Overall, Would a Single World Government be More Beneficial than Not?

[Heyo]

List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia

I don't think the Mexican drug "war" counts as it is not an armed conflict between countries.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

An interesting perspective. Is it the role of government to inform the people or the role of people to inform the government?
I think that news organizations are a proper outlet for voices to be heard by the ordinary people.
Please explain more deeply what you mean about having the "necessary power" to make a government voice heard in this world.

Currently the UN has to many veto votes.

The structure should be based on sound voting principals, so that the resulting body has full support of all peoples and Nations.

Thus any decision made by that body does not have veto votes and the decisions can and will be enforced.

The Nations also in this process agree to give the power to the UN to carry out the decisions made.

Regards Tony

 

[74x12]

Overall, would a single world government be more beneficial than not?

What if one of its norms/laws/principles was that @Sunstone would no longer be able to have erotic dancing girls at RF's Friday night orgies?

It would not. It will lead to satan's empowerment. Satan is in the heart of the people so once they all come together then he will rise up and take over. For now the division of nations and tribes keeps his power limited.

 

[Ponder This]

I don't think the Mexican drug "war" counts as it is not an armed conflict between countries.

Countries Currently At War 2020

 

[Ponder This]

Currently the UN has to many veto votes.

The structure should be based on sound voting principals, so that the resulting body has full support of all peoples and Nations.

Thus any decision made by that body does not have veto votes and the decisions can and will be enforced.

The Nations also in this process agree to give the power to the UN to carry out the decisions made.

Regards Tony

Okay, you don't like veto votes.
Maybe it's possible to create a system without veto votes, but I don't know that such a system is better. I suspect it is worse, because it will fail to reflect the relative power of nations in the world, but I don't rule out that maybe (?) it's possible to create another system that might (?) work.

I'm also skeptical of the part where you say that nations agree to give the power to the UN to carry out decisions. The power that a world government should have ought to be strictly defined. Somethings are not for a world government to decide. But there may be somethings that I can agree fall into the domain of what a world government should decide. What power is it that nations ought to be giving a world government (that they don't already give to the UN)? AND what checks and balances (besides veto powers) do you think should exist to prevent such a power from being abused?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Okay, you don't like veto votes.
Maybe it's possible to create a system without veto votes, but I don't know that such a system is better. I suspect it is worse, because it will fail to reflect the relative power of nations in the world, but I don't rule out that maybe (?) it's possible to create another system that might (?) work.

I'm also skeptical of the part where you say that nations agree to give the power to the UN to carry out decisions. The power that a world government should have ought to be strictly defined. Somethings are not for a world government to decide. But there may be somethings that I can agree fall into the domain of what a world government should decide. What power is it that nations ought to be giving a world government (that they don't already give to the UN)? AND what checks and balances (besides veto powers) do you think should exist to prevent such a power from being abused?

They will be the many questions asked and need to be addressed for sure.

I see it is time for those without power to have an equal voice. Having power does not mean you have higher morality, or justice.

There is great detail available as to how it can work, I have put a small section under a spoiler if you are interested as to how it can work.

Spoiler

The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system. A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the focus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate. A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary to their mother tongue. A world script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind. In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will cöoperate, and will harmoniously develop. The press will, under such a system, while giving full scope to the expression of the diversified views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contending governments and peoples. The economic resources of the world will be organized, its sources of raw materials will be tapped and fully utilized, its markets will be cöordinated and developed, and the distribution of its products will be equitably regulated.
National rivalries, hatreds, and intrigues will cease, and racial animosity and prejudice will be replaced by racial amity, understanding and cöoperation. The causes of religious strife will be permanently removed, economic barriers and restrictions will be completely abolished, and the inordinate distinction between classes will be obliterated. Destitution on the one hand, and gross accumulation of ownership on the other, will disappear. The enormous energy dissipated and wasted on war, whether economic or political, will be consecrated to such ends as will extend the range of human inventions and technical development, to the increase of the productivity of mankind, to the extermination of disease, to the extension of scientific research, to the raising of the standard of physical health, to the sharpening and refinement of the human brain, to the exploitation of the unused and unsuspected resources of the planet, to the prolongation of human life, and to the furtherance of any other agency that can stimulate the intellectual, the moral, and spiritual life of the entire human race.
A world federal system, ruling the whole earth and exercising unchallengeable authority over its unimaginably vast resources, blending and embodying the ideals of both the East and the West, liberated from the curse of war and its miseries, and bent on the exploitation of all the available sources of energy on the surface of the planet, a system in which Force is made the servant of Justice, whose life is sustained by its universal recognition of one God and by its allegiance to one common Revelation—such is the goal towards which humanity, impelled by the unifying forces of life, is moving..... "

There has been much given on how to achieve all this.

