7th May 2003, 5:32 PM
So much to respond to, so little time. Forgive me if I miss a point, I'm tired after day-long testing.
Perhaps the idea of a world government, as far off and foreign as it seems, would be much like the idea of a federal government to the state-centric people in 1780's United States. At first, the mistrust of a powerful central government would be castrated by strong country powers. Yet, over time, the central government will show its usefulness in the matters of humanity and inter-country relations.
A central world government would have very little power in Pluckdump, Wyoming, much like the United States central government has very little impact on Pluckdump, Wyoming beyond the laws that apply to every citizen of the United States. However, I feel like the United Nations is eerily reminiscent of the Articles of Confederation, precursor to the U.S. Constitution that gave so much power to the states that the central government could do nothing...much like the United Nations.
One thing that seems to make sense is that the executive branch of government is headed by one person. There'sa decisiveness with one person that gets garbled in committees and discussions.
I think this refers to my comment that it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments (refering to it's type of government and such). I'm not sure if that was misinterpretted.
But who decides what "correct goals" are?
My point is that you have to put yourself in the shoes of the enemy, something that we have a tough time doing, because we have characatured them into something unhuman. Yet our enemies are just as human as we are. Do they believe that they are using force for the correct goals? Of course. So whose correct goals are "correcter?" Saying, "mine!" is obviously biased, and is objectively pointless, because both sides can claim the same thing.
This is why I don't understand religious extremists. Sample conversation:
Religious extremist 1: I pray for you because you are going to hell. My holy book says so.
Religious extremist 2: I pray for you because you are going to hell. My holy book says so.
RE 1: No, really, you're going to hell.
RE 2: No, really, you're going to hell.
RE 1: But your holy book is nonsense!
RE 2: No, your holy book is nonsense!
RE 1: In the name of my benevolent God, I shall kill you and your silly god!
RE 2: Well, in the name of my benevolent God, I shall kill you and your impotent god!
I think you get the point. A religion that believes that it is the only true religion is standing on ZERO logical ground. In the same vein, a philosophy that believes that it is the one true philosophy stands on ZERO logical ground.
What man wants no legacy? How about Oddo von Bismark? What he sacrificed in legacy, he gained in success.
And Britain being the country that defeated France? Not quite. While Britain did contain Napoleon to Europe, leaving out Russia would be a grave error.
Napoleonic code better than fuedalism? Of course, but we look at it from a perspective that values similar things. What I'm essentially arguing is that if the means inherently violate the values held by the ends, that is not a justified act. One of the values of democracy is that the people choose their government. Yet by forcing a government on the people that they don't necessarily want (in addition to making these governments French puppet governments), you've broken the very value that you desire to spread.
I originally said it, and the intention was precisely what ABF explained. The problem is that we, as humans, are born self-centered. This, of course, is a lesson learned from observation, not a psychological experiment. Why else would a baby cry when playing peek-a-boo, only to be excited when Mommy "returns." Why would children tend to think that teachers live in school buildings? It's a chore for anyone to imagine precisely what it would be like to be someone else, or even to imagine yourself at another time in history, or even imagine yourself at another point in your life. For example: Smoking cigarettes. Only people that are self-centered relative to time would smoke. This does not disqualify everyone else from being time-centric (I'm time-centric too!), it's a clear example.
My point is that it is time-centric to believe that you have as much historical perspective on today as you do on the world in 1938. If you realize that you are time-centric, you realize then that everything you say now could be as ludicrous in 2068 as the man in 1938 who says that fascism is taking over the world is to us. Yet, in their respective times, there is strong evidence to support both claims.
I'm sorry that I can't go into everything else, but I guess I'll conclude on a quote of a handout of my 1st-semester nationalism class. The source: Carlton J. H. Hayes, Essays on Nationalism (New York, 1926)
Quote:N-Man
How? How could a government stationed in say, Brussels, have a better idea of what you in Pluckdump, Wyoming need than one in Washington DC? How could a government that applies the same principles to Twa Pygmies living in the forests of Burundi and to you could work better than a smaller, more regional one? Explain to me how a world government would work.
Perhaps the idea of a world government, as far off and foreign as it seems, would be much like the idea of a federal government to the state-centric people in 1780's United States. At first, the mistrust of a powerful central government would be castrated by strong country powers. Yet, over time, the central government will show its usefulness in the matters of humanity and inter-country relations.
A central world government would have very little power in Pluckdump, Wyoming, much like the United States central government has very little impact on Pluckdump, Wyoming beyond the laws that apply to every citizen of the United States. However, I feel like the United Nations is eerily reminiscent of the Articles of Confederation, precursor to the U.S. Constitution that gave so much power to the states that the central government could do nothing...much like the United Nations.
One thing that seems to make sense is that the executive branch of government is headed by one person. There'sa decisiveness with one person that gets garbled in committees and discussions.
Quote: N-man:
What pride can you get from acts which aren't yours? I suppose if it helps you sleep better...
I think this refers to my comment that it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments (refering to it's type of government and such). I'm not sure if that was misinterpretted.
