One World: How will it be done?

[Ron Green]

The "global village" is becoming a reality, despite what isolationists may wish, due to the 'Net and worldwide transportation. The important question is this: Through what human institutions will this be accomplished? A favorite model of mine, which I've mentioned here before, consists of the State, the Church, and the Market, corresponding respectively to Freud's ego, superego and id. Each of them can be used for oppression or liberation, and have been throughout history in various relationships to each other, sometimes with one actually encompassing or controlling the other. The ideal balance, it seems to me, is a representative State with protection of the minority, a spiritual and tolerant Church, and a healthy and decentralized Market. What we've got in most of the world, of course, is quite the opposite: repressive governments, fundamentalist religions, and corporate domination of markets.

You probably remember seeing John Birch-sponsored billboards "U.S. out of the U.N." and so forth, over the past 30 years. Right-wingers are known for wanting to make sure globalization doesn't happen under the aegis of the "ego," the rational part of our planet, the nation-states. Rather, they would have the multinational corporations, the "id," linking us all together. Teenagers in the former U.S.S.R. and newly-minted yuppies in China are only too happy to satisfy this market-driven unification with their fellow consumers around the world. Militant Islamists, of course, along with fundamentalist "Christians," are voting for the great "should" of the superego to prevail, under whichever brand of dogma they may preach.

This is why I believe it's important that the United Nations survive and thrive, and not be drowned in Norquist's or Bolton's bathtubs. It represents the rational part of humanity seeking control of this careening Global Village, in stark contrast to the irresponsible excesses of the corporations and the repressive parenting of the clerics. Just as an adult human must be ruled primarily by the ego rather than the needy id or the preachy superego, so must we act collectively. For the same reason I'd like to see the Democratic Party hammer out a platform that balances public policy with spiritual issues and market-driven desires.

[nj_democrat_rocks]

1. Someday, if we don't get blown up first, total intermarriage

of the entire population of the earth is the only way, most likely to ensure that the "global village" doesn't blow itself off the face of the galaxy.

[Ron Green]

2. I agree that intermarriage will bring progress.

Churches tend to discourage (or forbid) it, markets favor it when "exotic" is seen as sexually desirable, and laws sometimes prohibit it, but less so now than in the past. But I think it's a necessary evolutionary step for humans.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Alluded to in the movie Bulworth:

A very sleep-deprived Warren Beatty is asked how to get rid of discrimination and he responds that we need to get rid of the races: "All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same color."

[Ron Green]

3. And by the way, welcome to DU!

:hi:
:kick:

[newyawker99]

4. Hi nj_democrat_rocks!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cleita]

8. This won't work.

People have been intermarrying since the dawn of man and it's never brought peace. What we need is to be sure that every individual and every family have the means to survive and prosper, then you will see real peace.

[The2ndWheel]

22. But there is no such thing as enough

If there were, America 2006 wouldn't exist.

There will always be someone willing to kill you to take what you have, because they want more. There is no way to be sure that every individual and family have the means to survive, let alone prosper.

[Cleita]

23. Some studies would disagree with you.

If resources were distributed where they are needed by fair and equal trade policies and if women were given complete charge of their bodies and the medical technology to control their fertility, families would decrease in size in third world countries, using up fewer resources.

This is the challenge for the survival of our species because if we don't solve these problems and do it soon, we no doubt are headed for extinction. The mother planet has been know to wipe out species that are detrimental to her health.

[The2ndWheel]

24. I wouldn't argue that

If they were distributed on a fair and equal basis, it could work. Who is going to do that? By who's standards? What if a clique in some government somewhere was to take power, and figured it would take what you have?

In terms of the population, if there are fewer people, but everyone increases their use(5% of the global pop. right here in the US, and we use a quarter of the resources), what changes? And to not only survive, but also prosper, we're all going to need more resources.

[Ron Green]

5. I'm kicking my own thread, because there's lots posted today about

"globalization" and I think it's important to consider what that term really means. International government alliances, treaties and agreements are quite different from multinational marketing activities, although one will often inform the other.

Also, it's worth thinking about how the United States, as represented by Hollywood and Madison Avenue, is symbolic to people who live under a "should" system, but have an "I want" part of themselves to deal with.