Regards Tony

 

[Sand Dancer]

It would not. It will lead to satan's empowerment. Satan is in the heart of the people so once they all come together then he will rise up and take over. For now the division of nations and tribes keeps his power limited.

So you think a one world government leader would be a negative? Is it in human nature to be a bully?

 

[Twilight Hue]

One-World Government?

No thanks

One-Word Governance?

Yes please

That was supposed to be the United Nations. Hardly hear a peep anymore from them.

 

[Ponder This]

They will be the many questions asked and need to be addressed for sure.

I cannot concur with any proposal that fails to address the question of checks and balances. ANY proposal that lacks checks and balances is a hard NO from me no matter how inspired it may appear to be.

I see it is time for those without power to have an equal voice. Having power does not mean you have higher morality, or justice.

It is not simply "power" it is also responsibility. Those without power may be lacking in responsibility. The one comes with the other; they cannot be separated.

There is great detail available as to how it can work, I have put a small section under a spoiler if you are interested as to how it can work.
The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded.

A pleasant vision.

This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples.

This issue of "control the entire resources of all the component nations" is unacceptable. Nations should have local control over their resources.

A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth.

A nice broad non-specific vision. The devil is in the details, which are not mentioned and could make all the difference as to whether or not this structure is appropriate.

A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system.

This seems good, but again it would be nice to know what the system actually looks like and not have it described in broad terms that leave out essential details.

A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity.

Optimistic. But to add some clarity to what (again) is not said about this. It would be unacceptable for the government to be the source of this communication or to be allowed to censor communications. Rather it is appropriate for the government to oppose the infringement (or censorship) of free communication.

A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the focus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate.

This would be an acceptable proposition if it proposed a common ground upon which the nations may congregate unmolested and make proposals for the betterment of the world. But instead we have something which describes a centralization of authority. This is disturbing because it describes power without describing responsibility. And, therefore, such a proposition must be rejected.

A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary to their mother tongue. A world script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind.

I am neither for nor against such an idea. Such a thing might come about if it were appropriate. Right now? Not appropriate. Even though, practically speaking, English already fills the role of a common language, I don't think there would be sufficient agreement on such a proposition. Such a proposition at this time can only serve the interests of power and not the interests of responsibility.

In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will cöoperate, and will harmoniously develop.

It's a nice vision. I'm seeing a trend towards an imagined utopia. But it's still not clear to me that it's grounded in practical considerations. Science and religion have to eventually come together, but it's not something that should be forced upon the people by a strong central government. It would be inappropriate.

The press will, under such a system, while giving full scope to the expression of the diversified views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contending governments and peoples.

Utopian vision again. But there's no indication as to how or why such a system would bring about the cessation of mischievous manipulation by vested interests, whether private or public. There are some missing details.

The economic resources of the world will be organized, its sources of raw materials will be tapped and fully utilized, its markets will be cöordinated and developed, and the distribution of its products will be equitably regulated.

Utopian vision again. Missing details again.

National rivalries, hatreds, and intrigues will cease, and racial animosity and prejudice will be replaced by racial amity, understanding and cöoperation. The causes of religious strife will be permanently removed, economic barriers and restrictions will be completely abolished, and the inordinate distinction between classes will be obliterated.

It's a utopian promise and it's reading more and more like a sale pitch to sell me something. I can't shake the feeling that it's not showing the fine print. These are not issues so easily resolved just because there is a powerful centralized government - not without a terrifying authoritarian rule. Unacceptable.

Destitution on the one hand, and gross accumulation of ownership on the other, will disappear. The enormous energy dissipated and wasted on war, whether economic or political, will be consecrated to such ends as will extend the range of human inventions and technical development, to the increase of the productivity of mankind, to the extermination of disease, to the extension of scientific research, to the raising of the standard of physical health, to the sharpening and refinement of the human brain, to the exploitation of the unused and unsuspected resources of the planet, to the prolongation of human life, and to the furtherance of any other agency that can stimulate the intellectual, the moral, and spiritual life of the entire human race.

What I'd like to see is not more promises of a utopia, but rather the checks and balances for the power and responsibility being designated to a ruling body - checks and balances designed to guard against abuse of power. Like I said before, ANY system that does not provide checks and balances is fundamentally unacceptable and it doesn't matter what sort of utopia is promised.

