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. The UN is an
irritatingly paternalistic organization that is a poster child for why the
centralization of government is bad.
> 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? Only we wouldn't call it a "titanic war", since
history is written by the victors, right?
> 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
think it is quite plausible that those "titanic wars" *reduced* the total
bodycount. I don't see how a world government would not make this worse.
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."). I don't
see how having a world monopoly on deciding who lives or dies is a good
thing. 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. 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. It
certainly wouldn't be reasonable to expect any real justice in such a
situation.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:59 MDT