I'll point out that your argument that most people do not migrate because their parents and neighbours attitude to government shapes their own attitude to government, would lend weight to the stability of any well-meaning government. Even a global one.
Security aside, most migrations are for economic purposes. Introduce a global government, and economic disparities would tend to shrink, and with them the economic imperitive to migrate. Indeed, introduce a global government and the need to migrate/flee from oppressive regimes would disappear totally.
Your comment about the lack of funds reducing the ability to migrate is made invalid by your further statement that mass migrations to the US happened 3 or 4 generations ago. I am sure that they were not all rich immigrants. The Statue of Liberty invites those unfortunates : "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..." Economics is not what is stopping people from moving from country to country - it's what's driving people to migrate.
Turning to the liklihood of a world government, I think that one day it will be tried. Whether it will succeed - I don't know. I think I will be dead by the time it happens anyway, but when the two largest causes of war are religion and nationalism, there will come a day when both are removed from enlightened society. It's probably more likely that today's "nations" will have the same relation to WorldGov as the US states do today to USGov.
Of course there will be no hard agreement on all facets of the organisation, but there will be a firm belief in the need for it to exist. There's no broad agreement in the US -as you say - for certain policies, but there is a broad agreement that the US Government should not be replaced by some other form of rule. This, I think, will change after it's determined that there is a better way.
What that better way is - could take hundreds of years to manifest.
PS Thanks for your measured and reasoned comments. A breath of fresh air on/.
Given that the vast majority of people right now do not migrate across national boundaries, does this mean that they are all living in the best political landscape for them? Do all 300 million Americans agree that the US political system is "absolute preferred top-notch hurray huzzah"? No. Does it really matter that they don't? Also No.
Why is that? Well, it's because on the whole, it's a good and decent system. Rather like the one that will eventually come to pass on this planet. Maybe not this century, but I think that one day this planet will have to have a single governing body, because life will be just too complex without it.
I agree that right now, it's probably not a good time to usher in the truly New World Order, as not only is the infrastructure not in place to sustain a global government, but we're too entrenched in our tribal/national mindset to embrace what eventually will have to happen.
How much of Ontario's turnover is in the export business? I'd guess that most of Ontario's business is internal to the province. [I'd welcome figures that prove/reject this theory]. Serve Ontarians first, not our external customers.
If frigging with DST benefits those of us who pay taxes to Queens Park, great. Personally I'd like to see what's best for locals, wherever they may live. If business has to adapt to a constantly changing local environment at their international customers (tax laws, import regs, even office relocations) then I am sure that keeping track of time zones is something they already do.
No large deal was ever nixed because of a single phone call going unanswered at 9am/8am.
Shame then, that he's quoted as saying "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans that claims allegiance to two countries" and had on his tombstone enscribed "died a citizen of the United States".
If I get in an elevator at sea level, and it starts rising at a steady 10 m/s, then surely I will get to an altitude of 200km after about a day and a half. Why do you need to get to a speed of 1951 m/s?
What's to stop the elevator carrying on at that speed?
I can't see too many people wanting interest on $20. The interest on $20 in your current/checking account is marginal, and that's if your bank gives you interest on your non-savings $$$. Because, as you say, banks are greedy. I wouldn't expect my $20 to get interest. Heck, I'd be ahead if I wasn't charged to use the service.
Ongoing charges should be made where the big money is - the vendors, not the customers. Charge the customers and you'll run out of customers real quick. Offer another method of payment to the vendors, and if it works for them, it'll stick around. Economics of this should be done between the infrastructure providers and the merchants, not the people ponying up $20 a piece.
I think the point that was being made was that it should be insignificant to PayPal to move data around internally. The charges you mention will only be brought into play when cash is withdrawn from the merchants' accounts. Moving pennies from one account to another should be free, given that commissions are paid upon withdrawal.
With credit cards, there's no "float" - all payments go in and are paid back to the merchant minus commissions. (I am assuming that's true, please correct me if you know different).
I agree with the OP - it's surprising that in 2005 there's no real micropayment infrastructure in place.
You are labouring under the misconception that there is always an infrastructure in place that enables an instant fix. Given a few hundred years, the poor and needy will indeed work their way out of the gutter. Comparitively.