A world federal system, ruling the whole earth and exercising unchallengeable authority over its unimaginably vast resources, blending and embodying the ideals of both the East and the West, liberated from the curse of war and its miseries, and bent on the exploitation of all the available sources of energy on the surface of the planet, a system in which Force is made the servant of Justice, whose life is sustained by its universal recognition of one God and by its allegiance to one common Revelation—such is the goal towards which humanity, impelled by the unifying forces of life, is moving..... "

"exercising unchallengeable authority" UNACCEPTABLE. Where are the checks and balances?
"the East and the West" Why East and West? An interesting choice of words. It suggests that other regions don't have ideals worth blending. It alludes to a possible conflict of East and West. I do have to wonder what it is that it supposed about the ideals of East and West.

But there is a nice finisher: the "universal recognition" of God... But now I wonder what even is meant by that.
Ordinarily, I would be onboard, but now I suspect the intention to abolish dissent in the interests of exerting power and control...
...as opposed to wielding power in a responsible manner in accordance with the divine will. There's a huge gulf between these two. It's not even close. How can I support mere rhetoric, mere promises of utopia?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This issue of "control the entire resources of all the component nations" is unacceptable. Nations should have local control over their resources

Why do they own them. If we are honest about history, mostly those nations stole the resources from the original owners?

Actually those owners were generous enough to share and that was their downfall. Thus this injustice needs to be addressed anyway.

Why is it not best to utilise the resources for the good of all Nations?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I cannot concur with any proposal that fails to address the question of checks and balances. ANY proposal that lacks checks and balances is a hard NO from me no matter how inspired it may appear to be.



It is not simply "power" it is also responsibility. Those without power may be lacking in responsibility. The one comes with the other; they cannot be separated.



A pleasant vision.



This issue of "control the entire resources of all the component nations" is unacceptable. Nations should have local control over their resources.



A nice broad non-specific vision. The devil is in the details, which are not mentioned and could make all the difference as to whether or not this structure is appropriate.



This seems good, but again it would be nice to know what the system actually looks like and not have it described in broad terms that leave out essential details.



Optimistic. But to add some clarity to what (again) is not said about this. It would be unacceptable for the government to be the source of this communication or to be allowed to censor communications. Rather it is appropriate for the government to oppose the infringement (or censorship) of free communication.



This would be an acceptable proposition if it proposed a common ground upon which the nations may congregate unmolested and make proposals for the betterment of the world. But instead we have something which describes a centralization of authority. This is disturbing because it describes power without describing responsibility. And, therefore, such a proposition must be rejected.



I am neither for nor against such an idea. Such a thing might come about if it were appropriate. Right now? Not appropriate. Even though, practically speaking, English already fills the role of a common language, I don't think there would be sufficient agreement on such a proposition. Such a proposition at this time can only serve the interests of power and not the interests of responsibility.



It's a nice vision. I'm seeing a trend towards an imagined utopia. But it's still not clear to me that it's grounded in practical considerations. Science and religion have to eventually come together, but it's not something that should be forced upon the people by a strong central government. It would be inappropriate.



Utopian vision again. But there's no indication as to how or why such a system would bring about the cessation of mischievous manipulation by vested interests, whether private or public. There are some missing details.



Utopian vision again. Missing details again.



It's a utopian promise and it's reading more and more like a sale pitch to sell me something. I can't shake the feeling that it's not showing the fine print. These are not issues so easily resolved just because there is a powerful centralized government - not without a terrifying authoritarian rule. Unacceptable.



What I'd like to see is not more promises of a utopia, but rather the checks and balances for the power and responsibility being designated to a ruling body - checks and balances designed to guard against abuse of power. Like I said before, ANY system that does not provide checks and balances is fundamentally unacceptable and it doesn't matter what sort of utopia is promised.



"exercising unchallengeable authority" UNACCEPTABLE. Where are the checks and balances?
"the East and the West" Why East and West? An interesting choice of words. It suggests that other regions don't have ideals worth blending. It alludes to a possible conflict of East and West. I do have to wonder what it is that it supposed about the ideals of East and West.

But there is a nice finisher: the "universal recognition" of God... But now I wonder what even is meant by that.
Ordinarily, I would be onboard, but now I suspect the intention to abolish dissent in the interests of exerting power and control...
...as opposed to wielding power in a responsible manner in accordance with the divine will. There's a huge gulf between these two. It's not even close. How can I support mere rhetoric, mere promises of utopia?

A lot of this response focuses on detail.

The action required is the Architectures Drawing, the details still need to go to drafting and engineering.

It has to be via consultation between all nations, that is the only way the Drawing can unfold.

