[kind of a long ranty reply to give heads up to would-be readers]
I've been taking more time to think about it and my conclusion is still incomplete. My answers, even with an idealistic bent, are IMO applicable to real life. Otherwise I don't think any of my answers are gonna suffice your criteria. I think that if you use other means beside the ones I've given then you'd be abnegating yourself of the only available options that get results, it'd be impossible any other way to me. Yes, world peace through force is what I'm suggesting. What way do you propose achieving world peace as opposed to mine?
Consolidation! One people, one world. This is more than ideal, it's obvious. If people aren't united then there's zero chance of world peace. zero. If the world is incapable of becoming united then there's zero chance of world peace, and this may just be the case with the human condition. People aren't united today, in the real world, right now, and there's no world peace because of it.
Diversity inherently causes conflict. Segregation isn't an option. Individual countries, with their own rules and own ways of life aren't viable. It's a catalyst for conflict. There's no balance in the worlds current state, no wide spread happiness, no world peace. People can't be free to run the streets and burn whatever they want. People can't have 100% freedom to do whatever they want becuase it'll effect others negatively. When people fight or rebel for freedom, this is then the freedom they're fighting for, the right to hurt others. To refuse the "my world government" is to openly demand a right to murder, rape, steal, and harm others. These people don't have a right to life. Who says so? The people that have to live with their malicious decisions.
If people won't unite, then it's apperent they don't want world peace. It makes me angry because I hear of many people complain for it and yet seem unwilling to do what's necessary to actually have it, as if the price is too high. To speak of world peace w/o the intention of uniting commonalities & compromising for benefit of the whole inorder to maintain world peace is futile. I don't see how it would be much different than everyday life today in any government or society. People give up certain liberties to live in "security." My way would just mean stripping everyone systematically of the little greedy pseudo-rights still left that was once believed to be liberties when in fact it is unacceptable for the planet and it's habitants as a whole so as to make it more efficient. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't rule the world and expect everyone to love you for it. There can't be order when there's people demanding chaos, they have to be removed one way or another. This takes place through jails and execution in modern day government. EVERY government today infringes on human dignity and rights, but the majority of people seem to find it normal, acceptable, and even desirable. I don't, but if there must be these intrusive disgusting isolated consolidations of force then it might as well be one that insures everyone clothing, food, shelter and the freedom to play outside.
A person would have incentive, they have to work(much less than a 20-40 hour work week I might add which equates to increased recreation) inorder to obtain food for themselves & the rest of society and they have to work inorder not to be shot. The incentive is 3 birds w/ 1 stone toward self-preservation. My society threatens your life for not working because your not working threatens the life of the society. It's a counter-attack. It detrimental too. No one having to work for anything and everything be given to them for free is what I would call ideal, not the answers I've been giving you. Not minimal slavery.
What's stopping each country from alloting each citizen a government issued equal lot of land, food ration, & clothing? WHY can't this be done? Who's stopping this from taking place? What's the point or could be any more important on the agenda of a government than this? actually providing & protecting it's citizens? What's SO outrageous, unrealistically idealistic, and outright impossible about the idea of everyone not going hungry tonight, having a door to lock, having a safe soft bed to sleep on, & thrifty warm clothes to wear? Is this really so radical? so naive or foolish a goal? ISN'T THIS WHAT EVERYONE WANTS?! It must not be if it hasn't already taken place, right? My complaint is of people who complain of wanting world peace and yet do not achieve it, hypocrites and liars they are. Though I guess that goes for anyone & alotta things involving hypocrisy.
Let's say someone gets cancer and it will cost a huge amount of resources to cure them. Do you let them die? How do you replace their "work units"?
Well, whatever's deemed best by everyone as everyone will feel the absence of a huge amount of resources. Life, as I know it, is not insured against disease. Although I cannot imagine it costing very much to accommodate one individual with cancer when virtually the entire world is working together to provide bountiful resources for all. No ones being exploited when everyones benefiting equally, no ones a slave anymore than they are to government already. This doesn't sound to me like a difficult coarse of action to put into place. Yeah, there'll be people opposed to this, but only cuz they're greedy evil people to begin with who are either too afraid to be happy and/or too corrupt to welcome this change.
Business is amoral as you said, meaning it is no better than immoral. People who made "good" business decisions are really doing evil. They don't own what they earn, like thieves trading with thieves. It belongs to the world and it's people equally. Precious gems and metals, trees, oceans, land, and oxygen is no ones birth right. Not commodities. Individuals in power must be removed and the power must be redistributed amongst the planet equally. To insist on fairness and world peace any other way is asinine.
I've almost lost my point, but the disorganization can be organized if there really is enough will on behalf of peace for all. It's possible that the majority of people are tyrannts and prefer it that way, but just lack enough self-insight to know it.
|