Dou you think a centeral government would be useful?

We have a start on that already in the UN, WTO, World Court, and the many other related organizations.

Not everyone is a member. There are certainly issues with it. But, these organizations are addressing issues that must be addressed by the world as a whole, rather than by a specific nation.

Perhaps the real issue has to do with how the organization of international government could be improved.

Because, it absolutely exists.

 

That's too severe. We don't have to give up being America in order to be part of the UN, etc. In fact, such global government is a key way to promote our values - values that are not only ours, by the way.

There are certainly issues of tolerance between nations, but dealing with that is far easier when there are mechanisms such as the UN than it would otherwise be.

We are a nation of laws. Having numerous like minded nations establish a legal framework for the globe has been long accepted as a necessity.

 

That may very well be true. In my 58 years on this rock living exclusively in the USA it is my observation that we are currently headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps we are following the rest of the world since we seem to be no longer interested in making an effort to lead.

 

Literacy in the US was pathetic when we created our incredible form of government.

And, again, I'll note that we already have international government.

The idea of such government is not to deal with the internal issues of each government. Like our federal government, much is left to the states. With a global government, FAR more is left to nations.

But, if they start killing their people, abusing trade law, etc., there is international law to address that.

 

This is an extraordinarily myopic view of the US, especially in comparison to the rest of the world.

 

I may be simplistic in this view but i have never seen the UN as more that a global debating society. If it has a purpose it would be in giving the smaller factions a (false) sense of relevance.
That said i suppose it is a step in the general direction.

Yes i think we do have to give up being American or German or Russian etc. I mean that in the sense of no longer using nation, race, creed to define ourselves.

 

I can see how you would say that given you have little context to go on. Should I read into your response that you disagree with my thought that in this country we are currently moving in a less tolerant direction?

 

"Context" in this case, is the rest of the world, where you will commonly find "intolerance" at least two orders of magnitude greater than here in the US.

 

I get that. You have added apples to my oranges. I enjoy both.

 

And so, regarding your perception that the US is 'moving in the wrong direction', you worry about a hangnail while suffering from two sucking chest wounds.

 

Your analogy may be valid but does not address my original assertion that the US is trending toward less tolerance. Nowhere did i attempt to compare the condition here to other countries. There is no point to continue on this since neither of us disagree on the others point.

What i am interested in is your avatar. It is a game piece for what board game?

 

This is not the right way to look at this issue.

There is a large part of the world that is pretty reasonably equivalent to us. For example, the EU is more than half again as large as the USA, and has great freedom, tends to have greater diversity, and does it with stable democratic government. Then, one can add in many other nations as well.

From there, the very existence of other nations where there ARE problems forms a key reason for having a framework of international law.

And, suggesting that doesn't work is obvious nonsense. Numerous problems get addressed through the UN. Rarely are these solutions oriented to conquest. But, that is a BS measure. Beyond that, some problems are handled through NATO, which is also a government-like body that has influence over a wide and important region.


Let's get real. We HAVE a world government framework. The OP was simply wrong about that being an issue - it is not.

The valid issues have to do with improving how representation works, what issues should be handled at that level, etc. That is, making international law work effectively.

 

It is; a Tiger I (late) from Advanced Squad Leader

 

Meaningful "International law" hinges on one thing:
The will and the ability to enforce its terms.
Some states have some degree of will but no ability; many states have some degree of ability, but no will.
The idea that there must be some 'permission' given from the group for those states with the will and the ability to enforce those terms is, well; inane.

 

UN action is what brought Iran to the bargaining table. The WTO has been highly active around the world. The Geneva Accords have a significant impact. The UNSC was right about Iraq when we were so historically and desperately wrong. Numerous treaties have their roots in the UN, thus reducing conflict. Treaties on labor and agriculture help support US contributions in those areas, as when labor goes unprotected in other lands, jobs leave our shores. Civil aviation treaties ensure safer air transport. WHO addresses health issues that affect all nations. International property rights treaties help protect our patents - as our direction is toward hi tech/intellectual property is an area of huge import to our competitive future. Maritime law and boundaries go through the UN - so, for example, the claims Russia is making on Arctic lands newly available due to climate change are being adjudicated by the UN. Rights of children, slavery, biodiversity, drug trafficking, use of international waterways, pollution, epidemics, displaced persons (such as we see now with Syria), use of outer space (including telecommunications protocols/frequencies/etc.), Rotterdam Conventions for shipping, conventions on terrorism, conventions on consular relations, the ozone layer (which has to be a world wide effort), law on water, law on prisons and detention, ...

