|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 31, 2010 4:02 am |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Global issues - governance |
| abbeboulah
| |
I sincerely respect anybody’s reluctance to tackle this problem; it speaks of a commendable sense of realism. And, having raised the issue, of having learned something about its intractability. I am a little disappointed at the reaction of declining to discuss the few suggestions I made as a basis for potential innovation on this; (it should be a delight for critical, skeptical spirits to point out their flaws?) I was hoping that people more skilled and inclined at researching the web for what other options have been suggested, would contribute some useful material. (I am thus grateful for Thomas Holford’s reference to Sowell’s book, for example.) So before we close out this thread for lack of whatever is needed to carry on, I would like to point out a few things:
First, the specter of ‘global government’ -- in the guise of some enhanced version of the UN or an EU model -- is indeed worrisome, but also a bit of a red herring. In resisting (or expressing our concerns about) such developments, are we losing sight of the fact that ‘beneath the radar screen’ so to speak, there are several systems or entities vying for global control already busily at work, that do not operate along the established conventions of national governance and organization -- and therefore the UN etc? The global financial system, the oil cartels, the international drug, terror and crime networks are examples; many people would argue that some of these already are influencing or controlling much of what even the most powerful nations are doing. So the question is whether the deserved skepticism towards big powerful entities ought to be extended to those as well - perhaps even more urgently so? Keep in mind that most of the concepts of 'controlling' or restraining some of those that are bandied about imply a greater force to do the controlling -- and that greater force would NOT be deserving of the same skepticism?
Secondly: the recommendation to focus on PREVENTING entities from accumulating power is definitely one valid contribution, one item in a package of responses to the problem, and one deserving of detailed scrutiny for how it can be impemented. However, if it is recommended as the ONLY or main response in a situation where there already are several entities well endowed with power, and apparently intent on consolidating it, does this position amount to an unintended or deliberate toleration, endorsement or even support of those efforts? And discourage the much needed efforts to begin constraining those before they do become global? Private Reply to abbeboulah (new win) |
|
| |
|
