Jason Joy

This conversation is closed.

Governments as antiquated organisations

If we look at governments their frontiers and laws are usually generated by historical reasons. the fundamental functions of a government are to distribute wealth from the rich to the poor, to provide an assurance against situations when you need lot of money or cant earn it anymore (childs, unemployment, old age, invalidity), to offer services to the community which arent useful immediately but in the future or which have a more basic need than wealth (education, care of elderly). this are all really useful functions, but with some problems which arise from different factors:
- population pyramid: this leads to the fact that more and more services are being privatized (invalidity insurance, private pension funds ...)
- nationality: this old historical grown concept of nations leads to the fact that i have to pay for debts cumulated by other people and represented by goverments i only share one thing: that i accidentely was born in the same region. fortunately, with globalisation, this can be compensated. well- educated people who dont find jobs anymore in their country simply change country. this migration of brains in crisis and immigration when its being cheap again for companies to start a business or subsidized by governments leads to fluctuating growth and contration of economical power of regions.

So we have governments with totally random, historical grown borders which social functions are privatized due to the population pyramid and which national character is undermined by globalisation and free movement of goods and manpower. why do we still need this national goverments which differing interests, in the best case lead to a massive overhead in bureaucracy for which we all pay, and in the worst case to war. why do we still have this dinosaur organisations where money is borrowed by banks. with interest, compound interest and his exponential character, exponentially growing debt and national bankruptcies are logical.

  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: I personally like dividing the world by watersheds.
  • thumb
    Dec 14 2011: So do we need a central " world government"? is that the logical step that the social functions realized by governments follow the already globalized economical functions realized by corporations?
    Should companies directly realize this tasks which they already do today over the governmental, bureaucratic detour of governments with the additon of shared funds for the unemployed, for the elderly people and for the young?
    Should everything be privatized and the pooling (insurance companies) and advancing of money (banks, eg student loans) be realized by private companies. should everyone invest privately instead of investing in governmental money pools? choosing his own risk with all the possible benefits (earning more money) and downsides (risk).
    should these social organisations be more flexible, not build anymore by people accidentely born in the same region, but build by people with the same interests, the same risk and believe models? organisations that can be build and unbuild flexibly (eg by paying for joining, getting money for leaving).

    are national borders, nations in general antiquated and do we have to eliminate them due to their negative side effects (massive bureaucracy for relations between nations, wars..)? we should at least think about possible better ways realizing social functions.
    • thumb
      Dec 15 2011: I would suggest you stop thinking about "we" so much, and start thinking about "I"... We is a construction of language, not a description of reality. If examined closely you will find that no two people on earth actually share common beliefs. The genius of the American constitution was that it kept we out of I... It kept the majority religion from becoming the state religion. It kept the majority party, from becoming the state party, though we're failing at that nowadays, as we basically have a 1 party system again.

      A world government may emerge as a necessity, arise out of shared desire, or be forced upon us one day... but it can't take away the power of individuals, and groups of individuals to disagree with it. To protest it publicly, and to vote against it. Also it will have to treat each nation with respect to cultural traditions, and allow them to evolve at their own pace, much as the states did originally. If we try to get everyone unified under an entire constitution, we'd be in trouble, A Declaration of Independence, or Interdependence as Howard Zinn called it may be in order.