Government for the people. How?

[Izzy]

The objective of this thread is to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met. (None of this "general public" crap, we should try to make everyone happy. ) It's impossible to not be aware of how inconceivable this sounds, but I think by being mindful of what we're trying to accomplish, but.. just might be feasible?**

Now, before we can even begin devising laws, creating our constitution, bill of rights, etc., I think it's best we assemble a list of what people want from their government. Feel free to contribute ANYTHING. (I stole some of these from the world's smallest political quiz and the bill of rights. >_>)

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
2. Military service should be voluntary.
3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults, where a consenting adult is anyone of 16 years of age or older.
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
5. End government barriers to international free trade.
6. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
7. Keep government welfare, but no taxation without representation.
8. Freedom of speech, religion, sexuality, peaceful protests, and petition.
9. Soldiers may not be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner.
10. People may not be unreasonably searched or kept in captivity.
11. The right to a free, public, and speedy trial.
12. Laws are to remain the same from State to State.
13. Eventual globalization is a priority.

*We can get into the semantics of altruism later. I have.. mixed feelings, but this most closely elucidates my intentions. (Lol, I swear, I bounce back and forth from being the apathetic hippy civilian who just wants to live to the extremely fervent humanitarian practically daily. >_>)
** Eh, truthfully, it isn't. Too many people disagree on matters of religion, which define the moral code for a LOT of people (even if they don't strictly adhere to it, haha). We need to agree now to define morals for ourselves and not base them off of religious texts. Like, if someone proposes "Don't kill", that's perfectly acceptable, and I expect it to be fully ratified. If someone else suggests "Love God", this is more open to debate. While you can submit ideas that coincide with religious texts, submit them because they are mandates you want and agree with, not just because your scripture of choice tells you to follow them.

Edited February 13, 2014 by bonanova

[Guest]

As for your problem with rich people: You know, you don't have to work for a company owned by a rich man that you don't like. You might say, perhaps you're poor and struggling to get enough money to buy your meals. You need the rich man; he doesn't need you. Well, in reality, if the rich man is ripping you off, he needs you, not vice versa. Get everyone in your company who is getting ripped off by the wealthy owner of your company to agree to stop working if the owner of the company doesn't increase your pay. Such wealthy people who rip off their employees aren't reason to have a government regulate them. They should be reason to find a way to quit your job as soon as possible (along with the others who are being ripped off) and make sure to not let your next employer get to such a point. If you think your employer is ripping off any of of your co-workers, solve the problem right away, don't wait until your employer gets rich and thus powerful (because he out-produces the competition and gives the working class the choice to not have a job and not eat or else work for him and be ripped off). These are the only things that make people want to regulate. I don't think regulations are the answer though. I think every individual should themselves hold their employers accountable. If they're ripping you off, don't make a law saying you want a certain minimum wage. Rather, don't work for them and spread the word to get everybody else who is getting ripped off by them to not work for them. And don't be forgiving when they lose their employees and say "Oh okay, I'll give you more pay." Make them pay for ripping you off in the first place. Don't buy the products or services of the companies that rip of their employees, even if they manage to make their products cheaper.

gvg talked about this a little bit already, but the real world just doesn't work like this. What you described above is exactly what unions are for. However, for as long as there have been unions, there have been unionbusters. Companies band together to block unions, they find workers in more desperate straits than the current unionizing group and hire them instead. Wal-mart is the largest retail store chain in the world. None of their stores are unionized. Why? Because they are already super-rich and are not dependent on any local economy. I think that there have been only two stores that successfully unionized and at least one of those was in Quebec, Canada. What happened to those stores? They closed before the unions ever properly formed. "Because they weren't profitable enough."

Before your idea becomes remotely feasible, you have to adopt the Marx approach and physically take over large corporations and break them up, with dictatorial, unassailable power. Your system just can't work in a world of super-corporations.

You don't have to be a genius to realize and do all of these things; you just can't be an idiot. And I don't think that the vast majority of Americans are idiots. I think they're smart enough to solve such problems by themselves as soon as you get rid of all of the cluttered regulations. Form an organization that sheds light on companies that rip of their employees, etc. Don't buy the products from large companies that aren't open to the examinations of such organizations. If you are doubtful that they treat their employees fairly then don't contribute to their wealth by buying their products.