[genie_weenie]

6. The UN is an evil extenstion of States

it barely attempts to recognize non-States (Like the Knights of Malta the historical Knights Hospitaliers) only gives lip service to the rights of non-stated peoples like the Kurds and Roma and constantly works to enforce the axiom that Nation-States are the default status for the World to adhere to...

One World will never happen, because people will fight to retain their individuality and unless people are willing to allow ethnic groups to be liquidated forcefully to assimilate them they will not conform.

Edit: How many posts on this thread will speak about Nations when they mean individuals, unless of course, the posters believe every nation should be treated as a uniform block, because I know from persoanl experince at the DU everyone in the US has the exact same thought process/belief system...

The individual is the measure of all things.

[Cleita]

7. I believe in the United Nations having a mandate for world peace

and prosperity. We need a charter as to how it will be done though. I believe individual nations should still be allowed to have the governments best suited for them, but there should be some main principles that the United Nations are charged with enforcing if individual nations become rogue states. Then I believe the UN should be able to go in and remove the offending leaders and call for an election to select new leaders or even a new form of government if necessary.

For instance when Bush invaded Iraq for no good reason, I would have liked the UN to have the power to call for an investigation and if all the WMD lies and other lame excuses turned out to be false, then he and his cronies should have been put on trial in the Hague and sentenced. Then we should have been able to elect a new President.

[Ron Green]

9. For the US to allow its leaders to be dragged into a world court for their

crimes (something I strongly support), we would have to be a much more mature and wise people than we currently are. We respond to threat with violence and mistrust, which is inappropriate for the strongest player, which we are. Appropriate "adult" behavior for the US would be to gently lead badly-behaving "children" toward acceptable social interactions with the world's players, and above all MODEL good behavior by living more sustainably, taking better care of the poor, etc.

Instead, right-wingers are so inappropriately afraid of small, badly-acting states that it's embarrassing. When you lead and guide children in a loving way, you run the risk of being kicked in the shins once in a while. When the kid kicks you in the shins, you don't shoot him. You don't even slap him, if you want him to learn.

[ourbluenation]

10. Ron - you just made all the righties heads explode..they hate this concept

more than anything.

I cannot understand their hatred of the UN, like it's another country...the enemy country. The UN is made up of reps from the rest of the world. The security council is the collective voice of all the countries on the council.

[genie_weenie]

11. Aaargh! No. No. No.

The UN does not speak for the world or it's people and most of the time not even for the people living under the thumb of the oppresive governments!

The government of the US doesn't speak for me! Does it Speak for you? Do you think the government in Turkey speaks for the Kurds? What abut Egypt, do they speak for the Coptics living under their control?

[ourbluenation]

12. well the security council members vote the way their country wants

them to vote. no?

[genie_weenie]

13. China votes the way all 1.2 billion people want?

Did the US vote the way you wanted on resolutions against Iraq over the last 13 years? With the establishment of non-fly zones and crippling economic sanctions that killed more even more Iraqis than *'s War of Glory and Dictatorship did?

Did Liberia's rep to the UN represent all of Liberia's people up until the overthrew of President Charles Taylor?

Who speaks for the Basque? The Spanish government? What about the Langedouc and the Bretons in France?

My point is the UN works on the founding principle that individuals really don't matter only States...

[Ron Green]

16. Then what is your solution for letting the individual matter?

We can't give each of the billions of people a vote, so there has to be a recognition of nations, or states. Only through the continuing struggle towards respect and autonomy for people can the individual's needs and rights be addressed. The right-wingers want to let Nike and Disney and Halliburton be the international entities. I don't think that's a very good idea.

[genie_weenie]

17. You bring up the most difficult and salient point.

The problem is old and founded in many issues. You are very correct in pointing out the historical control and exploitation of peoples by the Churches of many religions and Corporations, but you again fall back to the tactic assumption that states are the default groupings.

And maybe because of the weaponry of war, the ease of global travel and the speed of communication I am living in a fantasy world thinking an ethnic group or one man can live as he pleases and interact with his fellow man in mutual cooperation and friendship.

Maybe it is impossible for a person born on the Continent of the North America to stand and say, "I do not feel bound by any compact that my forefathers agreed upon (i.e the Constitution)."

Of course, much of this hinges upon whether or not you believe man is inherently good/evil. Which is too much to get into here.

But, I think your line "Only through the continuing struggle towards respect and autonomy for people can the individual's needs and rights be addressed." is the most important.

