----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory J Patrick <firesky@...>
To: <WorldCitizen@onelist.com>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WorldCitizen] Digest Number 5


>The idea in principle is great, but I doubt it would ever
> be allowed to take place in the "White Man's World" so-to-speak.  >Can you
see men giving up power for women?  Wouldn't happen.

Gregory, it's already happened over the past two decades hasn't it, also, I
think men are a bit smarter than you give us credit for!

> It should be
> compulsory to vote in the referendum.

i've made it a point over my life (47 yrs) not to vote in compulsory voting
systems if i can get away with it!

kind wishes. philip

_____________________________________________________________

mfcongress http://members.aol.com/mfcongress/index.html
___________________________________________________________________

no from line)
Subject: (no subject)


I believe that violence and government are eternal parts of reality.

Why don't you all peoples from different countries start the Worldparty in
your different countrys and we can together save the world from a third
world war.

greetings Albin Sweden, the worldparty

no from line)
Subject: (no subject)


Hallo, friends. It sounds fine, we will start a selection now, and yes I
believe in the word government for the moment.
Do you want to start the worldparty in thor homecountries?

greetings
Albin, Sweden

I thought voting in Australia was compulsory?

> Message: 2
>    Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:31:04 +0930
>    From: "Gregory J Patrick" <firesky@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 5
>
> > From: "philip52" <philip52@...>
>
> My esteemed fellow Australian seems to know quite a bit about Aboriginal
> social structure.  The idea in principle is great, but I doubt it would
ever
> be allowed to take place in the "White Man's World" so-to-speak.  Can you
> see men giving up power for women?  Wouldn't happen.  As for Australia
> voting on the Republic...I'll wait for it to happen, but I can see a
problem
> being that it is not compulsory to vote, so those who don't turn up
abstain,
> so if the abstainers outweigh the voters, then it'll have to be revoted
on,
> and done all over again, and I can't see that happening.  It should be
> compulsory to vote in the referendum.
>
>
>
>

>We are talking about a global social contract among
>humans to live together based on agreements that we
>make with each other as humans.

The important point here is the difference between simple agreements, and
binding law.

>... Peace also is a consequence of law that we
>establish between us.
>Funny, I thought war was a manifestation of social
>domination (others are law and government) and that
>peace is the absence of that.
>
>Mihajlo Acimovic

You bring up some good points. "Social domination" -Throwing your weight
around. Whether it be a Carrier battle group, or a policeman knocking on
your door.
Carried too far, it leads to oppression. If it's not taken far enough, then
there's nothing to restrain someone from doing as they please.

I quoted Emery Reves before. I found "the Anatomy of Peace" and, at first,
his arguments seem simplistic, but eventually I see that he breaks things
down simply to illustrate his basic premise.

Below, I send an excerpt from a mail I sent to the World Federalist mailing
list. I think it's important to define terms, here. It's also a good place
to start some discussion.

From: John Frazer
To the WFA-info e-mail list
10 Jun 1999
I wrote about presenting the federalist cause to other various "peace"
organizations. I said something about them mostly "addressing the symptoms"
of problems in the world, but they lack any realistic hopes of stopping the
problems they loudly point to.
By "addressing the symptoms" I meant mostly, some of the "disarmament" and
"peace" activists I hear about sometimes. Just what good did smashing the
hinges on those minuteman silos do, beyond getting federal sentences for
those 2 men, and some media attention?
Does disabling or removing the missiles stop the ability of a nation to make
war? What's the point of urging a nation to disarm itself when it and others
are still free to make war?

Last May, at a major citywide festival, I met some members of a local group
who are protesting the sanctions on Iraq. I'm also working on getting with
the Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center on other issues, and from time to
time bringing up the issues pertaining to the World Federalist Movement.

They had a loud banner about "sanctions kill thousands of children" and
copies of petitions and letters.
I asked them about the Iraqi situation, and what they thought should happen.
None had decent ideas of how to help the people of Iraq -beyond letting them
trade freely, and when I asked them how to make sure that the people are
helped, and not the military, they had not much constructive to say (nobody
else brought up the ICC, or the UN by name).
Similar lack of options was displayed about Kosovo, and none had heard much
more about the ICC than local news reported.
Granted, I only talked to a fraction of the groups members, but this was the
crew holding down a table at a major outdoor public event.
They had a banner that read "The greatest threat to human survival is the
nuclear weapon". I countered that the greatest threat is the right of
nations to use war as a way to solve problems.

I quote from "the Anatomy of Peace" by Emery Reves:

" Once the fundamental cause of war -of all wars- (unrestrained exercise of
sovereignty by small units) is realised, the futility and childishness of
passsionate debates about armaments and disarmament must be apparent."

"... Wars between social units cease the moment sovereign power is
transferred from them to a larger or higher unit"...

" If human society were organised so that relations between units in contact
were regulated by democratically controlled legal institutions, then modern
science could devise the most devastating weapons, and there would be no
war. But if we allow sovereign rights to reside in the separate units
without regulating their relations by law, then we can prohibit every
weapon, even a penknife, and people will beat each other's brains out with a
club.