Have you heard of "Consumer Reports"? It does that for products already, but only the rich and the middle class benefit from CR's research because the poor generally can't afford to be picky. They have to buy what they can afford, even if it's poorer quality or made through unfair labor practices. Some people just don't have a choice in the matter if they want to survive.

Governments try to form laws to regulate to regulate thousands of businesses. Many of the regulations apply to businesses and people who they weren't meant to apply to. Even things as simple as driver's licenses. Is it really necessary that I get approved for a driver's license? No, but the government passes a law requiring that everyone goes through a process (that costs money) to make sure that there aren't reckless drivers. Why not just severely punish reckless driving and forget about the licenses? In my community I might support that.

Quick point about this. The reason we have driver's ed and such is to act as a preventative measure for weeding out bad/inexperienced drivers to keep them off the road (of course, there's only a limited amount that this helps, considering how many bad drivers are out on the road ). It's like preventative medicine. You start to get sick, so you go to the doctor and he diagnoses you with coming down with pneumonia. Fortunately, you caught it early and a little bit of antibiotics gets you up and running in no time flat. Otherwise, it could have developed into a severe (and contagious) illness. The doctor's visit is the equivalent of the driver's ed course/licensing. I find it somewhat comforting to know that there is a theoretical floor for the quality of drivers on the road (the real world observations are somewhat less inspiring however... ).

To address your give everyone self-determination idea upthread, you are basically advocated everyone be able to administer vigilante justice, which is no way to build a society. That's the road to anarchy (the one you now claim you don't actually want to take). I think that it would fit nicely into a corollary for the old adage, "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." There is some merit to that argument, but I think that then the following applies, "If guns are legal, then the outlaws will have bigger guns." It's like the Loony Toons' "The Rabbit of Seville," where Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd are fighting and one grabs a sword, so the other grabs a pistol, so the other grabs a rifle, so the other grabs a shotgun, so the other grabs a cannon, so the other grabs a tank. Just giving people guns, or making punishment for burglary more severe won't stop crime. When has the death penalty ever worked as a deterrent? There is no evidence that the threat of death or long-term imprisonment has ever acted as a method to deter crime.

People don't think about the implications of their actions beforehand, usually. We are impulsive creatures. It doesn't matter how smart we are, we still do dumb things. If you have siblings, I'm sure that you've said or done hurtful things to them, though in the long run you didn't really mean it. If you don't have siblings, then you've probably said or done things to your friends or parents that you wish you hadn't. A lot of crime is impulsive. People think they need something or feel trapped in their current circumstances, so they commit a crime, consequences be darned. I heard about a man doing a life sentence for shooting his wife. They were in the process of divorce and he was even all packed and ready to leave the house, but they had another fight and the gun was there. If they hadn't owned a gun, he probably would still be free and his wife would be alive. People do dumb things and if you give them free reign to use more dangerous devices, they will do dumb things with those dangerous devices. You need some sort of regulation to try to mitigate this fact.

To go back to the burglar scenario, if you allow people to carry guns and shoot to kill inside their own home, chances are the thief will come better armed and he will be more apt to just shoot the family while they sleep rather than risk them waking up and shooting him. If we stopped supporting the poor in what small ways we do now, we wouldn't improve society, we would push a massive number of people into desperation and crime. People surviving off of food stamps and Medicaid that your taxes pay for would have to protect themselves and find their own source of food/money. How do you suppose someone who has no job or much prospect of getting a job to make an honest living?

Trying to implement your idea on our current system would be catastrophic, I hope we can agree on that point, driving the people dependent on government supplements to make ends meet to destitution and probably crime. But allowing those who want to form their own government to leave would be equally bad for those left behind as the money is sucked out of the system since those with money and the means for self-determination already would leave, since they would feel that they could do better things with their money. That would leave those left behind in almost as bad a situation as before since the government would likely have to severely cut back on services to compensate for the money that has been removed from the system. Your idea is utopian, pure and simple. It can't act as a benefit to society in this world with the realities that we currently live in. A small minority of people who are already well off may benefit in the short term, but it would destabilize their neighbors and eventually lead to widespread collapse as the government left dealing with the poor without the support of the rich would quickly collapse, leaving them in a state of anarchy. Especially considering that among some people's calculations, 90% of the wealth in this country is going to less than 10% of the population. You seriously don't have a problem with that?

