Anonymous C double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,410,457
And if there is a forum consisting of basically all of the nations in the world, and all of the world’s nations agreed upon a universal declaration of human rights, why would you not think that the existence of that forum is a good thing? Isn’t it better if Russia, China, France, the United States, India, etc. have a forum where they can address each others concerns and vote on resolutions as opposed to solving every problem using military force? Because before the UN existed, there used to be a lot more wars.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,410,458
The problem with adopting a might makes right mentality over a rules based international order is that entropy is an inescapable fact of our universe. Things tend towards chaos. It doesn’t matter how powerful a nation is, all empires collapse given enough time. If you want a world where the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must, someday, the weak will be strong and the strong will be weak.
Anonymous C quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,410,459
Might makes right is also contrary to Christianity. If you’re not Christian, you’re free to believe what you want. But to me it seems obvious that God doesn’t reward people who value material possessions over others. Might makes right is essentially the worldview of a rapist.
"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land."
"For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
Big black dude on the computer joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,410,492
@previous (B)
This is why I’m a fan of continental unions. In the modern world, nation states don’t do anything except hold humanity back. The world would be more prosperous with fewer currencies and fewer competing interests.
Big black dude on the computer double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,410,493
Just look at Europe for example, before the EU and NATO, European countries constantly fought each other century after century competing for resources and power in an endless cycle accomplishing basically nothing. Now the European Union is peaceful, they have one currency, and they share common military interests. There was no concept of "defending Europe" as a unified idea across all of Europe before those two organizations were established. Africa would be better off if the African Union could also establish a common currency. The only way that weaker nations can establish stable conditions without outside intervention in order to find the space to develop their economies and become more powerful is through the principle of "an attack on one is an attack on all." More parts of the world should copy Europe in that regard.
Big black dude on the computer triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,410,496
The same way as the United States was originally conceived as a nation of states, I think the most reasonable path towards a strong global government that can actually enforce rules is through first developing stronger continental unions of states and then forming organizations for cooperation between continents. The same way the first governments were city states and then city states became nations with multiple cities, I think the same thing needs to happen with countries and then with continents, and then eventually at some point with planets. Otherwise we’re going to have a third world war and send the entire planet back to the Stone Age.