+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 @bonifartius@qoto.org

@CapitalB @spinneria @br00t4c they can't sustainably invade a country with an armed populace. sure, they might nuke everything, but that's not why they invade a place. they invade to extract resources and work. they can't do that if they end with an eternal guerrilla war and widespread sabotage. that's why all of the US wars failed, they got involved in years of very expensive whack a mole only to have things return to how they were.

@spinneria @br00t4c yeah, i think we could do pretty well without one. the only way is nonviolently convincing enough people, no shortcuts possible.

@istvan @br00t4c
> Oh. Ok. I’ll let him drive my brain then.

haha! brain goes wrooooooom!

i think it's good to deconstruct these ideas every once in a while. even if they are obviouly stupid. apparently there still are enough people believing in them.. ;)

@CapitalB @br00t4c why should you leave if you do nothing harming others but don't want to pay up merely for the crime of existing? in a sense leaving is like moving to the next plantation, having heard the rations are bigger.

@CapitalB @br00t4c do you voluntarily participate in "switzerland" or because you are thrown into jail if not? that's the question ;)

@br00t4c
> we, the family of nations

i'm no nation, i'm an individual.

> He recommended that we replace our outworn habit of divisive feeling with a new habit of common action on a worldwide scale through the creation of some form of limited world-state that would be empowered to act in humanity’s collective interest in certain narrow fields of endeavor.

"having states didn't work, let us build a giant almighty one. that will fix the problem!"

> First, that a world government should be minimal and should be limited in its sphere of action.

if it's powerful enough to enforce any rules it will have limitless power by definition.

> Toynbee believed that the structure of a limited world state would likely be a federal one in which previously independent units would voluntarily come together in a global union.

this is a perversion of the word "voluntarily". nation states are not capable of doing things "voluntarily". they are inventions of the mind, not living beings.

> Finally, he believed that humanity needed to forge some unity of thought as to what constituted right and wrong. In other words, it was necessary to adopt a shared set of moral values that would serve to harmonize the disparate social and cultural heritages that had evolved independently of each other over the course of human history.

there is. it's called "natural law", but for the sake of the argument: it would be very entertaining to see how you'd align with the moral values of the maya state, which as well evolved in human history. "it's 4pm honey, time for the human sacrifice!"

the old "violently coerce people into compliance" solution never has worked. history is my proof.

the only "great refusal" i see is by supporters of etatism not wanting to carry the burden of responsibility themselves, calling for more authority to rescue them.