Coronavirus: What would have happened if there had been a world government?

[Trailblazer]

There will be a logical reason for virtually everything - doesn't mean they all have to be correct though. The trouble is - those who have such beliefs don't always behave in any manner better than those without all too often, and the evidence seems to show this.

True and true.
However, how people behave has nothing to do with whether a religious belief is true or false.
It is either true or false, logically speaking.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Good governments avoid bureaucracy by delegating tasks to the appropriate level of government. Eg federal governments don’t need to run schools, that is delegated to the states etc.

I completely understand your ideal. However, it is not the way things work in reality. Federal governments just can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar. Try as we liked, we in the US just couldn't keep our Federal government out of education, and we ended up with the horrible No Child Left Behind Act, which left an entire generation behind by losing too much time in classroom in test preparation, rather than in real education. Trust me, our constitution did its best to prevent a strong national government, and we ended up with one anyhow. Beware! Beware!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

True and true.
However, how people behave has nothing to do with whether a religious belief is true or false.
It is either true or false, logically speaking.

I'm not so sure about that.

Traditionally, if a person kept the Law, it was just assumed they believed. Their actions spoke for their faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's just not necessary. The world works just fine with many different nations at peace. Maybe better.

But all nations are not at peace yet.

When the Messiah comes, that will be a different situation.

You already know what I believe about that so there is no need to reiterate it.

Until then, you just have ordinary men doing ordinary things. Right now we have made enormous strides towards eliminating international warfare, as it is bad for international trade. Good things are in store if the trend continues. Why fix what is not broken?

I believe it is trending in a positive direction because of the coming of Baha'u'llah. He predicted we would first see the lesser peace and then the Most Great Peace will come.

If the kings and rulers had followed the counsels of Baha’u’llah the Most Great Peace could have been accomplished by now, but after they all rejected Him, He wrote…..

“Now that ye have refused the Most Great Peace, hold ye fast unto this, the Lesser Peace, that haply ye may in some degree better your own condition and that of your dependents.” Gleanings, p. 254

 

[MNoBody]

any modality of "governance" would work provided it met 3 criteria
-benevolent
-compassionate
-competent
In the fullest sense of the meaning of these terms
all governments have historically rated very low scores in these 3 essential categories

 

[Trailblazer]

Traditionally, if a person kept the Law, it was just assumed they believed. Their actions spoke for their faith.

I was not talking about what people believe and how that is demonstrated.
I was talking about what is true.

I meant that what people believe does not determine what is true.
A religion is either the truth from God or not.
God determines that because God sends the Messengers that establish the religions.

Some people discover the truth and others don't. But it does not matter how few or many people discover it because if it is true it is true.

It is the same thing with God. It does not matter how few or many people believe that God exists.
If God exists, God exists, even if nobody believes that God exists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But all nations are not at peace yet.

There are areas of tension, areas where war MAY break out. But there is presently NO international warfare. International war is defined as war between two or more recognized nation states. What we do have is plenty of civil wars and wars between nations and non-nation armies such as terrorists. But not one international war. This is unheard of in history, a real first. Think of 1000 years ago and how international wars were the status quo around the world. Yes, we have reached an entirely new era of hope.

 

[CG Didymus]

The nobility of man and his spiritual development will lead him in the future to such a position that no individual could enjoy eating his food or resting at home while knowing that there was one person somewhere in the world without food or shelter.

What if a wealthy person has the best of foods and a big house with the biggest TV and the biggest swimming pool. And everyone else in the world has adequate food and an adequate house? Will that rich person feel bad about having more and better stuff than everyone else? And, how did that person get their wealth? Was it by the hard work of others? And then those others, are they going to be satisfied with less, even thought they have worked hard for what they have? Or should the rich person get rid of their wealth and live simply? Or, should the poorer people tax the rich person until they all have equal wealth?

