A Single Country in the World

[sologdin]

were the world to set up a solitary WS whose jurisdiction was coterminous with the entire world, it would only work were there a jurisdictional derogation clause that allowed groups to opt-out and exist in autonomous zones under the aegis of the WS for purposes of 'foreign' policy--i.e., the planet negotiates with extraterrestrials and supernaturals and incorporeals and transdimensional telepathic reptilians and speculative beings elsewise with a single voice.  WS would have to offer significant benefits via a single FTZ/customs union, say, and superior law enforcement, and superior public services in order to persuade autonomously-inclined groups away from retention of domestic sovereignty.  likely that's an easy thing, given the efficiencies generated by the economy of scale.

probably WS can step into autonomous zones that seriously fuck up--kinda like judicial management of school districts in the US under desegregation order.  otherwise, leave the premodern tribal spaces alone.  WS job there would be to keep rapacious capital away from pristine spaces.

[House Balstroko]

14 hours ago, SeanF said:

Indeed.  And one hundred years ago, the World essentially comprised the Russian, British, French, Portugese, and German Empires, Japan, China and the United States.  Since then, the number of States has multiplied.

There were quite a few more states than those you mentioned. Nowhere near as many as we have today, but you are missing a few major ones. There,s the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian one, Latin American countries had already gained independence, Persia. 

[House Balstroko]

14 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

You still believe that everybody agrees on what a Good Society is. They don’t. We don’t. People (individuals as well as groups) differ hugely in what is morally important to them.

Societies are different for many reasons. One of these reasons is their own choice. For instance, you might belong to a large group of people for which Certain Things are Holy. Or you might belong to a group of people dominated by moral ideas such as “Only a bad person would not favour his cousin.” This are valid opinions. And if you build societies around these social issues (tribalism, holiness, kin-preference, moral responsibility for your extended family, etc.) then the result will be something different that a Western liberal democracy because you wanted it to be. It’s a choice. And that choice is taken from societies in your utopia. 

People (and groups of people) differ in their moral utility functions. People have widely differing opinions on social issues. I promise you that a Salafist or a Stalinist are “highly aware of social issues,” they just completely disagree with you.

You do a raise a lot of good points. I'm in no way suggesting that in a WS everyone needs to share the same opinion. However laws will always exist that form the basis of society, even if many disagree on them. The important thing is to allow serious public discourse.

All of the examples you give are already points of contention in modern societies. At the end of the day some laws will trump morality ( there are lots of people who do not accept homosexuality in Western countries, yet law prevents them from acting out against it in public). The same applies to the enforcement of subjective ethics. They exist and people may push for them, but society as a whole prevents one from enforcing their ideas.

[House Balstroko]

2 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

I'm curious, how would this World Nation deal with tribes that have little to no contact with the modern world (such as the Sentinelese)? Would they be integrated in this world-wide country, or will they be left alone?

That would largely depend on them. Since most of them have little contact with the country their in, I don't see how a World Nation would have any serious impact on them. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

All of the examples you give are already points of contention in modern societies. At the end of the day some laws will trump morality ( there are lots of people who do not accept homosexuality in Western countries, yet law prevents them from acting out against it in public). The same applies to the enforcement of subjective ethics. They exist and people may push for them, but society as a whole prevents one from enforcing their ideas.

All ethics are subjective. The legalisation of homosexuality in Western countries came about precisely because those who supported legalisation finally got government to support their ideas.

In this case, the ethical system of your World State is unlikely to be the liberal sort you favour.

[Altherion]

42 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

One of the problems with the current world trading system is that it is facilitating the freer movement of goods, services and capital, but is doing nothing about freeing the movement of labour.

What makes you say that? The EU has free movement of labor between member nations as an official policy. The US technically outlaws labor from Mexico and Central and South America, but this policy is completely ignored by practically everyone (except that law enforcement will occasionally raid a workplace and find on the order of 100 illegal workers -- out of millions nationwide). There are also policies (e.g. the H1B visa in the US) which allow the legal importation of skilled labor from third world nations.

Just as with goods, services and capital, the movement of labor is not completely free, but it has certainly gotten freer over the past half century. However, I don't know that this trend will necessarily continue -- there is a fairly strong reaction to it in nearly all industrialized nations. Brexit is anomalous only in that it few people expected that kind of referendum to be successful so soon (and from a relatively prosperous nation). Don't forget that what we refer to as "labor" are actually human beings who are not fond of being forced to move or having competition imported to lower their wages.

