Albert Einstein wanted world government.

[Eclipse Now]

Everything you've stated above indicates to me that South Africa, the continent of Africa, and the World needs true Federal oversight and State representation, with multiple checks and balances to enable *true* democracy to occur without the corruption's of the process you mention above.

 

Last century Europe tore itself to pieces in the hatred of war and totalitarian dictatorships. The Berlin wall came down. Russia is slowly edging towards true democracy, even though it seems to have problems with Putin's 'pretend' democracy at this stage. Eastern European countries are opening up and working on human rights issues and reforming their constitutions.

 

If this can happen in these countries, then anything is possible, even in Russia.

 

People are people, worldwide, and if America can elect Barak Obama only a few decades after their own form of segregation, then there's hope for Africa to sort out some of it's tribal and race issues. One day. And then TIA may take on a whole new meaning.

 

You cannot expect to get democracy in the real western sense, not only the paper-bound one we currently see in Africa, to work here WITHOUT changing African culture across the width and breadth of this sad and sorry continent. You, for some reason, fail to see my point. Am I not coming across clearly? Should I somehow reformulate my sentences? What gives?

Don't be slippery. You've made my point for me and you know it. One the one hand you argued that the world would be a boring place if it had one culture, and on the surface food & language & legends & belief systems definition of 'culture', I immediately agreed with you.

 

But I made the distinction between 'food & flavours of life' culture, and the culture of democracy which values freedom, equal rights for women, protection of the individual, fair governance and enforcement of the rule of law.

 

You then complained that this could never happen because African tribal culture is so strong that it perverts democracy.

 

This debate began when in Post #60 you stated the following.

 

Imagine a world with a "global culture".

 

I simply cannot picture a more boring place.

 

Why would you want that?

 

All I am trying to point out to you is that deep down, you really *want* universal true democracy. You *want* women to be empowered, you *want* justice for white people in South Africa, you indeed seem to want the African tribal culture wiped out by true democratic culture.

 

So do you care to revise post #60, and agree with me that empowered women, justice, the rule of law, and a fair go for all is actually a good global culture to have? And that this can co-exist with Chinatown in Sydney still doing excellent Chinese food and the best BBQ pork I've ever had in my life?

[Eclipse Now]

(edit for tone, apologies)

 

Circumcision of boys has proven statistically partially effective in slowing the spread of AIDS, and does not then complicate health matters and make sexual intercourse painful for life. Female circumcision is far more drastic and not only lacks some medical benefits, but can complicate others. There appears to be some debate, but the HIV material is backed by WHO.

 

Male circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.[1] The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and cædere (meaning "to cut"). Early depictions of circumcision are found in cave paintings and Ancient Egyptian tombs, though some pictures are open to interpretation.[2][3][4] Religious male circumcision is considered a commandment from God in Judaism.[5] In Islam, though not discussed in the Qur'an, male circumcision is widely practised and most often considered to be a sunnah.[6] It is also customary in some Christian churches in Africa, including some Oriental Orthodox Churches.[7] According to the World Health Organization (WHO), global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim.[8] The prevalence of circumcision varies mostly with religious affiliation, and sometimes culture. Most circumcisions are performed during adolescence for cultural or religious reasons;[9] in some countries they are more commonly performed during infancy.[8]

 

There is controversy regarding circumcision. Schoen argues that it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, has no substantial effects on sexual function, has a low complication rate when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[10] Milos and Macris argue that it adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure, is justified by medical myths, is extremely painful, and is comparable to female genital cutting.[11]

 

The American Medical Association stated in 1999: "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."[12]

 

The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides minimal protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.[13][14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

 

Compare this to the list of problems associated with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

 

I don't see how the 2 can be compared as a mere cultural preference when the medical outcomes are so different.

 

 

Now, I never claimed to be an expert on Africa, but you keep taking the conversation there to raise what basically sound like really good reasons for Federal government oversight to strengthen true democratic accountability and conduct official investigations and inquiries into allegations of police brutality, election violence and intimidation, etc.

 

I never said this would be easy.

