James Rogers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2000, Dwayne wrote:
> >
> > The rest of the world is totally aware as to who controls the UN, I
> > doubt it is seen as representative of the planet outside the US and
> > Europe, and I'm not so sure the Europeans feel this way.
>
> The UN will not and cannot be representative of "the planet". It doesn't
> even represent the people of the US.
1: that "it doesn't even" is a telling point.
2: isn't that why the US elects a govt?
> The UN is an
> irritatingly paternalistic organization that is a poster child for why the
> centralization of government is bad.
Well, as well as a shining example as to just how far the world is
influenced by non-obvious forces.
> > I was thinking of something else.
> > And no, I don't want to live under one world govt, mainly because it
> > would result in the entire world eventually becoming homogenous and
> > bland.
>
> Have you considered how many people would have to die to get to that
> "comfortable" stage?
Nope! How many?
Have you considered how many people will die via any other method you
care to think of?
> Only we wouldn't call it a "titanic war", since
> history is written by the victors, right?
Well, I, personally, would rather see a one world govt come about via
stealth and treaty, as is happening right now.
There's other ways to influence peoples than via conquest, you know.
> > Other than the cultural diversity issues, the sooner the
> > better. If we can't get rid of these horrible nation-states entirely,
> > at least let's have just one so we can avoid titanic wars.
>
> The titanic wars between nation-states have bodycounts that are dwarfed by
> the bodycounts inside nation-states caused by ill-run governments.
I really really really doubt that.
And I think you'll find that there would be a small minority of states
which would account for most of the deaths, as opposed to a world war
where the deaths are spread all over the place.
And I still fail to see your point.
> I
> think it is quite plausible that those "titanic wars" *reduced* the total
> bodycount.
Looking at it from a long-term perspective, sure.
And WWII did more to bring us closer to a single world govt than any
other single thing you can name.
So, once again, I fail to see your point.
> I don't see how a world government would not make this worse.
It's six of one, half dozen of another. Ideally, I'd like to see the
world broken up into tribal city-states, anarcho-collectives, etc., but
that's just me. But, I think a single world govt would result in a
far more peaceful world than the one we have now.
It's a matter of opinion whether or not people's "liberty" would be
infringed, but your liberties tend to be torpedoed in a war zone, so
what the hell.
> I guess this is a jurisdictional issue for you ("It is much better to kill
> our people ourselves than to have other nation-states do it.").
Hey, dude, can you drag your mind out of this weird "governments exist
only to kill you" mindset, as I'm just not interested in discussing an
issue I consider patently mindless?
> I don't
> see how having a world monopoly on deciding who lives or dies is a good
> thing.
See previous point.
And get over it.
And besides: what on earth makes you think such a govt would have a
death penalty, given that most nations don't?
> You are making the baseless assumption that you won't end up on the
> "people it is okay to kill" list that most governments seem to have.
Well, given the fact that the odds are well and truly in my favour, yes,
of course.
Although, no, I would probably be top of the list.
But this is all hypothetical, so what ever.
And besides, what is bad for me may well be good for the world, and I'll
go for the greater good, coz I'm ace like that.
> The
> problem with a world government is that once you end up on that list for
> any reason, ridiculous or not, there is nowhere else you can go.
Do you lie awake worrying about such things? I don't.
If you WERE on that list in any country, you've got to get over the
border to get away, so your point is a little bit pointless, as it were.
We all live in such a situation now, so what would change? Extradition
treaties exist right now, so what would change?
And wouldn't it be a GOOD thing if the really bad guys had nowhere to
go?
> It
> certainly wouldn't be reasonable to expect any real justice in such a
> situation.
Well, sure, but it doesn't keep me up at night.
Future wars worry me greatly though.
And I'm not an american, so it's far less likely I'll be involved in any
future huge wars, whereas it's a given the US will be.
Dwayne
--
mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne
"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and wirder."
---clae@pa.ausom.net.au
....return....to....the....source....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:59 MDT