Unified Planet

[DBTrek]

I believe the point he's attempting to make is that IF humans were (as you assert) inherently co-operative and socially responsible, then governments (which are comprised of humans) would logically support and enhance those traits by enshrining and protecting them. Historically, this is not the case, ergo your supposition is wrong, as demonstrated by this fact and the examples you site as support are in fact anomolies.

All things being equal this would be a valid point. Unfortunately the field of sociology teaches that groups of humans tend to act differently than individuals. Especially when a small segment of those individuals are given power over the others.

See: The Stanford Prison Experiment
. . . which found that: "Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their assigned roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to genuinely dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early."


Ah . . . complete power over others. How intoxicating! This is the root of government for government is force. I can sit in my chair and pass laws all day but I lack the power to enforce them. If I could enfoce my will on the rest of the populace I would be the government.

Government is granted exclusive rights; They may kill (capital punishment), take what they did not earn (tax), and deprive others of liberty (jail). An individual performing these actions is a criminal. A government performing them is simply 'governing'.

Now . . . imagine a group of people weilding this power not over millions, but over the entire planet. Their word is law. Those they deem worthy of death die. That which they want they simply take. The entire earth is their domain. This scenario is only possible if a single group is able to enforce their rules globally. No one, anywhere on earth, could resist their force (otherwise there would be another 'government' on the planet).

Utopia?

I find it to be the opposite.

-DBTrek

 

[CapnG]

See: The Stanford Prison Experiment

I am familiar with the experiment. Once again it would seem to support my supposition in regards to the true nature of humans rather than yours.

If I could enfoce my will on the rest of the populace I would be the government.

No, you would be Pharoh. Government is rule of the many by the few, not all by one. You are exaggerating to try and prop up your own viewpoint.

Government is granted exclusive rights; They may kill (capital punishment), take what they did not earn (tax), and deprive others of liberty (jail). An individual performing these actions is a criminal. A government performing them is simply 'governing'.

Where government is consentual, those rights are deemed necessary. For the greater GOOD. Governments also have the ability to create infrastructure beyond the means of individuals, providing education, health care, housing and employment to those who would otherwise not be able to obtain it. But I can see how, from a Darwinian perspective, it would be better those people remain ignorant, ill, unhoused and destitute the better to kill them off more quickly and thus decrease the surplus population.

Now . . . imagine a group of people weilding this power not over millions, but over the entire planet.... No one, anywhere on earth, could resist their force (otherwise there would be another 'government' on the planet).

No wars then either, since there's no one else to fight.

Utopia?

I find it to be the opposite.

You suppose it to be, you mean. You're probably right in that assumption too. The alternative however is far worse, the abandonment of all we have struggled and fought for all these many millenia. It is to spit on the achievements of our ancestors and crawl back to the caves to live like dogs in the dirt. If that's "freedom", you're welcome to it.

 

[DBTrek]

I am familiar with the experiment. Once again it would seem to support my supposition in regards to the true nature of humans rather than yours.

Really? Why didn't the behavior of the individuals continue to be sadistic after their power was stripped from them? I think it's more indicative of how power corrupts.

No, you would be Pharoh. Government is rule of the many by the few, not all by one. You are exaggerating to try and prop up your own viewpoint.

No, I'm accurately stating a fact. Let's look at the definition of government, shall we:

1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.

2.The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.

3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.

4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.

Dictatorships are governments. That's not some intellectual trickery employed by me to prop up a point, it's a simple fact of life.

Where government is consentual, those rights are deemed necessary. For the greater GOOD.

You seem to miss my point. Regardless of whether it is consentual or not the government retains the right to execute, tax, and jail. That is because government is force. The predominant force will do as it wishes with or without your consent.

But I can see how, from a Darwinian perspective, it would be better those people remain ignorant, ill, unhoused and destitute the better to kill them off more quickly and thus decrease the surplus population.

