Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

The US is best fit for policing the world atm

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 2:23:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Agree.

Although the question then becomes whether or not it should.

IMHO, given the world, then it would be best to have a world governing body. Personally, I advocate a US-style federalist system applied globally, thereby giving states a "senatorial" body where each state has an "equal" vote and has seniority over a more representative "house of commons" body. The executive could come from anywhere around the world, given that the person can win the popular vote. The judiciary would run similar to how it runs in America.

The main problem is that it's not in America's interest to cede authority to such a governing body, even if that body largely resembled the current American governing apparatus.

Regardless, I see this as being the most "just" approach to world governance, a lot more "just" than having one country (regardless of who it is) doing as they please to "police" the world.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 2:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think it can be justified that the US has the RIGHT to police the world, so I disagree.

That being said, I like the idea of world government, similar to what was described above.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 3:09:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 2:23:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Agree.

Although the question then becomes whether or not it should.

IMHO, given the world, then it would be best to have a world governing body. Personally, I advocate a US-style federalist system applied globally, thereby giving states a "senatorial" body where each state has an "equal" vote and has seniority over a more representative "house of commons" body. The executive could come from anywhere around the world, given that the person can win the popular vote. The judiciary would run similar to how it runs in America.

The main problem is that it's not in America's interest to cede authority to such a governing body, even if that body largely resembled the current American governing apparatus.

Regardless, I see this as being the most "just" approach to world governance, a lot more "just" than having one country (regardless of who it is) doing as they please to "police" the world.

I think that the majority of the world still does not adhere to policies that are in the best interest of the Western World, considering there are 55 recognized african nations and 51 recognized asian nations, that makes 106 nations. The nations out of those two continents that are democratic and at least semi capitalistic are about 10 total. 96 nations makes up near or the majority of the nations in the world. If you include Cuba and Haiti, you have a nice sized majority of nations that don't represent western interests. Then in Europe you have Belarus and Russia that are in europe and don't really represent western interests. Ultimately, we should not have an international government until the vast majority of the world has adapted more enlightenment era ideals, or western idealism will die.

An ideal example of the failure of this international government is the UN, they have little to no power and whatever power they have they use in inappropriate situations. The only wing of the UN that could do something, the UNSC, has China and Russia on it, and half of africa is on China's payroll, half of the middle east is on Russia's payroll, so good luck stopping atrocities in the areas where they usually occur.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 3:41:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 2:32:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I don't think it can be justified that the US has the RIGHT to police the world, so I disagree.

That being said, I like the idea of world government, similar to what was described above.

It would be nice, but I also left out the fact that, in history there are two things that usually cause innovation, the free market, or war.

Think about it, Europe advanced through the competition between the imperial states to survive and prosper, why do you think Africa fell behind and was swallowed up by war? They all lived in little utopian communes where there was little war.

Ultimately, unity is great, but there is no drive to compete if there isn't money or power in the equation, and without those two things technology and innovation will stagnate and the world will fall in to another dark age.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:38:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 3:09:09 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/31/2013 2:23:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Agree.

Although the question then becomes whether or not it should.

IMHO, given the world, then it would be best to have a world governing body. Personally, I advocate a US-style federalist system applied globally, thereby giving states a "senatorial" body where each state has an "equal" vote and has seniority over a more representative "house of commons" body. The executive could come from anywhere around the world, given that the person can win the popular vote. The judiciary would run similar to how it runs in America.

The main problem is that it's not in America's interest to cede authority to such a governing body, even if that body largely resembled the current American governing apparatus.

Regardless, I see this as being the most "just" approach to world governance, a lot more "just" than having one country (regardless of who it is) doing as they please to "police" the world.


I think that the majority of the world still does not adhere to policies that are in the best interest of the Western World, considering there are 55 recognized african nations and 51 recognized asian nations, that makes 106 nations. The nations out of those two continents that are democratic and at least semi capitalistic are about 10 total. 96 nations makes up near or the majority of the nations in the world. If you include Cuba and Haiti, you have a nice sized majority of nations that don't represent western interests. Then in Europe you have Belarus and Russia that are in europe and don't really represent western interests. Ultimately, we should not have an international government until the vast majority of the world has adapted more enlightenment era ideals, or western idealism will die.

An ideal example of the failure of this international government is the UN, they have little to no power and whatever power they have they use in inappropriate situations. The only wing of the UN that could do something, the UNSC, has China and Russia on it, and half of africa is on China's payroll, half of the middle east is on Russia's payroll, so good luck stopping atrocities in the areas where they usually occur.

Right, so you're pointing out here why America should be the world's policeman...it's because it's in America's interests. However, then you get the situation where America becomes "above the law" so to speak and not held accountable for its actions. The Iraq War is a picture perfect example of this moral quandary.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 7:37:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 9:38:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/31/2013 3:09:09 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/31/2013 2:23:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Agree.

Although the question then becomes whether or not it should.

IMHO, given the world, then it would be best to have a world governing body. Personally, I advocate a US-style federalist system applied globally, thereby giving states a "senatorial" body where each state has an "equal" vote and has seniority over a more representative "house of commons" body. The executive could come from anywhere around the world, given that the person can win the popular vote. The judiciary would run similar to how it runs in America.

The main problem is that it's not in America's interest to cede authority to such a governing body, even if that body largely resembled the current American governing apparatus.

Regardless, I see this as being the most "just" approach to world governance, a lot more "just" than having one country (regardless of who it is) doing as they please to "police" the world.


I think that the majority of the world still does not adhere to policies that are in the best interest of the Western World, considering there are 55 recognized african nations and 51 recognized asian nations, that makes 106 nations. The nations out of those two continents that are democratic and at least semi capitalistic are about 10 total. 96 nations makes up near or the majority of the nations in the world. If you include Cuba and Haiti, you have a nice sized majority of nations that don't represent western interests. Then in Europe you have Belarus and Russia that are in europe and don't really represent western interests. Ultimately, we should not have an international government until the vast majority of the world has adapted more enlightenment era ideals, or western idealism will die.

An ideal example of the failure of this international government is the UN, they have little to no power and whatever power they have they use in inappropriate situations. The only wing of the UN that could do something, the UNSC, has China and Russia on it, and half of africa is on China's payroll, half of the middle east is on Russia's payroll, so good luck stopping atrocities in the areas where they usually occur.

Right, so you're pointing out here why America should be the world's policeman...it's because it's in America's interests. However, then you get the situation where America becomes "above the law" so to speak and not held accountable for its actions. The Iraq War is a picture perfect example of this moral quandary.

I believe it's in the world's interest, YVW, Detectable and I had an interesting debate on authoritarianism and how the US isn't really immoral for denouncing authoritarianism and actively fighting it.

I made an impassioned case for internventionism to spread western values here:

http://www.debate.org...

Read post #11 on there. It was a few thousand character post, so that's why I don't feel like re posting it to fit this convo.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 8:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it not a little ironic that you Americans are so keen on going around blowing up people in foreign countries for having the 'wrong' system when your constitution is so damned sacred to you? Imagine a gigantic Eurasian Federation telling you to burn that dusty old parchment.