The government has heavily taxed, controlled, regulated, even violated people's lives. The only way out of this is a world government.
National sovereignty is immoral. Any sovereignty is the quest towards unlimited power. The only sovereignty that should be is the world government's.
The state could immediately give up its external defense structure.
The idea of a world government has been in man's mind for about a century. But he never outspoken it, it was just an idea talked of in private circles. Time has come to talk about it freely.
The UN is not enough. A world government is necessary. Not only necessary, a world government is good. It will loose state's burdens, it will nourish trust, it will support freedom lovers.
What do you mean by the world government? (Me: What about those, who do not accept to be under anybody's control, punguins for example, or Gypsies, who do not need the government?)
ResponderExcluirWho would stand at the head of it? (Me: nationality? race? religion?)
Who would it be to chose the representative(s)? (Me: of course, those of most power.... wealthy ones)
How can all the people agree? (Me: they can't)
Me: the idea of " external defense structure" comes form human internal nature. It is not a matter of any "state" or bad government, but of the human need to maintain individual. When the individuals meet- either they fight, or start a dialog.-------------> how about working on a dialog between the individual governments, instead of creating THE (perfect?) ONE???
But the world government is not the perfect one, it is just one that would diminish the need national governments have to tax and control the lives of their subjects. The European Union is not a good example of a government that has relaxed this state burdens, but after its adoption, back in the fifties, there has been no war in Europe. This is a record in the continent. Why for example will France and Germany battle each other today, as they have for centuries? They form a single political body. It is not in their interest to.
ResponderExcluirBy external defense structure I mean the readiness for war. If you don't have a foreign power, you don't have to prepare yourself for the eventuality of a war against it. Yes, the forces of the state would still be, but they would become a federal police, a very powerful one. I mean, the state of Virginia does not have soldiers of its own to fight those of South Carolina, not does the state of São Paulo to fight those of Goiás. The military would have no reason to be.
All the people can't agree. But, again, the European Union, a prototype of a world government, in it the representatives of each state do not agree with each other all the time in all the issues. But it is there still, the EU. Not a good example for the moment, because it faces a crisis. But take Brazil, for example, or the US. In them the states do not always agree with each other, but they agree to submit themselves to the decision of a body of the federal government in which they take a part.