Yes, they would, and they do. The difference is that they aren't dealing with another government. It is one thing to refuse an official envoy from another government to come into your nation. It is quite another thing to refuse a church or a charity. Refusing another government is generally acceptable in the world. Churches specifically, and to a lesser extent other charities are much harder to refuse. You'd basically have to seal the borders from all foreign visitors. See, another government coming it can be seen as an "invasion" or at the very least it has a political stamp on it. A charity which has no official governmental power, isn't likely to overthrow a world leader or damage their country. Consider this, let's assume that 1% minority of a nation's population observes a certain religion (especially a religion observed heavily in other nations). The government of that nation may oppose that religion, but they run a huge risk if they openly preventing that religion from practicing it. They can try to make it illegal, but that doesn't really stop the faith. They can try to persecute the religion's followers, but that tends to make the followers martyrs. Religious people are generally allowed in and out of nations, even when the religions themselves are illegal. Those religious people can bring supplies and even food with them on missionary trips (this is done quite regularly). If the government opposes these missionary trips, or if it confiscates the supplies, the worldwide religion's headquarters issues press releases and people around the world are made aware that this government is restricting their religion. This tends to get media attention. The media is generally against religion today, but they will report on government oppression of religion, and media is generally allowed to go into any country with few restrictions. The point of this is that the government that doesn't care about feeding its people and would refuse an outside government is suddenly under worldwide scrutiny and the world becomes aware of what it is doing. Tyrants hate a free press. They'd rather be secretive and they'd rather that nobody knows what is going on. At that point, one of a few things might happen.

1) The government might simply have to allow the food shipments through as part of the religion's missionary work (this is the least damaging in the short term to most tyrants).
2) The government can blockade their own nation (which is somewhat different from an outside nation blockading them).
3) The UN may have enough backbone to get involved (not likely, but who knows?).
4) Enough worldwide support might be raised to cause the government to make a policy change or a priority change.
5) There may be a change of government in the nation.

Still it is possible that the charity won't succeed. Nonetheless, it is more likely to succeed than an outside government unless that outside government is willing to go to war over the issue.

Look, the sad fact is that no single nation can militarily take on the whole world, or even all of the tyrants and dictators that treat their people badly. The United States has a decent sized military, but it cannot support campaigns in the dozens or even hundreds of nations where people are starving and the goverments aren't doing anything about it. Even if that is all that the US military did, we couldn't do it all by ourselves.
You need multinational backing, and many nations will oppose you for many different reasons. For example, we don't do anything militarily in the Sudan, despite their obvious disdain for humanitarian concerns, because many nations trade with Sudan for goods that they produce cheaply there. Yeah, that's pretty sad, but it is a reality. The UN, and other nations, wouldn't likely back a campaign there. For that matter in 2002, Sudan was added to the UN human rights commission and the US was kicked off (the US was reinstated in 2003, but Sudan is still on that commission despite what goes on in their nation).

It takes more political will than exists in the entire UN to overthrow a tyrant. That kind of will is hard to come by. When it is found, you normally see a huge reaction against it. Generally speaking, the world would rather not go to war and would rather not stir up trouble because they don't really consider that the lives of people in some other country are worth as much as thier own comfort and "peace". This is the "peace" of the grave that they support, but they don't see it that way.

Lets say that you are president, and in the ficticious country of Tyrrania, the leader is a tyrant who is building a military and living in luxury and allowing his people to starve. Would you support a war against that nation, a nation which has never attacked your country? Would you support that war even if the rest of the world was against it? Would you want UN approval? What if the UN didn't approve? What if some business people from your own country did business with that country and further, what if those same business people contributed to your campaign for President and are demanding their political favors in the form of you not pursuing that country (most politicans fail at this one)? What about if your State Department says, "let us negotiate, we'll get the job done and it will make the US look good in the international arena that we can do the job with diplomacy instead of the military."?

I'm with you, let's fight them all, I don't know where we'll get the troops, the money, the supplies, the international support, etc. But let's do it anyway. Sorry, but the reality is that all of these things, troops, supplies, money, etc. are all in limited supply. Anything in limited supply is restricted to the laws of economics, so we have a situation where we can only fight one war at a time (actually the US is supposed to be able to fight 2 major wars at one time, but In the '90s, the President stripped down the military so that it really can't do that at this time). We instead need to pick our fights carefully and get as much international support as possible. If we don't, we'll find ourselves out in the cold on the International scene, with everone else in the world against us. For that matter, if we tried to do this, the media would be wholly against it as well.