I no longer believe that huge impersonal governments ever serve the interest of the common man, they work to keep him ignorant, placated, afraid and in chains. Government and Business have worked hand-in-hand for years, powerful businesses have just assumed the role of the Aristocracy or the Church (those 2 institutions having been destroyed or rendered nearly powerless in many lands). It seems to be a classic worse of 2 evils dilemma, either work with the Government or Businesses. So, I choose a third option and Throw sand in the Bull's Eyes and deny the dilemma.

Enough people have to get together and have the courage to step and say to the Federal government, "you don't speak for us" and stop feeding it (e.g. taxes). But, people are rightfully afraid because the realize unconsciously that they are living in slavery, the Federal Government can take you lands (repose you house), freeze your assets, imprison and destroy you. And that fear keeps people in check...

[Ron Green]

18. I don't disagree with your assessment of the enslavement of people.

I think it's the natural state of things, and thoughtful people have to constantly fight for the freedom and dignity of all. Ideally, the Church is forgiving and wise rather than dogmatic, and the Market is energetic and innovative rather than monopolistic. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. However, there is always the State, and we can interact with it through local politics, campaigning, canvassing, letter writing, etc. The nice thing about the State is that it has the power of law, and this power can be used for good as well as for oppression.

[genie_weenie]

20. Well, Great Post & Conversation!

Thanks for the dialouge!

Keep up the critical thinking, you get a :thumbsup:!

[rman]

14. How IS it being done,

i'd say.

Short answer: By big transnational corporations, who create governing organizations such as IMF, WTO, World Bank. In most of the world national laws are dictated by big corporate interests, to their own benefit and virtually without exception to the disadvantage of "the people". These corporations already live in "One World".

Globalization-as-we-know-it is not just a phenomena, it is a concerted effort by big corporate and financial interests.

[El Zopilote]

15. Peace through global unity

Only when the white, racist conservative resistance is defeated in the United States will the planet be free to become one; united in the cause of mutual peace, friendship and total togetherness.

We are making great strides toward that end. Millions of minorites showing strong solidarity and support for their Hispanic brothers have taken the issue to the streets to protest the conservative-proposed racist and hate-spewing immigration reform bill. United States politicos are getting the message, but we must not become complacent. This is only the begining, much work and sacrifice is yet to be accomplished.

English is not my first language. I ask for your indulgence.

¡Glory and victory to our martyrs. Victory to the world revolution!

¡Siempre Alerta!

¡Todos a la calle¡ ¡March today, vote tomorrow!

[The2ndWheel]

21. It won't

We'll try, and if it does get that far, at that moment when it all comes together, that's when it will crack.

I don't trust the state, church, or market to ever level things into the "ideal" one world. There isn't a chance in hell, and I don't believe in hell.

I'm not someone who just trashes the UN, but I'm also not a fan. What does it do? Who does it hold accountable?

But then I'm no fan of civilization either. I don't see how, "Each of them can be used for oppression or liberation", is worth it. What is the point of doing this? Oppression leads to liberation, but then power is centralized and consolidated, which then leads to oppression. It's a constant cycle that never goes anywhere. We have a few more toys, and we know how short our lives are because of the clock, each of which are used to both liberate and oppress us.

"The ideal balance, it seems to me, is a representative State with protection of the minority, a spiritual and tolerant Church, and a healthy and decentralized Market."

How is that one world? Where would the minority come from? Intolerant of what? Decentralized is the extact opposite of one.

Civilization is the process that power uses to centralize and consolidate into one. This process has killed many a people, and there would be no America without this process. If that continues on a global scale, and as long as we have the energy required to do it it will continue, I don't want to be a part of it.

[Ron Green]

25. You're right - decentralization is the opposite of One.

Perhaps what appeals to me about the idea of the U.N. is that the best of what nations have to offer can be used as a rubric for progress among all the participants. Most liberals agree, I think, that we in the industrialized countries can learn from those in the more agrarian parts of the world. If we are to survive as a world community, we have to find common ground, and that may include things that our "American way of life" has not always valued.

You speak of the constant cycle that never goes anywhere. But there are a couple of modern differences, one of them being nuclear weapons and the other a degraded biosphere. If, through an actual evolution of the human spirit (not a bunch of atheists shrieking that "There is no God, just get over it"), we can start to understand our humanity as residing in our commonality rather than in our differences, we may be able to forge a peaceful world.