From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:08:35 GMT

Sorry I'm late w/ this response.  The UNIX system was down yesterday
     AND I've a final to attend to.  Let's begin...


gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu  writes:

>sm> Stephen McIntyre
> 
>sm> [L]et's deal with some of Gary's questions, shall we?
> 
>gs>   i) "What happens when such an army decides to violate human rights?"
> 
>sm>    You needn't place all military power in the hands of the world
>sm>    government (which I'll label WG from here on.)  For example,
>sm>    you can allow each democracy (I'll explain this below) to retain
>sm>    its troops, while at the same time regulate the number of troops
>sm>    under the authority of the WG (perhaps, let's say, to 100,000
>sm>    members.)  These troops would be drawn from all participating
>sm>    nations.
> 
>   I'm assuming the WG Army will easily have the power to overwhelm at least
>   one of the national armies, and ought to have the power to defeat the ar-
>   mies of the two most powerful national armies, in case the two nations
>   ally themselves. Otherwise, the WG Army isn't going to last long when pre-
>   sented with a decent national army. Sorta like the LAPD during the riots.
>   Again, I ask, what's to prevent the WG Army from using it's power to run
>   roughshod over the weaker nations? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as
>   they say, and given that a WG Army must have near-absolute power in order
>   to work, how does on avoid the corruption? Merely stating that it will is
>   not good enough.


Indeed, the WG Army would have the power to deter, if not overwhelm,
     a national army.  What use would it be if it couldn't?  On the
     other hand, it would need authorization to do so from the WG,
     a body, if it were created, that would probably be built on the
     same foundations as the UN.  That is, the WG Army would need
     the authorization of, perhaps, an inner council made up of
     representatives of different countries.  What I'm trying to
     say is that you can make it very difficult for the WG to send
     troops by installing all sorts of roadblocks (e.g., a two-thirds
     vote from the outer council; a vote from the head of the indi-
     vidual nations of the WG; etc.).

As for absolute power, what country would be crazy enough to place
     totalitarian authority in the hands of a general (or whatever
     leader)?  You could mandate in the WG "constitution" that the
     head(s) of this hypothetical army must be replaced every two or
     four years, thus ensuring a general cannot garner too much power.
     Other measures could include selecting leaders at random from
     differing nations, capping the powers of the head, placing more
     than one general at the head of the military, etc.  In other
     words, we can be careful when placing power into the hands of
     others.

I'll explain more on this below.


>gs>  ii) "How does one get billions of people to agree?"
> 
>sm>      Mass media.  It's happening now and will progress as time
>sm>      passes by.  How do you think tens of millions of people
>sm>      can agree now on a single subject?
> 
>   Who will control this mass media? What about censorship? Freedom of opinion
>   leads to difference of opinion, which is the definition of disagreement.


What's so wrong with a difference in opinion?  You sound as 
     though it is wrong for Americans-- indeed, the rest of the
     world-- to differ in what they believe.

Also, if a bill of rights were placed into the "constitution" of
     the WG, guaranteeing such freedoms as speech and press, 
     how could the WG censor media?  In all likelihood, the press
     would be run by private, non-governmental institutions, such
     as we have here in the States.  Let's go on...


>   Name one subject that tens of millions of *randomly-selected* people agree
>   upon. Americans can't form one opinion on something as narrow as abortion;
>   why do you believe 5+ billion people (and increasing) will ever agree on
>   the substantive issues?

Millions agree that a fetus has the right to exist, other millions see
     the fetus as a human but without the full rights you or I have, and
     still millions of others see the fetus as having no rights at all.
     Are these millions the ones you are looking for, or are you trying
     to say that we should live in a hyper-democracy where everyone
     not only is the same but they also think the same thoughts?


>gs> iii) "How does one introduce democracy to the majority of the world's
> 
>sm>    Artful persuasion.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that
>sm>    the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Japan, Western Europe, and other
>sm>    democracies /were/ to get together to form a hypothetical
>sm>    WG.
> 
>   The total population you've mentioned is still less than half the world
>   total. What about majority rule? All the democracies in the world are
>   still a minority. And, what about getting all the above to agree? All
>   have had (and still have) major differences, political and otherwise,
>   with each other. OK, they often work together in the UN, but the UN is
>   micropotatoes compared to this WG of yours.

And although the democracies are in the minority, and though they
     have less than one-half the world's population, they control
     most of the world's resources.

It's interesting to note you've noticed how well the UN has run.