"Peace in a society means that relations among members of the society are
regulated by law, that there is a democratically controlled machinery of
lawmaking and jurisdiction, and that to carry out these laws the community
has the right to use force, a right denied to individuals.
Peace is order based on law. There is no other imaginable definition. Any
other conception of peace is sheer utopia."

John Frazer
Boulder

Hi,

>> albin i met a lapplander in stocholm some years ago who confirmed with
his
>> community a similar emphasis on the sexes in social organization as
>> celebrated with indigenous communities in australia where i'm from. in
our
>> culture in australia i see this as a republic with women in the senate
and
>> men in the assembly with whatever is agreed between the sexes as law.
this
>> system seems to prevent the problems of materialism and dictatorship
which
>> have plagued civilization. australia votes on a new republic in november
>> this year. philip
>
>My esteemed fellow Australian seems to know quite a bit about Aboriginal
>social structure.  The idea in principle is great, but I doubt it would
ever
>be allowed to take place in the "White Man's World" so-to-speak.  Can you
>see men giving up power for women?

Giving up power may be alittle axaggerated. Sharing the power sound lots
less withstanding

   Wouldn't happen.

Wy not try, the system seems strong and perhaps it could motivate half of
all people

Jos
------------------------
>
>Congratulations SAYNO2DRUGS. Our latest ONElist of the week.
>http://www.onelist.com
>How is ONElist changing YOUR life? Visit our homepage and let us know!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I have believed that the only way peace can be achieved is through world
government" (Jawaharal Nehru)
>

>I have heard a bit lately about the division of power between the sexes,
and
>it just struck home this morning on how effective it would be.  Females
>controlling one level and males the other.  And it wouldn't really matter
>which was which, because it has to pass both levels to be law.  (Unless of
>course some leader in their 'wisdom' decided that there were certain laws
>which only had to be passed by an 'upper' house and not submitted to the
>'lower'.


Hi Donna,

How do yuo mean:  "some leader in their 'wisdom'  " ?
Could you explain in wich cases their has to be an upper house ?

Jos

...............a world gov't just means
>substituting national bullies for an international bully.

this should not be the case

   in my view,
>the neighborhood community is more important as a governing body than a
>world wide organization.

maybe this can be achieved in time, but I feel there will be a pasageway in
wich there is a need for an organisation that will guide and monitor on
worldscale in order to prevent dictators and kapitalism in general from
creating massacre and destruction in general.

   if Adolph hitler (or josef stalin, or bill
>clinton for that matter) had been taught compassion as a child they
>would not let war and other atrocities be done in their name.

I agree in general.
I'm not shure about Clinton's motives, sometimes I think he might be willing
to be constructive, but I'm not from the States I'm from the Netherlands
(here things aren't quite right either)

i am in
>america and the way our political system works, the ruthless are
>rewarded and those who pander to money interests best are the ones who
>make it to the highest office.  the people who will become the top
>leaders in any world gov't will be those best suited to get to that
>office, not those best suited to make decisions.

regrettable

  one man, one vote
>works fine in a small community, but is almost ridiculous on the world
>scale.  the selection process for the leaders of tomorrow must be
>unbiased and merit based, giving us men and women who are dedicated to
>improving the lives of people everywhere.

Yes ! agree !

  our current system of
>capitalism/democracy is inherently corrupt.  political parties, special
>interest lobbyists, corporate lobbyists and an easily manipulated mass
>media have all proven that american democracy is a farce and i have
>little faith in a similar arrangement on a world scale.


If we don't avoid that from the start the danger of the worst kind of
dictatorship is quite at hand.

Jos.


>        santiago
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist:  your connection to online communities.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I have believed that the only way peace can be achieved is through world
government" (Jawaharal Nehru)
>

From: Santiago Lechuga

>... the neighborhood community is more important as
>a governing body than a world wide organization.

Quite the reverse is true. It's the nature of Nationalism, and separate
governments that leads to wars.
"Neighborhoods" or tribes, cities,baronies, kingdoms, or nation-ststes, They
all are subject to the pressures of outside social units, that don't share
their legal structures. Individuals are allowed to kill each other, and take
what they want.
When these "neighborhoods" unite under a higher law (city, county, etc) they
don't war with each other anymore -there are other ways of settling
disputes.

Note that the people in these "neighborhoods" are still the same as before.
They have their own ways and beliefs that are different form the next block.
The only change, as in history, between these smaller social units is that
they have acccepted each other within the same, higher legal system.

Would your "neighborhoods" be able to prevent intercontinental wars? How
about regulating cross-border pollution and labor laws between continents?

>if Adolph hitler (or josef stalin, or bill clinton
>for that matter) had been taught compassion as a
>child they would not let war and other atrocities
>be done in their name.

I recall hearing about a bright young seminary student, who was the star
pupil. At the age of 18, he quit to go into politics, and eventually became
known as Joseph Stalin. I could go on & on about otherwise just, sensitive
people who are perfectly willing to start wars.

