61–70 of 133 posts
People just aren’t that smart. Yes. We would like to have a group of super smart people who can tell us what to do and we can just do that and everything will work out great. Unfortunately, such people don’t exist. Sorry, you’ve got to figure it out for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mother decided to have unprotected sex. There’s a reason women get pregnant. This isn’t some magical thing that is forced on women. Cause and effect. The body inside her body is not hers. Unfortunately biology does not conform to our fantasyland. Forcing those who are against this to pay a fine is against their will.
> The mother decided to have unprotected sex Or she was raped, or nobody taught her anything but religious abstinence bullshit and she didn't even know the ramifications. > The body inside her body is not hers So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being.
I’m not talking about abstinence, plenty of birth control options are available. Men need to take more responsibility and wear a condom.
> So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being.
Yes this is biology, and? If you ever had to visit a NICU you’ll see plenty of 20 some week old pre-mature babies (or “bodies” in your case) that are just as human as you and I. They are just in a different stage in life. They need food to survive, just like you and I. I have a 1 year old, he is dependent on me to grow and survive.
I think the trend should be the opposite more accountability by getting closer to the public. With all its faults, something I like about the UK system is the political accountability to constituents. MPs are required in their job description to defend their own constituents interests.
I'm not defending a "lean" state, I'm saying that mega-governments will eventually just view the world from the balcony of the megapolis ivory tower, since the bureaucratic weight of being present in all corners of the whole world would be too much.
You can see that in many developing and developed countries. You have a national government, in its own bubble in the capital and far-away corners of the country are invisible.
Decentralisation would be impossible, by definition, in a world gov, IMO.
PS: I'm not against pan-national orgs or efforts like the EU. The process of sitting around a table and discussing the big issues is essential, in my view. Even legal and economic harmonisation. I'm against Brexit, but if anything, a positive of Brexit is that it showed the EU is not a "government". There is an escape clause and people can leave it. How do you leave a "world government"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pay fines to who? What about the human rights of the unborn babies?
Legally they aren't humans, and hence have no rights, until birth.
And who determines whether or not the unborn have rights? Rights are given by god, not some legislature.
1) If you centralize everything into one government: what if that one government becomes corrupt? Then you cannot run to any other governments. 2) Cultural differences will require that different populations operate and behave differently, you will never be able to put the same constraints on different cultures.
Centralised government and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
World government makes sense so that coverage of responsibility would be extended over all common areas such as air and oceans. With decentralised govt there is no owner of oceans, it's a common pasture, so nobody prevents certain countries from hunting down all the whales until extinction and poor countries making ocean a dumpster for plastics that rich green countries recycled their plastics to. However, world gove…
That's just as bad as a monarchy if not worst. At least the monarchy takes drastic decisions (some good, some bad) but has all the power so they'll be held responsible. Kings still risk being executed or assassinated.
Our governments keep saying they can't do anything because of the system and just keep pushing out laws that make life marginally worse for everyone over decades. Nobody even remembers politicians' name: they collectively risk way less than monarchs (who actually wield power, not expensive and useless stamp models, overpaid by the taxpayers, like the Queen of England)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”
The mother decided to have unprotected sex. There’s a reason women get pregnant. This isn’t some magical thing that is forced on women. Cause and effect. The body inside her body is not hers. Unfortunately biology does not conform to our fantasyland. Forcing those who are against this to pay a fine is against their will.
A twisted example based on your comment: should be allowed to remove tumours? They have a slightly different DNA from the host therefore they are not “property” of the sick and therefore should be left there!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”
It's not her body since conception. It's another human's body inside her body. I personally don't think we should have governments protecting lives or rights or anyone - therefore if abortion happens that's unfortunate but I wouldn't spend resources chasing that. That said abortion is obviously murder and immoral, no matter how convenient it can be.
"It seems obvious to me that planetary problems demand planetary government." That does not seem obvious to me at all. And I can't imagine a common set of governing principles acceptable to Iceland, China, Russia and the Taliban. For example, looking at what is currently rocking the U.S., what would be the global policy on abortion?