World State (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

Or Sinhalese.

 

[murphyad]

Instead of a world government, we need a beefed-up ICJ/ICC/World Court with much bigger and sharper teeth.

 

[Slidey]

We need to go in the other direction.

See, if the world government passes a law you don't like, what can you do, go to out of space?

Indeed.

 

[murphyad]

The current system works.

No, it does not.

Sovereign crime goes almost unpunished in the world today. Anyone who is brought before an international court is going to be some rogue spaz like Slobodan Milosevic, and even then they will probably get a show trial. The reason that no forward progress has been made in this field is because nation states obviously have an interest in the principle of 'sovereign immunity', an outdated and abhorrent concept.

If you break an international law, you deserve to be hauled up for it. If you are an IDF soldier or the American President and you break international law, you deserve to be hauled up. Governments and those who front them (ditto corporations, for that matter) deserve to be punished for their crimes just as much as the common man.

What is needed is a body that can both enforce and develop (via precedent) international law enough to keep everyone honest, and that includes the big players. This would be far superior to the bureaucratic morass, factionalist infighting and crippling centralisation that would define a world government.

 

[SylviaB]

Or is your faith in the people to make such a decision so little that someone else needs to decide for them?

with a world government, individual rights will absolutely most definitely be destroyed, and a majority of people will be hapy with this and will vote in favour of it

For example, say in the future that the majority of the world's population were muslim, and the world leader decides to outlaw Christianity. if the muslims like this, then they're not going to vote against him (at least not for this policy), and so if you're a christian, you're screwed.

and if you belive in pure democracy and that the majority should be able to take away the rights of others, then you're retarded

 

[SylviaB]

No, it does not.

How, pray tell, do you propose we establish this objective international law?

 

[murphyad]

How, pray tell, do you propose we establish this objective international law?

That's the real problem. Governments could not be relied upon to support it because they have too much stake in keeping their affairs to themselves. The only institution I can see that has the money to fund such a venture and keep it removed from governmental bias is the corporate sector. But again, zillions of problems.

I'm only talking hypothetically at this point. I'm sure the OP didn't envisage the establishment of a world government any time soon, but that won't stop people from being for or against it. Similarly, I don't see an objective institution of international law as being on the radar for quite a while, but that won't stop me from supporting it.

 

[Lentern]

with a world government, individual rights will absolutely most definitely be destroyed, and a majority of people will be hapy with this and will vote in favour of it

For example, say in the future that the majority of the world's population were muslim, and the world leader decides to outlaw Christianity. if the muslims like this, then they're not going to vote against him (at least not for this policy), and so if you're a christian, you're screwed.

and if you belive in pure democracy and that the majority should be able to take away the rights of others, then you're retarded

So to clarify you do think people are too stupid to make the right decision yet insist they should have the freedom to absolutely everything and anything they want. Yet you've somehow think I should come to the conclusion that your libertarianism is anything but thinly veiled greed?

 

[SylviaB]

So to clarify you do think people are too stupid to make the right decision yet insist they should have the freedom to absolutely everything and anything they want.

wtf

I'm saying that people, no matter how big of a majority they are, shouldn't be able to take away the rights of others

Yet you've somehow think I should come to the conclusion that your libertarianism is anything but thinly veiled greed?

I have never used illegal drugs and probably never will, regardless of their legality, but I believe as much as anyone that people should be able to use them.
BECAUSE IM JUST SO GREEDY LOL

seriously tho, what you're saying is that you approve of the idea of government stopping people from being greedy (i.e. keeping their own money) with the use of FORCE

fuck that ay