>... in america ... the ruthless are rewarded and
>those who pander to money interests best are the
>ones who make it to the highest office.
>... the selection process for the leaders of
>tomorrow must be unbiased and merit based...
>our current system of capitalism/democracy is
>inherently corrupt ... proven that american
>democracy is a farce and i have little faith in
>a similar arrangement on a world scale.

You seem to take it for granted that the system we labor under in the US is
the final word in government... Far from it. Most democracies that came
after the US constitution seem to have learned from our mistakes, and come
up with better ways. Pick & choose elements from this, some ideas from that,
and come up with what seems to the majority to be the best.
I like to think that we could do better, with real worldwide discussion,
than they did in the 1770s as a compromise betweeen the 13 colonies, or what
the American way of combining free markets and democracy has come up with.

You say that our system is _inherently_ corrupt:
There's another view to this: Many of the seemingly failed systems in the
world today, might be all right, if in a vacuum. If there were no outside
pressures forcing us to build a huge war eceonmy (Eisenhours' Military
Industrial Complex), is this system the inevitable outcome?
In a world of federated democracies, with war outlawed, and problems settled
by legal procedures, maybe a democracy would turn out differently.

Another point: I still detect a hint of the belief that we are proposing a
"One World Government" to take over all governments everywhere, and enforce
its' laws on everyone.
Pure Fantasy -mostly mentioned by those pessimistic critics with little
imaginations.

Note that no place do I say that any institutions that we will set up will
change human nature. We won't bring about the days when "the lion lay down
with the lamb". We'll just try to make different ways to settle disputes
than throwing bombs around, or commiting genocide on your neighbors.

If you could sho a single shred of evidence that your way of "teaching
compassion" would change this, maybe I'll listen.
In any case, it wouldn't remove the imperitave for a just worldwide legal
system.

http://www.cunr.org/
http://www.wfa.org/

today's society is fractured into many different sections, from
political and class differences, to racial and religious differences.
the idea that we can use male and female legislative bodies to offset
one another is a powerful one, and i am happy to hear innovative
solutions being offered to the world's problems.  unfortunately, the
truth is that the men who now hold power will never give it up or share
it.  within the current framework of politics (i am american and speak
only of the american political system which i know, though i would
venture to guess the same is true all over the world,) there is no place
for sweeping changes.  such a move would never be approved by the people
currently in control; it would mean losing control.  the only other way
for such a change is a grassroots populist movement.   popular movements
need some basis, an idea to follow, and most people would not follow the
examples of aborigines or lapps.  due to the racial, ethnic,
professional and sexual differences among people today, a popular
movement faces many obstacles.  it is ironic that these differences keep
us from solving the problems we all agree are important.  although i
think that sexually orientated legislative bodies might produce
interesting results, the world will never see it applied to a large
industrial nation.  in my opinion the current system obviously doesn't
work and it is time to start looking for alternatives.  of course the
people in power, all of whom have plenty to eat and enjoy the most
advanced health care, don't see anything wrong with the present system
at all.

         santiago

Do you not need four levels?   Another for Gay Pride and Lesbian
Pride....rather an It Pride?

cmj

I have heard a bit lately about the division of power between the sexes, and
it just struck home this morning on how effective it would be.  Females
controlling one level and males the other.  And it wouldn't really matter
which was which, because it has to pass both levels to be law.  (Unless of
course some leader in their 'wisdom' decided that there were certain laws
which only had to be passed by an 'upper' house and not submitted to the
'lower'.

How would international passports work?  would you be able to live and work
anywhere?  I am currently in Canada - considered an expert in my field of
computer programming - and am not allowed to work.  (If I was prepared to
pay the $$(substantial) and complete the paperwork (mountains) I may be
successful in getting a permit but it would take several months.

How would international passports surmount the barriers created by fear of
invasion by overpopulated countries?  ie:  Chinese, Japanese, Haiti?  - it
seems every country has a population base that fears being overrun by
immigrants from some other country.

> From: "philip52" <philip52@...>
>
> albin i met a lapplander in stocholm some years ago who confirmed with his
> community a similar emphasis on the sexes in social organization as
> celebrated with indigenous communities in australia where i'm from. in our
> culture in australia i see this as a republic with women in the senate and
> men in the assembly with whatever is agreed between the sexes as law. this
> system seems to prevent the problems of materialism and dictatorship which
> have plagued civilization. australia votes on a new republic in november
> this year. philip

My esteemed fellow Australian seems to know quite a bit about Aboriginal
social structure.  The idea in principle is great, but I doubt it would ever
be allowed to take place in the "White Man's World" so-to-speak.  Can you
see men giving up power for women?  Wouldn't happen.  As for Australia
voting on the Republic...I'll wait for it to happen, but I can see a problem
being that it is not compulsory to vote, so those who don't turn up abstain,
so if the abstainers outweigh the voters, then it'll have to be revoted on,
and done all over again, and I can't see that happening.  It should be
compulsory to vote in the referendum.