>sm>   They form certain treaties, create certain laws, and 
>sm>   devise certain stipulations in order to join this WG.  
> 
>   Such as? And what do we do about nations that refuse to go along? How much
>   force is this nascent WG willing to expend on 10,000 Bosnias?
> 
> sm>   All of these motions by the nations in this WG would grant 
> sm>   things like free trade and a unified banking system for
> sm>   those that are part of the WG, but would give stiff tariffs
> sm>   and so on to those countries not joined.  
> 
>   You make it sound like the countries that have yet to join this WG are at
>   it's mercy. That's not true. For example, the countries that have oil. A
>   lot of countries went to a lot of trouble to try to get rid of Hussein.
>   What happens when most OPEC countries say "Screw the tariffs, oil is now
>   $200/barrel"? What will that do to the WG economy? Also, given that GATT
>   appears to be permanently stalled, and the world finance system is none
>   too healthy, do you plan on a massive economic re-organization as well?
>   Have you bitten off more than you can chew yet?


While OPEC might see to placing high prices (or even an embargo) on 
     their oil supply, the likes of Mexico, Venezuala, Russia (if it
     stays a democracy), Alaska, etc. could keep us running for a
     long time.  Plus, with the rising interest in new, more 
     efficient energy sources, we could well be off the dependency
     on foreign oil in a few decades.  
     
As for the banks, little re-organization will be needed.  It appears
     to me that you keep thinking of the "now" rather than of the
     future, when a WG will be more suitable.


> sm>   On top of that, the main stipulation for joining the WG would 
> sm>   be for those nations to be democracies (that is, government
> sm>   elected by the people.)  
> 
>   I wasn't aware democracy was something a nation could be coerced into. Has
>   there ever been a nation that was coerced into democracy, or did it arise
>   from within?


South Africa...


> sm>   Granted, it would be hard on many nations for awhile; but no one
> sm>   has ever said a change in government would be easy.  Besides, they
> sm>   would have a choice: either let the people decide who runs their
> sm>   government, or don't join the WG.
> 
>   What do you do when one of those nations left out of the WG has nuclear
>   weapons? China, for example? They could really mess up this tidy plan.
> 
> sm>   (Note:  I'm not saying all of this would be easy; indeed,
> sm>   it would take a tremendous amount of work from all nations.
> sm>   But in the long run, the WG would be essential if we're
> sm>   to live together peacefully.)
> 
>   Why? Do we need the threat of force to be nice to each other?
> 
> gs>  iv) "If there's no war, why would we need an army?"
> 
> sm>    Good question. The answer is: humanity cannot be trusted.
> 
>   This one statement smashes your whole argument to smithereens. Note that
>   you *didn't* say "Some humans cannot be trusted"; you've condemned the
>   entire species! How can such an untrustworthy bunch be given the kind of
>   power a WG needs? Wait, the WG Army and politicians and bureaucrats and
>   social workers will be eminently trustworthy, but the rest of us won't
>   be. At least come straight out and say you're an elitist!


I cut off the rest of the article to save space.  Now, without further
     delay...

I mean to ask you: have you learned so little from American history?
     When the forefathers of our nation created our federal government,
     why did they separate the powers into the judiciary, the legislative,
     and the executive?  Why did they build into the system checks
     and balances?  Why did they give control over treaties and war 
     making to Congress?  Why did they give us the vote?  Why did they
     grant impeachment to the legislature?  Why did they make it so hard
     for Congress to pass an Amendment?  Why did they heed the words
     and beliefs of Rousseau when creating the social contract between
     the citizens and the publis servants?  Why?
     
     *** Because they trusted neither people nor government! *** 
     
Oh nooooooooooo!  How could they be so stupid?! Let's go out and burn
     their books, their autobiographies, their memories!  They didn't
     trust their own people!  Oh my god, what were they thinking?  
     Let's return to the days when kings were not chosen but
     procreated, to the days where we were taxed without representation,
     to the days when peace was at hand and fear was not yet a word!
     Let's praise the loyalists-- they were right all along!  We
     should have listened; now we're doomed!  

So, do I sound ridiculous enough?  How about elitist (since that is
     what I must be-- Gary said so!)?  Listen, you've no proof
     that a WG wouldn't work; all you've got is a lot of non-
     reasons.
     
But don't worry, the world is heading for a WG.  I don't see it in my
     lifetime (it's not possible right now), but I do see it.  The new
     trade pacts, the spread of English, the joint ventures into war
     and technology-- all signs that WG is coming. 
     
Write when you can...   


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

Stephen @Trajan

Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5714 alt.conspiracy:10112