Unless you can find another approach, people are going to die starving while we handle this problem, one nation at a time, and it will take leaders of strong moral fiber, who aren't swayed by politics, to do it. You can tell such a leader because they tend to take strong stances on moral issues, they tend to be proud of their beliefs and they tend stick to them even in the face of bad press and poor support.

Agreed, people should talk faster, starting with those who are resisting the aid. Oh yes, those would be those foreign leaders who won't help their people, and the UN who can't seem to take a stand. If only people did the right thing, but you do understand that you can't make people do the right thing, don't you?
The leaders of these nations know their people are starving. They don't care. If they did care, they'd spend their money on their people instead of on weapons or yachts or whatever. If they cared, they'd build an infrastructure that could help support their people. They're there for power and luxury and a bit of warfare and tyrrany. They aren't there for their people. No amount of talking will change that.
Fists (military involvement) would always be more expedient, please tell me how to pay for it and keep the world opinion and domestic opinion positive at the same time.

Wow, what a gloomy reality I just painted. There are good people in the world who want to fix this. You find many (most) of them in charities and churches. Think about it.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

1. Would you support a war against that nation, a nation which has never attacked your country? -My country would be founded on mutual symbiosis, Moral Relativism, Greedlessness, Equality, & World Peace. Anyone who is not in accord with this is attacking my country's integrity. Imperialism may be what it's called but there's a need for unity, total cooperation of everyone capable in order for world peace to be accomplished. My country's goal is to transcend borders, unify languages, globalize resources w/o greed. The only crime would be greed and the only humane consequence to criminals is exile to another planet or instantaneous execution, not as punishment, but as the bare minimum one can do to permanently remove any harmful agent from the host.
2. Would you support that war even if the rest of the world was against it? -yeah, I'd be at the front lines.
3. Would you want UN approval? -I don't need others approval for my actions or for what I feel is right.
   
4. What if the UN didn't approve? -Then they're supporting the continuation of tyranny.
5. What if some business people from your own country did business with that country and further, what if those same business people contributed to your campaign for President and are demanding their political favors in the form of you not pursuing that country (most politicans fail at this one)? -I'd never have become president by accepting bribes from the very type of people I'm leading to dissolve. Naturally they wouldn't want me in power anyways. To outlaw greed would effectively render money obselete. People who are financially supporting a country that's exploiting thier citizens are just as bad as the country they're doing "business" with.
6. What about if your State Department says, "let us negotiate, we'll get the job done and it will make the US look good in the international arena that we can do the job with diplomacy instead of the military."? -War should be a last resort. If a state department can give a reasonable amount of time and arrive at an agreement w/ the another country within said amount of time then great. If not, then war w/o hesitation.
7. If only people did the right thing, but you do understand that you can't make people do the right thing, don't you? - yeah, but you CAN make them cease doing the wrong thing.

-"There are good people in the world who want to fix this. You find many (most) of them in charities and churches. Think about it."

__________________
<---Click on it

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I took some time off from work to spend with my family. I didn't touch a computer for the past week (I have them at home, but I just didn't bother).

