What do you think is the primary cause of human suffering across the globe?

[bigfield]

Who's "we" in this context? A lot of people around the world don't get to be part of that "we" and their problems are ignored. Which is probably why some of them amass assets in Switzerland.

You, and me. That's who. The world did it together. I don't know who you are talking about who didn't benefit?

People in developing countries where the major powers play at regime change. Countries whose problems are irrelevant to geopolitics. Countries that are simply robbed or attacked by major powers or their allies.

2. Nation states fight with each other. A global government that controls trade and the military would end that dynamic by making the nation state obsolete.

Not really. Armed conflicts arise over conflicts over how to share a resource. A world government won't fix that. Your assumption rests on the faulty assumption that wars are the result of angry people just hating each other. Nazi Germany didn't invade the USSR because Hitler hated communism. Germany wanted access to the Baku oil fields. All conflicts are like this.

A world government would need a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and the police/military strength to enforce the law. The US states can't go to war (anymore) because the federal government is strong enough to crush any attempt.

I think rule of law is critical to making global government work. If nations could treat this hypothetical world government like countries treat the UN then it would be pointless.

The reason the US states aren't at war with one another is because USA is well run. If it wasn't, they would be. It's not a hard concept.

That's a pretty trivial point. I don't disagree but I don't see how it makes any difference.

 

[bigfield]

3. Wealth is concentrated in some countries at the expense of others. A global government could redistribute wealth and protect developing regions from exploitation.

No, they're not. The economy is not a zero sum game. Redistributing wealth makes everybody more poor. I'm still a lefty and socialist. But I also understand economy. You have a faulty view of the world. The problems of poverty aren't fixed by just giving poor people money. Very quickly they'll be poor again.

I think you've read too much into "redistribute wealth". I envision things like nation-building, socialist institutions like UHC etc. that are paid for with taxation. Cash handouts would be pointless and I don't think people want that anyway.

Ok, fine. But until the neoliberal wealth generation has been allowed to run it's course where's the money supposed to come from? A world government won't magically fix corruption in the poor parts of the world

Neoliberalism isn't necessary to generate wealth. It's probably limiting growth by failing to provide sufficient investment in infrastructure, public services and market regulation. I suspect we could have just done the mixed economy approach consistently since the end of the Second World War and ended up better off.

 

[bigfield]

4. Global government can also pursue "nation-building" projects that involve the entire world. For instance, instead of pursuing space exploration as a competition between corporations and rich nation states, we could have something more like Starfleet from Star Trek.

We're already doing this. But politics is the art of the possible. While Assad (pure evil) was fighting ISIS (more evil) why get involved? It's not until now, when ISIS is gone that we can start doing any serious kind of nation building in Syria.

Recent attempts at rebuilding countries generally haven't turned out well.

However, the kind of nation-building I had in mind were improvements to stable societies rather than rebuilding collapsed ones, which is an extreme case. Building infrastructure, solving environmental problems etc. I've probably used the wrong word, but "nation-building" is the closest term I can think of.

Because nation building is a crap shoot. Sometimes you fail to build self re-enforcing social capital loops that keep it running. Most times they end up in dictatorships. Take a peak at how Europe transitioned from monarchies to democracies in the 19'th and 20'th century. It was two steps forward and one step back all the time.

From history we've learned that we just have to keep at it. Preferably gradual reform over revolution. But when gradual reform is impossible, revolution is the way to go.

In Maps of Time, Christian argues that this cycle exists throughout human civilisation, and I'm inclined to believe him. I think neoliberalism has been a backwards step for liberalism.

But parliamentary liberal democracy is the most stable and robust type of government humanity has ever devised. So it tends to win out over time. As long as we keep pushing for liberal reforms.

Maybe, but how? What about socialist reforms? A lot of countries would probably make their people a lot better off if they copied some of the socialist institutions in the Nordic countries.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm going to break this up into several posts with divergent themes:

It doesn't just look good. It is good. Nothing has ever trickled down. That was bullshit when Reagan said it, and it is bullshit now. When growth slows down you switch to socialism and more state control and regulation. Because now your country can afford it.