The list goes on and on and on and on.

Calling the accomplishments of the UN and related institutions "inane" is profoundly ignorant.

These are areas of key import to the US, let alone the world, and we have no way of being effective in resolving these issues, as we are just one nation, and we are not going to go to war over this stuff, even though as a whole it is tremendously important to us.

 

Good thing I didn't do that, eh?
My point was that "international law" means nothing unless there is the will and capacity to enforce it.
Nothing you posted here negates that point.

 

I think the UN has proven to be a total waste of time. Eventually it is going to happen, but the ideology of totalitarian socialism will never fly. It is just going to cause more turmoil with rebellious types who want to be free from government intrusiveness.

 

It depends on what you mean by "enforce".

If you mean military, then I absolutely do not agree with you.

Look at the list I gave you. As I stated in my post, we aren't going to go to WAR over that stuff, yet in each of those areas international law is giving great benefit.

If you want to include a broad range of diplomatic means of bringing pressure to bear, then sure.

The cases that break into wars are major failures. Look at Iraq. We have not had such a magnificent failure in the entire history of the US. And, the UN Security Council was right when we were not.

 

Military action is one of many ways to apply the "force" in "enforce"; whether this is the first or last choice as a means of enforcement is up to the states(s) trying t enforce 'international law'.

Because of enforcement. Absent the will to enforce the "law", the "law" means nothing.
What happens when 'diplomatic force' does not enforce the "law"? What if the parties trying to enforce the "law" aren't willig to use actual force?
The "law" reverts to meaninglessness.

Hyperbolic, myopic hooey. Vietnam, anyone?
Further, look at Iraq, 1999 - a case that broke into war and was a resounding success.

 

The problem here is that you are talking about a hypothetical.

And, I'm listing successes.

Besides, your argument means absolutely nothing. If the UN process doesn't work for some issue, the worst case is that we are in pretty much same situation as if there were no UN. And, our success rate for being in THAT position is absolutely horrible. As you point out - Vietnam and Iraq, the two greatest fiascoes in US history.

 

That's not a problem at all; what I said it true regardless of hypothetical or actual situations.

Convenient thing to do; unfortunately it doesn't affect my position in any way.

My argument is that "international law" means nothing unless there is will and capacity to enforce it - how does this mean absolutely nothing?
What point is there in "international law" if everyone ignores it and suffers no consequence for doing so?

 

I pointed out a large number of problem areas that are being successfully solved.

Then, you made some comment about the use of force being required.

But, that is ridiculous, because the areas I pointed out don't include the use of force. They are being resolved through negotiation.

For most problems, there is a strong mutual need for these problems to have organized and accepted solutions.

Note that our recent deal with Iran is an example of the UN solving a problem. We, along with Russia, China, and the other nations of the UN Security Council who have permanent veto power came together to solve a problem. We didn't need to use force on Russia or China - we had a mutual objective.

The same happens time after time after time in the UN and its related organizations.

I pointed this out because the premise of this thread was nonsense. It asks whether there should be a world government. But, there already IS a world government. We've had that for decades. We're using it every day. And, it's working.

 

Because the parties involved had the will and the capacity to enforce the relevant "international law".

Because sometimes it is necessary to use physical force to enforce the "law"

Which is no way means it is never necessary to use force to enforce the "law"
Enforce the law.
See what I did there?

 

the highest rational form of human governance is the city-state. it is responsive to the needs of its citizens, unable to lose track of their needs because it is always right there. we have national boundaries for a reason. we form these boundaries because different people in different areas have different needs. different regions create different cultures, with entirely different ways of looking at the world. centralized government will never be able to take this into account. the further away the seat of government is from an area, the less responsive it is to that area. even representatives from that area soon cease to understand its needs, considering themselves more a part of the government than of the area they represent.

the notion of a strong central government has always seemed appealing, but it cannot help but become repressive. the larger the area it controls, the more likely it is to compromise the needs of some for the needs and even desires of others.

 

Even the threat of military enforcement is rare.

Not even the deal with Iran included military force.

You are fixating on a very minor point.

And, you originally brought this up as a requirement - which it clearly is not.