🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve (steve@nospam4me.org) wrote:

: President Bush's legitimate power ends at the US territorial 12 mile limit. 
: Beyond that point, he is just another unelected dictator imposing his will, 
: through force of arms, on people who didn't - and can't - vote for him. If 
: he wants to lead the world, he must also be accountable to it.

This certainly seems true.

However, it omits some important facts.

Is there a "world" to be accountable to?

Thus, for example, before the U.S. invaded Iraq, were the Iraqi people
able to vote democratically for representatives in a world government? Or
were they able to vote democratically for leaders in an Iraqi government?

If neither, then the Iraqi people were represented nowhere, and there is
no automatic reason to prefer Saddam Hussein's will for the Iraqi people
to George W. Bush's will for the Iraqi people.

Indeed, George W. Bush has no authority to make law for the world. The
U.S. should not try to tell the rest of the world what kind of copyright
law it should have, or which countries they should impose trade sanctions
on.

However, the world's democratic nations, which include the United States,
but which also include Canada, Israel, the Republic of China (that is,
Taiwan), Australia, Britain, France, Switzerland, and so on and so forth,
live in a world where there is no democratic world government.

So while they should not be trying to boss each other around, if there is
a patch of ground somewhere which DOES NOT have a democratic government -
and Iraq qualifies in that regard - I see no reason they should not feel
free to bring legitimate law and order to that area whenever they feel it
is desirable to do so. Whether it is to liberate the people there from an
oppressive regime, or to protect peaceful people from aggression or the
threat of aggression, to depose a government that is accountable to _no
one_ on behalf of a government that _is_ accountable to people, ordinary
peace-loving people, even if they are the people of a different country,
is not wrong.

Unfortunately, through mismanagement, non-democratic regimes have been
allowed to get their hands on weapons more advanced than clubs, rocks, and
spears, and thus we live in a world where non-democratic government has
persisted. This has led to some unfortunate accomodations with
non-democratic governments; it has been expedient to extend reciprocal
rights of recognition to them.

Hopefully, these dark days will be over, and we will soon live in a
peaceful world where everyone is free.

Where everyone lives under democracy.

Where no one has any fear of consequences for following their own
religious belief (in ways that don't violate the rights of others) even if
it differs from that of their neighbors.

Where no one is forced to learn a foreign language just to survive and get
a job, as long as they haven't moved to a foreign country. (Yes, this
includes people like the Basques and the Inuit.)

Where the different countries have very small armies, because they don't
need more, so taxes are kept low, and the only people who serve as
soldiers are those who have voluntarily applied for the position. (No
wars, hence no conscription; no giant standing armies, hence no universal
service.)

Big obstacles to this are governments like those in Saudi Arabia (which
discriminate against non-Muslims) and the government in the People's
Republic of China (which suppresses free political debate, and maintains
hegemony over people in Tibet and Uighuristan, who don't want to remain in
a country that has done oppression to their lands, which were happy and
peaceful before China imposed itself on them). Why would anyone object,
*except* for the danger imposed in carrying out the task, because these
governments have their hands on weapons that can hurt people, to pushing
these tyrants out of the way so that a peaceful world can bloom?

It is true, though, that there are legitimate concerns about things like
globalism. Before countries can be expected to open up their borders to
imports, they must first have succeeded in reducing unemployment to
tolerable levels - like 3% - and then they should have full discretion in
admitting only such imports as are needful and do not threaten maintaining
acceptably low rates of unemployment.

Thus, I do admit that the United States is pursuing its self-interest in
ways that are harmful to bringing about a peaceful and happy world; if it
abandoned these errors, it would find it easier to get the other
democracies to join it in ridding the world of tyranny.

Also, because the United States was formed with the idea of being a
non-ethnic state, where there is little at stake in control of the
government (thus, the government is limited to spending money on "general
welfare", like lighthouses and libraries, and can't be used to transfer
money from one region or economic group to another; there can be no
official language or religion) it has sometimes failed to understand the
need for some peoples of national independence, and has tried to avoid
partitioning of unworkable federations. When there has been bloodshed
between ethnic groups, a national boundary is needed between them; after
hundreds of years, mutual respect instead of fear and hatred will develop,
but if you force them to live now under the same government, it will only
take longer.

We need to hurry to build a stress-free world where everyone is happy.

John Savard