[The Anti-Targ]

 

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

What makes you say that? The EU has free movement of labor between member nations as an official policy. The US technically outlaws labor from Mexico and Central and South America, but this policy is completely ignored by practically everyone (except that law enforcement will occasionally raid a workplace and find on the order of 100 illegal workers -- out of millions nationwide). There are also policies (e.g. the H1B visa in the US) which allow the legal importation of skilled labor from third world nations.

Just as with goods, services and capital, the movement of labor is not completely free, but it has certainly gotten freer over the past half century. However, I don't know that this trend will necessarily continue -- there is a fairly strong reaction to it in nearly all industrialized nations. Brexit is anomalous only in that it few people expected that kind of referendum to be successful so soon (and from a relatively prosperous nation). Don't forget that what we refer to as "labor" are actually human beings who are not fond of being forced to move or having competition imported to lower their wages.

But there is still a considerable imbalance in the degree of freedom of movement of labour vs goods, services and capital. You are right that the EU has free movement of labour, and it required the existence of a supra-national entity for it to happen. Effectively the USA is a supra-national entity as well, so there is free movement of labour within the USA. The fact that movement of labour between the USA and Mexico is officially illegal without the correct documentation means there is not free movement of labour, even if the law is flagrantly broken to the tune of millions of people. And free movement has to be bi-directional at least in principle if not in practice.

Australia and New Zealand have completely free movement of labour

As comparable economies the USA and Canada ought to as well, do they? I seem to remember Michael J. Fox thanking the US govt for giving him a green card, so movement was not free then. But that was way back in the 80s or early 90s.

Personally I think it would be no big deal at all for all developed countries to implement a free movement policy with the only proviso being you can't apply for unemployment welfare benefits in the country of residence unless you have worked at least 5 years.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But there is still a considerable imbalance in the degree of freedom of movement of labour vs goods, services and capital.

Yes, and it will be there for the foreseeable future precisely because of the discontent with globalization. The impact of labor mobility is obvious (foreigners come over and compete with the natives for jobs) whereas the impact of the other three is at a remove.

[Happy Ent]

7 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

All of the examples you give are already points of contention in modern societies. At the end of the day some laws will trump morality ( there are lots of people who do not accept homosexuality in Western countries, yet law prevents them from acting out against it in public). The same applies to the enforcement of subjective ethics. They exist and people may push for them, but society as a whole prevents one from enforcing their ideas.

That is exactly the authoritarian mindset, exactly the totalitarian urge, exactly the spell of Plato.

Please be mindful of this: you are routinely now brushing off arguments of the form “People may disagree” with “Laws trump the will of the people.” As if that were a good thing! It isn’t.

If this very quote of yours, freely given, does not give you time to pause and reexamine your moral politics, then I don’t know what to do.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

But there is still a considerable imbalance in the degree of freedom of movement of labour vs goods, services and capital. You are right that the EU has free movement of labour, and it required the existence of a supra-national entity for it to happen. Effectively the USA is a supra-national entity as well, so there is free movement of labour within the USA. The fact that movement of labour between the USA and Mexico is officially illegal without the correct documentation means there is not free movement of labour, even if the law is flagrantly broken to the tune of millions of people. And free movement has to be bi-directional at least in principle if not in practice.

Australia and New Zealand have completely free movement of labour

As comparable economies the USA and Canada ought to as well, do they? I seem to remember Michael J. Fox thanking the US govt for giving him a green card, so movement was not free then. But that was way back in the 80s or early 90s.

Personally I think it would be no big deal at all for all developed countries to implement a free movement policy with the only proviso being you can't apply for unemployment welfare benefits in the country of residence unless you have worked at least 5 years.

I think you only have to look at Europe to see that Free Movement has caused enormous resentment and anger, and has been the main reason that Brexit happened. Free movement between Australia and New Zealand is unnoticable, but once you get large swathes of people from vastly different cultures arriving, the local population get angry.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think you only have to look at Europe to see that Free Movement has caused enormous resentment and anger, and has been the main reason that Brexit happened. Free movement between Australia and New Zealand is unnoticable, but once you get large swathes of people from vastly different cultures arriving, the local population get angry.

Less so than you'd think. New Zealand exports people, which leads to discrepancies.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8262016/Aussies-value-NZ-entitlements

Last year 2990 Australian citizens migrated to New Zealand, a trickle compared with more than 53,000 New Zealanders travelling the other way.

But while better wages may be luring more Kiwis to Australia, the New Zealand government is considerably more generous to Australian new arrivals.

After clearing immigration, Australians are automatically given residency, entitling them to work indefinitely in New Zealand. After two years they gain full access to social welfare and, after five, they can apply for New Zealand citizenship.

