World Government

[Hermit]

my first thought was the abolition of all government, but I didn't think anybody would respond kindly to that one.

Interesting concept. Did you have anarchy in mind, a return to the tribalism of the stone age, or something else altogether?

Well, I'm studying anarchy (and other traditions) for a class, and I've learned that there are several proposed versions of anarchism. One is very individualistic, ascetic and minimally cooperative. Another is maximally cooperative, but all cooperation is fully voluntary. The latter does not preclude scientific or technological advancement. It's more focused on the abolition of wage slavery that plagues capitalist economies. I haven't decided what to make of them yet. Just exploring the ideas.

Neither strand can be described as "abolition of all government".

[FBM]

How so?

[Svartalf]

Anything smacking of anarchy is inacceptable, because it's either a degenerate sethian wet dream, or unrealisstic wishful thinking that is bound to degenerate into something akin to Centrafrica.

[FBM]

I did notice a great deal of wishful thinking in what I've read so far, yes.

[Audley Strange]

There are many possible models for a world government, and it does not require national governments to disappear. A world government could be an overall law maker and a law enforcer, while still permitting national governments to run their own territory. Or a world government could be something else. It could be democratic in that the various democratically elected governments could then appoint their own representatives.

I would rather see decisions made on majority vote by the representatives of the 200 plus nations, than see them distorted by the veto of a few.

Yeah could be, might be, should be...

I admire your optimism, I really do, but it seems to me to deny our fundamental psychology and behaviours as well as the various pathologies of those who wish to assume power. Considering the way most of the Worlds governments treat their own citizens I'm not convinced your nebulous "could'ves" display anything other than wishful thinking which is informed by your bias that somehow America alone is the sole great evil.

So what would you propose as a functional system of world government which checks and balances to stop gross corruption or the ability to be a single global tyranny or was the just another long winded way for you to tell us what we already know about your opinions on the American regime?

[Rum]

..and of course is should be socialist!

Never going to happen - not in the foreseeable future anyway.

[Hermit]

How so?

Anarchy, the way I understand it, is supposed to be a society without rulers. The very concept of a society without rulers is both a vague pipe dream and a contradiction in terms. How can such a society exist in the absence of individuals, or more likely, institutions that will ensure its existence as such?

[pErvinalia]

Anything smacking of anarchy is inacceptable, because it's either a degenerate sethian wet dream, or unrealisstic wishful thinking that is bound to degenerate into something akin to Centrafrica.

Read Monbiot's book.

[pErvinalia]

I did notice a great deal of wishful thinking in what I've read so far, yes.

As I said, read Monbiot's book. He's what I would call a "practical anarchist".

[pErvinalia]

my first thought was the abolition of all government, but I didn't think anybody would respond kindly to that one.

Interesting concept. Did you have anarchy in mind, a return to the tribalism of the stone age, or something else altogether?

Well, I'm studying anarchy (and other traditions) for a class, and I've learned that there are several proposed versions of anarchism. One is very individualistic, ascetic and minimally cooperative. Another is maximally cooperative, but all cooperation is fully voluntary. The latter does not preclude scientific or technological advancement. It's more focused on the abolition of wage slavery that plagues capitalist economies. I haven't decided what to make of them yet. Just exploring the ideas.

Neither strand can be described as "abolition of all government".

Depends what you define as "government". Many strands of anarchism involve the abolition of the state. But they still retain a direct democratic structure. I'd call that a government, of sorts. Others wouldn't.

[pErvinalia]

How so?

Anarchy, the way I understand it, is supposed to be a society without rulers. The very concept of a society without rulers is both a vague pipe dream and a contradiction in terms. How can such a society exist in the absence of individuals, or more likely, institutions that will ensure its existence as such?

The "realities" of a system are not necessarily dependent on the description of a system.

[FBM]

I did notice a great deal of wishful thinking in what I've read so far, yes.

As I said, read Monbiot's book. He's what I would call a "practical anarchist".

Once I'm free of required reading for this class, I'll give it a try.

my first thought was the abolition of all government, but I didn't think anybody would respond kindly to that one.

Interesting concept. Did you have anarchy in mind, a return to the tribalism of the stone age, or something else altogether?

Well, I'm studying anarchy (and other traditions) for a class, and I've learned that there are several proposed versions of anarchism. One is very individualistic, ascetic and minimally cooperative. Another is maximally cooperative, but all cooperation is fully voluntary. The latter does not preclude scientific or technological advancement. It's more focused on the abolition of wage slavery that plagues capitalist economies. I haven't decided what to make of them yet. Just exploring the ideas.

Neither strand can be described as "abolition of all government".

Depends what you define as "government". Many strands of anarchism involve the abolition of the state. But they still retain a direct democratic structure. I'd call that a government, of sorts. Others wouldn't.

In what I've read, there's nothing like a democracy. If enough people agree to do something, they do it. Nobody is coerced to follow majority rule.

[pErvinalia]

Democracy isn't necessarily "majority rule".

[FBM]

Democracy isn't necessarily "majority rule".

Anyway, nobody is coerced to do anything in the types of anarchy I've read about so far.

[Clinton Huxley]

We were approaching one world government under the British Empire. We would all be better off if that experiment had been allowed to continue. North Korea vs Peru in the cricket World Cup final and free tiffin for the under-fives.