Quote:N-man:
And there is nothing wrong with force, should it be used for correct goals.
But who decides what "correct goals" are?
My point is that you have to put yourself in the shoes of the enemy, something that we have a tough time doing, because we have characatured them into something unhuman. Yet our enemies are just as human as we are. Do they believe that they are using force for the correct goals? Of course. So whose correct goals are "correcter?" Saying, "mine!" is obviously biased, and is objectively pointless, because both sides can claim the same thing.
This is why I don't understand religious extremists. Sample conversation:
Religious extremist 1: I pray for you because you are going to hell. My holy book says so.
Religious extremist 2: I pray for you because you are going to hell. My holy book says so.
RE 1: No, really, you're going to hell.
RE 2: No, really, you're going to hell.
RE 1: But your holy book is nonsense!
RE 2: No, your holy book is nonsense!
RE 1: In the name of my benevolent God, I shall kill you and your silly god!
RE 2: Well, in the name of my benevolent God, I shall kill you and your impotent god!
I think you get the point. A religion that believes that it is the only true religion is standing on ZERO logical ground. In the same vein, a philosophy that believes that it is the one true philosophy stands on ZERO logical ground.
Quote:N-man
Napoléon Bonaparte WAS a great man. He was a superior tactician, an eminent strategist, and carried the ideals of the French Revolution to all corners of Europe, defeating all in his wake. Ironically, he was in the end beaten by Great Britain, the only country whose populace could claim a similar or greater level of freedom. This, I will remind you, because of men who challenged royal authority and gave their blood for those rights.
Of course he did things for his own glory. What man wants no legacy? But his acts, in the end, brought good things.
What man wants no legacy? How about Oddo von Bismark? What he sacrificed in legacy, he gained in success.
And Britain being the country that defeated France? Not quite. While Britain did contain Napoleon to Europe, leaving out Russia would be a grave error.
Napoleonic code better than fuedalism? Of course, but we look at it from a perspective that values similar things. What I'm essentially arguing is that if the means inherently violate the values held by the ends, that is not a justified act. One of the values of democracy is that the people choose their government. Yet by forcing a government on the people that they don't necessarily want (in addition to making these governments French puppet governments), you've broken the very value that you desire to spread.
Quote:N-man:
No, the point IS whether it is true- both now and then. What it "sounds like" is irrelevant. That reasoning claims that you, as a human being, are not fit to know what kind of government suits you best. That you are incapable of deducing, using logic and reasoning, how you want the schools your children go to administrated, how you want the hospitals you will go to when you're a dying old man administrated, which you prefer of freedom and security, and so forth.
I originally said it, and the intention was precisely what ABF explained. The problem is that we, as humans, are born self-centered. This, of course, is a lesson learned from observation, not a psychological experiment. Why else would a baby cry when playing peek-a-boo, only to be excited when Mommy "returns." Why would children tend to think that teachers live in school buildings? It's a chore for anyone to imagine precisely what it would be like to be someone else, or even to imagine yourself at another time in history, or even imagine yourself at another point in your life. For example: Smoking cigarettes. Only people that are self-centered relative to time would smoke. This does not disqualify everyone else from being time-centric (I'm time-centric too!), it's a clear example.
My point is that it is time-centric to believe that you have as much historical perspective on today as you do on the world in 1938. If you realize that you are time-centric, you realize then that everything you say now could be as ludicrous in 2068 as the man in 1938 who says that fascism is taking over the world is to us. Yet, in their respective times, there is strong evidence to support both claims.
I'm sorry that I can't go into everything else, but I guess I'll conclude on a quote of a handout of my 1st-semester nationalism class. The source: Carlton J. H. Hayes, Essays on Nationalism (New York, 1926)
Quote:Carlton J. H. Hayes, pioneer scholar of nationalism, set a formula early in his career for two basic kinds of nationalism. This distinction has been accepted by most specialists on nationalism...According to Hayes, nationalism has a dual nature--as a force either for good or evil, as blessing or curse...Hayes presents seven evils and abuses of nationalism:
1. The spirit of exclusiveness and narrowness associated with the wrong kind of nationalism. It teaches the concept of a chosen people. It presents a false theory that people should prize far more what is theirs as a nationality than what is theirs a human beings.
2. Nationalism places a premium on uniformity It prescribes national modes of art, standards of thought, and norms of conduct, and expects all citizens to conform.
3. Nationalism increases the docility of the masses Because of their upbringing and education, the masses seldom question the providential character of their nationality, their state, and their government.
4. Nationalism focuses popular attention upon war and preparation for war Military heroes outrank in the national pantheons the heroes of science, art, and learning.
5. Jingoism, clamoring for war or warlike and aggressive policy, is a specific abuse of nationalism.
6. The evils of imperialism, a policy of expansion or territorial growth by the acquisition of foreign territory, stems from nationalism.
7. Intolerance is a hallmark of this kind of nationalism. The unwillingness to tolerate contrary beliefs or opinions goes hand in hand with the wrong form of nationalism.