Regards Tony

 

[Ponder This]

Why do they own them. If we are honest about history, mostly those nations stole the resources from the original owners?

Actually those owners were generous enough to share and that was their downfall. Thus this injustice needs to be addressed anyway.

Why is it not best to utilise the resources for the good of all Nations?

Regards Tony

To give other nations control over a nation's resources would lead naturally to exploitation.
By allowing nations to locally own their resources, they gain a voice in trading that resource to others.

A lot of this response focuses on detail.

The action required is the Architectures Drawing, the details still need to go to drafting and engineering.

It has to be via consultation between all nations, that is the only way the Drawing can unfold.

Regards Tony

I have two major concerns...

1. is the scope of power which is appropriate to a World Government;
2. is the insurance that guarantees a World Government will not abuse its power.​

These are absolutely essential. If all the nations agree to a system lacking these two things, it will not end well no matter how wonderful the vision, IMO. I would anticipate disharmony leading to conflict because those who gain the reins of power will not be responsible.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To give other nations control over a nation's resources would lead naturally to exploitation.
By allowing nations to locally own their resources, they gain a voice in trading that resource to others.

I see the balance is found in allowing all Nations a voice and as such a vote in how the resources are used for the good of all and not a few. No one owns any of this earth, except maybe the part where they are buried, but even that is stolen these days.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have two major concerns...
1. is the scope of power which is appropriate to a World Government;
2. is the insurance that guarantees a World Government will not abuse its power.These are absolutely essential. If all the nations agree to a system lacking these two things, it will not end well no matter how wonderful the vision, IMO. I would anticipate disharmony leading to conflict because those who gain the reins of power will not be responsible.

The scope of Power will be such that if any Nation arises against another, then the world body will be able to exercise full power over its submission. Only with an appropriate given powers, will such a system work. Also all the Nations would have voted on the action.

All Nations retain power over what happens within their set boarders. Those boarders will be agreed to and firmly set.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

I have two major concerns...

1. is the scope of power which is appropriate to a World Government;
​

​

It is the same question as with federal governments. A federal government can't wield powers it is not given by the states or the people.
I think the only power that should be given to a world government (in a first step) is the power to declare war or the use of military powers outside their home countries.
Think about when was the last time that a US state was at war with an other or an other country.
Right, the civil war. That was a failure of the federal government to keep the peace. But since then it worked astonishing well.
I see a world government (or even a "greater part of the world" government) being equally successful at keeping the peace.

2. is the insurance that guarantees a World Government will not abuse its power.

This is again the same as with states in a federation, just one level added. It should work at least as bad as it does in the US. But this time we know all the errors the founding fathers made and can add additional safe guards.

 

[Ponder This]

I see the balance is found in allowing all Nations a voice and as such a vote in how the resources are used for the good of all and not a few. No one owns any of this earth, except maybe the part where they are buried, but even that is stolen these days.

Regards Tony

Blood Diamonds benefit the world, but do not benefit the nation or the people from which they are mined. Your system does not provide a check to exploitation. I do not find it good that dead people own land, but the living do not. This notion that no one owns the land is irresponsible. Ownership entails responsibility. People do not merely live on the land. People are obligated to keep the land.

The scope of Power will be such that if any Nation arises against another, then the world body will be able to exercise full power over its submission. Only with an appropriate given powers, will such a system work. Also all the Nations would have voted on the action.

All Nations retain power over what happens within their set boarders. Those boarders will be agreed to and firmly set.

Regards Tony

A nation's resources reside within its borders.

A world power that has the power to force any nation to submit has the power to wage unnecessary war. The desire to force the submission of nations and rule the world is a dangerous desire. Men such as Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Juliius Ceasar. Napolean, and Hitler grace the list of people who faced the temptation of such a desire.

"veni, vidi, vici" - is attributed to Julius Caesar​

So too can this desire be the temptation of a group of people. I do not say it is altogether wrong to desire to rule the world, but often it is a self-serving desire. Many generals abandoned their post in the British Isles, marshalling the armies under their control to conquer Rome. The temptation to Rule the World, like the One Ring in the LotR, whispers to them, and men are weak.

​

It is the same question as with federal governments. A federal government can't wield powers it is not given by the states or the people.
I think the only power that should be given to a world government (in a first step) is the power to declare war or the use of military powers outside their home countries.
Think about when was the last time that a US state was at war with an other or an other country.
Right, the civil war. That was a failure of the federal government to keep the peace. But since then it worked astonishing well.
I see a world government (or even a "greater part of the world" government) being equally successful at keeping the peace.