i agree with mihajlo's assessment that a world gov't just means
substituting national bullies for an international bully.  in my view,
the neighborhood community is more important as a governing body than a
world wide organization.  if Adolph hitler (or josef stalin, or bill
clinton for that matter) had been taught compassion as a child they
would not let war and other atrocities be done in their name.  i am in
america and the way our political system works, the ruthless are
rewarded and those who pander to money interests best are the ones who
make it to the highest office.  the people who will become the top
leaders in any world gov't will be those best suited to get to that
office, not those best suited to make decisions.  one man, one vote
works fine in a small community, but is almost ridiculous on the world
scale.  the selection process for the leaders of tomorrow must be
unbiased and merit based, giving us men and women who are dedicated to
improving the lives of people everywhere.  our current system of
capitalism/democracy is inherently corrupt.  political parties, special
interest lobbyists, corporate lobbyists and an easily manipulated mass
media have all proven that american democracy is a farce and i have
little faith in a similar arrangement on a world scale.

         santiago

I sounded very accusative and my suspicion did limit with paranoya there. Did I
mention I'm in Vienna as of yesterday? Anyway, I had just heard some info on the
chemical situation back home and got relly unbalanced by that. How would you
feel if you though there was a 50% chance that half the people you love are
radiated, poisoned and will probably have 2-headed babies? Anyway, I'm done
whith excuses. I thank you 4 your politeness and outstanding tolerance, but it
would be really nice if you got a little more specific in what you r doing and
things like that. Wan'na organise some sort of international elections? We could
work on that.
It could be a total failure, but would get good media coverage if it works. Then
those international passports might start getting actual acknowledgement. I
would cooperate on that, cause I see it as a solution to some of my bigger
problems. I m sure many others would too. It sounds like a good start to me.
I still don't like the word government. In capitaism/slavery/feudalism,
government has always meant a bunch of bullies trying to control everyone
against their own will. It has been so for too long. I think the word is as worn
out as "communism". Still, if you want to be xcepted by national governments, it
might be the name to start whith.

Mihajlo
Mihajlo


Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

albin i met a lapplander in stocholm some years ago who confirmed with his
community a similar emphasis on the sexes in social organization as
celebrated with indigenous communities in australia where i'm from. in our
culture in australia i see this as a republic with women in the senate and
men in the assembly with whatever is agreed between the sexes as law. this
system seems to prevent the problems of materialism and dictatorship which
have plagued civilization. australia votes on a new republic in november
this year. philip
___________________________________________________________________

mfcongress http://members.aol.com/mfcongress/index.html
___________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message ----- >

> Hallo Philip. I am afraid I do not understand you. What do you mean

Mihajlo Acimovic wrote:
>Omar Perez wrote:
>>... The World Government of World Citizens is a
>>vehicle to legitimize such an actual world.

>Legitimise before whom?

Before each other, maybe? Before those omnipotent national governments that
abuse us?

>What world law? Is it the U$ law of greater force?

The world law that we are lacking now. It can be said that at present, we
have NO international law. Law is defined as a set of rules that you are
constrained to abide by, on pain of penalties enforced by a higher power.
Children understand the basics of this -"If I don't do what mom tells me to,
then I'm in trouble"
At present, there's no enforceable laws out there, so Suharto or Hussein or
Chevron oil can do as they please, as can the president of the U.S.(How many
times in the last few decades have warlike actions been taken without
consent of the rest of the civilised world or the U.S. congress & people?)

>Face it, law is something that the rich bullies
>have made to force everybody else into doing
>something they normally wouldn't.
>...if you give people all the information they
>need... they are incredibly capable of ruling
>themselves.

We would institute international laws for the same reason we set laws on
ourselves and each other -on any scale; because the solemn promise of a man
or nation to behave themselves and treat others well isn't good enough.
I've heard the objection that we just aren't ready for it yet, that first we
need to learn how to get along without fighting and get the world
straightened out first. Isn't this putting the cart in front of the ox?
___________________________________________________


>No human rights lobby has changed that ever. Why
>should it happen now?...

This isn't a bunch of utopian idealists wailing about the sad state of
things. The idea of just world law has been around for a long time, and has
been endorsed by leaders and thinkers from all over.
Why it didn't happen in 1919 is open for anyone to try to explain. In my
more pessimistic (or maybe realistic) moments, I pin it on profit motive.
The same thing is why the U.S. doesn't want any part of it now, and doesn't
care to broadcast the ideas out loud. The U.S. is one of the worst culprits
of abusing international 'law' or 'convention'.

There's no point in lobbying the government to change things -from CO2
release due to fossil fuels, or establishing international law- if the
people don't care about it.
That's a factor in working under a representative democracy. If we can't get
the people to care enough to tell their leaders to do something about it, or
if the government won't listen to a clear majority of the people acting as
informed voters, then let's all just give it up now. Let the next mass
extinction roll over us, because there's no other hope of re-arranging this
world so it'll survive us.