When a country deregulates wealth grows exponentially. It's like dots painting on a balloon. As you inflate it those who had more in the beginning have most in the end. But everybody wins.

Again... nobody gets fucked by neoliberalism. It works great for the economy. But isn't great at making people happy. Which is why every advanced economy today is a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. We do it because it works

I don't think a government's success should be measured in economic growth. What's the point if it doesn't make people happy?.

Making people happy costs money. If you don't have the money you won't make them happy. Lessons learned from the socialist experiments in China, Russia and India. And several African countries. It has to do with doing things in the right order. Without a healthy economy socialist reforms is a waste of time. Worse than a waste of time. They're destructive. In poor countries socialism only leads to skyrocketing corruption which will guarantee perpetual poverty and unhappiness.

Neolliberalism seeks to remove the things that make people happy: the social safety net, public and subsidised goods and services, workers' rights. Neoliberal governments have been unwinding socialist programs; in Australia the government tried to dismantle our UHC system in the late 70's, and subsequent governments have been privatising various public services to this day, to the detriment of the working people.

All Western countries today are heavily socialist. Because it works. You're talking about minor tweaks to the capitalist/socialist mixed economy paradigm. None of them are neo-liberal. Not even the land of the free, USA. You're also listing things that aren't universally good. There's ways to construct safety nets that hurt the economy. As does subsidised goods and services. You need more nuance to your statement.

During the 90's government tried wound back worker's protections, and so has the current government.

That's not how I see it. Whatever system you have it will rot from within. It needs to be changed up now and again. It's just natural, and healthy that we drift towards and against socialism from time to time. The modern economy is so fast changing that we need to stay on our toes and keep tweaking.

For example, in the 80'ies the British coal miners union was extremely powerful, effectively strangling the coal mining industry. It was expensive and hopelessly inefficient. And resisted any modernisation. This is socialism when its not working. So Thatcher crushed it, which was a good thing. She did lots of bad things. But this was a good thing.

 

[rousseau]

But parliamentary liberal democracy is the most stable and robust type of government humanity has ever devised. So it tends to win out over time. As long as we keep pushing for liberal reforms.

Liberal democracies are stable until autocratic countries which are more agile start dominating them economically because they can't get anything done.

Lol. Can you come up with any example of this? China was looking promising until Xi Jinping decided to grab power and now China is back to the same degree of power concentration as under Mao. China's economic growth has now grown to a halt. What a surprise. Good luck with that guys.

Yea, no, pretty much just China. I thought their economic problems were more just economic problems, unrelated to their style of government. In either case I wouldn't call their government autocratic in a populist sense, they seem to make at least somewhat reasonable decisions, at least as far as their total wealth is concerned, which is why they're slated to become the next super-power.

Compare that to the gridlock the US has experienced over the past how many years? I think one could argue that the leaning of the American spectrum, polarization, and their political system is actually leading to their decline.

Of course, the fundamentals of pretty much every other autocratic country in the world are terrible, but China does represent a 7th of the world's population.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Lol. Can you come up with any example of this? China was looking promising until Xi Jinping decided to grab power and now China is back to the same degree of power concentration as under Mao. China's economic growth has now grown to a halt. What a surprise. Good luck with that guys.

Yea, no, pretty much just China. I thought their economic problems were more just economic problems, unrelated to their style of government. In either case I wouldn't call their government autocratic in a populist sense, they seem to make at least somewhat reasonable decisions, at least as far as their total wealth is concerned, which is why they're slated to become the next super-power.

Compare that to the gridlock the US has experienced over the past how many years? I think one could argue that the leaning of the American spectrum, polarization, and their political system is actually leading to their decline.

Of course, the fundamentals of pretty much every other autocratic country in the world are terrible, but China does represent a 7th of the world's population.

The concentration of power under Mao was a complete disaster. After Mao died the people who came after him (led by Deng Xiaoping) made sure to divide up power in the congress so as to avoid power concentrations. That's why, for example, political offices aren't inherited father to son. People rise in the ranks on pure meritocratic foundations. After Mao the National People's Congress actually has power. Under Mao it was a rubber stamp committee. Well... until now. Now it's back to a rubber stamp committee.