1. Would you support a war against that nation, a nation which has never attacked your country? -My country would be founded on mutual symbiosis, Moral Relativism, Greedlessness, Equality, & World Peace. Anyone who is not in accord with this is attacking my country's integrity. Imperialism may be what it's called but there's a need for unity, total cooperation of everyone capable in order for world peace to be accomplished. My country's goal is to transcend borders, unify languages, globalize resources w/o greed. The only crime would be greed and the only humane consequence to criminals is exile to another planet or instantaneous execution, not as punishment, but as the bare minimum one can do to permanently remove any harmful agent from the host.
   You've got a few problems here, Moral Relativism may (and likely will) conflict with your ideas of mutual symbiosis, Greedlessness, Equality and even World Peace. Further, how do you enforce Greedlessness or mutual symbiosis? Do you intend to shoot people who are greedy (since exile to another planet isn't currently possible)? Is greed really a crime (let alone a capital crime)? How do you define greed? If I make a smart business decision and end up with more “stuff” than my neighbor (money, property, food, etc.) does that make me greedy? Will I be executed for it? Executed for making a good business decision?
   How do you intend to enforce world peace? Do you attack dissenters (not very peaceful)? Do you confiscate all weapons in the whole world and wipe people's brains so they can't figure out how to make more? As long as people can think, they can make weapons and kill each other.
   What if people don't want unity (many people don't)? What if they don't want to unify languages (look around, most people don't)? What if they don't want globalization? What if they want borders? What you're describing is global conquest. If Hitler had won, you'd see much of what you are describing here.
   Come on, give it some more thought and keep it real. Also, you didn't really answer my question. You sidestepped. Instead of making up your own (questionably) ideal world, look at the one we're in.
2. Would you support that war even if the rest of the world was against it? -yeah, I'd be at the front lines.
   Ok, so you want to kill people to keep other people from starving. Probably the people you'd kill aren't the ones making the decisions that are causing others to starve. Eventually, though, presuming you win, you'd throw out one tyrant and then you can feed the people. Hmm, what kind of government are you going to establish in that nation to ensure that another tyrant won't take over when you leave (or do you intend to conquer the nation)?
3. Would you want UN approval? -I don't need others approval for my actions or for what I feel is right.
   That stance is, frankly, part of the coalition stance on the Iraq war. The coalition didn't need the approval of others to do what is right.
4. What if the UN didn't approve? -Then they're supporting the continuation of tyranny.
   Perhaps so (actually they definitely are). Do you then support dismantling the UN?
5. What if some business people from your own country did business with that country and further, what if those same business people contributed to your campaign for President and are demanding their political favors in the form of you not pursuing that country (most politicans fail at this one)? -I'd never have become president by accepting bribes from the very type of people I'm leading to dissolve. Naturally they wouldn't want me in power anyways. To outlaw greed would effectively render money obselete. People who are financially supporting a country that's exploiting thier citizens are just as bad as the country they're doing "business" with.
   I didn't say bribe, I said contribution. Becoming President costs money. Unless you have billions laying around, you need support (if you do, then why aren't you feeding the people instead of becoming president). Every contribution that you get will come from someone with their own political agenda that will somewhat complement yours, but there are bound to be conflicts.
   How do you outlaw a thought? How do you determine what is greed and what is incentive? Do you think that people will choose difficult careers without the incentive of a better lifestyle? Can't that incentive be considered greed? We've covered this before, what is your justification for telling someone that even if they work hard and earn certain rewards, they can't have them because that would be greed? Do you believe that without incentive, the vast majority of people would still work hard and accomplish things? Historical examples suggest that incentive is necessary for growth and progress. Where's the line between incentive and greed? Who gets to draw that line? Do you really want to execute entrepreneurs who bring progress because they earn more than that line?
   So doing business with a tyrant makes me a tyrant? Perhaps and perhaps not. What if I didn't know about the tyranny?
   What if there is a product that only comes from a certain tyrannical nation (it is a resource found only there) and that product is necessary to make a medicine that saves millions of lives annually? Sure, you can say that we'd need to research and find another medicine (which could take decades). Should the pharmaceutical company, who is trying to help save lives (as well as turn a profit), stop making the medicine because they'd have to do business with the tyrant? Should millions die each year during the research period because a tyrant is allowing some of his people to starve? Yeah, that's it, one is as bad as another.
6. What about if your State Department says, "let us negotiate, we'll get the job done and it will make the US look good in the international arena that we can do the job with diplomacy instead of the military."? -War should be a last resort. If a state department can give a reasonable amount of time and arrive at an agreement w/ the another country within said amount of time then great. If not, then war w/o hesitation.
   So what is a “reasonable” amount of time? Let's say 1,000 people are starving to death per year in that country. Is 1 year reasonable? Is 10 years (10,000 people)? How many people must die before you decide that diplomacy isn't working? How about this? What if during those 10 years, you see real progress? Perhaps people are still starving (still 1,000 per year) but the overall population of the country is growing so that each year, it is a smaller percentage of the population? When do you decide to start a war?
   For that matter, what if the state department can't give a time line? Diplomacy isn't an exact science. There's no way to tell how long it may take to persuade a tyrant that he needs to change his ways. Do you issue an ultimatum (backing yourself into a corner)? Do you then proceed with a war if that ultimatum isn't met?
7. If only people did the right thing, but you do understand that you can't make people do the right thing, don't you? - yeah, but you CAN make them cease doing the wrong thing.
   Nope, you can't. If you could, then you could stop crime. You could stop tyranny. You could stop discrimination. Nobody can stop these things because we can't control other people's thoughts. You can outlaw an action, but that doesn't stop it. Read the newspapers. How many people were murdered yesterday? How many robberies occurred? How many rapes? These are all outlawed actions, but outlawing them doesn't stop them.