There's no imagined saviour. What's missing are the tools to do the job. Do you honestly think that the world is on its knees asking, no, begging, for the US to come and help?
Historically, the west has caused much of the probems is faces right now. Not just the US, but other imperial powers of the past. British, French, Portuguese, Dutch... Why be surpised when the effects come back and bite us on our ass? Clean up our own mess? Nah, fuck 'em.
Because something is boring, doesn't mean it is wrong. Because something is cliched, doesn't mean it is wrong either. So if less $$$ on guns and more $$$ on medicines is off the mark, what would you consider the real mark to be?
Has the false conception that we are so rich and powerful that we could fix all of their problems if only we cared about our fellow humans enough to do so
Oh, but you are "so rich and powerful". Go to the United Nations Building in NYC, take the tour, and pay special attention to the display outside the Economic & Social Council chambers. There's a long list of global problems and how many billions of dollars it would take to fix them. It also has a figure for the total global military budget, of which the US portion is no small fraction. Military spending far outweighs the projected costs for eradicating disease, hunger, poverty and slavery.
As for "can't be bothered to help each other", there are plenty of international associations worldwide, for the betterment of their participants. Whether these countries can be bothered or not has no bearing on the richness of the USA, so your last sentence is entirely emotive and has no substance wrt this argument.
That's certainly not how I read the post. I read the post as the job is simply a means to get money. When you get home it's the things you do there that measure how successful you are in life.
You got that report out on time? Way to go, you really accomplished something there! Your 10 year old daughter brought home straight A's so you took her to the park for a picnic? Well, I guess those 10 years were just wasted and you have nothing to show for it.
I'd much rather be a hero to my family and friends than a hero to my bosses shareholders.
Me, I make careful note of the companies that sponsor IOC Corporation, and put them on my personal do not buy list for life.
More difficult that you may imagine. The 2008 games has three levels of corporate support. Will you be shunning the partners, the sponsors, or the exclusive suppliers? What about previous games - will you be boycotting them for life?
It will affect your TV viewing: GE - so no NBC for you Disney - so no ABC for you (or ESPN) Sony - so no CBS for you
Also your movie/dvd watching habits will change: GE - so no Universal for you Disney - so no Miramax for you (or Touchstone) Sony - so no Columbia for you
The list goes on and on. No Blockbuster, no Paramount, no BMG, no MGM, no Playstation. Philips sponsored the Olympics - so will you be buying CDs?
You've opened a can of worms for yourself by announcing a personal boycott of a few large mega-giga-omni-corporations: they really do run the way of life in our society now. Luckily, not in the world, just yet, but you can bet that they are working on that.
Sad, isn't it?
(*)Actually, not sure Disney ever sponsored a summer games... but you get the gist. They did sponsor a special olympics though.
Becasue a an international group that isn't influanced by other countries will not happen, ever. Well that's the point, isn't it? The international group should be influenced by other countries, else what's the point of an international group?
You could give it to the UN, but the US has a lot of control there as well. The point the poster was trying to make is that other countries will also have control, not just the US.
Current insanity aside, the US has been less abusive with these kind of controls then most other countries. But not all of them? So why not let them in on the DNS-control-fest?
FInally, it isn't just the US here, it is other countries as well, but will down play those to feed the current America Bashing. Umm, the article opens with the phrase "The Bush administration is objecting to...", and ends with "A letter from ICANN's government advisory group...". It sounds very US-centric, and granted there may be support from other governments for blocking.xxx [can you cite any examples please?] but the article is quite clear that the US govt is asking a US company to rethink their proposal. How is this not a US thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Someone should tell NBC then. I'm sure they use the seal (or something incredibly similar) on the West Wing.
I'll point out that your argument that most people do not migrate because their parents and neighbours attitude to government shapes their own attitude to government, would lend weight to the stability of any well-meaning government. Even a global one.
..." Economics is not what is stopping people from moving from country to country - it's what's driving people to migrate.
/.
Security aside, most migrations are for economic purposes. Introduce a global government, and economic disparities would tend to shrink, and with them the economic imperitive to migrate. Indeed, introduce a global government and the need to migrate/flee from oppressive regimes would disappear totally.
