, those two things are only one of a whole host of possible positives and negatives that we should be considering.

         

        We should be discussing all of those different points and counter-points, if we are to convince people about the desirability of DWG. But first of course, we must confront the most salient of all points, which is neither a negative nor a positive; whether DWG is possible at all. As long as people consider DWG to be a utopian pipe-dream that will never actually exist, then the discussion of its good and bad aspects is largely moot.

         

        World Peace and Unity,
        Gary

         

         

        Gary K. Shepherd

        Editor, United World Magazine

        http://uwcdwg.tripod.com/

         

         

        From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jfnewell7
        Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:30 PM
        To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [WorldCitizen] missing a point

         

         

        I think some people are missing a point in the discussion of possible dangers of a world government. That is somewhat logical so it doesn't reflect anything negative about people who are missing that point. Most people who talk about the dangers of a world government are using that as an argument against world government, so it is logical to assume that anyone who mentions any dangers of a world government is opposed to a world government.

        However, when I mention possible dangers of a world government, I nevertheless still support the establishment of a world government, so I am just the opposite of most people. I am doing something quite different.

        I am saying that we need top find a way to reassure those who fear the possible dangers of a world government so as to convince them to start supporting a world government. To do this, we have to discuss their fears.

        Now in past history, governments have often done things harmful to some of their citizens, so the people who fear world government are being logical.

        So how can we reassure them?

        My thought is that we develop ideas for a really good set of checks and balances, which would keep a world government democratic and safe.

        The checks and balances built into the government of the United States would be a good starting point. The American checks and balances are pretty good, although from time to time, they are by a small amount too weak.

        Therefore, I think we would have a good chance of coming up with something strong enough to reassure those people who oppose world government because they fear it. What we could do would be to start with the American checks and balances, and then add enough additional checks and balances to make a world government strongly safe.

        I will note that saying that if something goes wrong, someone can always give up their house, job, etc. and hide for the rest of their life... will not reassure most people.

        Jim

      • jfnewell7
        ... anton::: Those, who are scared for world government - aren t they scared for themselves? Or are they just realistic in their opinions about humanity?
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 4, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "anton" <amalkin@...> wrote:

          anton::: Those, who are scared for world government - aren't they scared for themselves? Or are they just realistic in their opinions about humanity?

          Jim:::That is a good question.

          One thing I might note is that everyone has an oversimplified idea of what humanity is. I don't know how humans on average or in their distribution would be if there were no need to earn a living distorting basic human psychology. It is possible that if that were the case, 98% to 99% of all people would be friendly and caring of others. However, we have never had such a situation so I just don't know.

          The situation now, with the distortions, is that a small percentage of humans are saintly, a somewhat larger but still modest percentage of humans are predatory, and the majority of humans are various shades in between. Most people are reasonably good people, but they are predatory or aggressive in some situations.

          Then, in terms of people choosing their government, there is a complicating factor or lack of knowledge. Most voters don't know enough of what is going on to consistently make good choices. Sometimes they manage to do something ethical and constructive in voting, but they are also easily misled. For example, all political candidates for election pretend like they are dedicated to the welfare of everyone, but only a few actually are. Sometimes, the voters recognize the good candidates and vote for them, but often, voters are fooled into voting for ill-willed candidates.

          If voters were saintly, they would recognize the best candidates and political policies, because strong love trying to be accurate can do a lot to compensate for lack of knowledge. Love actually finds things out just by feeling the emotional tones of ideas and communications. For example, a saintly voter would not vote for a liberal candidate who were attacking conservatives, nor for a conservative candidate who were attacking liberals, nor for a candidate proposing to cut welfare payments, nor for a candidate pushing the jailing of people for victimless "crimes", etc. However, the majority of voters are not saintly.

          Even with the motivations the average person has now, I think that if voters were all given full and accurate information, their choices would be adequate, because the average person tries to be responsible most of the time.

          Therefore, in addition to many checks and balances, I think a way to keep a government acting reasonably well would involve mechanisms for providing voters with large amounts of accurate information on what is going on.

          My best idea so far for that would be several independent endowed news agencies with boards of directors elected by either the professors at the top universities in the world, or elected by the top 10,000 or so people in the world as measured by their citation index scores.

