Zar

In politics, a major problem in human relations is the Kantian beleif in the "categorical imperative" . I actually think the categorical imperative has merit, otherwise I wouldn't advocate the things I do. On the other hand, I also am a beleiver in scientific rationalism and so far I have seen no reason to change this view very much. Further, I am a believer in personal emotional satisfaction, not necessarily rational (Kantian rationality is the application of universality of rules.) But with this uncertainty, murder can never be an instrument, because of the fundamental uncertainty of man. After all, the Prussians though they were the pinnacle of mankind and deserved to spread their ilk by warfare.

The categorical imperative?

The combination of believing something and applying it universally along with "scientific rationalism's fundamental understanding of the power and LIMITATIONS of human knowlege inform my decisions. Thusly, it is possible to beleive in one's values and yet allow other cultures to experiment with their own different values, as long as they do not directly threaten ours.

Consequenlty, I beleive in a world of separate chambers (a.k.a., nation states), such that the folly of one does not automatically bleed into the other. As a corolllary, singlular world government is not only anti-democratic, but inimical to that human pursuit of all the forms of human relation, endeavor, and, yes, spirituality. I am suspicious of the U.N., but even so, I am infinitely, utterly and bitterly opposed to unilateral domaination. Power is necessary, but absolute rule is horrifying.

P.S.: Does anyone here try to understand anything about people like Immanuel Kant? Or do people prefer to just spout off on what CNN has told them today?

excreationist

Zar:

I have an interesting book by Ken Keyes called "PlanetHood" and it is about a global federation/republic. It contains many quotes by famous people which support a global federation or at least want more cooperation with the UN, etc.
He would be talking about global police that enforce globally voted on rules rather than just the U.S. being a policeman according to its own minority viewpoint.

Anyway, a democratic federation of nations would be like the federation of American states - the states ultimately obey the larger government - they are "forced" to. On the other hand, the U.N., and confederacy's are totally voluntary. Since states can choose to simply attack each other, then they would amass a lot of weapons to defend themselves. In a federation, the only weapons you'd need are for policing - and for foreign invaders I guess (aliens from outer space)

You seem to be saying that a world government is obviously a bad idea. Well myself and many of the people I quoted would disagree. They'd think it is a good or even a necessary idea.

beyelzu

zar,
I find this point to be very interesting given how you arrived at it and all. I am going to have to think about the implications some becuase I largely agree with your post. Unless the "like" Immanuel Kant is a pretty inclusive group than this is something of a false dichotomy. On the other hand one of the reasons I come here is that most people here dont just spout off cnn.

I have to order books that I want to read because every book in the political section and sociology section is about democrats and republicans which just doesnt mean a whole lot to me.

Zar

excreationist,

I half agree and half do not.

It is possible to have widely agreed upon, basic world rules, and yet have separate zones (nation-states) that experiment on their own. The only legitimate aim of any international body is International peace not International homogeny. The mistake is easy to make.

P.S.: What is the name I can give to my thesis? Universal Compartmentalism? I feel like it might convince anyone, including a Shiite. After all, do they literally think they are Allah, or do they merely worship Allah? Telling them that they are not infallible like Alllah will surely convince. Not even the most fundamentalist among them thinks they are above Allah.

Hugo Holbling

What about those people in the grey areas between states that are increasingly caught up in such follies, irrespective of the purported dividing lines on a map?

Surely if that were the case, any state consisting of smaller sub-states (such as the US, Spain, or Australia, for example) would be open to the same criticism? What do you make of the EU model, or Switzerland?

excreationist

What do you think about an international criminal court that *any* nation's leader goes to if they disobey major rules. (e.g. if they use their paramilitary police force to invade other nation-states without the world's democratic approval)

Well there is a lot of variety in different areas of federated systems, like the U.S.... e.g. a lot of its citizens speak Spanish most of the time. There is the "Bible belt", Hawaii, Native American reservations, and Hollywood, etc.
But anyway, many supporters of a world government want to use it to combat other global problems such as pollution as well.

Psycho Economist

From Napoleon, whose menace served as the impetus of the institution of the sovereign nation-state to colonial imperialism, to the World Wars, to Soviet sattelite states to Bush on the rampage... the history of the nation states has been the same as always. A select few try to accrete enough power to subjugate the rest, whether globally or regionally in the hopes of becoming a global power. Our administration openly mocks countries that take up the "live and let live" ideal that the nation-state system depends on.

Even before globalization, when trade agreements were strictly bilateral economic crises spread worldwide as easily as they do today. The Great Depression, the worst economic debacle in economic history occured when every country had full sovereign authority to manage its tarriffs as it chose.

How is this necessarily so? I think that (as an example) within the several United States, the Federal government... especially with the first and fourteenth (in the sense that it reenforces the supremacy clause) ammendments to the Constitution has neither helped nor hurt democracy and it has fostered human relations endeavours and freedom of conscience.

Care to make your fears a little more concrete?

Which is why I hope (and imagine) that any super-national government will have a parliamentary system lacking a head of state.