-"There are good people in the world who want to fix this. You find many (most) of them in charities and churches. Think about it."
Nice, responding with my own words. Consider that many (probably half) of the people in charities and churches wouldn't necessarily support military actions against other nations to stop starvation. They want to stop starvation, but they want to do it peacefully (missions, not machine guns). Do you believe that these people will fund your military crusade against starvation? Even if they did, they can't because you'd need to find national governments to obtain the necessary military equipment (feel frey to try to buy a fleet of warships, aircraft, munitions, tanks, etc. without a government backing you).

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

It took me 2 weeks to respond cuz I got caught up on what i thought was my own definition of "greed", but I found it harder to define than before with revisions. Plus I got side tracked with family affairs and conversations of the like.

Keep it real is a funny phrase, but I think reality is a social construction. One that's highly malleable.

Further, how do you enforce Greedlessness or mutual symbiosis? With might.
Do you intend to shoot people who are greedy (since exile to another planet isn't currently possible)? If necessary.
Is greed really a crime (let alone a capital crime)? Not sure, but I think it's the cause of no world peace and I think no world peace is a crime.
How do you define greed? "wanting something unnecessarily at the expence of depriving someone else of it." People can want or think whatever they wish, they just shouldn't act on it.
If I make a smart business decision and end up with more “stuff” than my neighbor (money, property, food, etc.) does that make me greedy? potentially yes, if it infringes on the rest of society's ability to survive adequately.
Will I be executed for it? yes.
Executed for making a good business decision? Executed for shortchanging society that depends on you as much as you depend on them.
How do you intend to enforce world peace? With might.
Do you attack dissenters (not very peaceful)? Peace can only be obtained through those who want it. If others wish to live outside of society on there own then it's ok, so long as they don't infringe upon society's resources. "If you want peace, then prepare for war." Free Association comes to mind.
Do you confiscate all weapons in the whole world and wipe people's brains so they can't figure out how to make more? Weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Weapons are irrelevent to world peace.
What if people don't want unity (many people don't)? These people are the enemies, they're subhuman, their greed is getting in the way of world peace.

What if they don't want to unify languages (look around, most people don't)? What if they don't want globalization? What if they want borders? What if tyrannts don't want peace, but want to perpetuate oppression? These people aren't people. They're not for people, they're for themselves. They don't represent humanity. They don't want world peace as I said before. Peace can't be obtained by people who don't want it so they must perish.
How do you outlaw a thought? Greed as a desire doesn't harm others, acting on behalf of it does. The action is what counts.
How do you determine what is greed and what is incentive? You only have to determine what harms society.
Do you think that people will choose difficult careers without the incentive of a better lifestyle? I think people will choose what pleases them.
Can't that incentive be considered greed? Not really, If it's not harming anyone then it's not greedy.
We've covered this before, what is your justification for telling someone that even if they work hard and earn certain rewards, they can't have them because that would be greed? They're working hard at hogging resources away from people who need them. Their reward is a stockpile of material wealth to passed on to thier offspring so that their offspring can with hold goods from more people who need them. That's a natural law system and that system doesn't get world peace. It's gets very violent reactions.

Do you believe that without incentive, the vast majority of people would still work hard and accomplish things? The incentive is world-MOFO-peace! The incentive is a virtually free home & food & clothes for everyone. The incentive is helping others and inturn being helped by others. The incentive is large-scale recreation. Fucking people over for a living is not an incentive for anyone who has self-respect or wishes for fellow respect. Helping others & having fun is the only thing worth accomplishing, everything else obselete.

