On Wed, 10 May 2000, Dwayne wrote:
> James Rogers wrote:
> > 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?
If I am not mistaken, the U.N. representative for the U.S. is an appointed
position; in other words, they represent the interests of whoever
appointed them, not of the country in general. Fortunately, some U.N.
associated issues require congressional ratification.
Despite the influence of the U.S. in the UN, I think many Americans view
it as more of a European institution than an American one.
> > 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?
Most of the biggest slaughters of humankind in history have been the
result of such political and social normalization. Expecting that this
time around will be any different is dubious at best.
> > 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.
Check your history.
Here are some 20th century statistics for you. These figures only include
the largest incidents, as the myriad of smaller ones do not significantly
impact the totals:
Domestic state-sponsored killings: 50-55 million dead
WW1 + WW2 total killed: 40-45 million dead
These figures combined encompass about 10 events, approximately half of
which occured in the "civilized" first world.
> 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.
Does it really matter if the deaths occur in one place or all over? Fact
is, in the last hundred years just about every government on the planet,
including most of the "civilized" European nations have been responsible
for at least one significant mass killing of populations under their rule.
> > I think it is quite plausible that those "titanic wars" *reduced* the
> > total bodycount.
> Looking at it from a long-term perspective, sure.
Does anything else matter? Two killed every day of the week is better than
five killed every Monday? This is the same kind of argument used by
people who think it is horrible when a plane crashes but don't care that
far more people die in automobile accidents. Situational and
> And WWII did more to bring us closer to a single world govt than any
> other single thing you can name.
WW2 didn't bring us any closer to a single world government. The primary
result was to undo the political stupidity that resulted from WW1.
> 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.
The more decentralization the better. City-states would be better than
what we have now. In fact, modern technology could alleviate many of the
old problems that surrounded this type of sovereignty.
> 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.
Wars are usually started by governments. Most wars are between
governments and their own people. This does nothing to support your case.
> 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?
Don't mark yourself a nitwit by denying the implications created by the
very definition of government. This has nothing to do with paranoid
ranting. If your premises can't be questioned, the rationality of your
position falls into question.
> And besides: what on earth makes you think such a govt would have a
> death penalty, given that most nations don't?
You must be talking about official death penalties as opposed to the
unofficial ones that just about every government in the world uses. There
are many western governments with no death penalty that routinely and
intentionally kill their own citizens, and in a manner far more insidious
than simply having a judicial death penalty.
I know for a fact that U.S. covert op people were helping European
governments kill undesirables within their own countries during the '80s,
including ones with "no death penalty". I have friends who
killed dozens of European citizens under the command of (and
working with) European government agencies. (The people I know who did
this eventually left the military as a result of these experiences; one
became a total pacifist. By their own accounts, many people were killed
for no apparent reason.) I know of a few other, similar types of
situations, and most are uglier than this particular historical footnote.
You forget that Disneyland is the way it is because all the ugly stuff is
actively hidden. Conservation of Evil seems to be an axiom for
> And wouldn't it be a GOOD thing if the really bad guys had nowhere to
And who defines "bad guys"? Oh yeah, the same people who want to
imprison/kill the "bad guys".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:00 MDT