The tragedy is not that things are broken. The tragedy is that things are not mended again. - Alan Paton
Bach is the beginning and end of all music - Max Reger
It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us - Rorschach
Its not Soviet, Cuba or North Korea who became rich. It is Sweden, it is US, it is Hong Kong who did what no humans had ever done before. Removed extreme poverty. Hong Kong is not even a democracy. All of these countries have in common is that they embraced the market economy. (Sweden less so in the 70s and 80s, but not even close to socialism. And due to that Sweden crashed in the 90s and returned to a market economy.) The reason they got rich was due to their market economy. Everyone in Sweden can invest a lot of money without much restrictions, earn heaps of money and keep most of it. Try doing the same in Zimbabwe or in Venezuela. There is redistribution in Sweden, but that only works when it is based on trust, and most people are productive. That is not the case around the world. Since it is based on trust it works better within a nation.
You will not solve global poverty be redistributing from rich countries to poor countries. You will only make poor countries dependant on rich countries, destroy their competing industries, which will prevent them from doing the necessary reforms. To fix their problems, they need to deal with corruption, and adopt a market economy with strong safeguards. They are not poor because other countries are rich, they are poor because of bad governance. No country has ever got rich by aid, what makes you think the 21th century is so different? Also, why do you need a world government? Is it because you want to force rich countries to share the wealth?
Last edited by Camlon; 02-14-12 at 10:14 AM.
But still logically why does the world need one government? And what type of government would that be? Western government? Theocracy? Leftist? Fascist? Anarchy? Etc..
An OWG is not possible as it stands in the world now. But even if attempted in the future, there's gotta be rules. Each nation/state should be allowed a large degree of autonomy or no one will go for it, for the reasons PSK and Camlon pointed out. Even here in the US, the feds stick their nose in the state's business too much. I believe it's in AZ that they want open-carry (gun) laws, and the feds are making a stink about it. Well, it's not any of the feds damn business. And if AZ wants to get tough on immigration that's their business as well. Also, some states are richer than others, and that's largely because they've been smarter about attracting business and talented people. Competition between the American states is good and it promotes growth. A future OWG should likewise let individual nation/states run their business they way they see fit. The smarter one's will get richer and the poorer ones will have to get smart if they want to compete.
On the other hand, I would have to agree with jryan in that individual people would do better to see people of other nations fellow people. If we aren't all divided up by arbitrary borders we might have a more community mindset. I don't agree with just throwing money at the poor (it never works), but I do agree that helping people to help themselves is highly effective. If we think of ourselves as citizens of one body, we'll be more inclined to do just that. A properly designed OWG can help with organizing and focusing this.
So borders are not a good enough reason for OWG we simply can have community with borders intact. The question is what is more beneficial with OWG instead of a world full of nations?
All OWG supporters, has that made a difference in the world?