Where's the line between incentive and greed? When you try to take something that you don't need and it ends up harming someone else for it. That's the big thick line.
Who gets to draw that line? The Human Society for World Peace, a.k.a. everyone who wants world peace.
Do you really want to execute entrepreneurs who bring progress because they earn more than that line? Yes. There's no need for "progress" or "entrepreneuring". Forget about business, forget about money. They're evil!
Consider the business of helping others and having fun - it's free.
So doing business with a tyrant makes me a tyrant? yes. Would helping satan make you a good guy?
What if I didn't know about the tyranny? You're responsible for actions and their consequences.
What if there is a product that only comes from a certain tyrannical nation (it is a resource found only there) and that product is necessary to make a medicine that saves millions of lives annually? There's only the human nation in this scenerio. The resource must be given to those who need it, anyone who gets in the way of that must perish.
So what is a “reasonable” amount of time? Ask the tyrant if they are willing to negotiate. If yes, then 2 weeks or less. If no, then instant war. It's simple. Either effectively render the tyrant no longer a tyrant or kill them. which ever comes first.
How many people must die before you decide that diplomacy isn't working? 2 weeks or less worths.
What if during those 10 years, you see real progress? Kill the tyrant and get it over with, they have forfeited thier right to live on this planet with rest of us.
When do you decide to start a war? when 2 weeks are up or they don't comply.
For that matter, what if the state department can't give a time line? then instant war.
Do you issue an ultimatum (backing yourself into a corner)? Yes, you back them into a corner.Do you then proceed with a war if that ultimatum isn't met? Yes.
These are all outlawed actions, but outlawing them doesn't stop them. - Execution will stop them eventually. There will be no evil-doers left realistically.

__________________
<---Click on it

Punkus,

You still sidestepped the questions. Your answers are answers of an idealistic society that doesn't exist. I asked you to relate your answers to the world we currently live in. Look at human beings today and see if your answers would work.

From your anwers, however, I read the following. You want a world of no freedom. You want everyone to be controlled by the government. The government is a totalitarian government that rules with an iron fist. This government will kill anyone who consumes something "unnecessarily" (whatever that means). This government will wage war mercilessly without caring about the civilian lives that it will damage. To impose its will on other nations and other societies with different values, your nation will attack as many countries as disagree with it. It won't engage in any meaningful discussion but instead will intimidate allies and enemies with the might of its military.

The peace that you want is the peace of slavery, tyranny and the grave. Any who oppose your ideals will be executed. Those who remain in your society will be slaves to your ideals. Allies (assuming your nation allows any other countries to exist) would live in fear of your invading armies. That simply isn't peace. The logical reaction to such a totalitarian regime is rebellion. It may take a while to build, but most human beings wish to be free. They want to make their own choices. They become stifled when confined and react violently against such confinement. This isn't surprising, because all living things are the same in this regard. All living beings wish to grow and expand. When confined, they strain aginst their confinement.

Your statements suggest that regardless of what the people want, you will impose uniformity on them under penalty of death. They'll all have to learn one language and if they don't, you shoot them, right? If someone breaks a law, execute them.

A person in your community doesn't have incentive to work. After all, you'll feed them or shoot them, right? Are you going to execute someone who doesn't do their daily tasks? What if they cannot? Will you execute those who are too sick to work? They aren't contributing to the community and they are using resources (perhaps an unnecessary amount).

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"?

I'm sorry, but I can't see your answers leading to a "good" or "peaceful" outcome. I see them leading to despair, misery, slavery and death.

All that aside, this thread is about the current world. People are starving, in this world, today. Not in some hypothetical world that you made up. The "ideal" that you came up with doesn't matter unless you can show how to make it into a reality. Instead, let's look at the world that we currently live in and see how to fix it. I've given you one approach. Do you have any that would work in this world?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

[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.

__________________
<---Click on it

[Another long reply]

You've hit on many valid points in your post, Punkus. Let me reply to a few of them.