 

My simple belief is that a worldwide democratic government would be great for the PLANET, simply because democracy seems to be the 'least bad' form of government we have invented so far.

 

World Vote Now has screened at important European Union meetings.

WORLD VOTE NOW // GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

[TheBigDog]

Quote removed because it was corrected - Bill

Eclipse, you have sliced a single sentence out of a long and detailed post and then argued completely out of context and in doing so leveled unfounded accusations at the author. I have warned you before about this posting style; it is sloppy, amateurish and reeks of troll. Fix the post and shape up.

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

Oh, and placing the responsibility for this sign of male dominance on the VICTIM of this crime is a class act mate!

Are you intentionally misreading my posts? You're edging toward trolling.

 

I am not putting the responsibility on the victim's shoulders. All I'm saying is that if an adult male or female consents to bodily mutilation, it's their good right. Apart from genital mutilation, things like tattoos and body piercings come to mind. Personally, I don't like it, but if my daughter is old enough to give informed consent to having her entire body pierced and tattoo'd, I will not stop her from doing it. Read the above line again - the key words are informed consent. Quit your trolling.

Circumcision of boys has proven statistically partially effective in slowing the spread of AIDS, and does not then complicate health maters and make sexual intercourse painful for life.

I can guarantee you that the statistical partial effectiveness in slowing the spread of AIDS had absolutely nothing to do with the initial decision thousands of years ago to begin with this "cultural" practice. By the same token, female circumcision will also slow the spreading of AIDS because removing the female's ability to enjoy sex will remove her incentive to sleep around. Point is, BOTH male and female circumcision performed without the informed consent of the victim (yes - victim. I view a Jewish baby boy very much a victim of a barbaric ancient practice) is wrong and barbaric with no place in a rational, modern world.

Female circumcision is far more drastic and complicates matters endlessly.

The fact that female circumcision is more drastic and more complicated an operation is besides the point. The principle in both cases, the mutilation of a child who did not agree to it, is the same. They are equally wrong.

You should be ashamed. I have looked at some of the effects of female circumcision in a welfare course I did back in 1993,94, but the "National Geographic or something" was merely the locality of some extra Muslim affected Nations in Africa that carried it out. And I never claimed to be an expert on Africa, you keep taking the conversation there because you seem to need to debrief about your fear of the Black Man every time you open your mouth. You are sounding like a racist lately.

Well, that just takes the cake. I'm stating facts - how "democracy" turns out when entrusted to people still stick in a tribal culture. I've no qualms about a person's race - it's the culture that's incompatible. Now I'm a racist. Now I have a "fear of the Black Man". This is insulting in the extreme. Yet you propose to enforce a system of governance upon an entire continent, because you know it's better than the local systems, you know it's better than what's currently in place, you know it's the absolute end-all and be-all of all political systems, because it's working for you. I've got news for you, buddy. The West tried this before. In the 1800's. It was called colonization. See how that turned out. They also imposed their own political systems on a continent on which it simply does not work, because they argued exactly like you're doing now. Poor little puppies - my system is much better than theirs. Me, the benevolent white man, will come and show them how a country is run.

 

"Countries" and "National Borders" are, to begin with, a foreign concept to people who trek their cattle after the best pasture.

My goals are more arrogant than just stating democracy would be great for Africa. I don't have to be an expert on every people group in every country and every region of the world to have a simple philosophy:

 

My simple philosophy is that a worldwide government would be great for the PLANET, simply because democracy seems to be the 'least bad' form of government we have invented so far.

And I would agree with you - but like I said my previous post, you can do that and have that for the planet, but you will have to exclude Africa for a while, until the culture naturally evolved to accommodate what you propose. It must come from within, not be imposed. You seem to keep on missing my point.

Watch the movie trailer again, it might do you some good to develop some hope.

 

Remember, this screened at important European Union meetings.

WORLD VOTE NOW // GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

I have not and cannot watch that particular trailer. Because I'm in Africa and my bandwidth sucks balls.

