One World Government

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I mean that you speak of unity over the divisions of humanity - yet the Baha'i perspective is yet another division of belief within humanity.

Whilst the ideals may be laudable, the actual doctrines (belief in Baha'u'llah as a fulfillment of world religious prophecy - and adherence to his teachings) are yet another set of doctrines in rising competition with other world religions. Hence division through doctrine.

This is an issue I was under the impression you were implying that Baha'i faith is firmly above - hence my pot and kettle comment.

Dear Brian,

This all depends on your perspective. From an outside view it may appear as yet another division but from within the Baha'i Faith this is not the case. Baha'u'llah brought a unifying message. He has told us that all of these divisions are manmade, conceived by human error. God is One. There is no division in this reality. People fight what they do not understand. Hence divisions arise. But the message of Baha'u'llah is one that will ultimately serve to unify the various doctrines.

Over the past 160 years since the revelation of Baha'u'llah came into being. Many of the principals He expounded are becoming increasingly acknowledged among the masses. At the time when He taught these things such things were unheard of. People thought these things could/would never become reality. Slowly but surely various views are becoming reconciled. From within the Faith, Baha'i's recognize His unifying influence at work in the world. But I understand that it's almost impossible to recognize this looking from the outside, without the the benefit of the Baha'i framework to view through, it only looks like chaos upon chaos in the world.

Baha'i's only work toward unifying peoples views. We will not argue our point. We will share what we understand from our viewpoint and leave it at that. We are only human so at times some of us will get sucked into an argument, which does nothing to further our goal, but fortunately this is the exception and not the rule. Our ultimate goal is to help tear down the barriers that divide us.

As far as being in competition with other world religions, this is inaccurate since we are not competing with others, but helping others to see that all stem from the same source. Hence it is not a competition for us. Others may see it that way, since it is a struggle within themselves to detach from their own understandings. If it were a competition we would be saying ours is the best, leave yours behind. But we are saying all are equal in the sight of God, embrace them all, it does not seek to exalt itself over the others. It's only competitive to those who feel their religion is the right one and all others are inferior, it challenges their perceptions. It becomes a competition within their own selves.


Loving Greetings, Harmony

edit: oops, sorry, took too long to compose and didn't see your next post.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

......

With reducing that comment to a partisan political argument, the point of that statement is as much to say that it will the interests of the very rich - chiefly international corporate bodies - who could stand to gain the most from having a single source of world power to influence the decision making process of.

In short, a One World Government has great potential both ways - but it is the negative potential perhaps we should be most mindful of - thus be in a position to voice our concerns should such an adminstation ever come into being.

Hm, I feel like I'm rambling tonight. Been a busy day.

Once again, as you know Brian, we Baha'is are strictly non-partisan w/regard to any comments about the current US administration.

But... I think one of your greatest fears is the interest or stake of large multi national corporations will likely influence a future world government perhaps....

Let me suggest though that probably the only thing that could "trump" a large international corporation might be international laws and standards enforced by a world government AND the enforcemnet of International Court rulings.

- Art

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Then we move forward to the modern era: where the President of the United States of America received the least amount of votes in a two horse race; his family ensures the courts back the loser, not the winner; he ensures the protection of the interests of the military-industrial complex to such a degree as to ensure that protected wilderness is dug up for oil, and that other nations should be conquered for their oil; that their policies will be sold to the US public through government reports dressed up as complimentary media reports; by a US government that has seen fit to undo the national economy for short-term gain; etc etc etc etc

I find myself sharing in equal parts your pessimism and Arthra's optimism. Perhaps one thing we can do instead of despairing is to consider what can be done now to improve democracy in governance.

Take the scenario above. One essential factor in that is the role of the electoral college---one of the arcane features of the American system which mystifies democrats in every other jurisdiction.

Because of the electoral college system, it didn't matter who got the most votes overall. It mattered who got the most votes in Florida. Why? Because whoever got the most votes in Florida got all the electoral votes from that state.

Now the shenanigans of the Florida vote aside, my question is: why does one candidate get ALL the electoral votes of any state.

I remember asking Americans about that just after the election. I know the electoral college itself is in the constitution, so the most sensible step: elect the President by direct popular vote--is not in the cards.

But what does the constitution say about the distribution of state electoral college votes? From what I heard, it says nothing. It does not say 100% of a state's votes must go to one candidate.