[gvg]

What if I want to hire someone, but for a job that isn't worth minimum wage? What do I do? Why should I have to check with a government to get permission to hire someone?

Yes. Everyone deserves at least minimum wage. Name one job that isn't worth it, and explain why.

The problems could be solved without government regulation if individuals took matters into their own hands. Sadly if much of the masses are too stupid to do that, then the individuals who do make wise decisions about who they support and who they won't will still possible have a difficult time finding a job with fair pay. But, this still doesn't mean we should force companies to treat their employees what our government deems fair. Individuals should be able to agree on what is fair on their own.

You said it yourself. The masses are too stupid to figure out what's fair and many times, as i said in my last post, don't care if they aren't effected.

[Guest]

I'm getting quite tired of this this discussion, so I'm not going to bother responding to a lot of what you said.

All I'm saying is that if you let me use my policies in my corner of the world while you go about your regulation policies in your corner of the world, then I bet that my methods would create the better society. Yet, because we can't for people to be more intelligent consumers and because we can't force people to make sure that their employers act fairly, you decide that you better form a government to point guns at people (all people) to make them be fair. I think that's ridiculous. The fact that you are regulating me despite the fact that I have done nothing wrong is an example of how you are deeming be a criminal for the crime of existence. I'm born and boom, you're telling me I can't do this or that because other people have done such things and ripped off other people in ways you thought were unfair. Rather than solve the problem yourselves you gather up the guns and try and dictate peoples' live (again, all people, not just the people who you find to be dishonest and unfair) to have things your way. That is definitely not the best way to go about living, at least according to my values. So I'm done with discussing this subject. I see no point in continuing it.

Just giving people guns, or making punishment for burglary more severe won't stop crime. When has the death penalty ever worked as a deterrent? There is no evidence that the threat of death or long-term imprisonment has ever acted as a method to deter crime.

I'm not "making punishment for burglary more severe" and I'm not trying to stop crime. I'm just telling everybody that if anyone stoops to the level of a thief and tries to rob me then I'll kill them (if I'm legally allowed to) because I don't see them as worth keeping alive. That's not a deterrent or a universal idea of justice I wish the nation to adopt. It's just me wishing to defend myself and my property. As a civilized human, I'm not okay with theft.

People don't think about the implications of their actions beforehand, usually. We are impulsive creatures. It doesn't matter how smart we are, we still do dumb things. If you have siblings, I'm sure that you've said or done hurtful things to them, though in the long run you didn't really mean it. If you don't have siblings, then you've probably said or done things to your friends or parents that you wish you hadn't. A lot of crime is impulsive. People think they need something or feel trapped in their current circumstances, so they commit a crime, consequences be darned. I heard about a man doing a life sentence for shooting his wife. They were in the process of divorce and he was even all packed and ready to leave the house, but they had another fight and the gun was there. If they hadn't owned a gun, he probably would still be free and his wife would be alive. People do dumb things and if you give them free reign to use more dangerous devices, they will do dumb things with those dangerous devices. You need some sort of regulation to try to mitigate this fact.

Are you also going to apply your regulations to the sane adults who don't act like immature, impulsive children? If so, there's something wrong with your law. I think it would be better to let the people do what they want and if they end up murdering someone then you just shoot them back. You can't just try and prevent crime by deeming everyone criminals and denying them rights to weapons. Well you can, but I would call it immoral.

How do you suppose someone who has no job or much prospect of getting a job to make an honest living?

Work for yourself? Grow your own food and get your own water and build your own shelter until you finally meet another decent person who you would like to work with.

Your idea is utopian, pure and simple. It can't act as a benefit to society in this world with the realities that we currently live in. A small minority of people who are already well off may benefit in the short term, but it would destabilize their neighbors and eventually lead to widespread collapse as the government left dealing with the poor without the support of the rich would quickly collapse, leaving them in a state of anarchy. Especially considering that among some people's calculations, 90% of the wealth in this country is going to less than 10% of the population. You seriously don't have a problem with that?

