QUOTE(durki @ Sep 20 2005, 08:12 PM)
QUOTE
Are not (iii) and (vii) rather at odds with each other.
They are apparently at odd but not actually if we install a world government whose purpose will be more to monitor & co-ordinate various activities of the world rather than enforce or dictate any thing. People sitting in the world government will be more like caring parents rather than stern policemen holding rods in their hands.
One world goverment sounds good in theory but very difficult to implement in many parts of the world.
Not all goverments able and want to sit and nurture their people like caring parents. In your word "to monitor & co-ordinate" is often used when you have a stable economy. Most people are like lambs, and often an iron fist goverment with a long term vision is required to move the country forward. Take China for example, they have the largest population in the world with lots of headaches to deal with and their current resources cannot afford the goverment to provide a better standard of living for all. To accumulate resources neccesary to go there and prosper, a firm, tactful and disciplined hands needed. Some extreme steps may also must be implemented such as capital punishments. In China, death penalty criminals, male and females were line up together against the wall by the red army and shot at the back of their heads at a close distance with what looks like to me as AK47 machine gun. Their families were also billed for the cost of the bullets.
Severe yes, but IMHO it can be effective although also create other opportunity cost, in exchange of what they considered as a better solutions such as lower crime rate, lower judistical and administration costs, etc. But with this kind of similar diciplines and other iron fist policies, China slowly began to economically become stronger and when the economy prosper, it's standard of living will also raise, where people can afford better education, better health system, better goverment policies and many other domino effects. There can be no advancement without destruction.
Political parties within goverments also has various personal and organisational interests they will prioritize above anything else. The people itself may currently be under-educated and many are still living below the poverty line. If the goverment take care of these poor people "now", they could be wasting valuable resources which may be much better invested in capital investments, cash cows and productive assets in the longer terms.
Yes off course, like in business, the people is the no.1 most valuable assets, but until they reach prosperity, only the qualified, valuable and productive ones will get the priorities, if not, there may be stagnation and saturation to the whole economy. As a metaphore, in war, you want to concentrate your most powerful resources together toward a single purpose, or you will be overrun by the enemy forces when the line spread too thin.
One world goverment is a highly complicated and delicate business to deal with. Have you tried running a "simple" company? Selecting the right person for the right position in my experience in one of the key of success to any business and there's many other micro and macro economic management factors closely linked to each other in order produce the final result/s. There's a lot to deal with such as choice of market segmentations, distribution channels, competitors and eliciting tactics and strategies, culture, politics and many other ever changing variables.
One world goverment is a lot easier said than done.
I am moving this topic to a more appropiate forum.
Paradise On Earth, World As A Single Egalitarian Family
durki Paradise On Earth Sep 19 2005, 08:16 AM
Sep 19 2005, 08:16 AM
