🚀 go-pugleaf

sm> Stephen McIntyre
gs> Gary Strand 

sm> What I'm trying to say is that you can make it very difficult for the WG
sm> to send troops by installing all sorts of roadblocks...

  Has that worked in the US, where only Congress has the power to declare war?
  Since the Prez is the C-in-C, he's been able to do all sorts of fun military
  escapades, like Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, etc.

  BTW, you still haven't said if the WG Army will have nuclear weapons.

sm> As for absolute power, what country would be crazy enough to place total-
sm> itarian authority in the hands of a general (or whatever leader)?

  You're kidding, right? Well, Weimar Germany, for one. They don't have to
  vote the guy in, he just takes power.

gs> Who will control this mass media? What about censorship? Freedom of opinion
gs> leads to difference of opinion, which is the definition of disagreement.

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

  Hardly. Merely pointing out that disagreement can lead to conflict. I have
  yet to see a WG advocate come up with a reasonable method of resolving these
  inevitable conflicts that doesn't carry the danger of imposition of drastic
  anti-freedom measures and institutions.

sm> Also, if a bill of rights were placed into the "constitution" of the WG,
sm> guaranteeing such freedoms as speech and press, how could the WG censor
sm> media? 

  <Smirk>. Why not ask the US government how it's managed to be restrained
  from censorship by the US BoR? Your dependence on a little piece of paper
  is touching, and naive.

sm> [A]lthough the democracies are in the minority, and though they have less 
sm> than one-half the world's population, they control most of the world's
sm> resources.

  Really? Why is it, then, that we're constantly willing to go to war over
  these resources that we already control? I wasn't aware Japan had much in
  the way of resources.

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

  It's interesting to note you think that a WG is merely a scaled-up UN. The
  local city council does a decent job, that must mean I think that the fed-
  eral government does OK too. NOT!

sm> It appears to me that you keep thinking of the "now" rather than of the
sm> future, when a WG will be more suitable.

  I'm thinking more of the transition from the "now" to the future. So far,
  I haven't seen argument for how we get there, just what it will be like
  when we do.

gs> I wasn't aware democracy was something a nation could be coerced into. Has
gs> there ever been a nation that was coerced into democracy, or did it arise
gs> from within?

sm> South Africa...

  Come now. A nation where 5 million control the other 28 million has to be-
  come democratic, if the 5 million want to stay alive. I'd say the RSA has
  a long ways to go before it's considered democratic. They also have the
  advantage of pseudo-democratic ideals (for the white populace, anyway.)
  That's a lot more than can be said of China, for example.

gs> If there's no war, why would we need an army?

sm> Good question. The answer is: humanity cannot be trusted.

gs> This one statement smashes your whole argument to smithereens. Note that
gs> you *didn't* say "Some humans cannot be trusted"; you've condemned the
gs> entire species! How can such an untrustworthy bunch be given the kind of
gs> power a WG needs? Wait, the WG Army and politicians and bureaucrats and
gs> social workers will be eminently trustworthy, but the rest of us won't
gs> be. At least come straight out and say you're an elitist!

sm> I mean to ask you: have you learned so little from American history? When
sm> the forefathers of our nation created our federal government, why did they
sm> separate the powers into the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive?

  In an increasingly-futile attempt to keep one part of the government from
  becoming too powerful relative to the other parts. However, the idea hasn't
  worked as well in keeping the government as a whole from becoming too power-
  ful relative to the citizenry.

sm> *** Because they trusted neither people nor government! *** 

  Not quite. They didn't trust the individuals who have the power of law over
  others. They did trust the citizenry as a whole to keep the government in
  check, an idea which has become less and less obvious to me. At worst, we
  can overthrow the whole shebang and start over. How does one overthrow an
  entire world government? Where does one go to hide from it?

sm> Listen, you've no proof that a WG wouldn't work; all you've got is a lot
sm> of non-reasons.

  In your eyes, perhaps. I take it as a given that governments in general
  easily become inefficient and more harm than they're worth; a WG merely
  exacerbates the shortfalls and flaws of "regular" governments. The really
  bad part, though, is the fact that one cannot leave a WG. Lastly, I've
  also been pointing out the problems of getting to a WG, which you and the
  other WG advocates have done a poor job of addressing. Sure, once one ac-
  cepts all the "ifs", "ands" and "buts" of getting to a WG, the WG will be
  entirely viable. It's the nagging little problems beforehand that I am
  concerned with.

sm> But don't worry, the world is heading for a WG.  I don't see it in my
sm> lifetime (it's not possible right now), but I do see it.  The new trade
sm> pacts, the spread of English, the joint ventures into war and technology
sm> -- all signs that WG is coming. 

  No, more like signs that international cooperation is finally getting off
  the ground. In any case, if WG is coming, where can I go to avoid it? 
  "To the moon, Gary, to the moon!"?

  Ugggh.


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