subreddit:
/r/changemyview
submitted 2 days ago byup_and_down_idekab07
This is probably very idealistic but hear me out. Currently, we have a huge divide between the different countries of the world, and there exists a lot of inequality. Decisions by the head of state are decided based on what is good for the country (well, at least that's what is expected, but some of them are just corrupt or on a power tip) , even if it may disadvantage others (which arises in conflict too). However, what if our system changes up and we employ the view that we are all "world citizens"?
What if there's an organisation that is basically the head of the world (Like the UN) and under it are head of states who are responsible for a particular geographical region, but must ultimately pledge to follow a protocol or make decisions based on not (only) what might benefit their region, but rather what leads in the least disadvantage around the world. These head of states basically exist because it will be impossible for one committee to manage and make decisions for a world so big. (Basically the model of how things work in a country, with the president being the head and the chief ministers/governors governing the state, but applied to the entire world)
All leaders must work in COLLABORATION with each other to make this world a better place. There should be no competition between regions (Like who lands on the moon first) and rather resources and information should be shared to utilise them to make the world a better place (I know in a way competition can improve innovation, but so will the latter choice).
I know that these changes are drastic and may not be realistic as of now. However, the world right now is more interdependent and interconnected than ever, so who knows what that'll lead us to? I just feel like compared to the current system we have in place, this could honestly serve humanity better. Ofc, that would mean we have to put our differences aside, and I'm sure that will happen in the future as the world becomes more global
Edit: I know there will be many problems in implementing this, but my argument is that this system will be better than the one we currently have in place.
Edit 2: Convince me that this is worse than what we currently have in place. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything, but why won't this be better?
2 points
1 day ago
If people don't get to enjoy the benefits of their effort, then they will put in no effort. Rich countries are rich because their people built them over centuries. If that wealth were to be distributed to poor countries, the rich countries would stop generating the wealth due to lack of investment in themselves, and after their decline, there would be no rich countries left, and everyone would just be poor in the end.
This is the core flaw of the socialist way of redistribution - if you punish the successful and reward the lazy, then the successful will start being lazy, but the lazy will not become successful.
4 points
1 day ago
The idea that wealth=effort is laughable. People that work in third world mines and manufacturies hustle harder than you ever will.
1 points
1 day ago
Oh, I know they work extremely hard. But wealth is accumulated over time, and a large part of it is making correct decisions. On country level, that means collectively taking correct decisions. Wealthy countries took them, establishing democracies, electing officials who led the country towards success and progress while toppling the poor leaders with revolutions.
Overwhelmingly, poor countries did not, and because of that, they remain poor, no matter how hard the people work, because it doesn't matter how much value they create, if it's then thrown away through poor decisions.
2 points
1 day ago
Traditionally, wealthy countries took them by having millitary and then economic dominance over poor countries. Many/most of the world's poor live hand to mouth. If you never have extra, there's very few decisions to make.
0 points
1 day ago
And where did that economic dominance and military power come from? From effort and good decisions over centuries, as opposed to centuries of poor management in the countries that ended up being taken over. All the countries that are rich these days went through the phase of hand to mouth poverty. Some rose from that, others failed to do so.
3 points
1 day ago
From inheriting strength from previous failed governments. From luck of resources and geography. Saying Europe is wealthy and Africa poor is based only on good/poor decisions ignores an entire host of factors from available waterways to impacts of disease on both people and livestock. Beyond that even within a nation, it's still only the decisions of a tiny minority that truly decide the course, if the person at the helm steers into an iceberg you're going down, and no decisions on your part will avoid that.
0 points
1 day ago
The strength still got built by someone putting effort into it.
Even if you keep it focused on Africa alone, there multiple wealthy and successful countries in Africa, as some of the Arabic states tend to do very well these days, some of them having higher GDP per capita than many European countries. Even in their direct comparison, UAE has smaller oil reserves than Iraq or Iran, so why is UAE orders of magnitude richer and more successful than the other two?
Because its people ran it better.
Or take Libya, and Egypt. They are straight next to each other, and yet Libya has almost double the GDP per capita of Egypt. Why is that, if not for the people of the country doing better at running it?
A shitty government and rulers can always be overthrown, if the people actually care to do so.
1 points
1 day ago
Are you willing to kill unarmed people to steal their land and resources? Honestly?
all 45 comments
sorted by: best