Has history ever happened?

[Dooz]

you see what you want to see homie

[Kafein]

I did not put forth an argument.  I made a statement.

Now for the argument.  I agree that history shows a record of continual improvement of the human condition.  That is cause for hope.  But my reading of human nature, which has not changed over the course of history of the species, persuades me that even a "one world" government would not make decisions based on what's good for the planet or for the greatest good or for whatever other metric, other than self interest. 

Just look at whatever political subdivision you happen to live in.  I'm sure in the city government (no national groups involved) decisions are based on cutting up the political pie, steering contracts to friends, increasing personal wealth, etc, etc. 

It's human nature that you want to change.  That is a sisyphean task.

And I agree with Laufknoten.  I'm not so sure I'm ready to subsume into the "borg" called "one world" government.

First if you do not agree about the "borg" of a world government, why do you agree on the "borg" of a national government ? Neither of those are run for your own well-being, and a national government is not "closer" to you, it doesn't care about you.

Second, the "problem" of human nature is completely orthogonal to this discussion, I don't understand why you keep mentioning it.

[Casimir]

This seems relevant to the current debate.

[Turkhammer]

First if you do not agree about the "borg" of a world government, why do you agree on the "borg" of a national government ? Neither of those are run for your own well-being, and a national government is not "closer" to you, it doesn't care about you.

Second, the "problem" of human nature is completely orthogonal to this discussion, I don't understand why you keep mentioning it.

Because my interests are better served, and my liberties are better protected, at this point by my national government than they would be by the UN (closest we've gotten to a world organization).

Secondly, human nature is directly related to your contention that a world government would be superior to nations.  Factions or "interests" would replace "nations".  It would be a change in name only.  You can't  impose a system that is disregards human nature.  It's bound to fail.  The Soviets proved that.  Humans largely operate in the furtherance of their self interest.  That would not change if nations disappear.

Therefore if you seek to have a world in which selfless decisions are made, which is what you are driving at I think, getting rid of nations won't accomplish it. 

[Kafein]

Because my interests are better served, and my liberties are better protected, at this point by my national government than they would be by the UN (closest we've gotten to a world organization).

Secondly, human nature is directly related to your contention that a world government would be superior to nations.  Factions or "interests" would replace "nations".  It would be a change in name only.  You can't  impose a system that is disregards human nature.  It's bound to fail.  The Soviets proved that.  Humans largely operate in the furtherance of their self interest.  That would not change if nations disappear.

Therefore if you seek to have a world in which selfless decisions are made, which is what you are driving at I think, getting rid of nations won't accomplish it.

What makes you think that your interests are better served by a national government? Is a national government that different to a city, what makes you think it isn't run for personal profit, at least sometimes?


Also, I don't see how a world government disregards human nature more than a national government or any government really. We are tribal people unable to maintain more than about 150 friends. If you feel more emotionally attached to the people of your nation than the others, you have been tricked into it, because there's absolutely no reason to. Human nature dictates that there will be conflicts between enemies (i.e. people with divergent interests) and conflicts between allies (i.e. people with some common interest) that do not have the same idea about how to run their group. The former would be eliminated by uniting humanity's interests under one authority, while the latter would of course still happen. But the latter is politics, which can work peacefully, unlike wars between nations.

I'm not driving at an utopian selfless society, because precisely that would be neglecting human nature. What I'm driving at is a society where it's possible to organise ourselves for mutual interest on various matters. And it's not even like this is a novel idea. It's the reason our excessive stockpiles of nuclear weapons are being destroyed for example.

[_schizo321437]

One simple question.

You can talk about history as much as you want, but can you prove it really has happend? Does any proof really exist?

proof:

http://goo.gl/2Bgls0