 

But be that as it may, take off your rose-tinted glasses and think about it for a second. The biggest chunk of the global population lives in the Third World. In other words, if there were to be a "Global Democracy", who will be elected president? Which proposed laws will be voted for in a global parliament? Yes - within a very short while, welfare spending will skyrocket and the globe will turn in one big welfare state. Because the biggest number of voters will be in the Third World and any politician with more than two brain cells will know that in order to win support from that base, he will have to support programs and laws that are to their benefit. This will be done to the detriment of the First World countries who are now collecting taxes for a world government which will just channel it to the Third World because that is what to overall mass of the electorate will want. So you are saying that First World countries like the European member states, the US and Canada will willingly join such a scheme just to see all their taxes going to the Third World? This is the very first outcome of a "Global Democracy", and another reason why it's a dumb-*** naive idea.

 

Yes - very idealistic and pretty and flowery and sweet and nice and stuff. Sorta like the '60s hippies shouting "Make Love not War" while trippin' out on some of da good ****.

 

Your "Global Democracy" is impossible because:

 

1) It assumes to be a better political system than those currently in place in individual states. This is arrogant and ignorant and identical to what colonialism was about. It will also have the same result.

2) It ignores local customs and cultures by once again applying an external value judgement on it, saying that "your culture sucks - mine is better". You don't have to like the local culture - by all means. But you should also be aware that there are places in the world where western capitalism and greed (which goes hand-in-hand with the democracy you espouse) is viewed with utter contempt and disgust. In Africa, old people are the wise elders and respected to the ends of the earth. Whatever drawbacks there might be to African culture, the elders are esteemed to a degree you will not understand. They run the show, there word is law, and their children will acknowledge their final decision regarding absolutely everything until they die. You can be a sixty-year old man, and if your eighty-year old father tells you to stand on your head, you will. You have to. The West, however, with all their cultural "expertise" in knowing what's better, stuffs their elders in old age homes and pretend they don't exist once their utility expired. The Africans not only not understand the concept of an old age home, they detest and despise anybody who even considers sending somebody there. Want to run that value judgement of yours by me again?

 

Eclipse, dreaming is good. Keep on dreaming. But don't let idealism blind you to reality. And quit your trolling.

[Eclipse Now]

I edited post #70 for tone. Apologies.

 

Now, I don't think I'm being a troll to point out that I also feel that the substance of my arguments have been ignored to focus on an endless list of 'difficult democracy details' in African nations, especially South Africa, when the main focus of my argument is that Federal oversight of these nations would create another set of 'watchers'.

 

Surely there is a better chance of having independent, impartial agencies staffed by professionals from right across the African continent. That way they might practice oversight with more objectivity if not from the local area they are investigating. With the whole continent of Africa to draw upon, there has just got to be hope for anti-corruption agencies to be staffed by people not actually involved in the local disputes and corruption issues.

[Eclipse Now]

I just couldn't post it fast enough... sorry Boerseun. I got a bit over-heated last night and read things into your posts that may not have been there. If TheBigDog and yourself could please respond to post #70 as I have re-written it I would be in your debt. Again, I apologise. Please remove quotes of the original post 70, as I'm a bit ashamed of some of my accusations.

[Eclipse Now]

I have apologised for calling you racist. Now I'm asking you to consider that my motivations for wanting a united Federal Africa is not some form of patronising neo-colonialism, but a desire to see the lives of African (and world) citizens improved by oversight at a true international level. This could help monitor some of the corruption and crimes you mention, but also create a legislative framework for international taxation and trade systems to help govern globalisation. Multinationals are now out of control, running amok with more power than many African and other poorer countries.

 

So back to Africa? Rather than attacking me personally as having the condescending views of an outsider, can you at least grant that I'm trying to support the desires of many great Africans?

