The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?
To enforce laws. A “law” is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let’s say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.
The state’s last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.
Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get… the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to “talk”. It is not a state itself.
That’s a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that’s not their job and they tend to suck at it.
The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for ‘defence’ that could be better used for constructive purposes? Also, a world government would redistribute resources and stop colonialism, allowing those ‘deeply socially conservative’ societies to develop and stop being socially conservative.
That’s a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that’s not their job and they tend to suck at it.
Legal and structural differences, sure. But fundamentally the same thing- weapons of the state to enforce laws with the threat of violence (internally or externally).
Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for ‘defence’ that could be better used for constructive purposes?
Yes. Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me. The first thing I burn down is an authoritarian structure that affects me. Once I’m done with that, I move on to structures that affect others. But inviting an authoritarian structure to oppress me with the hope that it will lessen pain for people who hate me? No thanks.
Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me.
That’s perfectly fine, but you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism. (This is not a moral statement, by the way; you might merely be open about something other movements secretly believe in, but you at least need to make a show of working for the common good.)
you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism.
It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.
Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.
I’m not saying that political movements have to be altruistic in practice. I’m saying the leaders need to at least make a show of working for their followers. People won’t readily follow someone who openly says that empathy for others comes after empathy for themself.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
Russian revolution was more industrial workers than serfs, but broadly, yes. In other words, they thought the communists would work for their interests. Because they trusted the leaders to work for them, they were ready to make small sacrifices (mostly going on strikes) to support these leaders.
If a movement’s leaders do not gain the people’s trust, their support will not be strong. The communists were preceded by a more radical group called the narodniks, who were mostly middle-class intellectuals, and favoured an agrarian revolution, and later, assasinations of corrupt officials / nobles. Some people sympathised with them, but because they didn’t convince the people that they would work for them (rather than just against the tsar), that ‘sympathy’ didn’t amount to much.
Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.
Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?
The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
To enforce laws. A “law” is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let’s say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.
The state’s last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.
Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get… the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to “talk”. It is not a state itself.
That’s a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that’s not their job and they tend to suck at it.
Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for ‘defence’ that could be better used for constructive purposes? Also, a world government would redistribute resources and stop colonialism, allowing those ‘deeply socially conservative’ societies to develop and stop being socially conservative.
Legal and structural differences, sure. But fundamentally the same thing- weapons of the state to enforce laws with the threat of violence (internally or externally).
Yes. Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me. The first thing I burn down is an authoritarian structure that affects me. Once I’m done with that, I move on to structures that affect others. But inviting an authoritarian structure to oppress me with the hope that it will lessen pain for people who hate me? No thanks.
That’s perfectly fine, but you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism. (This is not a moral statement, by the way; you might merely be open about something other movements secretly believe in, but you at least need to make a show of working for the common good.)
It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.
Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.
I’m not saying that political movements have to be altruistic in practice. I’m saying the leaders need to at least make a show of working for their followers. People won’t readily follow someone who openly says that empathy for others comes after empathy for themself.
Russian revolution was more industrial workers than serfs, but broadly, yes. In other words, they thought the communists would work for their interests. Because they trusted the leaders to work for them, they were ready to make small sacrifices (mostly going on strikes) to support these leaders.
If a movement’s leaders do not gain the people’s trust, their support will not be strong. The communists were preceded by a more radical group called the narodniks, who were mostly middle-class intellectuals, and favoured an agrarian revolution, and later, assasinations of corrupt officials / nobles. Some people sympathised with them, but because they didn’t convince the people that they would work for them (rather than just against the tsar), that ‘sympathy’ didn’t amount to much.