I've been thinking lately about humanism. Specifically, a one world government. I dunno. Humanism has some good ideas, I think. For instance, facing our problems head-on, and trying to solve them ourselves, rather than ignoring them and claiming "God will work everything out." That's just foolish. But on the other hand, I think humanism has as one of it's tenets a rather flawed notion; namely, that people are inherently good. I disagree. I don't think man is "sinful and fallen", as is claimed by Christians, but I do think that we tend to revert to our animalistic nature when faced with any situation that would place one person ahead of the other. One of us is going to die, eh? Better you than me. (although really, there's no good way to end that one. If both people decide to be noble and kill themselves, that's two lives wasted. If only one dies, the other has this horrible guilt trip for the rest of their life) As such, I think it's impossible to have a world government of any type.

I'm not just talking about crazed dictators of tiny African countries, either. Look at our glorious history. Vietnam? Somalia? Iraq? Afghanistan? Any of these ring a bell? Or look at the U.N., and the little debacle in Rwanda. 800,000 killed in 3 months. We elected to hide, due to our recent snafu in Somalia, but the U.N. went all gonzo and invaded the country. They then decided to do nothing. No fighting back, no conflicts of any type. Just stand idly by and watch genocide take place. They did erect some refugee camps if anyone managed to escape, to their credit.

But no... one world government is an impossible dream. A global utopia is simply not feasible. Someone will inevitably have to call the shots, and then you have a dictatorship. Democracy, as nice an idea as it is, fails miserably when faced with any sort of major decision.

On top of all of this, how would such a government be financed? Taxes? People say there's unfair taxation here; imagine trying to tax people in 3rd world countries, where people often have less than $1 a day to live on. That's income disparity for you. And yet what do we do? Yeah, we feel bad when CNN runs a special, and we throw a few dollars into the red buckets at Christmas, but really, does it accomplish anything? It might make some people feel better for awhile, and hey, you might even join the Peace Corps and build a village. Good for you! You've improved the living conditions of perhaps .000001% of the world. Now, what about the rest? Are you selfish for not helping them? Of course not; one cannot be expected to help everyone. But then, who will? Should you give up and enjoy life as best you can, ignoring everyone else? Such is the capitalistic way, and hey, it works. You give to charity every now and then, get warm fuzzies, and enjoy your Triple Latte before driving off in your Lexus.

And what of socialism? Surely a loving, one-world government would insist on shared wealth. But what of people who have actually earned their wealth? I would think it somewhat wrong to take what they have toiled for (however fleeting it may be) and give it to someone else, no matter how deserving. Look at what welfare has become in the U.S. A system of hand-outs for those who refuse to work. I'm not saying everyone's leeching, but a lot of them are. It sounds cruel, but survival of the fittest is a very true and evident maxim. Is it wrong to apply it to the underprivileged and impoverished? I'm not sure. I'm not very sure of anything these days.

4000 hungry children
Leave us per hour from starvation
While billions are spent on bombs
Creating death showers

-System of a Down, Boom