          Jim

          > --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I think some people are missing a point in the discussion of possible dangers of a world government. That is somewhat logical so it doesn't reflect anything negative about people who are missing that point. Most people who talk about the dangers of a world government are using that as an argument against world government, so it is logical to assume that anyone who mentions any dangers of a world government is opposed to a world government.
          > >
          > > However, when I mention possible dangers of a world government, I nevertheless still support the establishment of a world government, so I am just the opposite of most people. I am doing something quite different.
          > >
          > > I am saying that we need top find a way to reassure those who fear the possible dangers of a world government so as to convince them to start supporting a world government. To do this, we have to discuss their fears.
          > >
          > > Now in past history, governments have often done things harmful to some of their citizens, so the people who fear world government are being logical.
          > >
          > > So how can we reassure them?
          > >
          > > My thought is that we develop ideas for a really good set of checks and balances, which would keep a world government democratic and safe.
          > >
          > > The checks and balances built into the government of the United States would be a good starting point. The American checks and balances are pretty good, although from time to time, they are by a small amount too weak.
          > >
          > > Therefore, I think we would have a good chance of coming up with something strong enough to reassure those people who oppose world government because they fear it. What we could do would be to start with the American checks and balances, and then add enough additional checks and balances to make a world government strongly safe.
          > >
          > > I will note that saying that if something goes wrong, someone can always give up their house, job, etc. and hide for the rest of their life... will not reassure most people.
          > >
          > > Jim
          >
        • jfnewell7
          You are presenting some helpful ideas. For example, not only should we consider more than a few simple ideas, but even in the areas of the simple ideas, we
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 4, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            You are presenting some helpful ideas.

            For example, not only should we consider more than a few simple ideas, but even in the areas of the simple ideas, we need to break through to more advanced ideas. Just debating the simple ideas decade after decade probably won't accomplish much. What we need to do is go a next step beyond those simple ideas. The simple ideas should be starting points for research and improvement of our ideas, not traditional accepted debating points that restrict everyone's thinking to a narrow neo-orthodox viewpoint.

            Jim

            --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi
            >
            > It would be irresponsible to claim that there would be no dangers, or
            > negatives related to the existence of a Democratic World Government
            > (DWG). However, it would be equally irresponsible to overstate those
            > negatives, in such a way to indicate that they outweigh the many
            > positives or benefits that a functioning DWG could offer. Everything in
            > life has positive and negative aspects, and it is our obligation as
            > human beings to weigh those two things in the balance when making
            > decisions.
            >
            >
            >
            > The problem in the past has often been that discussion of the benefits
            > of DWG has largely concentrated on only a single issue: the prevention
            > of war. Likewise, the discussion of the dangers of DWG has almost
            > exclusively been about the threat of it becoming authoritarian or
            > tyrannical. Needless to say, those two things are only one of a whole
            > host of possible positives and negatives that we should be considering.
            >
            >
            >
            > We should be discussing all of those different points and
            > counter-points, if we are to convince people about the desirability of
            > DWG. But first of course, we must confront the most salient of all
            > points, which is neither a negative nor a positive; whether DWG is
            > possible at all. As long as people consider DWG to be a utopian
            > pipe-dream that will never actually exist, then the discussion of its
            > good and bad aspects is largely moot.
            >
            >
            >
            > World Peace and Unity,
            > Gary
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Gary K. Shepherd
            >
            > Editor, United World Magazine
            >
            > http://uwcdwg.tripod.com/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com]
            > On Behalf Of jfnewell7
            > Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:30 PM
            > To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [WorldCitizen] missing a point
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > I think some people are missing a point in the discussion of possible
            > dangers of a world government. That is somewhat logical so it doesn't
            > reflect anything negative about people who are missing that point. Most
            > people who talk about the dangers of a world government are using that
            > as an argument against world government, so it is logical to assume that
            > anyone who mentions any dangers of a world government is opposed to a
            > world government.
            >
            > However, when I mention possible dangers of a world government, I
            > nevertheless still support the establishment of a world government, so I
            > am just the opposite of most people. I am doing something quite
            > different.
            >
            > I am saying that we need top find a way to reassure those who fear the
            > possible dangers of a world government so as to convince them to start
            > supporting a world government. To do this, we have to discuss their
            > fears.
            >
            > Now in past history, governments have often done things harmful to some
            > of their citizens, so the people who fear world government are being
            > logical.
            >
            > So how can we reassure them?
            >
            > My thought is that we develop ideas for a really good set of checks and
            > balances, which would keep a world government democratic and safe.
            >
            > The checks and balances built into the government of the United States
            > would be a good starting point. The American checks and balances are
            > pretty good, although from time to time, they are by a small amount too
            > weak.
            >
            > Therefore, I think we would have a good chance of coming up with
            > something strong enough to reassure those people who oppose world
            > government because they fear it. What we could do would be to start with
            > the American checks and balances, and then add enough additional checks
            > and balances to make a world government strongly safe.
            >
            > I will note that saying that if something goes wrong, someone can always
            > give up their house, job, etc. and hide for the rest of their life...
            > will not reassure most people.
            >
            > Jim
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.