 

[bilby]

Making people happy costs money. If you don't have the money you won't make them happy. Lessons learned from the socialist experiments in China, Russia and India. And several African countries. It has to do with doing things in the right order. Without a healthy economy socialist reforms is a waste of time. Worse than a waste of time. They're destructive. In poor countries socialism only leads to skyrocketing corruption which will guarantee perpetual poverty and unhappiness.

Neolliberalism seeks to remove the things that make people happy: the social safety net, public and subsidised goods and services, workers' rights. Neoliberal governments have been unwinding socialist programs; in Australia the government tried to dismantle our UHC system in the late 70's, and subsequent governments have been privatising various public services to this day, to the detriment of the working people.

All Western countries today are heavily socialist. Because it works. You're talking about minor tweaks to the capitalist/socialist mixed economy paradigm. None of them are neo-liberal. Not even the land of the free, USA. You're also listing things that aren't universally good. There's ways to construct safety nets that hurt the economy. As does subsidised goods and services. You need more nuance to your statement.

During the 90's government tried wound back worker's protections, and so has the current government.

That's not how I see it. Whatever system you have it will rot from within. It needs to be changed up now and again. It's just natural, and healthy that we drift towards and against socialism from time to time. The modern economy is so fast changing that we need to stay on our toes and keep tweaking.

For example, in the 80'ies the British coal miners union was extremely powerful, effectively strangling the coal mining industry. It was expensive and hopelessly inefficient. And resisted any modernisation. This is socialism when its not working. So Thatcher crushed it, which was a good thing. She did lots of bad things. But this was a good thing.

Leading to the efficient and profitable modern British coal mining industry - oh, wait.

I was there. There's no question that the coal industry needed to be modernised. Nor even that the NUM was killing it slowly. But the cure Thatcher applied was to shoot it in the head.

Thatcher saved the British coal industry the way the US saved Vietnamese villagers.

The destruction of the coal industry was a HUGE blow to many communities in the UK - and one from which they still haven't recovered.

Indeed, it's not stretching to say that one major cause for the current Brexit clusterfuck is the ongoing pain of those communities that were gutted by Thatcher - and then told by her successors that their problems were of their own making, and that they were therefore unworthy of any assistance. Of course, they knew that wasn't true - so as people always do when their economy collapses for reasons they cannot fathom, and blamed foreigners.

 

[WAB]

I voted other.

The main problem with your choices is that they are also major causes of human happiness. Some people thrive on hate; some people love the continuous and selfish acquisition of money; Religion makes many people happy; and there are people here who couldn't live without discussing politics.

How about things that never cause happiness:

• Fear (Not comfy, exciting fear as in a roller-coaster ride or a scary movie, but the real deal.)
• Anxiety/Panic
• Hunger
• Disease
• Grief

I realized this post of mine is all wrong. The things I listed are instances of human suffering, not causes. Somebody slap me.

 

[bilby]

I have been pondering the OP question, and I think that the answer is 'the quest for purity'.

Ideological, racial, religious, economic, bodily, or intellectual; The quest for purity in these things is an impossible goal that sets people up for failure, and leads to the use of immoral and unethical practices, on the basis that the end (of defending purity) justifies any means necessary.

Take, for example, the concept of freedom of speech. Clearly we don't benefit by prohibiting unpopular opinions. So this concept is one that is highly appealing, and is in need of defence - the whole "I do not agree with what you say, but will decend to the death your right to say it" thing.

But what of the freedom to lie? What of the freedom to disseminate propaganda with deliberate ill-intent?

We cannot prevent people from using lying falsehoods to destroy our society - because to restrict their ability to do so would render our commitment to free speech imperfect and therefore impure.

Yet impurity is unavoidable. Most people recognise that we shouldn't allow the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

Well, imperfection is an unavoidable part of reality. Purity is both unachievable, and undesirable.

But 'slippery slope' fallacies are highly convincing. It's easy (to the point of laziness) to simply take a stand for the pure concept, and declare that any restriction on speech, however small it may seem, is unacceptable.

Purity is lauded, purity is easy, purity is unassailable. It's our worst desire of all.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I voted other.