Are you seriously still misinterpreting my position? If you were correct about anarchy being an undesirable thing and if that "small minority" (the rich people?) weren't complete idiots, then they would voluntarily choose to agree on a government that taxes away their money to give to the poor people. Of course the poor majority would agree to join the rich peoples' government because they would be getting free stuff. And if the rich people thought it would be advantageous in the long term to support the poor in their community so that they could buy their products, etc, then surely such non-retarded rich people would CHOOSE to form such a contractual government! Let's say such rich people were indeed retarded as you make them out to be and many of them got it wrong and didn't help the poor. Then they would lose their money and their society would go to ruins, but the people who agreed to form governments that support the poor would be successful (we're assuming your claims are true) and people would see that the liberal government is the better choice and thus they would choose such a government. And then in the end, the world might be full of liberal societies like today, but the difference would be that people would CHOOSE to be a part of such societies. You wouldn't be forcing people to join such successful systems against their will. Anarchy doesn't mean you can't form a government, it just means that tyranny is frowned upon. Form your governments with agreements. Don't force people to be a part of your government if they don't want to be. Let them fail in their world without government and then realize that they would do better under a big government of taxation, etc, so that they could choose to join you if they wanted to and you wanted to let them.

"Especially considering that among some people's calculations, 90% of the wealth in this country is going to less than 10% of the population. You seriously don't have a problem with that? "

Again I'm getting annoyed at how little you are getting. Haven't I already repeated myself? Regardless of whether or not I like that, I don't support stealing their money. If I don't like it I would support not contributing to their wealth by not buying their products and not working for them, regardless of how poor and desperate I was. To support people I despise would be very stupid of me and of anyone else. At the same time, if you don't like the offers they are making, then all you have to do is choose not to accept them. By supporting pointing your guns at them to force them to make fairer offers, I stop wanting to spend my time debating with you because you're a dictator and I'm not okay with dictators.

[Guest]

Yes. Everyone deserves at least minimum wage. Name one job that isn't worth it, and explain why.

You said it yourself. The masses are too stupid to figure out what's fair and many times, as i said in my last post, don't care if they aren't effected.

I don't wish to change every agreement that is made so that it is fair in my eyes. If two people agree on something and I think it's an unfair agreement, then that doesn't really matter to me. Unless it's an agreement involving me, then I could care less whether people agree to stupid things.

A job that isn't worth minimum wage? Ummm... digging a hole in my backyard to make a pond. I wouldn't pay someone minimum wage to do that, but I'd be willing to pay a few cents an hour so that I could go canoeing in it. It's not worth paying minimum wage to me, but I'd be willing to pay someone some money to do such a thing for me. What if my neighbor wanted to dig such a hole as a useful way to exercise? Because he normally spends his time exercising anyways, he doesn't care that he isn't getting paid a lot of money. It's something he would like to do and he sees any money as a bonus. In your system of minimum wage it would be illegal to hire my neighbor to dig such a hole despite the fact that I would be willing to pay him to dig the hole and he would be willing to dig the hole for the amount of money that I pay him. How silly is that?

My last post to dawh was this same issue. Let people form their own agreements; don't decide that no task is worth less than a certain amount of money per hour and then create such a law to prevent people from agreeing on things that you see as unfair.

[gvg]

A job that isn't worth minimum wage? Ummm... digging a hole in my backyard to make a pond. I wouldn't pay someone minimum wage to do that, but I'd be willing to pay a few cents an hour so that I could go canoeing in it. It's not worth paying minimum wage to me, but I'd be willing to pay someone some money to do such a thing for me. What if my neighbor wanted to dig such a hole as a useful way to exercise? Because he normally spends his time exercising anyways, he doesn't care that he isn't getting paid a lot of money. It's something he would like to do and he sees any money as a bonus. In your system of minimum wage it would be illegal to hire my neighbor to dig such a hole despite the fact that I would be willing to pay him to dig the hole and he would be willing to dig the hole for the amount of money that I pay him. How silly is that?

