🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

  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?
      
 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.
      
      (Note:  I'm not saying all of this would be easy; indeed,
      it would take a tremendous amount of work from all nations.
      But in the long run, the WG would be essential if we're
      to live together peacefully.)

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

Stephen @Trajan