As I recall the Baha'is want to get rid of the extremes of wealth and poverty. But if there will still be different levels of wealth and poverty, the new high level compared to the new low level will be the new extreme between the two. So can that rich person ever be happy knowing their food and house are better than what the poorer people have?

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'is have no plans to rule the world.

It is my understanding the the religion and government will always be separate but you might want to verify that with one of the other Baha'is on this forum.

But if the Baha'i don't rule, how can we trust a secular government to do the right thing for all? They have no reason to follow the divine plan of Baha'u'llah. And if they do, then they are essentially Baha'is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, we have reached an entirely new era of hope.

Thanks for pointing that out....
I fully agree even though we do not agree as to the reason why.

 

[CG Didymus]

So by Christian logic, Baha'u'llah can't be "The Christ", therefore... he's a fraud.

Correction: Baha'u'llah is not Jesus Christ, therefore... he's a fraud according to Christians.

Correction to your correction. I said "The Christ". not that Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah is "Jesus the Christ". But it is all the same problem... each religion has its own version of what's true. If it doesn't line up with another religion's truth, then the other religion is the one that is wrong. Even Baha'i do this. Like I always say... If a Hindu believes in reincarnation or that Krishna is an incarnation then, for the Baha'is, those Hindus are wrong, not the Baha'is. And, of course, same thing with Christians... if they believe Jesus rose from the dead and is God, then, according to the Baha'is, those Christians are wrong. So being "wrong" or a "fraud" is kind of the same thing. It makes the other religion false. At least some religions do say that some things in the other religions are true and just a few things, although it's usually major belief, are wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

What if a wealthy person has the best of foods and a big house with the biggest TV and the biggest swimming pool. And everyone else in the world has adequate food and an adequate house? Will that rich person feel bad about having more and better stuff than everyone else? And, how did that person get their wealth? Was it by the hard work of others? And then those others, are they going to be satisfied with less, even thought they have worked hard for what they have? Or should the rich person get rid of their wealth and live simply? Or, should the poorer people tax the rich person until they all have equal wealth?

There will always be differences in economic levels because there are differences in people's level of education and the jobs they have, and then some people also inherit wealth and some people invest money. I see no reason why people should have equal wealth. I think that our wealth should be determined by hard we are willing to work, but of course all people do not have the same intellectual capacities or the same educational opportunities, so wealth will never be equally distributed.

Whether the rich person will feel bad about being rich or not will depend upon the person. Some might feel bad and if they do they will given money to the poor. Other might not care so they will keep their money and spend it all on themselves.

The same is true for poor people, it depends upon the person. Some poor people will be satisfied as long as they have their basic needs met whereas some poor people will expect more.

As I recall the Baha'is want to get rid of the extremes of wealth and poverty. But if there will still be different levels of wealth and poverty, the new high level compared to the new low level will be the new extreme between the two. So can that rich person ever be happy knowing their food and house are better than what the poorer people have?

There will always be different levels of wealth, as I noted above. Whether a rich person will ever be happy knowing their food and house are better than what the poorer people have depends upon the person, as I noted above.

 

[danieldemol]

any modality of "governance" would work provided it met 3 criteria
-benevolent
-compassionate
-competent
In the fullest sense of the meaning of these terms
all governments have historically rated very low scores in these 3 essential categories

Comparatively to anarchy though they rank higher on those three score-cards you mention.

 

[Trailblazer]

But if the Baha'i don't rule, how can we trust a secular government to do the right thing for all? They have no reason to follow the divine plan of Baha'u'llah. And if they do, then they are essentially Baha'is.

By the time this happens all people will be more spiritual and less materialistic, so even if they are not Baha'is it won't matter. They will want to follow the Baha'i guidelines because they will care are about their fellow man.

I do not know, but there is reason to believe that in the future everyone in the world will be a Baha'i, after the intervening clouds have been completely dissipated.....

“The day is approaching when the intervening clouds will have been completely dissipated, when the light of the words, “All honor belongeth unto God and unto them that love Him,” will have appeared, as manifest as the sun, above the horizon of the Will of the Almighty…….” Gleanings, p. 306

And after the divine standard is unfurled.....