Your comment about the lack of funds reducing the ability to migrate is made invalid by your further statement that mass migrations to the US happened 3 or 4 generations ago. I am sure that they were not all rich immigrants. The Statue of Liberty invites those unfortunates : "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses
Turning to the liklihood of a world government, I think that one day it will be tried. Whether it will succeed - I don't know. I think I will be dead by the time it happens anyway, but when the two largest causes of war are religion and nationalism, there will come a day when both are removed from enlightened society. It's probably more likely that today's "nations" will have the same relation to WorldGov as the US states do today to USGov.
Of course there will be no hard agreement on all facets of the organisation, but there will be a firm belief in the need for it to exist. There's no broad agreement in the US -as you say - for certain policies, but there is a broad agreement that the US Government should not be replaced by some other form of rule. This, I think, will change after it's determined that there is a better way.
What that better way is - could take hundreds of years to manifest.
PS Thanks for your measured and reasoned comments. A breath of fresh air on
Given that the vast majority of people right now do not migrate across national boundaries, does this mean that they are all living in the best political landscape for them? Do all 300 million Americans agree that the US political system is "absolute preferred top-notch hurray huzzah"? No. Does it really matter that they don't? Also No.
Why is that? Well, it's because on the whole, it's a good and decent system. Rather like the one that will eventually come to pass on this planet. Maybe not this century, but I think that one day this planet will have to have a single governing body, because life will be just too complex without it.
I agree that right now, it's probably not a good time to usher in the truly New World Order, as not only is the infrastructure not in place to sustain a global government, but we're too entrenched in our tribal/national mindset to embrace what eventually will have to happen.
How much of Ontario's turnover is in the export business? I'd guess that most of Ontario's business is internal to the province. [I'd welcome figures that prove/reject this theory]. Serve Ontarians first, not our external customers.
If frigging with DST benefits those of us who pay taxes to Queens Park, great. Personally I'd like to see what's best for locals, wherever they may live. If business has to adapt to a constantly changing local environment at their international customers (tax laws, import regs, even office relocations) then I am sure that keeping track of time zones is something they already do.
No large deal was ever nixed because of a single phone call going unanswered at 9am/8am.
Sometimes when I am bored, I solve for x, showing all workings ...
x-1 = 1/x
Or has he ...
Dunh dunh dahhhhh
Shame then, that he's quoted as saying "I am not one of those hyphenated Americans that claims allegiance to two countries" and had on his tombstone enscribed "died a citizen of the United States".
Best to stuff it up a dog's butt.
Who's gonna think twice about a sniffer dog poking his nose around another dog's rear end?
What's wrong with: "Ich werde zum Speicher gehen"?
Your complaint is no different from a typical English exchange:
A: "I am going to the store"
B: "When? Now, or in 20 minutes?"
You probably mean foreword :-)
Thank you! I thought I was going mad!!
In a real elevator scenario, you'd not need to reach any particular speed/velocity. Thanks for clearing that up.
I am thick. Please someone explain this.
If I get in an elevator at sea level, and it starts rising at a steady 10 m/s, then surely I will get to an altitude of 200km after about a day and a half. Why do you need to get to a speed of 1951 m/s?
What's to stop the elevator carrying on at that speed?
The Economist has a style guide, which I find very useful. The guide is based on the style book which is given to all journalists at The Economist.
Google doesn't let me collect mail from other POP3 accounts, unlike Yahoo.
Fix that, I may move from Yahoo to Google.
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure.
I can't see too many people wanting interest on $20. The interest on $20 in your current/checking account is marginal, and that's if your bank gives you interest on your non-savings $$$. Because, as you say, banks are greedy. I wouldn't expect my $20 to get interest. Heck, I'd be ahead if I wasn't charged to use the service.
Ongoing charges should be made where the big money is - the vendors, not the customers. Charge the customers and you'll run out of customers real quick. Offer another method of payment to the vendors, and if it works for them, it'll stick around. Economics of this should be done between the infrastructure providers and the merchants, not the people ponying up $20 a piece.
I think the point that was being made was that it should be insignificant to PayPal to move data around internally. The charges you mention will only be brought into play when cash is withdrawn from the merchants' accounts. Moving pennies from one account to another should be free, given that commissions are paid upon withdrawal.
With credit cards, there's no "float" - all payments go in and are paid back to the merchant minus commissions. (I am assuming that's true, please correct me if you know different).
