I think this is a short excerpt from The End of Faith on the subject (by Sam Harris):
I also would like to add that, at our current time with our politicians being so moralless, they would only achieve a one-world government for the wrong reasons. IE, not for the people but for themselves.We should, I think, look upon modern despotisms as hostage crises. Kim Jong Il has 30 million hostages. Saddam Hussein has twenty-five million. The clerics in Iran have seventy million or more. It does not matter that many hostages have been so brainwashed that they will fight their would-be liberators to the death. They are held prisoner twice over – by tyranny and by their own ignorance. The developed world must, somehow, come to their rescue. Jonathon Glover seems right to suggest that we need “something along the lines of a strong and properly funded permanent UN force, together with clear criteria for intervention and an international court to authorize it.” We can say it even more simply: we need a world government. How else will a war between the United States and China ever become as unlikely as a war between Texas and Vermont? We are a very long way from even thinking about the possibility of a world government, to say nothing of creating one. It would require a degree of economic, cultural, and moral integration that we may never achieve. The diversity of our religious beliefs constitutes a primary obstacle here. Given what most of us believe about God, it is at present unthinkable that human beings will ever identify themselves merely as human beings, disavowing all lesser affiliations, World government does seem a long way off – so long that we may not survive the trip.
Last edited by Jryan; 02-12-12 at 06:15 PM.
-JryanI'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
And large governments have a strong tendency to seize more and more power, in spite of any Constitutional protections written to deter this. Just look at what has happened with the federal government in the United States. In spite of very strict Constitutional provisions to severely limit its scope and power, it has grown very, very far outside the limits that were intended to be imposed upon it.
Do you really believe that we could have any better success keeping a worldwide government under control, than we have had with our own national government?
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.
"Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it’s the sand of the coliseum. He’ll bring them death – and they will love him for it.” - Senator Gracchus (Gladiator)
I'm not sure whether or not you were just goofing around, but I was not talking about emigration. I was talking about secession, which means leaving the government but remaining in place. For example, the US might join the world government, but then later realize that it was not beneficial after all and might decide to leave the world government and resume governance as a sovereign nation.