Hacker News Reader

Comment by TimTheTinker | Hacker News Reader

> Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis.

I don't think I agree. It's great for individuals and countries to be friendly, but I see two problems with a one-world-government system:

1. It concentrates an extreme quantity of power in the hands of a few people. Power has a potential of corrupting those who hold it, and I believe that potential increases on an exponential (or at least an algebraic) scale, not a linear scale.

2. If an evil personage gains power (think 20th century dictators), a single world country would suffer significantly. But having countries separated provides a limit and a check on the potential fallout of that dictator's actions.

View on HN

The OP was not proposing a one world government. They were proposing that there be huge number of overlapping social organizations, based on natural similarities. The International Association of Basket Weavers is not even comparable to a one-world government.

Thanks, and agreed with that — organizations that transcend country boundaries are great, as long as they’re not vested with political power.

Perhaps the OP was talking about sports teams in particular? Forming sports teams based on geographic area fits well, and gives people someone to root for without alienating other groups for what would amount to wrongfully discriminatory reasons in other contexts.

But if geographic region isn’t allowed, then finding other criteria can be hard. Who wants to root for the A’s to win against the B’s if there’s nothing besides the name that makes them different?

> organizations that transcend country boundaries are great, as long as they’re not vested with political power

The EU is an organization that transcends countries and is vested with political power, and despite being constantly bashed by far-right parties in Europe, has built a single market in Europe and many new freedoms for it citizens, like the right to move to and work/study in other member states.

They selective enforce that political power, though.

Nearly expelled Greece for not bailing out the German banks, but Hungary can compulsively retire judges, expel universities, and close newspapers without even a slap in the wrist.

The EU is great insofar as it functions merely as a multilateral treaty and economic zone. But the moment the EU itself arrests someone or issues a court injunction against an individual or small business (or gains the legal power to do so), it has crossed the line in my opinion. Same with the UN, NATO, NAFTA, etc.

Given the way Premier League works, it's not really geographic any more. "Arsenal" is owned by an American, plays in a stadium named after the airline of the UAE, recruits its team from all over the world, and is named after the Royal arsenal that no longer exists.

Names and history are important. That's why there has been such a fight over renaming US teams with racist names.

I don't think it's a simple as that, and you have to separate the ownership of the club and the makeup of the team from who makes up the bulk of the fans.

The fans don't particularly care that it's owned by an american and sponsored by a UAE airline, because what matters is the coming together of the fans behind a common cause.

The fans do typically come from the area around the stadium in North London.

When you get just a little bit further down the league it's still very much a geographical thing because the teams are less well known and less successful, so are less likely to attract people who want to support "the best team". For example, Southampton FC fans are pretty much exclusively from Southampton.

Further to that, the fans care deeply if the owner/manager/players make efforts to become part of the fabric of the area, otherwise they won't care about them to any great degree (even if a player is world-class and delivers success, without integrating, they'll still be seen as mercenary). Fans, very much the same regardless of level: support is an identity very much tied to a specific place, and a tourist can't really fully participate in that.

> I don't think I agree. It's great for individuals and countries to be friendly, but I see two problems with a one-world-government system.

I agree that power corrupts but it doesn’t follow to me that power corrupts more at the top than at the bottom. I’ve heard some horror stories about small towns in Texas. I’m sure there are similar stories everywhere.

What's the greater evil - the risk that checks and balances fail and an evil person takes over, or that a federated system is unable to reach consensus and address existential threats like climate change or even significant but not quite existential threats like overfishing, pollution, war, and nonrenewable resources?

A more fair choice of options would be, "the risk that an evil person takes over" vs. "the risk that a federated system fails to address existential threats". The way you said it implies probability in the former vs. certainty in the latter.

An explictly evil person or group dominating the world seems like the greater evil in terms of outcome. That would literally be hell on Earth. When you look at probabilities, there's tons of examples in history, across thousands of years, of evil people inevitably rising to power when the system allows for it. Meanwhile, there are relatively few examples of humanity going extinct due to self-inflicted environmental damage.

Isn't federation one of the main checks and balances that keeps evil dictators from taking over the world?

It's interesting that the OP said "teams" meaning sport and now at least two comments have thought that "teams" meant politics or nationality.

game theory coordination dilemmas are killing us now

Reply on news.ycombinator.com