Globalization or Atomization?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the availability of Somalia is the only thing that makes a state legitimate, I'm sure they'll leave it open for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about antArCtica?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't there just be more civil/class warfare instead? A bigger monopoly on force also increases the danger of a totalitarian police state.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think so. Regions with stable governments tend not to have civil wars. The main reason for the American Civil War is that it wasn't established whether the US govt was a true nation of a conglomeration similar to the modern EU. Poor states with strong national governments like India and China have been relatively stable internally.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much the states that are benefitted as certain individuals running them.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the Administration's militaristic bent isn't helping, I think that is an accident. Never blame evil when stupidity will suffice. And let me tell you that there can be a huge perception of benefit with even counterproductive policies. Last week I was driving through corn country in Central Illinois. Ethanol might be a bad idea but from talking to these people whole towns would wither and die without it.

[ QUOTE ]
Globalization brings with it the integration of otherwise homogenous cultures into heterogeny. We see that in the USA with rednecks and metrosexuals. The result is polarity and partisanship.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it doesn't lead to widescale violence. The violence only begins when the overlying state is weak as in Iraq.
____

The reason why there will be a more balance policy between rich and poor nations is because the poor nations will have the ability to influence the policies implemented in the rich nations through the ballot box. And since there are a lot more poor people than rich people, their representation will be proportionate.

The reason the UN is often the most effective organization in dealing with problems is its role as a neutral arbiter. There is little perception that it is there to do anyone's bidding except in cases where what is right is largely agreed upon in areas like stopping war.

[ QUOTE ]
See, tyranny of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given the globalization of communications, we are probably only a few centuries from getting pretty close to a worldwide agreement on core values. We are already seeing this with the spreading of democracy. But since there will likely be a world government before the complete homoganization of the worlds different groups, minority rightrs will need to be protected. The current states will likely insist on this before ceding control to the world government.

[ QUOTE ]
Since the availability of Somalia is the only thing that makes a state legitimate, I'm sure they'll leave it open for us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fortunately, I have never made the "love it or leave it" argument. I have heard that argument thrown way too much in the liberal direction to use it myself. Somalia is a cautionary tale much more than a legitimization of the State.

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't a larger and more impersonal government be even easier to manipulate by small interest groups.

[/ QUOTE ]
You got it backwards. The more interest groups there are, the harder it is for any one group to influence policy. This was one of the main arguments for disbanding the Articles of Confederation and enacting the Constitution. You can see how thoroughly interests can dominate small States through the gambling lobby's lock on Nevada or the Agriculture lobby's lock on Iowa.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason for the American Civil War is that it wasn't established whether the US govt was a true nation of a conglomeration similar to the modern EU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Similarly, if there was no Federal government in the first place, there wouldn't have been a taxpayer rebellion. I also think that while atomized jurisdictions may increase the frequency of interstate conflict (duh, there are more states), globalization increases the severity of them (duh, the states have more money). Iraq and Vietnam never could have happened with full American state sovereignty.

[ QUOTE ]
Last week I was driving through corn country in Central Illinois. Ethanol might be a bad idea but from talking to these people whole towns would wither and die without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole COUNTRY will suffer because of it. Why is it that every time someone gets outcompeted in the marketplace, you want to stop everything and punish every successful person to subsidize them? Bad businesses should wither and die. It's the only way keep the economy moving forward.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason for the American Civil War is that it wasn't established whether the US govt was a true nation of a conglomeration similar to the modern EU.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think this is will be an issue in a global government? Was it a good thing that Lincoln waged the civl war for the sake of the union? Should this new world order wage war and force any nations that don't want to submit to do so?
[ QUOTE ]
The reason the UN is often the most effective organization in dealing with problems is its role as a neutral arbiter. There is little perception that it is there to do anyone's bidding except in cases where what is right is largely agreed upon in areas like stopping war.


[/ QUOTE ]
When have they been effective? And they are certainly not neutral.
[ QUOTE ]
Given the globalization of communications, we are probably only a few centuries from getting pretty close to a worldwide agreement on core values.

[/ QUOTE ]
And those are?

[valenzuela]

I have a question:
120 countries agree on a global goverment which has a fee of 10 % of the national income , should this countries force the other 80 countries to join the global goverment even if they arent intrested? Suppose that those 120 countries have more than 50% of the world population.

[hmkpoker]

no

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Globalization brings with it the integration of otherwise homogenous cultures into heterogeny. We see that in the USA with rednecks and metrosexuals. The result is polarity and partisanship.


But it doesn't lead to widescale violence. The violence only begins when the overlying state is weak as in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bull [censored] it doesn't lead to widescale violence. 3.4% of black males are currently in prison (2002 stats)
18-19 2.9%
20-24 7.5%
25-29 10.4%
30-34 8.9%
35-39% 7.8%
40-44 4.9%
45-54% 2.3%
55+ 0.4%

Whites are at 0.45% and hispanics 1.17%. When you look at the poverty/incarceration rates its pretty damn clear that a signifigant portion of the population is systamatically being abused. The only other possible option is that blacks are inherently inferior to other racial groups.

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]
And those are?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever the world government says they are.

And you better like them....or else.

[stephan]

This is scary how many people are in favor of globalization. 4th reich for the win!

[govman6767]

I prefer Atomization... but my idea of Atomization involves ICBM's