You are 100% correct that Diversity causes conflict. People are xenophobic. It would be nice if this weren't so, but it is. Recognizing this fact is a required part of any realistic approach to problem resolution. People are also very resistant to change. People don't want to give up their differences. In fact they will resist giving up their differences in a violent fashion. Imagine the revolt you'd have if you tried to force Christians to abandon their faith. Imagine telling Jews or Muslims that they couldn't wear the clothes and perform the acts that are integral to their faith and adapt that of the other group. Imagine forcing citizens of the U.S. to all learn Esperanto and adapt to it if they wished to remain part of this nation. People will violently resist these approaches. The history of the world is filled with just such examples. Conquering nations rarely were embraced by the people they conquered and in many cases, the conquered people rebelled repeatedly until the conquered people were ejected (such as Spain kicking out the Moors in 1492) and in some cases, the rebellion continues.

This reality is why consolidation will not work. In order for any consolidation project to work, you would have to have the buy-in of nearly everyone in the world (and kill the rest). You'd also have to step around their dearly-held diversity to avoid bloodshed. In short, you'd need to get everyone in the world to agree on something (actually a great many things). Quite simply, that isn't going to happen. I mean idealism aside, you'll never get me to give up Christianity, and you won't likely get Diablo or Skandalous to give up Islam, so how can you unify us? Your options would be: 1) Hope we can agree to get along despite our differences (best option). 2) Segregate us. 3) Kill one group or another (your proposed solution). 4) “Outlaw” one or both faiths which won't work, it will just push it underground. Yes, I'd be willing to be a criminal before giving up my faith. It is possible that you can have a consolidation of secular rules, but that won't make the world one people, we'll simply be following the same rules (and some/many will be breaking them).

You also stated that although people claim to want world peace, they don't do what would be necessary to achieve it. You are correct in that as well. People don't want world peace. They want everyone else to stop bothering them. For a given average person, if they are left alone and if they are comfortable, then they don't really care about whether someone across the globe is fighting, starving, being tortured, etc. Raising the awareness of these issues can cause an average person to care for a while, but they really don't want to make the commitment to get involved. People don't generally care about peace, as long as their own lives are (relatively) peaceful. There are also people out there who don't want peace at all. There are those who want wars, who want fighting and strife. There are some who thrive on it (these are extremists, but they are still people). Even the average person wants to see some strife. Why do you think that sports exist? Why do you think that people watch soccer, baseball, football, hockey, boxing, ultimate fighting championships, etc? Why do you think that over 90% of computer games have some aspect of combat in them? People need and want to see competition and strife. They want to see winners and losers. They want to vicariously experience the victories and defeats, and at times experience them by playing the games themselves. Sure, it is just sports, but all sports (and indeed all games) are related to warfare, and it is that warlike nature that makes people desire to succeed, to achieve and accomplish. It is inevitable that this nature will sometimes spill over into the arena of international relations or even impact how we treat each other.

The most likely people to really want to do something are young people (under 25). While a person is young, their needs are generally provided for (mostly by parents). They don't have to consider consequences of policy changes because they aren't really dealing with the downsides. This allows for a certain idealism and energy that is unique to the young. After about age 25-35, people tend to be involved in more localized realities such as getting food, housing and health care, starting a family, etc. At that point, concerns about foreign strife take a back seat to concerns about survival.
Now your proposal is to force everyone to work for the good of all. To have all needs provided by the conglomerate/state/society and therefore everyone can be an idealist because all of their needs are cared for. Unfortunately, you'll encounter several problems from that approach. One of the biggest is that we are indeed competitive. That simply cannot be abandoned because you wish it. In fact, in your solution, you would need that warlike, competitive nature to be able to recruit the people who would enforce your rules and laws. People who are competitive aren't going to accept the restrictions that you've placed on people in your solution. It wouldn't be long before they realized that they, being armed (to enforce your laws and execute offenders) and competitive, would have a disproportionate level of power.
As a historical parallel, look at the third Reich. Germany elected Adolph Hitler as chancellor. He didn't conquer the nation, he was elected. He and his party were given a huge amount of power and they began by doing things to help the German people. Certainly his building of the Autobahn and other projects were beneficial for Germany. Nonetheless, the German people had been provided many good things and they were given “peace”, but the cost was the enslavement of a large class of people. Realistically, all of Germany were slaves to the powerful Third Reich, simply oppose that government and a citizen would suddenly find themselves in prison. This sounds very much like the government that you're proposing. Dissenters (greedy people in your world) will be shot.

