Anton Sherwood wrote:
> Arjen Kamphuis writes
> : [...] any and all human-rights violations should be ended (by force if
> : neccecary) by a sort of world governement.
>
> Why a world government? Why not thousands of volunteer forces
> in parallel? If there's just one super-state, what happens
> when *that* goes bad?
Volunteer forces? Don't you think people are naive and selfish?
There is a need for government, weather or not you hate it. A small part
of the world is exploring the great majority and one day these majority
will revolt. Then, you will see a need for a world government.
You are picturing a giant, super-state in the forms of the American
government. That, I agree, could go wrong but my idea of a world
government is of a less powerful institution with local governments
assuring most of the world's policies.
> : Altough I would never use the term conquer the world.
>
> (How else can you create a world government?)
Because it's the right path to follow for our species to have a future,
once people understand that, they'll want to change and we will change
peacefully.
We will have a world government in the future or we will have no future
at all.
> : Just remove the dictator and then organize elections A.S.A.P and get out.
>
> What is on the ballot? Candidates for new dictator?
> Forms of government? New boundaries?
World government for assuring peace, security, liberty and equitity
between nations that, of course, would have their own, local
governments.
--
Hasta la vista...
"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen
Visit my site at: http://mithlond.esoterica.pt/~jpnitya/