​

This is again the same as with states in a federation, just one level added. It should work at least as bad as it does in the US. But this time we know all the errors the founding fathers made and can add additional safe guards.

There is a difference between a World Government and a federal government such as the US.
The people of the US are united in culture, in heritage, in language, and mostly in religion as well. Such is not true of the World. How large a Civil World War would we have? The largest ever yet.

To say we know all the errors and can add additional safe guards... seems arrogant to me, particularly when I request to know such safe guards and no one can answer what those safe guards may be. They wave their hands as if to say, "We are wise. We know what pitfalls await us." But to me it seems as if their eyes are dreaming... "If we could but exert control over the other nations, if we could but have the power, we could force them to accept our peace, our rules."

The scope of World Government includes efforts maintain the peace and stability between nations; it does not include waging war against its members.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Blood Diamonds benefit the world, but do not benefit the nation or the people from which they are mined. Your system does not provide a check to exploitation. I do not find it good that dead people own land, but the living do not. This notion that no one owns the land is irresponsible. Ownership entails responsibility. People do not merely live on the land. People are obligated to keep the land.



A nation's resources reside within its borders.

A world power that has the power to force any nation to submit has the power to wage unnecessary war. The desire to force the submission of nations and rule the world is a dangerous desire. Men such as Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Juliius Ceasar. Napolean, and Hitler grace the list of people who faced the temptation of such a desire.

"veni, vidi, vici" - is attributed to Julius Caesar​

So too can this desire be the temptation of a group of people. I do not say it is altogether wrong to desire to rule the world, but often it is a self-serving desire. Many generals abandoned their post in the British Isles, marshalling the armies under their control to conquer Rome. The temptation to Rule the World, like the One Ring in the LotR, whispers to them, and men are weak.



There is a difference between a World Government and a federal government such as the US.
The people of the US are united in culture, in heritage, in language, and mostly in religion as well. Such is not true of the World. How large a Civil World War would we have? The largest ever yet.

To say we know all the errors and can add additional safe guards... seems arrogant to me, particularly when I request to know such safe guards and no one can answer what those safe guards may be. They wave their hands as if to say, "We are wise. We know what pitfalls await us." But to me it seems as if their eyes are dreaming... "If we could but exert control over the other nations, if we could but have the power, we could force them to accept our peace, our rules."

The scope of World Government includes efforts maintain the peace and stability between nations; it does not include waging war against its members.

I see the answers lay outside our individual opinions, thus I leave it all to future decisions.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

There is a difference between a World Government and a federal government such as the US.

I don't think so, at least it's no principle difference, only a difference of scale.

The people of the US are united in culture, in heritage, in language, and mostly in religion as well.

A New Englander and a rural Texan share neither culture nor heritage, language or religion.

Such is not true of the World.

I see no unsurmountable differences, only differences in scale and even these pale in light of the differences between classes within one country.

To say we know all the errors and can add additional safe guards...

Who said we know all the errors?

seems arrogant to me, particularly when I request to know such safe guards and no one can answer what those safe guards may be.

Defining the powers of local and federal government in no unclear terms is a first step. Granting the right to withdraw a transferred power from the federation would be a second. I'm not a friend of veto powers, but that may be a third (if every member has veto power).

They wave their hands as if to say, "We are wise. We know what pitfalls await us." But to me it seems as if their eyes are dreaming... "If we could but exert control over the other nations, if we could but have the power, we could force them to accept our peace, our rules."

That is exactly one of the errors to avoid.

The scope of World Government includes efforts maintain the peace and stability between nations; it does not include waging war against its members.

Agreed.

 

[Stevicus]

A New Englander and a rural Texan share neither culture nor heritage, language or religion.

You might be surprised just how much they have in common.

 

[Ponder This]

I don't think so, at least it's no principle difference, only a difference of scale.

A New Englander and a rural Texan share neither culture nor heritage, language or religion.

I see no unsurmountable differences, only differences in scale and even these pale in light of the differences between classes within one country.

Who said we know all the errors?

Defining the powers of local and federal government in no unclear terms is a first step. Granting the right to withdraw a transferred power from the federation would be a second. I'm not a friend of veto powers, but that may be a third (if every member has veto power).

That is exactly one of the errors to avoid.

Agreed.

Agreed? Interesting that we seem to disagree on all the details but agree on the conclusion.
The details are what might insure the conclusion.
Scale makes all the difference.
A New Englander and a rural Texan have a lot more in common than the varied nations of the world have in common.
"the difference between classes within one country" is a strange thing to insert here.
You indicated that we know better now and know enough.