 

United States of Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The "United States of Africa" was mentioned first by Marcus Garvey in his poem 'Hail, United States of Africa' in 1924. Garvey's ideas deeply influenced the birth of the Pan-Africanist movement which culminated in 1945 with the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, United Kingdom, attended by W. E. B. Du Bois, Patrice Lumumba, George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah.[1] Later, Nkrumah and Haile Selassie (among many others) took the idea forward to form the 37 nation Organisation of African Unity, the forerunner of today's African Union.[9]

The idea of a multinational unifying African state is seen by the French publication Le Monde diplomatique as a successor to the medieval African empires: the Ethiopian Empire, the Ghana Empire, the Mali Empire, the Songhai Empire, the Benin Empire, the Kanem Empire and other historic nation states.[10]

A global welfare state is precisely why I'm for global government, and would create a far more prosperous world than we have now

As for your concerns about the mega-welfare state making global democracy impossible, consider the following.

With a global democratic government and global 'police force', military spending could be drastically cut.

Professor Ian Lowe of the Australian Conservation Foundation has read a paper that concludes all the world's basic needs for clean freshwater, nutrition, education, medicine, basic shelter (not American McMansions) and access to family planning could be met with just 5% of the world's military budget.

Only a world government could agree to cut military spending across the globe by 5% to then create the international security that could lead to bringing the local infrastructure up to scratch through using a variety of local talents.

With access to the basic human needs this would also solve population growth by ushering the demographic transition. I see this as the most likely way to end wars and create a 'good enough' life for all, whatever that might look like in the local context.

[clapstyx]

Well done for creating one of the most convoluted threads ever to appear on hypography!

 

I think the real issue is whether or not a world government is a the right structure for this planet as a collective of civilisations to take. There are both benefits and there are downsides. Where there is a planetary challenge then you either need a situation where someone takes charge or everybody does to a basic model of conduct. The downside of governments generally seems to be that they create rules and regulations relevent to the scale of their consideration but often they are very small minded in that process or make rules which might fit the worst case scenario in downtown Baghdad and then try to apply them to communities that can operate quite sensibly with the full freedom to do whatever they like. In Australia we have Federal Parliament putting in place a national schools curriculum so everybody gets taught the same thing and you will be taught what the national leader thinks you should know. Problem is whats useful for a kid on a sheep property is very different to what a kid in a metropolis needs to make a contribution. One size does not fit all when it comes to world government because it implies that there must only be one culture. I cant actually think of anything worse than a mono culture situation because the depth of human experience would become very contracted and the experience of living would become stale. Despite that I do favour the idea of a global monarch because some projects (like space colonisation) will take hundreds if not thousands of generations and I think for things like that you need to maintain a continuancy of guidance and very long term thinking. We have to remember that Einstein lived in some pretty intense times so far as global aggression and world peace were concerned. He lived through two world wars so in that context perhaps a global government was the first resolve that consciousness came to. I dont agree with globalisation. Its done far too much damage to to what I suppose you could call "Boutique" cultures. The planet is lesser for it and I think that a global government would make that worse.

[HydrogenBond]

A world government may be a way to optimize humans. However, going from here to there is not an easy task that can happen overnight. If you formed one world culture, that would imply sort of averaging all that we have as individual cultures. Some will gain by the average and others will lose.

 

The top countries will lose the most during the averaging process. While the poor countries will gain the most. What that means is we would need to give something to the top countries that helps to balance out their loss. The poor countries, since they benefit the most, would then have to give up something to balance the gain. This is fair.

 

Countries like the USA and China, because of their wealth, would have the most to give and lose, so they would need something to balance this. This means the first world government would become more stack at the top with a USA and China delegations, for example. The poor countries that gain by the average, would lose power over their destiny to balance the benefits. From this position, the top dogs would work the system to get a return on their investment, maybe exploiting resources in poor countries. But this will build up the standard of living in those countries, while overcoming the pitfalls in leadership that keeps those countries in the red.

 

One could not initially have a pure UN democracy. Rather we would get a top dog capitalist republic as a transition government. The rest of the first world would become part of the upper echelon within this top dog world government. The poor countries would initially lose identity and become absorbed from the bottom up, as the top dog world culture starts to have its impact. As the world begins to form one huge family, with similar culture and similar standard of living, the balance of power would gradually shift to more of a representative form of world government. The once poor country states, that had been absorbed, would reappear, but in a new modern form that is now an active part of the new world government.

