I agree with Quarles on one point. Humanity can experience, and even celebrate, difference without division and unity without uniformity. See here. Global administration does not require a single culture and indeed would be impoverished by it.
Quarles thinks that world government could promote issues like health and conservation while respecting national sovereignties. The US would be able to fund a global economic program for the cost of continuing to maintain the Protectorate, thus conciliating many current enemies, but after a decade other countries would have to share the cost. The world government would also enforce the right of anyone to leave his country unless he was charged with a crime but the "crime" could not be heresy or dissent.
(Comment: I agree with the right to free movement in any case.)
I think that the completes the summary of Quarles on Egalitarianism and about time says you.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
I really loath the UN, because of what a corrupt, farcical joke it is! So I found myself glaring at the UN flag!
I agree a global state, whatever form it takes, does not need and should not force a single culture on member states.
Agree, crimes preventing a person from leaving his home country should be things like robbery, rape, murder, fraud, etc. Not merely because he is at odds with his home gov't.
I don't agree with any ABSOLUTE right of free movement, however. My belief remains that even under a world state member nations continue to have a right to SOME say on who can move in.
Sean
Post a Comment