I agree with the OP - it's surprising that in 2005 there's no real micropayment infrastructure in place.
You are labouring under the misconception that there is always an infrastructure in place that enables an instant fix. Given a few hundred years, the poor and needy will indeed work their way out of the gutter. Comparitively.
... Why be surpised when the effects come back and bite us on our ass? Clean up our own mess? Nah, fuck 'em.
There's no imagined saviour. What's missing are the tools to do the job. Do you honestly think that the world is on its knees asking, no, begging, for the US to come and help?
Historically, the west has caused much of the probems is faces right now. Not just the US, but other imperial powers of the past. British, French, Portuguese, Dutch
Because something is boring, doesn't mean it is wrong. Because something is cliched, doesn't mean it is wrong either. So if less $$$ on guns and more $$$ on medicines is off the mark, what would you consider the real mark to be?
Has the false conception that we are so rich and powerful that we could fix all of their problems if only we cared about our fellow humans enough to do so
Oh, but you are "so rich and powerful". Go to the United Nations Building in NYC, take the tour, and pay special attention to the display outside the Economic & Social Council chambers. There's a long list of global problems and how many billions of dollars it would take to fix them. It also has a figure for the total global military budget, of which the US portion is no small fraction. Military spending far outweighs the projected costs for eradicating disease, hunger, poverty and slavery.
As for "can't be bothered to help each other", there are plenty of international associations worldwide, for the betterment of their participants. Whether these countries can be bothered or not has no bearing on the richness of the USA, so your last sentence is entirely emotive and has no substance wrt this argument.
I admire Tiger Woods, but that doesn't make me a golfer.
Clearly that janitor is secretly a superhero with super-strength which Google will use to eliminate all crime on earth!
Only if he has a stripy cat called spot.
That's certainly not how I read the post. I read the post as the job is simply a means to get money. When you get home it's the things you do there that measure how successful you are in life.
You got that report out on time? Way to go, you really accomplished something there! Your 10 year old daughter brought home straight A's so you took her to the park for a picnic? Well, I guess those 10 years were just wasted and you have nothing to show for it.
I'd much rather be a hero to my family and friends than a hero to my bosses shareholders.
... or they make you an offer you cannot refuse, eh, Tony? Fuggedaboudit.
We have them too. And geese.
Me, I make careful note of the companies that sponsor IOC Corporation, and put them on my personal do not buy list for life.
... but you get the gist. They did sponsor a special olympics though.
More difficult that you may imagine. The 2008 games has three levels of corporate support. Will you be shunning the partners, the sponsors, or the exclusive suppliers? What about previous games - will you be boycotting them for life?
It will affect your TV viewing:
GE - so no NBC for you
Disney - so no ABC for you (or ESPN)
Sony - so no CBS for you
Also your movie/dvd watching habits will change:
GE - so no Universal for you
Disney - so no Miramax for you (or Touchstone)
Sony - so no Columbia for you
The list goes on and on. No Blockbuster, no Paramount, no BMG, no MGM, no Playstation. Philips sponsored the Olympics - so will you be buying CDs?
You've opened a can of worms for yourself by announcing a personal boycott of a few large mega-giga-omni-corporations: they really do run the way of life in our society now. Luckily, not in the world, just yet, but you can bet that they are working on that.
Sad, isn't it?
(*)Actually, not sure Disney ever sponsored a summer games
Would you also like a pony?
...", and ends with "A letter from ICANN's government advisory group ...". It sounds very US-centric, and granted there may be support from other governments for blocking .xxx [can you cite any examples please?] but the article is quite clear that the US govt is asking a US company to rethink their proposal. How is this not a US thing?
Yes please!
Becasue a an international group that isn't influanced by other countries will not happen, ever.
Well that's the point, isn't it? The international group should be influenced by other countries, else what's the point of an international group?
You could give it to the UN, but the US has a lot of control there as well.
The point the poster was trying to make is that other countries will also have control, not just the US.
Current insanity aside, the US has been less abusive with these kind of controls then most other countries.
But not all of them? So why not let them in on the DNS-control-fest?
FInally, it isn't just the US here, it is other countries as well, but will down play those to feed the current America Bashing.
Umm, the article opens with the phrase "The Bush administration is objecting to