[ishkabible]

Quote

Not exactly what I meant. I don't think it's reasonable or pleasant to imagine living in a place where I agree with everyone on everything. And then too, when you've broken the world down into countries composed of a small number of people who agree with each other, some number of them would immediately agree go to war to force their neighbors to agree with them, and some number of neighbors would agree to go to war to proactively prevent being forced to agree to anything they didn't want to agree with.

we already do that on a larger scale. is war somehow justifiable becuase it's bigger?

modi: a confederation of sorts would allow larger projects to be accomplished; multiple "villages"(I was thinking more along the lines of county to multiple county sized states) can still work togethor. That is adding more government but I think free trade and passage should exist on a larger scale. You don't have similar political views to work together; one of Bush Senoir's campaign advisers is married to one of Bill Clinton's campaign advisers(forgot their names, "Raggin' Cajun" I think he was nick named).

O and modi I've never read that book but the whole shaping peoples ideas things is a bit strange...parents do a fine job of brainwashing kids already

edit:
a confederation could also stop petty wars between states and allow for a unified national guard for defense from invasion. that's approaching the upper limits of what I feel a federal government should do however.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 19 June 2012 - 12:19 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

ishkabible, on 19 June 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

we already do that on a larger scale. is war somehow justifiable becuase it's bigger?

If you look at the world's wars in the last few decades, by far the greatest part of the death, destruction, mayhem, mutilation, rape, and misery is found in wars within one small poor country or between two small poor countries, or sometimes both at once. In many or most of those cases, the countries only exist to satisfy some specious "ethnic unity" which is supposed to create this sense of happy agreement that you're talking about - at least, racial or religious division is the only basis on which anyone has ever created these statelets.

So I could ask you - is war somehow justifiable because it's smaller?

[ishkabible]

I was getting at war not being justifiable regardless of size so, war breaking out between smaller countries isn't a reason to not have smaller countries as we already have wars. Ideologically this would be about respect for others ways and providing everyone with whatever way they choose but I can see it backfiring in a situation like you presented(Bosnia? ethnic cleansing and what not). Best intentions are often ironic.

I'll conceded that a unified government of some level is probably not a bad idea but I still see it as a slippery slope. protection from other countries, guaranteeing free trade, free passage, and stopping wars from happening between countries in the confederation would probably be a good idea.

edit:
I think I want to go play nation states now

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 19 June 2012 - 12:42 PM

[modi123_1]

... a slippery slope to what? 0.434% of the Ethiopians not able to use Skype?

[ishkabible]

a slippery slope to government's abusing power.

[strawhat89]

@Jon You taking 'em words right outta my head son!