So Congo exists so we can see how crappy government works? That seems extremely inhumane. We don't do medical testing on such a basis- why should we do something that affects billions this way?

"Just such an example was the American Revolution, which reawakened the spirit of democracy in the world and marked the beginning of the end for kings and tyrants. Lovers of liberty throughout the world can cite similar inspiring examples from their own histories."

Ah yes, the freedom to opress others more efficiently.

"That is too vague a banner to rally behind - to move us, we need something more concrete and more definite."

The communists rallied behind it easily enough. They got what- almost two-fifths in post war Europe?

"At this point in human history, if we were to try to unite the human race under one banner, the sure result would be either crippling stagnation or brutal autocracy."

Which is different from the present situation... how exactly? Oh yeah, in our nice pleasent enclaves we can ignore it. Sure, a one world government would be bad for alot of us- but it would be beneficial for alot more. What makes you think it would have to be ruthlessly totalitarian? It could go Federal State style.

" No other kind of government would be able to accommodate (or, in the case of autocracy, to trample over) the impossibly broad and complex range of desires and concerns among different groups of people. "

And not having a world government has the same exact effect. Funny how these things work out?

" (For an example of what happens when you try to take everyone's wants into account at once, consider the United Nations, which is well-intentioned but mired in diplomatic gridlock on virtually every issue of importance.) "

That is a red herring and you know it- the UN doesn't work for the same reason 18th century Poland didn't- each member has veto power and only one vote. Vote by population as a world government would be alot more smooth as the China/India/Nigeria block would sway the day.

"As well, it limits the power of despots and demagogues, however successful they may be at home, by creating boundaries beyond which they hold no sway."

Or you could just try federalism.

" But in the near term, we need separate countries so that moral progress can be achieved one region at a time, rather than having to change everything to change anything."

You can't do it one piece at a time! Try that and the problems flow in from surrounding countries.

"With a free flow of immigration, the competition among nations rewards those that are freest, most prosperous, and have the strongest and fairest institutions, and sends an example to the rest of the world to do likewise. "

Which is why China has the fastest growing economy on Earth? Also, how does this cause change? North Korea is still a closed state- apparently you need the specter of war to keep nations in touch with reality. They might change... because their new leader feels it will help them compete more effectively. Not politically though. Which is what we are aiming for...

"The national psyche of Scotland is so radically different from that of England that it makes no sense for us to be joined politically - the government is supposed to represent the will of the people but when your country only makes up about5-10% of the population then that's as good as no representation at all. Put it this way - there's a good chance that the Conservatives will win the next general election in the UK yet they hold barely any seats in Scotland at all. We would be subjected to rule by a party that the overwhelming majority of Scottish people actively despise."

The same applies to the entire US- particularly the urban/rural split. We live with it and despite our crazies, our unity gives us strength.

"While I think Ebon is quite correct that humanity is not yet ready for a unified global government, "

Humanity isn't ready for the alternative- I'd rather live in Tito's Yugoslavia than in the 1990s version. Or post-Stalin USSR than modern Russia. Sure, they were despotic, but the alternative wasn't democracy- it was anarchy and war... like what we have know. We can have a brutal state that kills hundred of thousands... or we can have now where we get to watch much of Africa die slowly.

"I also think that will someday be our society's final form."

Why? States only give up autonomy due to outside threats.

"To these last comments I would add that Jesus neither fled from nor condoned attack on the authorities who came to arrest, demonstrating civil disobedience as defined here."

Yeah. And he died exceddingly painfully and pointlessly. Palestine didn't get to be an independent state until 1948.

When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities. (link)

The idea being that being imprisoned is part of the resistance and can be used to incite public or even international outrage and disapproval of the regime being protested.

To draw the "moral cowardice" argument out, wouldn't you say then that those who've fled oppressive goverments on threat of imprisonment, torture, or death are exhibiting moral cowardice?

No, those are completely different issues. To preserve one's life or safety, for instance in a case like Ishmael Beah's, of course it's ethical to flee. To escape an oppressive or brutal government, the same holds true. But in a country with a rule of law and strong democratic institutions - as the United States has always been, even at its worst - then the logic of civil disobedience makes sense. It sends a message in an environment where that message will be heard and may inspire others to do the same. If you're drafted into a war where the objective is, as you put it, to slaughter the abject poor, then doesn't it make sense to demonstrate your resistance in the clearest and most unmistakable terms?

To draw the "moral cowardice" argument out, wouldn't you say then that those who've fled oppressive goverments on threat of imprisonment, torture, or death are exhibiting moral cowardice? By seeking asylum for youself, family or friends in a nation that will not imprison you or send you back to unbearable or unacceptable conditions? If this is the case, then Europe and the US are chockful of foreign national moral cowards. We also see a great deal of cowards drown between Florida and Cuba each year. Are Mexicans also considered cowards for fleeing their bleak environments in stifling vans or by crossing on foot parched deserts?

Hell, if I moved away from my home state to another state because I didn't agree with the new tax provisions, then would I be a moral coward too? And what about the history of goverments and paramilitary groups forcing boys into military service at the point of a gun? To flee into the jungle and live there like an animal - is this moral cowardice? Or just deep, crippling fear?

If not a basic human right, it's a basic human desire at least to flee oppressive circumstances. And some of the horrid shit these people have to endure to get away doesn't seem very cowardly to me. Even if that means a 20-year-old guy thumbing a ride to Nova Scotia in 1971 to avoid being drafted into a war that will most likely expect him to slaughter the abject poor.

Maybe I've interpreted your words incorrectly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

Former president George G W Bush has been quoted as saying in a private interview "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." I'm sorry Mr. Bush, but I served 21 years in the US military, including during both of your terms, retired with honor, and you're going to say I'm not a patriot?! In fact, it shouldn't even take that much to be considered a patriot, but I know religious tests aren't required, or even allowed (Constitution, Article VI, Section 3).

That brings me to something else: "This is one nation under God." We're seeing stuff like this quite a bit these days. "This is a Christian nation". No, it's not! This is a nation with Christians (among others) in it. Before the 1950s, this was "one nation, indivisible". There was no "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance until people decided that the Russians must be some sort of vampires or demons that couldn't say the word "God". And finally, according to the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11; this is not a Christian nation.