🚀 go-pugleaf

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. Also, the bulk of the national armies in the world today
  aren't as "decent" as our nice Western militaries; most have no problem
  with massacring innocent people. The Iraqi army, for example, is the rule,
  not the exception. Lastly, would such an army have nuclear weapons? If
  they won't, how do we get all the current (and future!) nuclear powers to
  disarm?

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.
  
  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?

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.

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?

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?

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!

sm>    I hope one day we can survive without standing armies,
sm>    but until the day comes when people don't care about
sm>    either personal power or a disagreement with one's beliefs,
sm>    an army will be needed.

  Basically, "Behave or I'll smash your head in"? That works on children, and
  not even all the time. Are all of us to be considered children before the
  almighty WG? Also, do we end up as big one homogeneous mass? As far as I'm
  concerned, one big blob of individuals with the exact same thoughts isn't
  humanity.

  Sorry, but your WG simply has too many problems to be practical. 


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