I do have a criticism however, one that is typical of such hypothetical discussions initiated by Heir; if you are without genuine contribution and are instead intent upon focusing on the deconstruction of the ideas put forth by others in response to your hypothesis, perhaps you should restructure the phrasing of your query. If you have a postulation of your own, why not simply propose it as such rather then, through an otherwise transparent method of conversational control, trying to cause others to state your ends for you in a process of 'bringing around' those involved?
I have no ends unto my own viewpoint, I would genuinely like to get a topic going from the different viewpoints of the boards inhabitants on what the creation of a better world enviroment/economy/government might entail/involve/be. While I may have my own viewpoints they are not the ones I would specifically want everyone to agree on unless they were the agreeably best for all. It just so happens, that with most discussions involving me, I use a certain Socratic Method to drive the topic onwards. In this way I show forth my own opinion while asking the others to express their opinions at the same time.
And mine, for that matter, since making an optimal amount of the population happy is not necessarily the best idea.
In fact, these artificial rules automatically disallow a number of government types that are not inherently bad.
And if you want my opinion, I am in agreement with most of Corise's ideas. However, I would have to spend more time than I have typing out my full opinions, so I'll have to just leave it at that.
One person's heaven is another's hell, so trying to make everyone happy is not only completely impossible, but partly the reason why politicians flounder today. They all try to pander to the biggest majority, to make them happy , so they can gain the popular vote. Often at the expense of others.
Its far better to accept that, you can't make everyone happy all of the time.
As for a world government, call me a pessimist, but I don't think it can be done, at least not in the way you offer.
We are just far too different, with different cultures, views, beliefs agenda's and ideologies.
The truth of the matter is, we don't like being governed by anyone. I think thats quite a basic human facet.
Then why can't we create a system by which we can allow the autonomey of smaller groups with differing viewpoints that so radically interact with the whole, while still providing for specific rights that all can agree on? Basic rights held by everyone while maintaining the freedoms of belief and personal freedoms?
Yeah. In your dreams, maybe. The problem is that we all have a different idea of what basic rights are. Personally, I am of the opinion that there is such a thing as natural law, an objective, absolute standard instilled in the heart of every human that enables him to tell right from wrong. It is not relative based on culture or anything else; it is not subjective. Rather, it is, as I said, absolute in its moral authority, and I believe that everyone, in their heart of hearts, knows when an action that they perform is wrong.
However, most people in their quest to live without moral restraint, or in their quest to be a law unto themselves (which is basic human nature, I think, to do that which is wrong), simply ignore this tug, or vehemently deny it. Or they simply say that things are relative. As such, many people (the Chinese, for example) claim that the Western idea of rights is no better than the Chinese idea of rights and that they therefore have no reason to listen when we tell them that slave labor is bad.
On the other hand, Heir, what if the majority decided that homosexuals should be executed? If that made them happy, would you do it?
DISCLAIMER: I don't think homosexuals should be executed, by the way. That is simply an example to show why making the majority happy is a bad idea.
If the majority wanted the homosexuals executed, it wouldn't please the majority of homosexuals, thus creating a fallacy in the argument. I didn't say make everyone happy, nor did I mean completely happy. I merely mean to make the optimal amount of people as happy as can be done under a certain circumstance.
Under B, A still fits, oddly enough, given Wes' postulate as the majority of homosexuals would be a drop in the bucket compared to the (optimal) majority of the population.