I was given a copy of the book Planethood, by ben Ferencz. In it, he quotes
"The Anatomy of Peace" by Emery Reeves. This book, written in 1945 sounds
truly extraordinary, and I've got to find a copy.
From The Anatomy of Peace:
" A Change in public opinion is always the first condition for a change in
institutions.
Our tragedy is that the power of the press, radio, and television is alays
used to propogate disarmament, alliances, deterrants, containments,
nonaggression pacts and other treaty arrangements which, in our time and
age, are thoroughly irrelevant and outdated.
There can be no doubt that, if it were possible to clarify the fundamental
principles of peace through the mass media, to discuss its meaning and how
to obtain it, an overwhelming majority of mankind would enthusiastically
endorse policies and measures integrating the sovereign nation-states into a
higher legal order."

I came to this conclusion, also. There is provision within the UN to allow
reform. The catch, is that it requires a majority of the general assembly,
and approval of the security council. The problem is that any member on the
council can veto any proposition that is considered.
Don't just think about China... The U.S.A. has a long record of
unwillingness to allow anything to interfere with its' own abaility to throw
its' weight around, or the ability of US corporations and agents to do
whatever, wherever they want.
If there is any hope of getting the American people to care about anything,
and if the government ("by the people") can be made to do what the people
want, then there's hope.
_________________________________________________________

>... I'll presume that you don't care. If you wanted a
>self-sustainable society that functions, you would have
>said that every human ... has the right to influence
>the government's decisions. Isn't it a government that
>pretends to rule all mankind?

Sorry, Omar. You answered this diatribe against you in a very polite,
politic manner. The person arguing against you is the one getting offensive
-if not in words, then in continuing insistance that we are out for the
worst dictatorial nature of human power, despite all the evidence.
I'll say that your posting needed to be about 100 times longer than it was
-with precise definitions, to prevent someone from reading this kind of
nonsense between the lines.

I'm sorry. No flaming, be polite, don't say that somebody is sounding like a
twit because they insist that you mean something completely antithetical to
your point and they are obviously ignorant of the basis of your views.

John Frazer
Boulder

From: "Mihajlo Acimovic"

>... Yes, we need a coordinating body, but not someone
>to come in and say "We are the Government".

I don't remember anywhere in the founding message for this list where it was
said "We will be The Government, and you will have no say whatsoever."
This seems to be your own assumption, repeatedly stated and so far,
unshakeable.

>The coordinating body should be made of persons who are
>trusted by all or nearly all in their microcommunities
>... then elect representatives for the higher
>coordinating body ... all the way to planetary level.

The usual way federalists express their hope for the future government is to
say "democratic federation of independant nations; The ederation being
limited in powers to that sufficient to deal with problems that are
international in sccope, and not solve-able by separate nations."
Nowhere have I heard anyone proposing a superpowerful multinational
mega-corporation to rule over everyone and take away everyones' individual
rights. This imaginary construct seems to come from the limited imaginations
of those who are suspicious of all government, and don't care to research
the federalist topic for themselves.
The federalist plans seem to come from people who are also fed up with
nation-states and their pet/master corporations and their unwillingness to
listen to the will of the people.

>...By the way, you are totally right about
>information. People need both information and
>resources...
>Once they control the means of production, and if
>they are mentally prepared, no government will be
>able to take that control away from them, ever.

Hear, hear.
I get the argument "sure, you have high ideals about democracy and control
by the people, but what's to stop some dictator from installing himself?"
Well, few dictators have lasted longer than the lifetime of the individual
himself... civilization goes on. Besides, why so suspicious? What's to say
that, once we have real peace & prosperity, THAT wont last longer than most
past govenments?

John Frazer
Boulder

>that's fantasitic albin. is there going to be a women's voice and a men's
>voice like with the lapps? philip


Hallo Philip. I am afraid I do not understand you. What do you mean with
the voices and the lapps?
Do you think all peoples in Sweden are lapps?

Albin

--
>Thank you for continuing the dialogue about human >rights, world citizenship
and world law.

Thank you for being ready for a dialogue.

>In your message, you expressed concern about world >law and how world law and
human rights can be >legitimized.

I express concern on who is to arbitrate the legitimacy

>Law is a human construct we use to provide order and >ensure our rights and
responsibilities within our >community.  Now that we are aware that we are
living >in one world, our community, then, is the planet as a >whole.  To
protect it and our human diversity, we >must through peaceful means implement
and fulfill >universal human rights, responsibilities and needs >for everyone
everywhere.  The implementation and >fulfillment of universal human rights,
>responsibilities and needs is what we mean by world >law.

"Law is the will of the ruling class turned into a rule" - Carl Marx
"Every time human beings cannot organise themselves, they make laws" - Peter
Kropotkin
"Law is a way of forcing people into doing things they wouldn't normally do and
is therefore wrong by nature"
- Mihajlo Acimovic
Besides, it comes to my attention that the ones breaking human rights are almost
always the governments. No law will fulfill human needs. Only humans can do
that. On those rare occasions when tehy are allowed independent development,
humans have a need to make decisions about their lives, not that those decisions
be made for them by anyone. I think microcommunities are quite capable of making
their own rules by consensus, whithout some big authority forcing it upon them
by threat of oppression.

>Why should it happen now? you ask.  Because we are >living in international
anarchy, a (non)system which >perpetuates violence between so-called sovereign
>nation-states and which is, in the nuclear age, >omnicidal.