Yes, government has definitely solved the problems of ignorant, ill, homeless, and poor people. How could I forget?

No wars then either, since there's no one else to fight.

True . . . when we're all subjugated under the one great force there will be no one else to fight. Hey . . . when all humans are dead there won't be any wars either.

You suppose it to be, you mean. You're probably right in that assumption too.

Yes. Most probably I am.

The alternative however is far worse, the abandonment of all we have struggled and fought for all these many millenia. It is to spit on the achievements of our ancestors and crawl back to the caves to live like dogs in the dirt. If that's "freedom", you're welcome to it.

That's certainly one opinion. I wouldn't be crawling into a cave, but perhaps others would.

-DBTrek

 

[CapnG]

Yes, government has definitely solved the problems of ignorant, ill, homeless, and poor people. How could I forget?

Some do better than others. The point is they have the resources which your commune model lacks.

True . . . when we're all subjugated under the one great force there will be no one else to fight. Hey . . . when all humans dead there won't be any wars either.

That's on the agenda. Exterminate 66% of all humans by the end of next century if not sooner I believe was the touted goal. The peace of the grave is, never-the-less, peace. Unless you're a ghost (WoooOOOooooo!)

That's certainly one opinion. I wouldn't be crawling into a cave, but perhaps others would.

So what then? Live on the plains in a wig-wam? No infrastructure, no electricity, no plumbing, no natural gas.

 

[DBTrek]

Some do better than others. The point is they have the resources which your commune model lacks.

No doubt. They have production abilities and collective wealth beyond the commune model as well. It's a trade off . . . the factory worker may live in a more technically advanced and prosperous society, but what is his life like? It comes back to how much one values the individual.

The peace of the grave is, never-the-less, peace. Unless you're a ghost (WoooOOOooooo!)

Or . . . Space Ghost.

Shampoo will play you for the fool!

So what then? Live on the plains in a wig-wam? No infrastructure, no electricity, no plumbing, no natural gas.

I don't think electricity, plumbing, and natural gas will magically vanish if we were to willingly adopt anarchy . . . not that there's any chance we ever will. The problem is the word 'anarchy' is almost always associated with the chaos following a war or a natural disaster. Imagine how people would feel about democracy if it were only used in the context of what we see in Iraq.
"Wow, look at Iraq! It's breaking out in democracy!"

The word 'anarchy' has been poisoned, unfortunately, which is why it may solicit such powerfully negative responses from some people.

-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

I'm very surprised that nobody has pointed out the PRIMARY reason for the fear of a one world government.

It's Biblical fear..
There are lots of Christians, Muslims and Jews out there and some fear a one world government because to many of them it means the rise of the anti-Christ or whatever other end time prophesy flavor that has to do with a united government. And many others fear it because they fear there might just be something to all the end time prophesy that has to do with a one world government. Though I find the majority of Christians act like they fear a one world government if you ask them about it, but in reality they are hoping for it so they can be raptured..

The secondary reason people fear a one world government is because they are conservative with government and want government to be more powerful on a local level so the community has more say. Also for diversity of nations and that nonsensical concept people call nationalism.

Very true.

What you've described is certainly part of it but I don't think I'd go as far as to call it the "primary" reason.

There are other very interesting socioeconomic reasons but I'll pass on touching upon those because this thread is (for me) worn bare at this point and I really don't care to perpetuate this ridiculous back and forth with a certain logorrheic cultural stereotype.

Besides, it's springtime, my accountant has brought me many glad tidings and life is brimming with far too many possibilities to get locked into this with some angry wannabe from a second-rate town.


Good-bye

 

[CapnG]

The word 'anarchy' has been poisoned, unfortunately, which is why it may solicit such powerfully negative responses from some people.

"Poisoned" is a bit strong.

the definition of anarchy

You choose to focus on #3, most others #4, I tend to however between #1 and #2. It's all relative to one's general belief system (by which I mean in totality not religiously).