regional vs global police

Should one country judge another as “bad”?
Should one country be relied on to defend the world from “Bad” people, places, things?
Should one country Persecute another country simply because it has another form of goverment than the other?(democracy vs Monarchy etc)

Early men didnt know much about their world, Today’s men can fly from china to chicago in 100x faster than early man on foot due to technology advances that have shrunken the world dramatically.

A man in one country is ruled by a single person goverment, a man in one country just by being a citizen of that country is part of that goverment due to him having a vote on what happens. But just because one man belives his form of goverment is better does that give him the right to pick a fight with the other goverment?

Should we even have individual governments since the only other people we have to fight are ourselves? The world of men has gone from regional go global and men are still tied to regional while testing the waters of a global existance. Things such as global economy, international courts, Are the signs of a future with one order runing everything?

I think each country should just act in its own best interests and not worry about what the rest of the world thinks except to the extent that it finds doing so to ultimately be in its own interests.

That holds true for every level of societal organization, right on down to the individual.

Is that not a tad selfish?

If, as BluTGI so eloquently put, the world has “shrunken”, surely the actions of many countries (not necessarily geographically local) can affect any individual state. In this instance would it not be better to cooperate with other countries to ensure that their actions are also in your best long term insterests? If each country is scting to favour its best interests, then cooperation tends towards the global best interest (assuming equal importance of all countries). The global best interest becomes ultimately most satisfying.

The reality is that some countries yield greater power than others. One might moralise that all men are created equal, and so by extension global interests are most important, but alas the country that cherishes this philosophy most publically also does the most to rubbish it by pushing for its own interests ahead of the rest of the world.

You’re right–it is selfish. But what’s wrong with that? Tell me, is it not selfishness that enables man to survive? When I eat, am I doing it for selfish reasons or for the “good of the world”? What about when I sleep? Breathe? Drive to the grocery store?

Even cooperation is often performed for ultimately selfish reasons. When I assist someone where I work, I do it not because I care about making their job easier, but because I know that the earlier and more efficiently the task at hand is completed, the less pressure there is on me later and the greater my chances for a raise. Cooperation and selfishness are not mutually exclusive. If an entity at any level of society finds it in its own best interests to cooperate with others, more power to it. But that it is its own decision–not everyone else’s.

It might now be argued that acting for the “good of the world” is the the best form of self preservation, as there exists the capability for the disenchanted to destroy humankind.

Ultimately, to reproduce successfully, a species requires diversity of breeding pairs. Entirely selfish motives (i.e. selfish gene) still require action beneficial to the population. The argument essentially distills to where to draw the line; a value judgement - at what point is an cooperative action insufficiently beneficial to the individual. Given how “connected” the world is, I`d argue that many home and foreign policy decisions have the potential to come back to haunt in the future, and so these policies should be as morally acceptable to all parties as possible.