I don't understand the words omnicidal and perpetuate, and I really don't
understand the statement above. Anarchy means a society of self-aware
individuals, not a bunch of brainwashed thugs doing whateveer they want. I
cannot agree that this is anarchy. International fascism sounds more like it.
And I see it as a very aggressive and very centralised system that survives on
violence. The nation states are puppets. Transnational Corporations rule the
world today.

> Although we may be able to govern ourselves locally, >local governance, alone,
cannot be proactive in >dealing with global issues such as war, environmental
>devastation, and other structural violence or >oppression inherent to the
military and industry >union that spends almost 3 trillion dollars a year
>preparing for and waging wars.  People do not just >need information to
survive, people need resources >that are now being squandered by national
governments >on preparing for and waging war.

Now you're talking. Yes, we need a coordinating body, but not someone to come in
and say "We are the Government". The coordinating body should be made of persons
who are trusted by all or nearly all in their microcommunities and if there are
too many such people, these reresentatives in regional coordinating bodies
(could be another non-territorial form of allignment) should get to know each
other and only then elect representatives for the higher coordinating body...
all the way to planetary level.
By the way, you are totally right about information. People need both
information and resources. But that's what revolutions are for ;) Once they
control the means of production, and if they are mentally prepared, no
government will be able to take that control away from them, ever.

>All human beings ARE world citizens, by birth and in fact.  Our human/world
citizen status is based on two universally accepted legal principles:  jus soli
and jus sanguinis.  Jus soli means the right of the earthin other words, ones
citizenship is based upon where you are born.

Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are a way for fascist governments to deny humans
their most basic rights to influence the microcommunities they live in. I do not
live where I was born. Should I have a lesser right to influence the
microcommunity I live in now, because I wasn't born here? I believe that
defining human beings cannot be done simply by looking into the parental cells.
being human is more complex than that. Still, I won't argue on this now, for it
is not as important momentally as Jus soli. Jus soli is a way for keeping the
slaves at bay, a perfect weapon to deny freedom of movement. They can move, yes,
but they can't get citizenship. Were you born in Fortress Europe? No? No entry
visa, then! No right of citizenship!
If a human is born in space, will it have the right of worldcitizenship? For as
long as Jus sanguini is mentioned in laws, I will be assured that human rights
will never be respected by the governments that abide to such laws.

> All humans, at least presently, are born in the >world (planet earth).  Jus
sanguinis means the right >of the bloodin other words, ones citizenship is
>based upon who are parents are.  All humans are born >of human parents.

What about those whith human parents and human bodies and no human brains or
disfunctional brains? Will they be included? Where is the limit? Will they be a
part of the voting census?
What if one has only one human parent?
What about clones and mutants?

Citizenship may be defined as our rights, responsibilities and needs as we
protect or implement them within a particular communal framework.  Thus, when we
put world in front of citizen, we are describing all human beings born on
the planet, with human parents and who are living in this global village. 
More importantly, we are affirming all human beings right to participate in the
governing of this worldin implementing and protecting our mutual rights,
responsibilities and needs.

By saying we this and we that, you are affirming your intention to set the
boundaries of other people's rights. Something common for every dictatorship.
Our responsibilities? I believe my only responsibility is to myself. That is why
I am interested in participating and improving the community. Because I am
responsible to myself. I don't need anyone to tell me that, thank you.
Citizenship is not a need, it is a social status in my experience. If every
human is citizen, why the need to call them citizen? Why not just call them
human? As for our rights, we come back to laws... The vicious circle... As for
mutual rights, I have not agreed on any rights whith you yet. What gives you the
right to assume that I have the same notion of rights as you do? How does one
protect responsibility?

>Registering as a world citizen is simply an extra >step that over 1 million
people world-wide have done >since 1949 to officially and legally raise their
>allegiance beyond the nation-state.  Whether someone >has officially registered
or not, we each as humans >have the right and responsibility to decide how we
>are going to govern our world.  The world government >is you in microcosm and
humanity in macrocosm.

Allegiance? Now you're really talking in fascist manner, or have I misundestood
you? Do you actually believe that humans should give their loyalties to some
imagined government instead of themselves? I believe my allegiances go only to
myself. I help people because it makes me happy. I live in a community, because
I think that is the best choice for me and I abide to rules (and create them)
because I believe they are right and not because some asshole whith a gun has
forced me to so I would not be sent to jail.
The world gov. isn't me in any form. I do not give you the right to speak in my
name.
what is officially and legally? What officiality? What laws?

>Sovereignty--our human right to determine how we will >live--resides in the
individual person and in >humanity.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
>reaffirms in Article 21(3) that The will of the >people shall be the basis of
the authority of >government. . . Because I am sovereign, I have the >right to
choose my own political allegiance, just as >you do yours.  If I choose to give
my allegiance to a >World Government of World Citizens and others also do >the
same, do you want to deny us this fundamental >right?

