I love Bertrand Russel.

[Kintaro]

I like Bertrand Russel...

Individual liberty, of course, existed in the ages before there was government, but when it existed without government civilized life was impossible. When governments first arose they involved slavery, absolute monarchy, and usually the enforcement of superstition by a powerful priesthood. All these were very great evils, and one can understand Rousseau's nostalgia for the life of the noble savage. But this was a mere romantic idealization, and, in fact, the life of the savage was, as Hobbes said, 'nasty, brutish, and short'. The history of man reaches occasional great crises. There must have been a crisis when the apes lost their tails, and another when our ancestors took to walking upright and lost their protective covering of hair. As I remarked before, the human population of the globe, which must at one time have been very small, was greatly increased by the invention of agriculture, and was increased again in our own time by modern industrial and medical technique. But modern technique has brought us to a new crisis. In this new crisis we are faced with an alternative: either man must again become a rare species as in the days of Homo Pekiniensis, or we must learn to submit to an international government. Any such government, whether good, bad or indifferent, will make the continuation of the human species possible, and, as in the course of the past 5,000 years men have climbed gradually from the despotism of the Pharaohs to the glories of the American Constitution, so perhaps in the next 5,000 they may climb from a bad international government to a good one. But if they do not establish an international government of some kind, new progress will have to begin at a lower level, probably at that of tribal savagery, and will have to begin after a cataclysmic destruction only to be paralleled by the Biblical account of the deluge. When we survey the long development of mankind from a rare hunted animal, hiding precariously in caves from the fury of wild beasts which he was incapable of killing; subsisting doubtfully on the raw fruits of the earth which he did not know how to cultivate; reinforcing real terrors by the imaginary terrors of ghosts and evil spirits and malign spells; gradually acquiring the mastery of his environment by the invention of fire, writing, weapons, and at last science; building up a social organization which curbed private violence and gave a measure of security to daily life; using the leisure gained by his skill, not only in idle luxury, but in the production of beauty and the unveiling of the secrets of natural law; learning gradually, though imperfectly, to view an increasing number of his neighbors as allies in the task of production rather than enemies in the attempts at mutual depredation - when we consider this long and arduous journey, it becomes intolerable to think that it may all have to be made again from the beginning owing to failure to take one step for which past developments, rightly viewed, have been a preparation. Social cohesion, which among the apes is confined to the family grew in pre-historic times as far as the tribe, and in the very beginnings of history reached the level of small kingdoms in upper and lower Egypt and in Mesopotamia. From these small kingdoms grew the empires of antiquity. and then graduallv the great States of our own day, far larger than even the Roman Empire. Quite recent developments have robbed the smaller States of anv real independence, until now there remain only two that are wholly capable of independent self direction: I mean, of course, the United States and the USSR. All that is necessary to save mankind from disaster is the step from two independent States to one - not by war, which would bring disaster, but by agreement.

The disaster of course is nuclear holocaust.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I agree, a single government would be a good thing, as long as it's a democracy and not a totalitarian regime, but I don't think such a thing could actually exist, maybe in the future but not at the moment. A single government would mean a single state which would technically be an empire and history has shown they haven't lasted for very long.

I suppose you could argue that we're on that path now with NATO, the EU and the UN; perhaps these will gradually evolve into a world government. All three organisations currently have a lot of power and are responsible for many laws in member states which I think will continue to increase. Take the EU for example, they're trying to push a single constitution that will affect all member states but they've so far failed as most people don't want a United States of Europe.

We've already been close to having a nuclear holocaust in WW2 and the cold war and a single government could've ruled the world if the aforementioned conflicts went the wrong way.

[Kintaro]

The only way such a thing appears possible is through a totalitarian state, nothing short of that will make billions of people all over the world give up their nationalistic tendencies. And really, in the stated purpose of global peace and disarmament I foresee a great blood bath in the United States where citizens are not likely to hand over their arms and trust the state in many areas.

I think also, that China and Russia also will have a lot of issues about dropping their nationhood.

Kevin Rudd (PM here) is publicly steering for an Asian union. It's in the papers and it's on the news, as for an American Union it is still incredibly scetchy to me except a newsclip that "George Bush signed an agreement that will end the United States as we know it." I don't understand how such an agreement can even be valid. When I think of an agreement, I think of a court to back such an agreement and considering the decision has no law allowing the President "ownership" of the country to make such an agreement I can hardly believe it could be valid.

Though, Bush's harm could have been minimized a long time ago if the Supreme Court did their job.

