Globalization will be the best solution to the uneven distribution of internationla wealth.

There were too many imaginations: comics, novels. .. Those are vague and unsupportive evidence. In the real world, no one can guarantee the living standads are going to be raised; no single government is going to be responsible for the actions you have mentioned before if the actions are not in effect and the people will not be benefited. The possiblity of failing the task is way too high than success. How can you call that "the best? "First of all, you mentioned, "* One-world government under the auspices of the UN, the WTO, etc. * An international monetary standard imposed by blackmail by the IMF and World Bank * Forced redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor via direct foreign aid and/or fiat-money central banking schemes" Those are the elements essential to globalization in which you are not for. I do not really see your point there. First of all, one-world government is not possible to exist. Look at the UN, and all other world "governing" bodies, they do not have real power to regulate any countries. For instance, UN did use the power to put embargo different countries, but the results were embarassingly poor. There might be a one-world "club" out there, but there is no such government. Since there is no such one-world government, how could you even ask or push the people or cooperations to be supportive or "willing" to redistribute the wealth? " Therefore, this also proved that your "voluntary" actions are useless and ineffective. You even said you are not for the forced redistribution of wealth, then, how can we get thewealth "evenly" distributed. No matter how voluntary your imagination is, there is no way to be the "best," or to be "even. " And you talked about legitimacy, free-market, and global trade, then you opposed the US participation in UN or other world "governing" committees. Once again, you proved yourself wrong by taking out the participation of US. Remember the world "governing" body before the UN, the history is telling the fact: US refused to join the League of Nations, the organization failed to do its job by allowing the Axis power to start the World War II, and finally, it leads to the League's downfall. With no aid from the states, I do not see any reasonable evidence that can support your arguements. Also, the legitimacy of redistribution of wealth is based on the government and the businesses. I have proved to you that voluntary work is not the "best" way to do it. Moreover, the free-market is another arugement. Your theory according to Adam Smith, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, is well known. His follower Milton Fredman, an important American economist of this century, has said there is no such absolute free-market. There may be one in theory but not in practice. Therefore, your arguement will not be accpetable because there is no absolute free-market, then there is no "evenly" distributed wealth, and globalization cannot take credit for that. You talked about the division of labor, which means the society is based on a highly intergrated structure, without any supportive base. If you meant the division of labor can solve the problem, then you may want to reconsider your unstable position. There are many solutions involving the division of labor. You are suggesting that many solutions can help redistribute the wealth, but I do not see evidence that GLOBALIZATION will be the "best. " If anything can solve the problem, why do we need, particularly, globalization? In addition, division of labor is not the "best" or even helpful to the situation because the world we are living in is practicing many methods of social reform, including redistribution of the wealth. The only significant outcome we observed is the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. If you think our governments are not thinking about and using the different methods that you have been suggested, you are incorrect in your assumption because once the structure of our highly intergrated society is reshaped, the economy will suffer due to the interdepedency of different social and economic classes. Therefore, globalization, once again, has been proved not the "best" solution to the uneven distribution of international wealth. "If Third World nations want to achieve prosperity, they need to establish representative republics, based on the original intent of the U. S. Constitution. " Then, the world needs the "US Consititution" instead of globalization, according to you. Representative republics do have commons with globalization, but they are still, afterall, two different ideas. You cannot provide any evidence to show that globalization is the "best" solution to the uneven distribution of international wealth, in which, afterall, is your goal in this debate.