The main problem with your choices is that they are also major causes of human happiness. Some people thrive on hate; some people love the continuous and selfish acquisition of money; Religion makes many people happy; and there are people here who couldn't live without discussing politics.

How about things that never cause happiness:

• Fear (Not comfy, exciting fear as in a roller-coaster ride or a scary movie, but the real deal.)
• Anxiety/Panic
• Hunger
• Disease
• Grief

I realized this post of mine is all wrong. The things I listed are instances of human suffering, not causes. Somebody slap me.

Disease is not an instance but a cause, and in some cases, neither. For example, a person can have a disease but no suffering resulting from it, even disease commonly results in suffering (e. g., some people who are slightly short-sighted may not care at all, and thus not suffer as a result).

 

[DBT]

The key probably lies in how much you care. The more you care, the more impact the condition has upon you.

 

[bigfield]

Liberalism also fosters right wing extremism. Freedom of expression gives carte blanche to propagandists and we're seeing how that turns out.

Wait, what? Are you against free speech and free expression? I'd say that limitations on free speech leads to extremism. Because problems are swept under the rug rather than talked about.

There are two fundamental problems with the way free speech works in a liberal society:

1. Not everyone has a platform, so minorities don't have a platform from which to exercise their right of reply when someone attacks them. In Australia we've recently seen this with respect to Muslims and Africans.

2. The system has no protection against propaganda. Propagandists don't fight fair, most people don't have a defence against propaganda. It's up to the people in charge to identify their messages as propaganda, deny them a platform and enforce a minimum standard of integrity.

3. The liberal "marketplace of ideas" rewards dickheads:

How the media let malicious idiots take over
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ical-monsters-media-jacob-rees-mogg-platforms

If our politics is becoming less rational, crueller and more divisive, this rule of public life is partly to blame: the more disgracefully you behave, the bigger the platform the media will give you. If you are caught lying, cheating, boasting or behaving like an idiot, you’ll be flooded with invitations to appear on current affairs programmes. If you play straight, don’t expect the phone to ring.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Making people happy costs money. If you don't have the money you won't make them happy. Lessons learned from the socialist experiments in China, Russia and India. And several African countries. It has to do with doing things in the right order. Without a healthy economy socialist reforms is a waste of time. Worse than a waste of time. They're destructive. In poor countries socialism only leads to skyrocketing corruption which will guarantee perpetual poverty and unhappiness.



All Western countries today are heavily socialist. Because it works. You're talking about minor tweaks to the capitalist/socialist mixed economy paradigm. None of them are neo-liberal. Not even the land of the free, USA. You're also listing things that aren't universally good. There's ways to construct safety nets that hurt the economy. As does subsidised goods and services. You need more nuance to your statement.



That's not how I see it. Whatever system you have it will rot from within. It needs to be changed up now and again. It's just natural, and healthy that we drift towards and against socialism from time to time. The modern economy is so fast changing that we need to stay on our toes and keep tweaking.

For example, in the 80'ies the British coal miners union was extremely powerful, effectively strangling the coal mining industry. It was expensive and hopelessly inefficient. And resisted any modernisation. This is socialism when its not working. So Thatcher crushed it, which was a good thing. She did lots of bad things. But this was a good thing.

Leading to the efficient and profitable modern British coal mining industry - oh, wait.

I was there. There's no question that the coal industry needed to be modernised. Nor even that the NUM was killing it slowly. But the cure Thatcher applied was to shoot it in the head.

Thatcher saved the British coal industry the way the US saved Vietnamese villagers.

The destruction of the coal industry was a HUGE blow to many communities in the UK - and one from which they still haven't recovered.

Indeed, it's not stretching to say that one major cause for the current Brexit clusterfuck is the ongoing pain of those communities that were gutted by Thatcher - and then told by her successors that their problems were of their own making, and that they were therefore unworthy of any assistance. Of course, they knew that wasn't true - so as people always do when their economy collapses for reasons they cannot fathom, and blamed foreigners.

Politics is the art of the possible. Thatcher used the tools she was given as a leader of the conservatives. Conservatives will always be an elephant in a China shop. Hence bullet to the head