From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:14:08 GMT

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu  writes:

> sm> Stephen McIntyre
> gs> Gary Strand 
> 
> sm> What I'm trying to say is that you can make it very difficult for the WG
> sm> to send troops by installing all sorts of roadblocks...
> 
>   Has that worked in the US, where only Congress has the power to declare war?
>   Since the Prez is the C-in-C, he's been able to do all sorts of fun military
>   escapades, like Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, etc.

Have I said the President has been right?  What these Presidents have 
     done is wrong (whether fun or not); they have grossly violated
     the terms of the Constitution (it's funny how the majority of
     these Presidents believe in "original intent" only when it
     benefits their cause.)  But the case has not been made yet against
     a WG; no one ever implied that only one person rule the WG.


>   BTW, you still haven't said if the WG Army will have nuclear weapons.

What use would they have for nukes?  I don't think they would
     be necessary.

> sm> As for absolute power, what country would be crazy enough to place total-
> sm> itarian authority in the hands of a general (or whatever leader)?
> 
>   You're kidding, right? Well, Weimar Germany, for one. They don't have to
>   vote the guy in, he just takes power.

Since when has Weimar Germany returned to this earth?

> gs> Who will control this mass media? What about censorship? Freedom of opinion
> gs> leads to difference of opinion, which is the definition of disagreement.
> 
> sm> What's so wrong with a difference in opinion?  You sound as though it is
> sm> wrong for Americans-- indeed, the rest of the world-- to differ in what
> sm> they believe.
> 
>   Hardly. Merely pointing out that disagreement can lead to conflict. I have
>   yet to see a WG advocate come up with a reasonable method of resolving these
>   inevitable conflicts that doesn't carry the danger of imposition of drastic
>   anti-freedom measures and institutions.

That is a problem-- one that should be adressed if and when a WG is 
     formed.

> sm> [A]lthough the democracies are in the minority, and though they have less 
> sm> than one-half the world's population, they control most of the world's
> sm> resources.
> 
>   Really? Why is it, then, that we're constantly willing to go to war over
>   these resources that we already control? I wasn't aware Japan had much in
>   the way of resources.

What the govt. is willing to do is protect those resources already
     at its disposal.  And when last, since WW II, has Japan been
     at war over resources? 

> sm> It appears to me that you keep thinking of the "now" rather than of the
> sm> future, when a WG will be more suitable.
> 
>   I'm thinking more of the transition from the "now" to the future. So far,
>   I haven't seen argument for how we get there, just what it will be like
>   when we do.

Point taken, and since I'm not an expert (yet), I'm  not sure how 
     we'll get there either.

> gs> I wasn't aware democracy was something a nation could be coerced into. Has
> gs> there ever been a nation that was coerced into democracy, or did it arise
> gs> from within?
> 
> sm> South Africa...
> 
>   Come now. A nation where 5 million control the other 28 million has to be-
>   come democratic, if the 5 million want to stay alive. I'd say the RSA has
>   a long ways to go before it's considered democratic. They also have the
>   advantage of pseudo-democratic ideals (for the white populace, anyway.)
>   That's a lot more than can be said of China, for example.

Ah, but it was world economic pressure that pushed S. Africa into
     negotiating with the ANC.  It may have a ways to go, but it
     will get there.

> Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
> strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Stephen @Trajan