Live data from Hacker News

The need for world government

kk.org

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: The need for world government

#111
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand your comment. > In no other case is a human being, living or dead, legally required to give up their organs, bodily fluids, or other part of themselves, nor to literally risk their lives, for another human being. In many other cases are humans legally required to literally risk their lives for another human being. Would you like me to give you examples? > Corpses have more bodily autonomy than wom…

If abortion is murder, then is refusing to donate your kidney when someone else needs it to live also murder? Is refusing to donate blood, bone marrow, etc, murder? Is not mandating the donation of viable organs after death murder? None of these things are required of people, in the name of bodily autonomy. None of these inactions are considered murder. And yet you expect women to donate their bodies for 9 months to…

Give this man a cigar!

Re: The need for world government

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why one world government will happen at the barrel of a gun, if ever.

It will happen through a global catastrophe where the emerging authority plays the savior of the human race.

What causes you to think that is how it will happen?

Re: The need for world government

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will happen through a global catastrophe where the emerging authority plays the savior of the human race.

What causes you to think that is how it will happen?

Based on my limited knowledge of the history of societies, an external threat, perceived by ordinary people to acutely and in actuality threaten their livelihoods, is historically a common driver of major change in societal power dynamics.

The rise (those damn Christians!) and fall (those damn Goths and Huns!) of Rome, the fall of Napoleon’s rule (those damn Russians!), the rise of Hitler (those damn Jews!), USA after Pearl Harbor (those damn Japanese!), downfall of Germany in 1945 (this damn war!), end of the Japanese imperial era (those damn bombs!) and the subsequent Americanization of Japan, fall of Great Britain’s monarchy after the war (those damn royalty!), the late 60’s major loss of civil liberties in the US (those damn blacks!), the entire Gaddafi affair (those damn clan monarchs / those damn Yankees!), USA becoming a surveillance state after 9/11 (those damn terrorists!), rise of the Taliban (those damn Yankees again!) …

Re: The need for world government

#114
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not understand your comment. > In no other case is a human being, living or dead, legally required to give up their organs, bodily fluids, or other part of themselves, nor to literally risk their lives, for another human being. In many other cases are humans legally required to literally risk their lives for another human being. Would you like me to give you examples? > Corpses have more bodily autonomy than wom…

If abortion is murder, then is refusing to donate your kidney when someone else needs it to live also murder? Is refusing to donate blood, bone marrow, etc, murder? Is not mandating the donation of viable organs after death murder? None of these things are required of people, in the name of bodily autonomy. None of these inactions are considered murder. And yet you expect women to donate their bodies for 9 months to…

Abortion is action/active/doing harm. Refusing to donate is inaction/passive/allowing harm. The distinction is significant, search 'passive vs active killing'. There is also more structural / 'algorithmic' solution for it in St. Aquinas' Double Effect Principle. Hint: doing harm is never moral.

Re: The need for world government

#115
This post is flagged for some reason - maybe because it attracts our basest instincts and discussion will not be constructive, but maybe more likely because people feel strongly against the assertion in the title.

But I'm going to out on a limb and agree with the author. Not only that, we will most probably have a world government for many of the reasons mentioned, but mainly because after the next big war, it will become evident for everyone still alive that we can't have individual nations going on a rampage with nuclear weapons (biological weapons, etc take your pick) any more.

It will probably not look like a national government, it simply will enable the rule of law, globally. Which is what we need. Preferably before the next big war.

Re: The need for world government

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One you can’t leave

Yes, that's the proposition: potential bad government instead of potential extinction.

No thanks. Easy. Bad government is a predictable outcome. Extinction risk is wildly overrated and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Re: The need for world government

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: Abortion is murder. All countries that don’t respect that should pay huge fines. See how silly you’re being? The parent comment already shared that large parts of the world have different values. I’d be curious of your take when your proposed value isn’t chosen and there is no recourse.

In no other case is a human being, living or dead , legally required to give up their organs, bodily fluids, or other part of themselves, nor to literally risk their lives, for another human being. Corpses have more bodily autonomy than women after Dobbs.

I disagree. There’s actually lots of cases. One simpler example: https://ktenaslaw.com/forced-blood-draw/

And in the inverse, a few months ago I saw a lot users here arguing in favor of forcing Covid vaccinations against the person’s will to protect immunocompromised. Where do you stand on that?

Re: The need for world government

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.

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”

I think the argument is that there is effectively zero difference in a 39 week old fetus and a newborn baby, so that argument only works if you're willing to extend the logic to getting rid of a newborn to...OR we acknowledge that there has to be a cutoff somewhere in the pregnancy where abortions are no longer acceptable.

Otherwise, we're pretending sentience is magically conveyed as the baby passes through the birth canal, which is silly.

Re: The need for world government

#119
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you asked anyone not German or French what do they think about living in the EU? I’m sure it’s turned out great for Germany and their lap dog, but let’s ask the Spanish, the Italians and especially the Greek and have this conversation again.

AFAICT, the Germans and the French are more annoyed at bailing out the south than the south is at being bailed out. AFAICT the Greeks trust the EU government a heck of a lot more than they trust their own. Ask the Poles and Ukrainians about what they think about EU membership. By some metrics Poland is the fastest growing economy in the world.

"AFAICT, the Germans and the French are more annoyed at bailing out the south than the south is at being bailed out."

The Germans and the French were more than happy betting on Italian and Greek bonds which were junk-level and provided great yields. But, when in Greece's case the chickens came home to roost and their risk was about to materialize they forced a bailout program on the Greek people instead of allowing them to default. Having a country in the Eurozone defaulting their debt would have devastating impact on the Euro too, so there was double-whammy of incentives for the EU technocrats to bailout Greece.

After the Greek economy got devastated, mainly German companies entered the Greek market and obliterated the local competition, especially in the retailer industry with brands like Lidl coming in and undercutting the Greek businesses which had been around for decades. Moreover, they bought out a lot of those Greek businesses for a piece of bread and merged them with their own. So Greek people were essentially spending their bailout money buying products from the Germans. At the end of the day, Germany was moving money from one pocket to the other and also making interest on top of it. No EU technocrat bailed out Greece out of kindness.

Now of course, the propaganda machine will lament every day to the average Joe about how the lazy Italians and Greeks are stealing their money. So the 'annoyance' is understandable.

"AFAICT the Greeks trust the EU government a heck of a lot more than they trust their own."

False. They distrust them equally and for different reasons.

"Ask the Poles and Ukrainians about what they think about EU membership. By some metrics Poland is the fastest growing economy in the world."

I don't know Polish people and I don't know what their sentiment towards the EU is. The Ukranians have no idea what it is to be a member of the EU, they can't know from the outside. If just the fact that a country wants to join the EU is an indicator of how great the EU is, then the other way round is also true (UK, Switzerland and Norway not wanting to join, or several countries having a 'leaving' sentiment brewing within).

Post reply on HN