The declaration of human rights has not yet been accepted by all humans
individually and therefore cannot be universal. It hasn't been accepted by all
governments either. My sovereignty resides in my readiness to keep it even if it
costs me a life. No government or inter-government declaration can influence
that. The will of the people is not to be governed. There is no such thing as a
legitimate government. Authority is something I despise. I deny anyone the right
to presume they have some sort of say over what I will do and will fight them
for this right if that's what it takes. No one may presume to govern me if I do
not give my consent for that.
That is the healthy answer of a human.

>How and why do governments form in the first place?

Groups of bandits become strong enough to control territorialy based communities
for a longer period of time.

>Because people are sovereign, they can come together >to decide that they want
to govern themselves based >on certain principles and common goals.

If people would govern themselves, they don't need you to do it for them. I
already wrote on the desirable forms of organisation.

  They decide to come together to form governmental institutions and structures
because they know that anarchy will prevent them from ensuring that their mutual
rights, responsibilities and needs are met.

must I repeat that any anarchist utopia presumes a world of SELF-CONSCIOUS
people? Thugs doing what they want is called "free-trade", "free-market" and
"democracy"

   Consider the Declaration of Independence as a basis for understanding how and
why we create governments.

Like I said, a bunch of murderers and bandits strong enough to maintain a
monopoly over armed force.

   It states, . . . that all (humans) are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of HappinessThat to secure these Rights, Government
are instituted among (humans), deriving their just Powers from the Consent of
the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these
Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government. . .  Because the national governments are destructive to our
human rights, we can institute new government, human government, that helps us
to fulfill our rights.

Humans are not clones. They do not have a "Creator". They don't need someone to
give them rights. Humans are incredibly capable of taking rights. They can
simply oppose anyone who tries to break what they believe are their rights.
Governments are instituted to prevent people from fulfilling their rights. They
have always force or trick consent out of people, or simply kill or imprison
them. The U$ gov. has a long tradition of this that hasn't stopped for instance.
It seems to me that you don't reckognize one thing to people - THE RIGHT TO
SELF-GOVERNMENT. They are granted the possibility of changing governments when
they can, but not abolishing them. This is true fascism


  > We can conceive of a myriad of forms that a fully->functioning system of
global government can take.

So can I... Unfortunately...

We have a draft Statute of the World Court of Human Rights, in which individuals
would have standing to sue national governments and others for violating their
human rights.

A nice way for making them feel they've done something, while not endangering
the governments.

  A voluntary World Peace Guard could act as roving ombuds persons helping to
prevent belligerent conflicts, offering peace and conflict resolution and
prevention skills and education.

Like an armed force? How would they prevent conflicts that are caused by
governments? How do you not submit to the order of entering a conflict, when
starvation is the other choice?

   You may already participate in a World Citizen Referendum at the web site
www.worldservice.org and we can foresee the probability of humans en masse
voting on global issues through the Internet.

No referendum, thank you. First we choose the form of organising and
"government" and we choose who does it and how. Then we can talk about "global
issues" and referendums.

   Various groups around the world are already promoting a Peoples Assembly or
World Parliament in which humans, as human beings first and foremost, will
legislate world law.

Who else legislates law if not humans?

>Many people in the world already want governmental >protections and assistance
beyond the nation-state

I was waiting for this one. Of course they do. You have consistently denied them
xs to information and convinced them that they must have somebody running their
lives for them. Normally, they would want a worldgov when they believe there
cannot be a world whithout govs.

>and know that the only way that we, as humans, will >eliminate human rights
abuses is by fulfilling human >needs, responsibilities and rights as well as by
>outlawing war and the war system

Outlawing war? :)))))))) :)))))))))))) ;))))))
you're joking, right? Wars will be stopped when social domination of any kind is
abolished.

which are >perpetuating poverty and oppression throughout the >world.

Funny, and I thought that a world government led by corporations is causing all
that.

>  As mentioned above, the World Government of >World Citizens is asking humans
about their interest >in global government through the World Citizen >Referendum
and through forms sent by mail to >individuals around the world who may register
as >world citizens.

Nice, take away their right to self-rule and give them the illusion of scraps -
not scraps, but an illusion.

>The term sovereign human rights is used to emphasize the fact that human
rights belong to each of us as individuals.  As you have stated, all human
rights are sovereign human rights.

I can't agree whith the word right any more. How about
HUMAN NEEDS. Wouldn't it be much closer to thruth?

>With limited funding, we have not yet had the >opportunity to promote the Forum
to the extent that >we would like.  How would you like to assist us in >this
promotional effort?

Promote someone who claims rule over me whithout consulting me FIRST? You are
jokin again, right? Maybe after planetary elections...

>  Also, there are many registered world citizens who >do not even know how to
use a computer, let alone >have access to one.  Thus we continue to do outreach
>and provide forums for world citizen dialogue locally >throughout the world
through the World Syntegrity(TM) >Project, a grassroots process in which
individuals >participate in global decision-making, and through >letter-writing.

Letters are out of date. You will not get anything done whithout computer &
internet xs 4 all. I think the
more coscious part of the world population is alredy online in the countries
that have sufficient xs linx.
It's a far better start than that letters thing and it can be democratic.