That's just tradition, not law.

Now consider what the outcome of the election would have been if each state divided its electoral votes among the candidates in proportion to the popular vote in that state. Since Florida's vote was so close, its votes would have gone more or less equally to both candidates, and its influence would be minimal instead of all-important.

That, apparently, is something that can be done without changing the constitution. And while it is not a direct popular vote, it is a lot closer to it, and would be a fairer representation of the actual will of the American people, than the current system.

Of course, that still doesn't speak to the problem of politicians being in bed with the big corporations, but one step at a time......

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by arthra

Let me suggest though that probably the only thing that could "trump" a large international corporation might be international laws and standards enforced by a world government AND the enforcemnet of International Court rulings.

All I can say to that is no way, Art. Multinational corporations are and always have been above the law, whether because they avoid it through loopholes, buy it, or in some cases are it. You are right insofar as international laws and courts would hinder their actions, just as trees hinder erosion-- hinder it, but don't make it impossible.

Companies grow in proportion to their market: local, then national, then multinational, and finally global as in the case of Coca Cola. You think multinationals are powerful now?? Wait until they expand to fill a truly global niche by merging and buying each other out like Microsoft, but on a global scale. Even better, wait until they organize themselves horizontally like labour unions, uniting themselves to lobby for amendments to these international laws you spoke about.

I have listened to many people speak about a bright and glorious future built by the hands of human beings. To me this idealism is akin to sitting in front of a lemon tree and waiting for mangoes to grow on it: it's a nice thought, but there is absolutely no precedent to make me think it will ever happen. Take a good long look at history and remember that throughout all of the tragedies and bleak times in our past there were people who believed that peace was right around the corner.

[QueryGuy]

Originally Posted by Marsh

All I can say to that is no way, Art. Multinational corporations are and always have been above the law, whether because they avoid it through loopholes, buy it, or in some cases are it.

You're right of course, because presently there is no truly effective international law to govern international corporations. The biggest loophole, if anything, is the lack of a system of standard global business law and a global branch that can enforce this law. The most that can happen now is that representatives of different countries agree on a ruling in a specific incident, and that is rare.

You are right insofar as international laws and courts would hinder their actions, just as trees hinder erosion-- hinder it, but don't make it impossible.

So your lamentation is that there will always be corruption involved in business, especially big business? That's very likely, though as long as ethical abuses continue there will be resistance against them.

Even better, wait until they organize themselves horizontally like labour unions, uniting themselves to lobby for amendments to these international laws you spoke about.

Such things already happen on a smaller scale, especially where there are government subsidies involved. The important thing, then, is to make sure others outside such horizontal organizations have a voice too, and that talks leading to amendments are not conducted behind closed doors.

I have listened to many people speak about a bright and glorious future built by the hands of human beings. .... it's a nice thought, but there is absolutely no precedent to make me think it will ever happen.

Progress does not happen by relying on precedents. Progress happens by creating them.

QG

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by QueryGuy

Progress does not happen by relying on precedents. Progress happens by creating them.

I didn't say that progress happens by relying on precedents. What I did say is that, when one takes a good long look at history, it is quite clear that the future will more probably be of degeneration than of progress.

My personal take on history: progress is a figment of the human imagination. What has humankind done that's so great, or important, or astounding? When new treatments for cancer are developed, the world rejoices at its creative ability, not understanding that these treatments were necessary because the pollution, radioactive fallout, and ozone layer depletion that we ourselves caused increased the frequency of cancer. When the Soviet Union fell, the west rejoiced at the victory of democracy, not realizing that-- had it been developed correctly-- communism is the only really socially-just system of government ever developed by a human mind. When I look at history as a whole I don't see progress; I just see change and continuity similar to the half-life of a radioactive element: the best it can do is stay the same; the worst it can do is degrade.

I will admit that there have been some pretty cool moments in history. Martin Luther King Jr. was an amazing guy, and his contribution to the civil rights movement helped many individuals in America achieve a better standard of living. But this wasn't progress on a large scale. The history of African-Americans is one of sorrow and outrageous criminal behaviour; the progress that Martin made, though great in its time, did not nearly outweigh the several hundred years of degeneracy that still mark American society today.