OK, this isn't really an actual job. I 'work' with horses (figure it out =)) at my neighbors house for less than minimum wage. It's not really an actual job. I mean a job you need papers for, that you need some sort of training. Digging holes isn't affected by the government, and you can go ahead and not pay them minimum wage. (Construction crews are different, of course. Their job needs training.)

Obviously, we are getting no where with this. Let's try to go back to what this post was supposed to be, and end this argument. Really the only way any of us can figure out what works is to try.

The closing statement that UtF can't get over (=)):

"There are only two guarantee in the world: Death and taxes."

Edited July 29, 2010 by gvg

[gvg]

...Of course, I want to add on to this. I don't agree with it, it's just a statement.

The extreme my way is anarchy and the extreme your way is socialism and communism where the government decides that a fair price for a bicycle created by this guy of this type is $320. It's illegal to sell it for any more than that because then you'd be ripping off the consumer.

I don't support communism, I'm not that extreme. Socialism still has capitalist traits (Free markets, etc.) , just more regulated.

Edited July 29, 2010 by gvg

[Guest]

OK, this isn't really an actual job. I 'work' with horses (figure it out =)) at my neighbors house for less than minimum wage. It's not really an actual job. I mean a job you need papers for, that you need some sort of training. Digging holes isn't affected by the government, and you can go ahead and not pay them minimum wage. (Construction crews are different, of course. Their job needs training.)

Obviously, we are getting no where with this. Let's try to go back to what this post was supposed to be, and end this argument. Really the only way any of us can figure out what works is to try.

The closing statement that UtF can't get over (=)):

"There are only two guarantee in the world: Death and taxes."

Very well then. I'm disappointed that you never changed your views. Hopefully there's something you learned from all of this that made our discussion worth the time.

I'll close by saying that I see two views on fairness that people hold:

The first idea of fairness says that everybody deserves certain things in order to survive healthily for full-length lives. Because some people are born without these things, or unable to work for these things, people who value this idea of fairness often support a government that takes from the fortunate individuals and give to the unfortunate individuals, so as to make things more "fair."

The second idea of fairness recognizes that it is a fact of nature that some people will be born at a disadvantage while others will be born at an advantage. Rather than trying to change this, this idea of fairness says that we should embrace every individual's current circumstances and desire to improve them by working together with other human beings. Thus, this idea of fairness says that we should support everybody's right to form mutual agreements, by allowing every individual, regardless of their fortune, to choose to form their own agreements with other people. This idea of fairness frowns upon the use of force to set up agreements that one side really doesn't wish to agree on, but agrees to anyways because of the threat of worse consequences.

Many people value a little bit of both types of fairness. They want people to be able to form their own agreements, but at the same time they want to even out the world by regulating it with governments so that people who are at disadvantages have easier times making fair agreements with other people. I ask all such people (gvg, Izzy, dawh, Framm18, and others) to consider a possible better solution: Eliminate the need for unfortunate people to make the unfair agreements with fortunate people. Provide opportunities for such people to form fair agreements not by regulating the offers made by the fortunate, but by offering new, fair agreements yourselves that people in difficult situations would be glad to see. Our society is not so overcrowded that poor peoples' only choice other than death be to agree on unfair agreements with rich, fortunate people. I see plenty of room for fair offers to be made--and it is that that causes my political views to differ from yours. Everybody has choices, some are just more difficult than others. But, that's a fact of nature and those unfortunate enough to be presented with such tough choices must be tough themselves. You and I can help them out with our generosity, but regulating agreements so that unfortunate peoples' choices become easier is not a long-term solution to improve society overall.

I think it is unfortunate that you view taxes as so essential--what a pessimistic view on humanity you must have. Just remember that you can free people from the tight situations where they're tempted to make unfair agreements in many ways other than by using force. One way is by making all of your own offers fair. Another is by making generous offers to those unable to find fair offers and unable to make many offers of their own. I believe that such non-forceful methods are enough to eventually eliminate poverty. I don't think that violence (or the threat of violence) is necessary, nor desired, nor helpful to humanity in the long run. And it's all about the long run, at least according to my values. Would you sacrifice your fortune in your life to guarantee much more fortune for the people who will live on this Earth long after you are gone? It's a question of values. There is no correct answer. But, your answer is nonetheless very important.