“The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake.Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody.” Gleanings, pp. 118-119

 

[Trailblazer]

But it is all the same problem... each religion has its own version of what's true. If it doesn't line up with another religion's truth, then the other religion is the one that is wrong. Even Baha'i do this

You are correct, that is what all religions do, even Baha'is.
However, a version of what is true does not make anything true.
A religion is either true or false, logically speaking.

 

[MNoBody]

Comparatively to anarchy though they rank higher on those three score-cards you mention.

ideally, the best government is the end of a paternal governmental system
nanny-state socialism is doomed to end badly

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But it is all the same problem... each religion has its own version of what's true. If it doesn't line up with another religion's truth, then the other religion is the one that is wrong. Even Baha'i do this. L

You are correct, that is what all religions do, even Baha'is.
However, a version of what is true does not make anything true.
A religion is either true or false, logically speaking.

I posted this in another place, but it is relevant here also;

"... Above all, we expressed our conviction that the time has come when religious leadership must face honestly and without further evasion the implications of the truth that God is one and that, beyond all diversity of cultural expression and human interpretation, religion is likewise one. It was intimations of this truth that originally inspired the interfaith movement and that have sustained it through the vicissitudes of the past one hundred years. Far from challenging the validity of any of the great revealed faiths, the principle has the capacity to ensure their continuing relevance. In order to exert its influence, however, recognition of this reality must operate at the heart of religious discourse, and it was with this in mind that we felt that our letter should be explicit in articulating it.... "

From this document

One Common Faith | Bahá’í Reference Library

It is a statement that is still relevant and is the intent of what Baha'i try to share.

Regards Tony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

they actively work toward the global goal of world unification every day. We would love to have your help.

The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the official views of the Baha'i Faith.

https://bahaiteachings.org/how-world-unity-could-stop-pandemics

Honestly, no, I did not read all of that (I had to delete some of it to reply), but on the basic premise I do agree and is a reason I support a one-world state entity with individual member nations. It could enable a very effective and organized response, keeping this basically quarantined to China with the ability to put a halt on everything going in and out, amd enabling careful observation elsewhere to keep a watch if the virus gets loose.

 

[Trailblazer]

everything

Honestly, no, I did not read all of that (I had to delete some of it to reply), but on the basic premise I do agree and is a reason I support a one-world state entity with individual member nations. It could enable a very effective and organized response, keeping this basically quarantined to China with the ability to put a halt on everything going in and out, and enabling careful observation elsewhere to keep a watch if the virus gets loose.

Indeed, this is the only way I can think of to prevent a virus like this from spreading from its nation of origin to other countries and then around the world.

The Baha'i Faith envisions the world government to look something like this:

“Some form of a world super-state must needs be evolved, in whose favor all the nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an international executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a world parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a supreme tribunal whose judgment will have a binding effect even in such cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their case to its consideration.”
The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 40-41

 

[Samantha Rinne]

To see the problems of a world government, one only has to look at the EU. In the UK, they have not been able to fish in their own waters because someone in Belgium has decided their country deserves it more.
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) - Fisheries - European Commission
Or they have environmental regulations of toasters, even though the more environmental ones are non-domestic resulting in forced trade with other countries.

Or on a far more important note, when you have a world government, borders are often common, creating extreme problems. "Oh come on over! We all have Coronavirus in Sweden, but Finland welcomes you." This came to a head a couple years back, when a group of criminals escape across borders. Different criminal justice systems meant they weren't able to pursue these criminals and so it was up to the other country, but the other country even though their borders were open to the point of being connected had no sense of coordination.

The more centralized a government, the more area they control, the less effective they are without abuse of power (24/7 surveillance, stuff like that).

You can have a worldwide system of nations with their own laws and borders but ability to have trade connections, but a world government is something else entirely. It means that leaders that your country didn't elect can impose laws that don't work for your country.