I'll sum up my argument by comparing the world to a casino. Although individuals may win sizable sums of money on particular days, the majority of the people lose, and it is this massive loss that makes individual gain possible. Similarly, although great achievements-- which seem like progress-- happen at particular flashpoints in history, they seem great only because they appear on a backdrop of suffering and affliction caused by degeneracy.

[arthra]

Marsh wrote:

I didn't say that progress happens by relying on precedents. What I did say is that, when one takes a good long look at history, it is quite clear that the future will more probably be of degeneration than of progress.

My personal take on history: progress is a figment of the human imagination. .....
I'll sum up my argument by comparing the world to a casino. Although individuals may win sizable sums of money on particular days, the majority of the people lose, and it is this massive loss that makes individual gain possible. Similarly, although great achievements-- which seem like progress-- happen at particular flashpoints in history, they seem great only because they appear on a backdrop of suffering and affliction caused by degeneracy.

My reply:

This is a good point Marsh, we Baha'is tend to be more optimistic about the future of the planet and are looking forward and beyond to a glorius future for humanity.... I think this is very important ...

If you have positive attitudes about people they will generally reflect more positives back at you and with each other... In the same way. You could say negative expectations affect people... Possibly you recall a professor in school that only expected the worse from his students and sure enough, he won't be disappointed in the course of the semester.

I'm also a student of history and I see trends that are encouraging today as compared to when i was a teen in the fifties. We've mentioned a few here already.... The internet or global comunication.... satellite technology.... greater international cooperation in the space industry.... an world court and the United Nations are all signs that were not envisioned by most people over fifty years ago.

- Art

[QueryGuy]

Originally Posted by Marsh

When new treatments for cancer are developed, the world rejoices at its creative ability, not understanding that these treatments were necessary because the pollution, radioactive fallout, and ozone layer depletion that we ourselves caused increased the frequency of cancer.

Yes, but let's not forget that people who get cancer these days are actually living long enough to get cancer. That sounds funny, doesn't it? But think about it...only a few hundred years ago people were lucky if they lived past thirty. Now, thanks to medical progress it's considered very unusual if a person dies of non-violent causes before fifty, with average life spans quite a bit longer. Doesn't that count for anything?

When the Soviet Union fell, the west rejoiced at the victory of democracy, not realizing that-- had it been developed correctly-- communism is the only really socially-just system of government ever developed by a human mind.

Personally, I don't have any fondness for Communism as it has been implemented historically. What it was meant to be...I don't know enough about that to establish an informed opinion.

I will admit that there have been some pretty cool moments in history. Martin Luther King Jr. was an amazing guy, and his contribution to the civil rights movement helped many individuals in America achieve a better standard of living. But this wasn't progress on a large scale.

Concerning civil rights....Have you so quickly forgotten the elimination of slavery in almost every corner of the globe? Doesn't that count for something? As for the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's (and earlier, to a limited degree) ... quite frankly I think changing American policy toward its own people was a large scale change, even if it wasn't global. It's all a matter of opinion, I guess.

The history of African-Americans is one of sorrow and outrageous criminal behaviour; the progress that Martin made, though great in its time, did not nearly outweigh the several hundred years of degeneracy that still mark American society today.

If you truly think it is shocking or unjust that the legacy of hundreds of years can't be undone in a half of a century, that is your perogative. I, for one, prefer to acknowledge that progress has been made and find it difficult to so easily dismiss the enormous sacrifices that have been made to accomplish it. Learn from the past, don't live there. Progress is still being made today.

Similarly, although great achievements-- which seem like progress-- happen at particular flashpoints in history, they seem great only because they appear on a backdrop of suffering and affliction caused by degeneracy.

But does that really diminish their greatness? Progress comes at a cost, and sometimes that cost can be dire indeed. I won't argue that. Still, progress has a ripple effect. Sooner or later an improvement in one area spreads outward until it covers an area beyond its initial effect. It takes time though.

Since we're using America as an example: The standard of living among the American poor has increased dramatically over the past few centuries. This isn't to say poverty is pleasant, but thanks to things such as electricity, running water, greater public health awareness, improved labor laws and improvements in social programs--the poorest Americans still have it much better than the poor in many other areas of the world. This is due to the ripple effects of progress. Running water and electricity were once signs of great wealth, no matter what form they took. Now, they are so commonplace that it is considered an affront to human dignity to force someone to live without them. Well...in America anyway. Are you to tell me that isn't progress? With luck, this "bare minimum" standard of living will apply to everyone in the world over time, and continue to move upward from there.

