Can I get all books on pros or cons of a globalized society. All of it's philosophers and critics...

Can I get all books on pros or cons of a globalized society. All of it's philosophers and critics. I am not baiting I am serious.

Attached: 1564282984150.png (489x457, 312K)

James madisons federalist Number 10 explains why diversity is a strength and why a bigger union would be less prone to fall to a tyranny of the majority. Most liberal books can be used to argue for globalism when you apply the principles in it to it or drive them to their logical conclusions actually.

Globalization is the death of diversity.

Globalization is inevitable, forget nationalism, it’s a false hope. Push for an increasingly Europeanized world. Fuck other cultures

A world government would be more diverse than the current nation-states in almost every way.

How exactly can a single thing (government or otherwise) be more “diverse” than a multitude of independent ones?

Read Carl Schmitt’s The Notion of the Political for a critique of the liberal world order. It’s a short, concise starting point.

I would then suggest Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation for a left-wing approach on the same topics. There are interesting parallels to be drawn with Carl Schmitt’s thought.

What do we think of karl popper?

I think we're talking past each other. A world with several nationalistic nations would indeed be more diverse overall. But each individual nation-state would govern less ethnic groups, religious groups etc than a world government would. You're basically comparing the amount of diversity in a world of nation-states. While I'm comparing the degree of diversity of a world government when compared to any individual nation-state making up a divided world. I hope i made myself clear on this.

Your world government seems completely undesirable from Madison’s position.

Care to elaborate on that? Also as I said in my first post this is me taking madisons point to their logical conclusions while he was arguing for the US federalization and would not be supportive of a world government.

Concentration of power increases the likelihood of it being corrupted for tyrannical purposes. A global government is the ultimate concentration of power and therefore the ultimate threat to individual liberty.

In smaller democracies there is a lesser number of different factions, they're composed of less territory and people thus making co-ordination of a majority to oppress a minority easier. A bigger state has a very diverse and numerous population spread out over a larger territory. Consequently organizing a majority in a world government would be harder and thus fewer laws would be passed and these laws would be based on broad consensuses. If one wants an example of this think of how hard it would be for a world government to be biased towards a specific religious group with such a diverse electorate while organizing a religious majority to give itself privileges is a lot easier in more homogenous smaller democratic governments like Iran or Hungary. This same principle can be applied to religious of speech, the rights of ethnic and linguistic groups.

Open your fucking eyes and see if its working.

In case you incapable: ITS FUCKING NOT!

ffs sake. I expect better from this board. My bad.

globalized society is based because we can all become coffee colored mutts and have hummus for dinner.

you're implicitly arguing for chaos and anarchy whether you realize it or not. People being so different from each other that they can't agree about basic shit is not a positive factor.

Liberals are literally this insane

A world government doesn't mean every nation in the world gets along with one another. It means every nation in the world becomes genetically indistinguishable and everywhere becomes nowhere. It will not be the illusion of utopia you've been fed all your life.

Correction: we will all be eating insects.

A world governments federal legislature would with great probability repeal laws passed by state legislatures that were oppressive towards minorities in those states. While at the same time for the factors I discussed in my earlier post being less prone to pass laws that would infringe on human rights. Consequently, the diversity in the federal legislature would be a guard against the tyranny of the majority. This is positive.

The UN general assembly has no trouble coming to consensus on basic issues. While giving a veto to several members and having each member state be represented equally. A globalist federal legislature would have each country be represented proportionally to its share of the world population and there would be no such veto. This would make the reaching of decisions easier than it is now at the UN general assembly. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that a world government can't come to agreements to avoid anarchy.

A world government would use their military might to keep nations from warring each other. Consequently, a world government would ensure that nations got along more peacefully than they do now.

Also if through race-mixing all ethnic groups become one then the possibility of the oppression of one ethnic group by another becomes impossible and if this doesn't come to pass I've shown in my earlier posts why a globalised government is best at avoiding such oppression by ethnic groups on one another. Thus this further strengthens my case.