Be honest to yourself, to others, and to the world. Do that and you won't have any regrets looking back. I know from experience.

[unreality]

UtF you lament the stealing of money from the rich in the form of taxes - I understand this. But you can never have an evil-free government, so what's the lesser of two evils: taking some money from the rich (that most rich people are willing to give anyway as you've said) and redistributing it OR letting millions starve and die.

Sure taxes are stealing, just with a lot of beaurocracy around it. But in my opinion stealing is less of an evil than killing

[gvg]

I have to say UtF that that was one epic ending. =)

I would give it up depending on how much into the future we are talking about. Say it was my kid's or my kid's kid's generations... then yes. Any later and it et a bit tough.

By the way, I hope you realize that I just wanted this particular argument done; we've argued it to death and are going to start repeating soon. If someone thinks of something else, we can continue.

[gvg]

.... such as animal rights, car laws (like cell phones)... something.

[Framm 18]

Animal Rights: I think that if someone has done something vicious or intentionally tortures (kills just for the malicious intent of killing) an animal, then fines definitely or maybe a few years in jail, but I don't think that it should be anywhere near murdering or torturing humans.

Hunting I am fine with especially if it is for the intention of hunting for food.

[gvg]

Sounds good. Dog fighting also has to go.

[Framm 18]

A limit on number of pets (cats, dogs, hamsters, etc...) owned? Not counting fish for the most part.

[gvg]

Well... I dunno about that. If they can take care of them, it's fine to have a lot.

[Izzy]

A limit on number of pets (cats, dogs, hamsters, etc...) owned? Not counting fish for the most part.

Disagree. It depends on quality, not quanity. I really don't think there's a huge problem with this now, anyway. If the police find people with hundreds of cats all living in filth, then I agree, charge them for neglect, but if someone else is perfectly capable of handling that many.. *shrug*

[Framm 18]

Yeah, I realized after I posted it that it really wasn't that great. I just was wondering about it.

[Izzy]

*bumps* Remember the first 20 or so pages? Let's go back to that. We've done health care to hell, let's steer clear of it for at least 10 pages.

So.. uh.. Discuss... stuff..

[gvg]

Globalization... Still not sure.

Tell me why you think it's necessary.

[Guest]

UtF you lament the stealing of money from the rich in the form of taxes - I understand this. But you can never have an evil-free government, so what's the lesser of two evils: taking some money from the rich (that most rich people are willing to give anyway as you've said) and redistributing it OR letting millions starve and die.

Sure taxes are stealing, just with a lot of beaurocracy around it. But in my opinion stealing is less of an evil than killing

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."-Thomas Paine

[Guest]

Globalization... Still not sure.

Tell me why you think it's necessary.

I think that the idea is more to remove the tribalism that exists even today rather than as a necessary piece of government. If we're all beholden to the same government and we all obey the same set of laws, then it's harder for one race or one country to say "We're better than you." Globalization would break down a lot of barriers and with equal standing everywhere, people could live where they wanted with more freedom. No more restrictive, insane, asinine customs laws.

Though I do think that there would still be some customs issues. For example, my family moved to Australia for a couple years before returning to the US, but we all had to get Hepatitis B shots because I think there is no Hep B in Australia, and they wanted to keep it that way. That was many years ago, so I may be misremembering it, but there would still be instances where some landmasses lack certain invasive species or diseases and such, so I do think that there should still be some regulations on what could be taken to certain lands, even if there would no longer be a concept of a passport (since everyone is a citizen of Earth).

I do think that globalization is a desirable goal because, like I said, people still like to categorize themselves and attach superiority to their heritage (if nothing else). If we ever break down those artificial barriers called borders, then there is one fewer thing that makes two groups of people "different." If you look at the UN, I think that there is a lot of good that it could do, but it's still stuck in the tribalism rut since none of the member countries want to do anything that doesn't directly benefit them, even if it would be a good thing for a large percentage of Earth's population. For decades, the UN has been little more than the plaything of the US and Russia (with a few other players joining the fun). If we don't want to do something for the UN, we can refuse outright, and there is nothing the UN can do about it. We're of course not the only ones to rain on the UN's parade; all of the larger member countries are loyal to their state first, the UN second (if at all ). That's not a good situation for working toward world peace because it creates unnecessary tensions between peoples.