My recommendation: Really look at the world an be very, very careful what you take for granted. What you see is what you get.

QG

P.S. Which type of computer do you prefer when you're accessing the internet? Do you own your own, or is it one that is freely available to you at a public library?

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by arthra

Marsh wrote:I'm also a student of history and I see trends that are encouraging today as compared to when i was a teen in the fifties. We've mentioned a few here already.... The internet or global comunication.... satellite technology.... greater international cooperation in the space industry.... an world court and the United Nations are all signs that were not envisioned by most people over fifty years ago.

I agree that all of these things you have mentioned are unprecedented achievements. However, unprecedented doesn't necessarily mean good.

Let me use the example of the internet, which was actually a weapon in its origin. It is an incredible feat in my opinion to be able to connect computers in the same room instantaneously, let alone between continents. I've played chess against people from countries I have never visited. Indeed, some amazing things are possible online.

About three years ago I saw a very eye-opening article on the web, which had published the 100 most frequently visited websites for that year. To the best of my memory, close to 90 out of the 100 were porn sites!

Technology is not a foundation worthy to stand on; at best, it's a carpet lying on top of the foundation to make it look, well, pretty. The irony of technology is that everything that proves to be useful eventually becomes used as a weapon, and in this way it becomes as much of a liability as it is a benefit.

Just as you have been looking at the trends toward globalization and technology as signals of a beautiful new future, I'm sure others felt the same way when they saw the first airplane take off into the sky, when manufactured products came out of the first factory, and when word returned to Europe about the 'discovery' of South America. Within the same generation in each case, the carpet was ripped out from underneath society's feet: long-range bombers, child labour, and slavery.

I'm not a pessimist, though I probably seem like one. I'm just saying that we need to be very careful: our greatest mistakes seem to happen when we least expect them.

[I, Brian]

There have certainly been massive strides in the past few centuries - but the internet issue, yes, porn drives the internet. From weapons system, to porn distribution system, it is the biggest market on the internet. This forum has been hit repeatedly by porn spammers.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Marsh

I agree that all of these things you have mentioned are unprecedented achievements. However, unprecedented doesn't necessarily mean good.

Let me use the example of the internet,

.....

I'm not a pessimist, though I probably seem like one. I'm just saying that we need to be very careful: our greatest mistakes seem to happen when we least expect them.

Yes Marsh I see your point.... just about every invention known to man has at some point probably been horribly abused by men..... but i don't see us abandoning the internet or our cars or our satellite systems... We still buy airplane tickets after 9/11.

We probably we'll have some feature or program that will scan the spam and the race will go on.

What these inventions have done though is shrink our world and make us more interdependent than ever.

- Art

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


not to derail the thread...



Marsh, the internet was not a weapon when it was developed by DARPA. The Internet is a worldwide network of thousands of computers and computer networks. It is a public, voluntary, and cooperative effort between the connected institutions and is not owned or operated by any single organization.The Internet and Transmission Control Protocols were initially developed in 1973 by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and directed by American engineer Robert Kahn.

The Internet began as a computer network of ARPA (ARPAnet) that linked computer networks at several universities and research laboratories in the United States. The World Wide Web was developed in 1989 by English computer scientist Timothy Berners-Lee for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story070.htm

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,


not to derail the thread...





Marsh, the internet was not a weapon when it was developed by DARPA. The Internet is a worldwide network of thousands of computers and computer networks. It is a public, voluntary, and cooperative effort between the connected institutions and is not owned or operated by any single organization.The Internet and Transmission Control Protocols were initially developed in 1973 by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and directed by American engineer Robert Kahn.

The Internet began as a computer network of ARPA (ARPAnet) that linked computer networks at several universities and research laboratories in the United States. The World Wide Web was developed in 1989 by English computer scientist Timothy Berners-Lee for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story070.htm

I thought Al Gore invented the internet. LOL!

[I, Brian]

You mean he didn't?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


<begin thread derail>

however... Al Gore's claim of inventing the internet always seemed rather like Dr. Evil (Austin Powers) retelling his childhood story in group therapy.. remember the siloquy... my childhood was quite typcial, really... summers in Rangoon, luge lessons... at the age of 14 my testicals were ritualistically shaved by my Zoroastarian nurse... my father made all sorts of outlandish claims... like he invented the question mark... "

</end thread derail>