Conversely, New Zealanders who move to Australia are considered temporary residents upon arrival. They can work and live in Australia indefinitely - a right afforded only to Kiwis - but they cannot access many social security payments, including unemployment benefits.

Some of the benefits that are available - such as superannuation and severe disability payments - are paid for by the New Zealand government, which paid out more than $200 million last year to support expatriates in Australia.

Many New Zealand children who finish school in Australia cannot access student loans or work in government jobs, because of their "temporary" status.

To gain the same rights as Australians have in New Zealand, Kiwis must apply for permanent residency and meet strict skill requirements.

It has been estimated as many as half of the New Zealanders who have migrated to Australia in the last 12 years are ineligible for permanent residency.

 

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

All ethics are subjective. The legalisation of homosexuality in Western countries came about precisely because those who supported legalisation finally got government to support their ideas.

In this case, the ethical system of your World State is unlikely to be the liberal sort you favour.

There seems every likelihood to me that a worldwide Parliament would vote through a worldwide ban on homosexuality. 

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

But there is still a considerable imbalance in the degree of freedom of movement of labour vs goods, services and capital. You are right that the EU has free movement of labour, and it required the existence of a supra-national entity for it to happen. Effectively the USA is a supra-national entity as well, so there is free movement of labour within the USA. The fact that movement of labour between the USA and Mexico is officially illegal without the correct documentation means there is not free movement of labour, even if the law is flagrantly broken to the tune of millions of people. And free movement has to be bi-directional at least in principle if not in practice.

Australia and New Zealand have completely free movement of labour

As comparable economies the USA and Canada ought to as well, do they? I seem to remember Michael J. Fox thanking the US govt for giving him a green card, so movement was not free then. But that was way back in the 80s or early 90s.

Personally I think it would be no big deal at all for all developed countries to implement a free movement policy with the only proviso being you can't apply for unemployment welfare benefits in the country of residence unless you have worked at least 5 years.

There would be massive resistance in rich countries to free migration from poor countries.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

That is exactly the authoritarian mindset, exactly the totalitarian urge, exactly the spell of Plato.

Please be mindful of this: you are routinely now brushing off arguments of the form “People may disagree” with “Laws trump the will of the people.” As if that were a good thing! It isn’t.

If this very quote of yours, freely given, does not give you time to pause and reexamine your moral politics, then I don’t know what to do.

I agree.  Custom is King.  Trying to alter that would require an extremely repressive world government.

[The Marquis de Leech]

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There seems every likelihood to me that a worldwide Parliament would vote through a worldwide ban on homosexuality. 

Perhaps it'd vote to apply the death penalty to homosexuals while it was at it.

 

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Perhaps it'd vote to apply the death penalty to homosexuals while it was at it.

 

There'd be a substantial vote along those lines, even if not a majority.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Perhaps it'd vote to apply the death penalty to homosexuals while it was at it.

 

The real question is how HB or TAT would feel about the new WS Legislature taking such an action based upon the will of the majority of the planet?

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The real question is how HB or TAT would feel about the new WS Legislature taking such an action based upon the will of the majority of the planet?

This highlights the ridiculous nature of a system wherein something is deemed to be correct just because more people support it than oppose it. I have never understood the basic logic of why the value of an idea should have any relation to the number of people that agree with it. Why should the views of two burger flippers count twice as much as the view of one Albert Einstein?

Democracy has been so indoctrinated into our collective psyche, that no one seems to bother questioning its fundamental idiocy anymore. Or if you do, you are branded a heretic and burned at the stake of social condemnation.

As I have often said before, I don't have a better system of governance handy, other than feeling that some kind of qualification should be required before giving someone an equal share in deciding the government of a country. This problem is just magnified when you have a single world government.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

31 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This highlights the ridiculous nature of a system wherein something is deemed to be correct just because more people support it than oppose it. I have never understood the basic logic of why the value of an idea should have any relation to the number of people that agree with it. Why should the views of two burger flippers count twice as much as the view of one Albert Einstein?

Democracy has been so indoctrinated into our collective psyche, that no one seems to bother questioning its fundamental idiocy anymore. Or if you do, you are branded a heretic and burned at the stake of social condemnation.

As I have often said before, I don't have a better system of governance handy, other than feeling that some kind of qualification should be required before giving someone an equal share in deciding the government of a country. This problem is just magnified when you have a single world government.

Well exactly. The problem of the 'plebs' being allowed to vote on major governmental issues has been one that has plagued democracy throughout the ages. Personally I don't think most people are informed enough to make decisons on anything.

[James Arryn]

Degrees of contemptuous dismissiveness lead me to ask: what city states are y'all living in ATM?