🚀 go-pugleaf

ab> Alex Bunker
gs> Gary Strand

ab> Some nations through military strength have taken more than their fair
ab> share of the worlds rescounces. What gives the right to the USA to use up
ab> 10 times as much unrenuewable rescource per capita than another country?

gs> From which countries does the US use bald military force to seize nonrenew-
gs> able resources? Also, does your "10 times" figure take into account that 
gs> the US GNP is the largest in the world? Lastly, how does one decide what a
gs> "fair share" is, when the distribution of these resources is most "unfair"?
gs> For example, is it "fair" that South Africa has such mineral wealth? That
gs> a country like Saudi Arabia has so much oil?

ab> You have completely missed the point of what I am trying to say. I am
ab> talking about what communists refer to as "capitalist imperialism" but
ab> since I am not a communist I am using softer words. 

  Figure out how much the US has spent on these "wars of capitalist imper-
  ialism", and how much benefit the US received from these wars. Given that
  most US trade is with (as I said) Canada, Mexico, Western Europe and Ja-
  pan, what wars of imperialism has the US fought with these countries since
  it became capitalist? Basically, name all the wars the US has fought with
  these countries, and show how capitalist imperialism was the main cause.

ab> The US DEPOSED the democratically elected government of Chile BY FORCE
ab> because it was a threat to US ECONOMIC INTERESTS.

  One of the many despicable acts committed by the US. In any case, what is
  so different about the US government's behavior in this instance, the be-
  havior of other governments that have done the same thing, the behavior of
  government in general, and your promises that a world government will act
  in a very different manner?

  Basically, if the US, as the world's superpower, can't be trusted, how can
  we trust a single world government, that, relative to what little national
  government remains, will be many times more powerful? What happens when a
  single world government maintains a near-monopoly on force? A severe im-
  balance of power is not a stable situation. And, as I asked before, will
  the world government have nuclear weapons at is disposal?

ab> I am talking about the armed overthrow of democratic governments that do
ab> not just happen to see eye to eye with US capitalists. LIKE CHILE!

  Chile is small potatoes. All countries would have to be like Chile relative
  to a world government, in order for the latter to work. Would you rather be
  threatened by capitalists or dictators?

ab> 2) There are many issues facing the world that we need to act on on a 
ab>    global level.

gs> Agreed. That does not mean that we need a global government, though.

ab> Fine. How else do you propose to effectively act on them?

  The way we've been working on them, with a few changes, like getting a good
  deal of governmental interference out of the picture.

ab> These issues are population control,

gs> Are you prepared to have your government force involuntary sterilizations 
gs> and involuntary abortions (and perhaps more) on individuals? Is effective
gs> population control possible under a free system, or does it require a
gs> totalitarian system, a la China?

ab> NO NO NO! populartion control program can be EDUCATIONAL in nature!

  It may be too late for that. I've read a few population bomb extremists who
  have a grudging respect for the way China has worked on its population prob-
  lem. In any case, like I asked, is it possible for *effective* population
  control and freedom to be compatible? Can people be trusted to voluntarily
  refrain from creating babies? I doubt it.

ab> Democratically elected governments operate under a constitution and are
ab> restricted by this. A world government can no more make war on its people
ab> than the US govenrment.

  HAHAHAHAHOHOHOHHAHAHEHEHEHEHE. You (rightly) condemn the US government for
  acts it has committed against other countries, yet you believe US citizens
  are immune from its actions merely because of a little piece of paper? I've
  read of people that have been attacked, to death (literally) by the US
  government. What of the Americans interred during WWII because of their
  Japanese ancestry? What of blacks? Native Americans? All have suffered at
  the hands of the US government, yet you say that it doesn't happen, and
  that shows that a world government wouldn't attack us. You are so wrong,
  it's pathetic.

gs> You cannot get away from using force or the threat of force. That's how 
gs> governments operate.

ab> No different from a regular country.

  Except that one can leave a "regular country". One cannot (as yet) leave
  the entire planet.

ab> You do not seem to understand that I feel that the first step is a very
ab> slow and uncoercive process to bring about a global awareness and slowly
ab> generate a sence of loyalty and patriotism to the entire human race.

  Well, this process has been going on for around 200 years now, and was even
  slowed this century. Democracy is still a minority philosophy. I suspect
  that it will take at least another 400 years for it to be accepted by all
  the world's people.

ab> I want people to be educated to reject nationalism.  

  Communists tried internationalism and failed miserably. Also, nationalism is
  not the sole problem, nor necessarily the toughest nut to crack. Religion,
  tribalism, political and economic differences, and so on, all present dif-
  ficulties that are at least a great as that posed by nationalism. What's
  left of Yugoslavia is immolating itself based on ethnic hatreds that are
  centuries old. I doubt nationalism (and the other irrational -isms) can be
  eradicated within five centuries. They've simply been around too long.

ab> A world government will naturally include only the Democratic nations of
ab> the world.

  At this point, that's a minority. Remember, China is the largest (by far)
  non-democratic country, it shows no signs (as we saw in the XUSSR and in
  Eastern Europe) of becoming democratic, and it has nuclear weapons.

ab> A world government will only be workable once all countries are democra-
ab> cies. This I am sure will happen in the next 30 years.

  That's wildly optimistic. Most of the nondemocratic nations in the world
  will be much more resistant to change than the XUSSR empire was. Many of
  them have been at the same point in political development for centuries.
  For example, in Africa, many nations were furthest along to democracy when
  they were colonies, and once they were granted independence, fell right
  back into the old morass of tribalism and war. I'm not near so optimistic
  as you.

gs> The norm of politics across the world isn't democracy. There is much more
gs> to the world than Western Europe, you know.

ab> I know but I am waiting.

  Your wait will be in vain, I think.

gs> I simply don't understand how you plan to scale up 300 million Europeans
gs> to 5+ billion humans, when the majority of those humans don't live in 
gs> democratic societies.
 
ab> But they will and when they do they will mostly follow the conservative-
ab> -liberal-SDP-green norms with some variation of the support for each
ab> party in different regions.

  I'm not as comfortable as you in saying that the current political makeup
  of most Western European countries is the final or best possible, and will
  naturally follow in another country when it becomes democratic. The nations
  of Europe are the products of unique sets of circumstances, as are all
  nations. I don't see why China (for example) should have the exact same
  set of political beliefs as Germany or Norway, if it should democratize.

  I think you have more than a little hubris to believe that only dullards
  and shallow thinkers disagree with you, and all wise and intelligent men
  can plainly see the truth of your ideas.


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