 

It would be a long process and not just a jump into steady state.

[Rade]

A long thread.

 

Has anyone mentioned the source of the OP quote by Einstein ?

 

It is from a United Press interview on Sept. 14, 1945; reprinted in New York Times, Sept. 15, 1945. My source is p. 631 in the book, Einstein His Life and Universe, W. Isaacson, 2007, Simon and Schuster.

 

This book has a good discussion of Einsteins views on one world government and Zionism. It documents that Einsteins first known written comments about the need for a world organization was in a Dec. 27, 1914 letter to his friend Heinrich Zangger. This was soon after the begin of WW I in August, 1914. The letter is published in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vols 1-10. 1987-2006. Princeton University Press. CPAE 8:41a, in supplement to vol. 10.

 

In that 1914 letter he expressed: "What drives people to kill and maim each other so savagely ?". "I think it is the sexual character of the male that leads to such wild explosions". According to Isaacson he argued that the only method to contain such aggression was a world organization to police member nations. This is the "why" Einstein wanted world government.

 

So, how did Einstein view himself ? At his death bed was a draft of a speech he never gave for Israel Independence Day. It began "I speak to you today not as an American citizen and not as a Jew, but as a human being,"

[Illiad]

. This means the first world government would become more stack at the top with a USA and China delegations, for example. The poor countries that gain by the average, would lose power over their destiny to balance the benefits.

 

Doesn't sound like a very good proposition.

Weak leadership can always be changed, giving the country away, is uhh..extreme~ :mellow:

[HydrogenBond]

It has to do with efficiency. If we go to a very poor country, there is too much tradition connected to being poor. If you pump in resources, while maintaining these traditions, all you will get is a superficial change analogous to the dirt farmer in a tuxedo. It looks better but he still digs the dirt. A better way is to invest in a tractor instead of a tuxedo. Those cultures, need to see another way of doing things by other setting an example they can follow. The results this brings, helps lead them away from the long standing traditions of poverty. Not everyone will be modernize, but once there are enough who become more first world, the country will regain their autonomy, with those who have changed, having one foot in both worlds, to help bridge the gap for the rest.

 

To get the first world culturalists to go in the opposite direction into a fourth world country you need a lure. We can not depend on goodwill alone since this only softens the poverty. It is easier with incentive, which means allowing them to benefit. Their benefits, in turn, require logistical and labor support, which gives jobs and improvements in infrastructure. But is paying for itself within the country. As time goes on and the transition is complete, the power includes the liaisons of that culture, which bridge the remaining gap.

 

South Africa was a reasonable example, of outsiders building a country for themselves. I would not totally follow all the steps of that example. But the gist was, first world colonialists, who were used to the first world, and worked hard to make the poor country of resources, like the first world. Then there was a shift to balance power. You allow those who built to retain some of what they built, while those who learned the ways of the first world, to become leaders who then help to bridge the gap for others. Then through democratic processes you continue to improve.

[F9T]

"Governance without government..." James Rosenau

 

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521405782

A world government capable of controlling nation-states has never evolved. Nonetheless, considerable governance underlies the current order among states. In this study, nine leading international relations specialists examine the central features of this governance without government. They explore its ideational bases, behavioral patterns, and institutional arrangements as well as the pervasive changes presently at work within and among states. Within this context of change and order, the authors consider the role of the Concert of Europe, the pillars of the Westphalian system, the effectiveness of international institutions and regulatory mechanisms, the European Community and the micro-underpinnings of macro-governance practices.

 

Michael Edwards is also a good writer on institutions and the like.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Positive-International-Co-operation-Century/dp/1853837407

Based on wide first-hand experience of the international failures of the last half-century, this volume argues that in an increasingly interdependent world, no-one has a future unless we work together. It describes the prospects for new international order, one that makes a fitting legacy to future generations. Covering a large amount of ground in non-technical language, it explains how the international system operates, the pressures it faces and the changes it must undergo. Tackling the big questions of globalization and national interest head-on, it provides practical resources for those in search of a politics that is more humane and less destructive.