[Aloone_Jonez]

The only way such a thing appears possible is through a totalitarian state, nothing short of that will make billions of people all over the world give up their nationalistic tendencies.

I can't see that working, it didn't happen to all the countries in the Soviet Union which after all wasn't a single country but an empire, the Russian empire.

Also there is a trend for countries to become democratic as they get more rich because it gets harder to control people as they become more wealthy and powerful.

[Kintaro]

The only way such a thing appears possible is through a totalitarian state, nothing short of that will make billions of people all over the world give up their nationalistic tendencies.

I can't see that working, it didn't happen to all the countries in the Soviet Union which after all wasn't a single country but an empire, the Russian empire.

Also there is a trend for countries to become democratic as they get more rich because it gets harder to control people as they become more wealthy and powerful.

That just depends on gun rights as far as I see, in Australia we have lost our means to any realistic self defense in a modern world. As wealthy as we are, it doesn't mean squat. We handed them in voluntarily, we offically surrendered to Statism in this country. As soon as you hand over your right to arms, you have just handed over your right to freedom.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I disagree.

It doesn't matter even if there are no gun laws, the government will always have bigger guns and trained solders who can use them more effectively than the average civilian.

[Kintaro]

I disagree.

It doesn't matter even if there are no gun laws, the government will always have bigger guns and trained solders who can use them more effectively than the average civilian.

The government are pretty useless without their citizens productivity these days, most the "bigger guns" depend on that highly.

Nice discussion but nobody has worked out something very wrong in this thread... Have you asked "Who is this guy?" There is something funny going on, I'll tell you.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I've never heard of him until now.

It looks like he wrote some interesting material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

[Kintaro]

I've been waiting for someone, since I posted this, to realize he is a socialist and I actually don't mind a few of his ideas.

[Aloone_Jonez]

That's no surprise to me, I didn't think you were anti-socialist.

[Kintaro]

Woah, where have you been?

[Aloone_Jonez]

I know you're pro-capitalist but that doesn't make you completely anti-socialist.

I'm quite pro-capitalist but I think some socialism is required for general wealthfare and social mobility.

For example, I support the idea of a free market but I think it's good that most of the health and education system in this country are in the posession of the state. I would also like to see re-nationalisation of the rail network. Socialism might also be a good cure for our current housing problem (despite the recent price fall, homes are still expensive for most first time buyers in this country) whether it be the government building more cheap housing or encouraging cooperative housing schemes so people can build thier own cheap housing.

[Kintaro]

You should have a look how socialism to help the housing situation has hurt America terribly, making housing terrible again.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html

Nationalized health is terrible and I know this from personal experience. I have to pay immense money now for private treatment because if I do go back to the nuthouse for some reason, I'd like one with hot water.

[Aloone_Jonez]

There are also many studies that show "nationalized" health is extremely inefficient and ends up costing more. In the United Kingdom the NHS costs a taxpayer working the average amount of full time on minimum 2000 pounds+ a year. In America that is a fucking decent insurance policy. I can hear you already though "what about the unemployed?" Well I don't mind the idea too much of a private hospital system with a system that allows concession based subsidy for unemployed patients. This keeps the system competitive, keeps a huge tax burden off taxpayers for "health for all," and the unemployed still have health cover.

I'm not saying our NHS is perfect or the most efficient heath care system.

Cuba is as socialist as they come and their health system is more efficient than the UK's or the US'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5232628.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cuba

You should have a look how socialism to help the housing situation has hurt America terribly, making housing terrible again.

I'm not saying the government should interefere with who the banks lend money to. The problem in the UK is that demand for housing outstrips supply and now the credit crunch has made things worse by making banks less willing to lend to people.

They should build more council houses to rent to people until they can afford to buy a house. Another option would be to promote cooprative house building schemes so groups of people can club together and build their own homes rather than having to pay companies who'll make huge profits.

[Kintaro]

I'm not saying our NHS is perfect or the most efficient heath care system.

Cuba is as socialist as they come and their health system is more efficient than the UK's or the US'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5232628.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cuba

They also have labor camps. Efficiency != Freedom. For fuck sake.

They should build more council houses to rent to people until they can afford to buy a house. Another option would be to promote cooprative house building schemes so groups of people can club together and build their own homes rather than having to pay companies who'll make huge profits.

Where do you think the capital will come from to build them? This will just rack up debt anyway - might as well do a Freddie Mac which does basically the same thing.