OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Political Diversity

Entry 2137, on 2021-07-03 at 20:12:02 (Rating 3, Politics)

Many people have their own opinions on how the world should be run. One defining characteristic of these different political systems is the dichotomy between the individual and society as a whole. By that I mean that some ideologies emphasise the individual while others see the group as being of prime importance. In general, more right-wing and libertarian politics favours individual freedom, while more left-wing or socialist ideologies prefer giving the group primacy.

It's not quite as simple as that, because there is a lot of subtlety in this characterisation; for example, many right wing people think patriotism is important and that could be seen as being a more group-oriented view.

But which is best? Recently, I have been pushing the importance of individual freedom, free thought, and free speech, so you might say I primarily identify with that side, but I also recognise there are times when a more group oriented approach is better.

For example, to solve large societal issues, like climate change and the COVID epidemic, a group approach is better in many ways. Look at the countries which have done poorly during the epidemic and they seem to be where individualism is encouraged, such as the US, Brazil, and the UK.

So different approaches have pros and cons. More draconian, society wide rules, such as those imposed by lockdowns, can be effective in certain situations, but many people would object to that level of government control at other times. Countries where the government has excessive control over the citizens rarely last long. China is still succeeding with this approach at this time, but I suspect it will be forced to move to a much more free system in the not to distant future.

One interesting aspect of the current epidemic is that it gives us a chance to see how effective different types of governments are in controlling the spread of the disease, so we can look at different approaches and evaluate how effective they are.

But imagine if we had a world government, which is an approach endorsed by many. It would be difficult to say how we would evaluate that government's approach, because there would be no basis for comparison against alternatives. And it if was a government emphasising personal freedom it might not react to COVID very effectively. On the other hand, if it was a more group oriented administration it might handle an epidemic well, but have a lot of unnecessary constraints at other times.

So having a single government would be like putting all your eggs in one basket. If it was a really good government - in the context of the requirements at a particular time - it would be great. But what's good at one time is bad at another, and what's good for one person is bad for another. Having a "one size fits all" mentality for the whole world seems both dangerous and restrictive to me.

So maybe that is a good reason to support individual countries with their own distinctive cultures and administrations. There might be times when an individual country does badly, but other times when it does well; and that might reverse for other countries with different systems in place.

And if an individual feels their current country doesn't fit the way they want to live then they can (at least theoretically) move somewhere else. We are told that diversity is important, but to the people who promote this ideal political diversity is often rejected. I say it shouldn't be.

Another factor to consider here is the efficiency of small and large organisations. I have discussed this in other posts in the context of organisations and companies. It seems that the bigger the organisation becomes, the more bureaucratic, unresponsive, and oppressive it becomes. National governments are the ultimate example of this, so imagine how bad a world government would be!

Already there are organisations which transcend countries; such as the European Union and the United Nations. These have a reputation for being incredibly inefficient and unrepresentative. How much worse would a world government be?

Note that it's not all bad. Rules imposed globally would presumably (there is no way to prove this) make it easier to solve global issues, like climate change. Of course, this assumes the government is rational which is a big assumption, but at the moment it could be argued that it is more rational not to take strong action on that issue.

See my previous posts discussing game theory, the tragedy of the commons, and the prisoner's dilemma for a full explanation of why, but briefly it is an entirely rational action in a competitive environment is to do the minimum amount possible while other groups do the maximum - assuming positive action solves the bigger issue but disadvantages the group, which is the case for climate change.

But if I argue against a world government the next question becomes what size units would be better? Are the current 240 countries a good number, or should there be more or less?

Some people have suggested that the US should be divided into two or more independent countries, because it is both too big and too divided currently. But you could make a similar argument - at least regarding division - in small countries, like here in New Zealand. We are also divided between supporting the current leftist government and wanting an alternative. Should New Zealand be divided too?

And if the US was divided in two, or other ideas were acted on, like making California independent, how long would it be before those smaller units were just as divided as the bigger one was? Currently California is very left-oriented politically, but if it became an independent unit inevitably new disagreements would arise.

So maybe the current system of countries isn't too bad. We have a wide range of sizes, populations, religions, cultures, and political systems. Maybe that's the best we can really hope for. It is a system which has arisen through evolution over time rather than conscious decisions, but maybe that isn't a bad thing.

And maybe maintaining the character of individual countries is also a good idea. Despite the claims that integrating other cultures is a good thing, I dont think it is, at least not without careful consideration.

We need more political diversity around the world, not less.

Comment 1 (6795) by Jim on 2021-07-21 at 09:48:07:

Another interesting perspective. Do you not think world government would make solving the big problems we have easier? Also, would it not reduce the conflict between the countries we have now?

Comment 2 (6796) by OJB on 2021-07-21 at 09:51:15:

I did say that I think a world government would have benefits, but I am not convinced those benefits would outweigh the disadvantages. Also, how would quite different cultures be assimilated into a single government? Would the Chinese government want to hand over power? Would the Islamic world want to integrate into a more progressive regime? Would Western counties want to give up some of their current values to fit in with less "advanced" nations? I can't see how it would work, even if we did want it.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.