It's a complicated problem, but I think that's at least one reason to work toward globalization.

[gvg]

That seems like a good idea, now that you've explained it.

[Izzy]

I can think of a few more reasons.

Companies won't be able to flea to countries like Africa anymore for cheap, almost slave-like labor. They'll be held to an international standard where their employees will get fair wages and benefits. If child labor laws and public schooling mandates are globalized, instead of working for twenty cents a day, children will go to school. Literacy rates in poor countries will increase exponentially and the average education a person has will be much higher. I find it difficult to believe that a country where only a select elite can read and write will make it very far. Written language is one of the things that separates a civilized society from organized tribes, and if access to this key is restricted, how can we, as a planet, be expected to prosper?

There'll be little reason for war. While civil wars are a possibility (My hands are tied / The billions shift from side to side / And the wars go on with brainwashed pride / For the love of God and our human rights / And all these things are swept aside / By bloody hands time can't deny / And are washed away by your genocide / And history hides the lies of our civil wars), overwhelming pressure from the rest of the world will settle the dispute. You don't see the North fighting the South (uh, *anymore*) because we've settled our differences through diplomatic solutions. If part of the world suggests something the rest of the world doesn't like, instead of threatening to bomb each other for it, we could just negotiate.

(Like. Russia: Oh, we want to invade Georgia! Georgia: Nooooo. Please, nooo. USA: Russia, sit back down or we will bomb you. Russia: *invades Georgia* USA: Oh no you didn't! UK: USA, relax, it isn't your problem. USA: I guess. Russia: Pssh, we knew you wouldn't bomb us. Gonna do what we want now.

vs.

Russia: We want to invade Georiga. Georgia: Oh, I don't think that's a very good idea. USA: Russia, what is your reasoning for this? Russia: Georgia belongs to us. Georgia: No we don't, we seceded. Russia: Illegally! USA: Now now, settle down. Russia, Georgia did secede. Please play nicely. Maybe you two can share? Russia: But we don't want to share! USA: But is that fair to Georgia? Russia: No... USA: Now, if you try any of this funny business, you're not allowed to have any say in international relations for a week. Russia: But.. but.. USA! UK.. can I invade Georiga? UK: *glances over* Ask USA. I'm busy. USA: Now, behave yourself, okay? Russia: Yes sir... *sulks*)

...Okay. Not quite like that, but what I'm trying to say is, taking something away from your kid is more effective than hitting you kid. If a country does something stupid, we can just revoke their say in international matters for a while, which doesn't involve the reckless bombing of entire nations.

I read somewhere that we have enough food to feed the world, just not in the right places. If we redistribute food to the places that lack it, starvation is eliminated.

Similarly, we were watching a video in biology about a disease that was eliminated in the northern parts of the world because of vaccinations, because still active in the south. Over a decade, scientists funded through some charity tracked it down, vaccinated people, and completely erradicated the disease. If globalized, this would have happened much sooner.

Power in numbers. If there ever is a world crisis, everyone working together will stop it much quicker than hundreds of nations fending for themselves.

Limitations on information will be removed. Do you see this network of infintie knowledge you're staring into? Places like China (and possibly New Zealand/Australia ) restrict internet search content, isolating their citizens from the wonders of information! We can end that, y'know. We can, but we don't. =/

Uhh.. Yeah.

[gvg]

Well, wouldn't it be better if there was a single big governing body, which sets a certain group of general laws (no killing, etc.) but then each country has its own laws for things like taxes. Hmmmm????

[Izzy]

Why? Think about it back home. Is it fair if Florida has different taxes than California? People should be able to live where they live because they want to live there, not because of a monetary incentive. If we ever find the perfect tax balance (lol, doubtful ), isn't most fair to share it globally?

[gvg]

I guess... I just feel like there's somethings that should be limited by country... um...

Let me think a bit...

Never mind.

The thing is though, there has to be smaller governing bodies that cover smaller groups of people. If the people affect there government directly (to a point) they'll follow it. Kind of like the story of Moses where he splits up the Israelites into groups. Worked for him.