Evan, I don't think a multi party system like in Europe would really help all that much. After all we got the same sh**, different country.
GH, I don't buy your "Americans are lazy" argument. Check for average work hours per year in an international comparison. I will bet you $ 200 (or more, if you wish) that every single EU country will have a considerably lower rate. Just for starters.
They key word here, as in similar threads before, is globalization. This is the darker side of the medal. The brighter side of the medal are the cheap Nike shoes made in China, like millions of other products that we else couldn't afford in these quantities. It's just that we as the rich west would like to have just one side of it and not the other, which is of course a paradox.
If the multinational companies are left to continue unhindered, globalization will put us all into nasty dead ends. IMO laissez-faire policy is not appropriate at this time of human development. We need
benevolent governments not run by corporations, whose obvious goal is greed of the "owners", in order to efficiently counter the ill effects of globalization. Unfortunately, we do not have this type of government.
I'm not sure if mankind has ever seen a benevolent government yet. If you look closely enough, there have always been those who lived off the work of others, simply because they own something by birthright. And this is the real problem. It's not rational. It's not what our constitutions promise, equal starting conditions for everyone. And as long as equal starting conditions for everyone aren't provided, and especially if those who were lucky enough - that's all it takes, really - to be born with privileges constitute the largest part of the government, I have a hard time calling that government truely benevolent.
It would be a real start to eliminate all forms of inheritance, but I know as well as you do that this isn't gonna happen in the next few millennia. I see inheritance as one of the major pillars of injustice in this world. Inheritance is not natural either from my obvservation (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think there's any animal that will give its young the exclusive right to their former hunting grounds, for example. (Most) animals cannot really grasp the idea of possession, therefore much less inheritance. You can argue that since they cannot grasp the idea, the fact that they don't inherit is irrelevant. I think we humans are animals, and if we are to live in harmony with nature - which should be our goal if we are not to ruin our habitat - we need to rethink our ways.
Anyway, IMO native Americans were pretty close to a good start in this respect: you cannot own land. In abstract principle, the idea that a piece of land is my possession is absolutely rediculous, even more so inheritance. Name me one good reason why some people should own parts of land with riches, gold mines and oil fields for example, just because they were born as children of their parents? Why should they be in control of this natural resource, and thus riches for which they did nothing to deserve the wealth, other than being born. Why should they, with these riches, have the power over others, which were simply unlucky, because their parents didn't own any land? I cannot see any plausible rational reason for this behavior. It's painfully clear that it serves none but those few who "have" at the expense of the "have-nots", and it's not even ending, but through the concept of inheritance this injustice is perpetuated, and through the concept of interest even compounded and aggravated over the years. Imagine if you had invested three kilograms of gold 2,000 years back... imagine kings who "invested" tons of gold... why should we perpetuate and compound (!) this injustice?!?
Okay, back to the real world (just for a moment
). This is where we are at, and obviously it's impossible to switch to this ideal state of things in short-, mid-, or even long-term. This type of change would require centuries. And thus it's not gonna happen, it won't serve the individual interests of anyone in their lifetime, and hence nobody will do so. Especially since essentially those who have the money are those in power, money is pretty much equal to power. They have profited from this system already, why should they not wish the best for their offspring? It's "human" to feel this way, I can't really blame them as individuals. But in total, it doesn't serve mankind at all, quite on the contrary, in essence it's the source of many of this world's evils.
Think of it this way: if you couldn't own or inherit land, do you think the situation in Israel/Palestine would be anywhere close to what it is today? And that is just one example. How many wars have been fought over territory? How many people were left dead in the process, how many maimed, and how many traumatized? Even more so, if territory couldn't be owned, there wouldn't be the sort of nation that you have now. Without the division into nations, I don't think we would've even developed weapons of mass destruction. Nukes, chem and bio warfare all require extensive amount of research to shape all three "natural hazards" into optimized weapons. If we wouldn't be divided into nations and people, this research would have never been done. For what? It would've been seen simply a waste of resources. Which EVERY war is. It's destructive, not constructive. In total, mankind loses with every war. Wars that wouldn't be fought because there's nothing to gain.
Now, mankind didn't just drop on the earth out of nowhere two years ago, with phones, internet and all already in place. A few centuries back people over here didn't even know that an "over there" even existed. But now we do. And by now we have efficient means to communicate. If I want, I can grab netmeeting and talk to any of you guys and even see you. At no extra cost, since internet is flat rate. Do you guys even realize what this can mean for mankind?
To me it's almost time we conclude the step into the information age. With the industrial revolution came democracy, with the information age there will be another political revolution. There NEEDS to be one. Because now we can all see painfully clear that there are just too many things headed the wrong way in this world. It's almost time, but not quite the time yet. First, our task is to help the rest of the world to develop to a degree (help aimed towards helping themselves) where they can join in gigantic chat party going on. Then we need some time to exchange, to tell stories and compare, and to draw our conclusions. But we might even live to see it, there will be a point where we all (at least the "ordinary" folks, and thus vast majority) will become discontent enough with our current world order.
I know some people, especially some types of Christians, are allergic to the phrase "new world order" and hence I will rather use "just world order". What I want to see in my lifetime is mankind finally getting its act together. In the sense that we realize that we're all human beings, regardless of whether your skin is white, black, blue, green or yellow. That we all are worth the same (invaluable), and that we need to cooperate to continue to exist. I also firmly believe that we CAN pull this off. It won't happen over night, as I said, but we CAN make changes if we all participate. I think we do need a world government, but not in a system that is anywhere close to ours. It would definately need to be a
benevolent world government, one that genuinely cares about its citizens. Furthermore, we need to slowly amalgamate part of our cultures into a sort of world culture. This doesn't mean that we have to do away with culture in total, or even different languages. It just means that all subdivisions (former countries) would be required to adhere to certain standards regarding law, wages, level of education, etc. A global centralized government would be about the worst imaginable scenario right now, at least with current technology, but global standards regarding law and the equal opportunity to live life to the fullest for every human and a body to enforce those standards aren't. So I'd say let the "citizens" of every "state" deal with all kinds of stuff themselves, like beliefs, language, food, you know, most parts that constitute "culture". But certain crucial issues should be fixed and declared valid for every human being on earth in a global constitution.
I repeat myself often, I know, but it's important to understand that all of this cannot happen over night. I'm sure with the average attention span nowadays, few people even bothered to read my entire post. And that is the first and most important problem that we need to tackle. Long-term planning is required here. Mankind needs a new vision. We need to shake off the apathy that this system has put on us ("what can
I against it all???"). We have to muster the will to do better as a whole. Together.
Now, to make a full circle and finally get back on topic, globalization in its current form is the contrary to the vision that I just described. Because it's developed and pushed by greed (multinational corporations, remember?) and the lust for as much profit in the least amoung of time, which logically leads to a myopic view ("shareholder value" being a key word here), which in the end only serves to reinforce the old way of inheritance, to perpetuate and amplify the injustice carried over since thousands of years. This is why I believe laissez-faire is the wrong way to go. Now let's try to convince our governments that they should have our well-being in mind and not that of corporations, that should be enough of a task at hand for starters.
Peace,
Ron
P.S.: And before anyone thinks this post is due to envy, you're wrong. My parents afforded me the best possible education everything I desired and that money could buy, up to the point where I said enough, I want to earn my own money, please keep yours. Just through this education they afforded me I realize that there are too many who were not as fortunate as I was.
sad really.
