From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:37:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Aug14.143704.9519
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug12.010339.14687@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu  writes:
>
>> ab> Alex Bunker
>> 
>> ab> GEE! come on I am only talking of long term goals values and priorities.
>> ab> Obviously we need to line up a complex federal system with many levels of
>> ab> power enschrined in a constitution with guarentees of reginal autonimy etc
>> ab> etc etc all I am talking about is having a global legislature that is
>> ab> democratically elected by global universal sufferage that has an army and
>> ab> the power to enfore human rights across the planet.  
>
>>   What happens when such an army decides to violate human rights? How does 
>>   one get billions of people to agree on anything? How does one introduce 
>>   democracy to the majority of the world's peoples who have no idea what it
>>   requires? You can't just say "Now you can vote for your leaders" and leave
>>   it at that. How do you plan to eliminate dictatorships? Doesn't the idea
>>   of "regional autonomy" lead to conflict? If there's no war, why do we need
>>   an army?
>
>Pure bunk.  So let's deal with some of Gary's questions, shall we?
>
>   i) "What happens when such an army decides to violate human rights?"
>   
>      You needn't place all military power in the hands of the world
>      government (which I'll label WG from here on.)  For example,
>      you can allow each democracy (I'll explain this below) to retain
>      its troops, while at the same time regulate the number of troops
>      under the authority of the WG (perhaps, let's say, to 100,000
>      members.)  These troops would be drawn from all participating
>      nations.

There are about 20 nations with armies of over 1 million men. Your
WG army would very quickly get it's ass kicked if it tried to cross
any of them. If any two of the US, China, or the SU  allied, they could
kick the entire world's ass. 

>  ii) "How does one get billions of people to agree?"
>  
>      Mass media.  It's happening now and will progress as time
>      passes by.  How do you think tens of millions of people
>      can agree now on a single subject?

Ah Herr Goebbels would be delighted, as would Coca Cola's ad agency.
If you don't understand propaganda, and the way mass media can be
used to further it, talk to an ad man or watch some WWII movies.
It's easy to sway people to a point of view. What's hard is to 
have a sophisticated and educated populace that recognizes bovine
waste when it sees it.

> iii) "How does one introduce democracy to the majority of the world's
>      peoples who have no idea what it requires?"
>      
>      Artful persuasion.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that
>      the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Japan, Western Europe, and other
>      democracies /were/ to get together to form a hypothetical
>      WG.  They form certain treaties, create certain laws, and 
>      devise certain stipulations in order to join this WG.  All
>      of these motions by the nations in this WG would grant 
>      things like free trade and a unified banking system for
>      those that are part of the WG, but would give stiff tariffs
>      and so on to those countries not joined.  On top of that,
>      the main stipulation for joining the WG would be for
>      those nations to be democracies (that is, government
>      elected by the people.)  Granted, it would be hard on many
>      nations for awhile; but no one has ever said a change in
>      government would be easy.  Besides, they would have a 
>      choice: either let the people decide who runs their
>      government, or don't join the WG.

With the stalled GATT treaty, the IMF crisis, and the fact that
the raw materials needed by the industrialized countries you mention
are controlled by dictatorships, I'd say you wouldn't have a snowball's
chance in hell of making such an alliance stick.
      
>  iv) "If there's no war, why would we need an army?"
>
>      Good question. The answer is: humanity cannot be trusted.
>      I hope one day we can survive without standing armies,
>      but until the day comes when people don't care about
>      either personal power or a disagreement with one's beliefs,
>      an army will be needed.

If humanity can't be trusted, and I agree with that idea, then letting
the mob rule in a democratic world government is asking for genocide
and wars without end. The world has been held mostly at peace for 40
years because of only one thing, mutual terror. The balance of forces
has made war too expensive to the victor as well as the loser. 

Gary
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5605 talk.politics.mideast:18598 talk.politics.misc:39609