An interesting question would be whether world peace is even desirable. “Peace” is an absence of war or hostility. It is also freedom from quarrels and disagreements or freedom from strife. Consider, do you want a war where everyone agrees? It may seem ideal on the surface, but humans aren't equipped to handle such a world. World peace would suggest that nobody has a difference of opinion. That isn't even possible until we know with 100% certainty, the facts about any and every topic. For example, you and I might disagree on the origin of the chrysalis for butterflies. Nobody really knows how they originated although there are several theories, but if we disagree, we aren't at a state of peace. To be certain, it isn't war either, but that's just a matter of scale. One group of people may believe in polygamy while another may believe in monogamy. Is either belief intrinsically “wrong”? Until one knows, for certain, what is wrong and what is right, you cannot have peace. If you simply impose your viewpoint on these groups, one or the other will be disenfranchised and may react violently thus breaking your peace. Add to that, the fact that much of human progress has arisen because of our differences. We think differently, we act differently, we look at problems differently. If we all agreed, we'd still believe that the world was flat. After all, a difference of opinion would be met with execution (Socrates experienced this as did many, many revolutionary thinkers).

Part and parcel with this comes this fact about humans. Human beings don't always act logically. One of the problems with the many ideal societies is that they don't take this fact into account. A person who acts illogically or irrationally is not going to fit into any “ideal”. The ideal is based around the concept of people all desiring the same things and being willing to agree with each other. The problem is that every person in the world has their own desires and therefore nobody is the “ideal” or “typical” person that an idealistic model of the world requires. Certainly, if everyone was willing to work towards peace, and if everyone agreed what peace meant, and if everyone was willing to give up certain things for peace, then peace would be attainable.

You used the phrase “minimal slavery”, and I'll tell you that there is no such thing. A slave is owned by someone else. A slave is required to do what another person tells him. I work at my job currently, but I'm not a slave to it. I have the freedom to leave that job for another one. I can even get to the point where I can choose to do nothing if I wish. A slave, on the other hand cannot quit their job. They cannot simply choose to do nothing. They cannot retire. They have no freedom. A slave is a slave, their decisions are not their own. About the only thing that a slave owns is his own thoughts. If the slave's master treats the slave kindly, then the slave may not suffer much, but that doesn't mean that it is any less slavery.

You also wrote about incentive to work, but staying alive in slavery isn't incentive. Incentive is getting a bonus or something above the normal. The purpose of incentive is to encourage greater achievement. In your described world, that would be seen as greedy, so no incentive exists.

You asked what is stopping each country from allotting each citizen a lot of land. Let me ask you this; are all lots of land equal? Some land is arable, has good water supplies and could provide all of the necessities for people. Others are arid deserts which cannot sustain any human life. Still other land may be swampland, too moist for people. If you divided a nation up in this fashion, you'd be condemning those with poor land to end up suffering and even dying. Even if you limited the land grants to “good” land, some land would be superior to others, and you'd then have a situation where those with good land could theoretically be better off than those with poor land. Perhaps then you'd decide to execute those with better land for greed.

Government's job is not to provide. It is to govern. It is to enforce laws. It is to write laws when necessary. If you put government in the role of provider, then you create a society of de facto slaves. The government would be the slave masters. Of course who runs the government? Not slaves, but people who will do whatever they can to escape slavery. Immediately, you end up with a “governmental” class where those who run the government become the slave masters and the citizens are slaves. I know which group I'd want to be in.

Sure, some changes are needed in the world, but start with changes that people will accept. You'll likely find that people don't need to be controlled or dominated, and that we can have some level of peace and freedom at the same time. It won't be world peace any time soon, but ask yourself honestly if world peace is really what people want, or do they simply say it because it sounds good, not really understanding what the world would have to give up to attain it. Most people aren't willing to make such a sacrifice. It isn't greed, and it isn't hypocrisy, it is simply that people don't really understand the global issue of what they are asking for.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

wow some long replies here! if the goverment would get his act together no one woould starve