World Government: A Generally Stupid, Pathetic, Bad Idea
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
As the world reaches out for solutions to the problems that plague us, there are those who embrace the concept of a world government. Although they usually use euphemistic terms and refer to coalitions, the idea basically is that the world needs to become more pluralistic and more united.
It's my contention that not only would this not work, but it would backfire horribly. Far from being a bad thing, borders are what keep the world sane, what keep the world from totally failing. Borders are good and any attempt to dissolve them would be horribly misguided.
Let's imagine September 11, 2001 in such a light. Let's add in the terror suspects detained before 9/11 and the terror suspects from all over the globe who could have flocked to the United States with nothing more than a plane ticket. With no border to stop them, how unfathomable, how horrible could the damage have been? Instead of four planes hijacked, we could have had forty. Or for hundred. Instead of three thousand casualties, it could have been three million.
Even our own imperfect swiss cheese border does form some sort of deterrent to those who would do us harm.
But going further, let's imagine the corporate world. Corporates are all too often corrupt, bribing public officials at the expense of the people. The fewer public officials there are to corrupt, the greater the corporate influence. If some monopolistic madman set out to harm society it's a lot easier to do with one world council than it is with hundreds.
And of course there is the idea of disparate cultures. One of the mistakes of our own past was the idea of forced bussing. The truth is, there are some people who hate other people bad enough that they don't want to be near them. They don't want their kids near them. They don't want them in their churches, in their stores, in their work places. And as misguided as I believe those people are, they have a certain right to their belief. They have a right to live separately from those they hate. And, in fact, bringing them together not only doesn't create a feeling of peace, it often creates the opposite. And aall the "hate crimes" legislation in the world cannot bring back the dead bodies of the victims.
Let me be very clear, I'm not talking about segregation here. Public places are just that and everyone should have the right to them. The racists, the bigots can stay home. But they should be secure in their OWN homes and in PRIVATELY owned businesses against having to be around people they hate. And we can avoid those businesses like the plague, as well we should.
By bringing these people together in a "pluralistic" society we potentially create a powder keg that's bound to have bad consequences. Think the situation is bad in Israel and Palestine? Multiply that exponentially when you move cultures together that historically hate each other.
In a perfect world, of course, there would be no need for borders. But in an imperfect one, they're a mighty good idea.
It's my contention that not only would this not work, but it would backfire horribly. Far from being a bad thing, borders are what keep the world sane, what keep the world from totally failing. Borders are good and any attempt to dissolve them would be horribly misguided.
Let's imagine September 11, 2001 in such a light. Let's add in the terror suspects detained before 9/11 and the terror suspects from all over the globe who could have flocked to the United States with nothing more than a plane ticket. With no border to stop them, how unfathomable, how horrible could the damage have been? Instead of four planes hijacked, we could have had forty. Or for hundred. Instead of three thousand casualties, it could have been three million.
Even our own imperfect swiss cheese border does form some sort of deterrent to those who would do us harm.
But going further, let's imagine the corporate world. Corporates are all too often corrupt, bribing public officials at the expense of the people. The fewer public officials there are to corrupt, the greater the corporate influence. If some monopolistic madman set out to harm society it's a lot easier to do with one world council than it is with hundreds.
And of course there is the idea of disparate cultures. One of the mistakes of our own past was the idea of forced bussing. The truth is, there are some people who hate other people bad enough that they don't want to be near them. They don't want their kids near them. They don't want them in their churches, in their stores, in their work places. And as misguided as I believe those people are, they have a certain right to their belief. They have a right to live separately from those they hate. And, in fact, bringing them together not only doesn't create a feeling of peace, it often creates the opposite. And aall the "hate crimes" legislation in the world cannot bring back the dead bodies of the victims.
Let me be very clear, I'm not talking about segregation here. Public places are just that and everyone should have the right to them. The racists, the bigots can stay home. But they should be secure in their OWN homes and in PRIVATELY owned businesses against having to be around people they hate. And we can avoid those businesses like the plague, as well we should.
By bringing these people together in a "pluralistic" society we potentially create a powder keg that's bound to have bad consequences. Think the situation is bad in Israel and Palestine? Multiply that exponentially when you move cultures together that historically hate each other.
In a perfect world, of course, there would be no need for borders. But in an imperfect one, they're a mighty good idea.