Peace also is a consequence of law that we establish between us.  We are talking
about a global social contract among humans to live together based on agreements
that we make with each other as humans.

Funny, I though war was a manifestation of social domination (others are law and
government) and that peace is the absence of that.

>David Gallup, Esq.
>General Counsel, World Service Authority(R)

Elected by whom? What right do you have to OWN a name? Should I now make a
MIHAJLO ACIMOVIC(R) and forbid other people to call themselves by that name?
What is Esquire?

Mihajlo Acimovic
http://www.angelfire.com


Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

I believe that in present conditions, humans are so disorganised that in case
of a successful social revolution, a coordinating body is needed, but I really
can't agree whith the idea of someone just coming in and saying WE ARE THE
GOVERNMENT. It looks too much l'etat c'es mois (did I spell correctly?) to me.
Now, if someone was actually gon'na organise a world government that would be an
alternative to the ALREADY EXISTING world government of the Transnational
Corporations and their vasals, that seems a lot better, but, how about a
different style of expression? How about not following their forms, when they
have proven so to be so bad (see the "Welcome to Worldcitizen" message). How
about offering all the people with internet xs to run for a provisional
government of that kind? How about letting everyone vote for their candidates
for the government? Wouldn't it be a lot better than just saying "We rule here"?
Wouldn't it be a start? Then, this alternative government could actually have a
credibility to issue passports (if there is only one inhabited planet, NO ONE
may have the right to restrict planetary citizenship to it's inhabitants) and
eventually force the national governments to accept those passports as valid.
This would be a huge step in rocking Fortress Europe and the U$ immigration
policies.
  If they refused to accept those passports, millions of furious internet users
would be on their tails. Not a bad vision, eh? Jesus (phrase), I've become such
a rethorist!
  Also, one thing that I simply cannot tolerate is the principle of people being
elected from ethnic groups. How about tommorow I organise a government whith
people from every music fan group. How about a government from people from every
religious group (to oversimplify: christians, muslims, satanists and jehova's
witnesses all get one seat each, regardless of numbers). That is simply not a
way for forming governments of any kind, unless you are bidding for war. If you
want a government that legitimately represents a number of people, you MUST GIVE
EVERYONE AN EQUAL RIGHT OF VOTE. A billion Chinese must not be discriminated
because there are a couple thousand Hawaii people. Do you get my point. Choosing
delegates on an ethnic basis is always and has been for a long time, a prelude
for ethnic warfare orchestrated by the Transnational Corporations & vassals
(U$,EU governments...). It has been so in Yugoslavia. Their strongman Milosevic
(supposedly opposed to NATO) has ruined a rich country in 4 (four) ethnic wars
in the last 10 years + 1 NATO humanitarian intervention for poisoning of food
and water supplies and destroying electricity production. In Belgrade, rain
falls every hour or so and it smells strange. People drink the poisoned water
and eat poisoned food. Chemicals are everywhere. There are no other food and
water. My family will probably die in a few years if this is what it looks like.
I have barely bribed my way out of the country. I still don't know if and how
radiated I am or whatever. The nuclear radiation from empovered uranium missiles
in Kosovo alone is greater than both from Hirochima and Nagasaki immediately
after the '45 nuclear bombing. Now, the .yu government could help by importing
food and water. They have bilions in bank accounts in Greece (a NATO country)
and the Milosevic family alone owns a dozen villas and some yachts in Greece.
They do not allow information to be distributed to the population. The only
thing they allowed to be published was a public appeal for people to drink
boiled or mineral water. Both these things are totally futile, cause boiling
doesn't get the chemicals out and the mineral water is fresh, therefore, also
poisoned. The largest chemical industry and the largest gressroots revolutionary
movement were in the city of Pancevo. NATO craft deliberately hit several
chemical factories in Pancevo. The YUmilitary evacuated most people at first,
but then orders came from above to let them back in. Those people had nowhere
else to go so they went to their homes. Now, Pancevo is dying. Because it was a
center of opposition. Nobody bombed the chemical plants in Pozarevac
(Milosevic's birthplace).
That is basically what the world government of today produces.

If we are going to make a better one, the least we can do is not to use their
formalist speech and to start an open debate on what a World Government should
look like.
Until something like that happens, I, as a human (not citizen) deny anyone the
right to call themselves World Government(R).

Mihajlo Acimovic
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/mihajlo



Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

Everyone

xcuse the abuse of list space. It was the only way...

Natalie

I tried to send an email to the adress from where you mailed to worldcitizen,
but I got the below answer. Do you have another email adress where I can contact
you?

Mihajlo Acimovic

>Hi. This is the mailer-daemon. I'm afraid I wasn't >able to
>deliver your message to the following addresses. This >is a
>permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work
>out.<ndavis@...>:
>Sorry, I couldn't find any host named mail.qn1.net. >(#5.1.2)





Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

that's fantasitic albin. is there going to be a women's voice and a men's
voice like with the lapps? philip
___________________________________________________________________

mfcongress http://members.aol.com/mfcongress/index.html
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Albin AxZn <albin.axen@...>
To: <WorldCitizen@onelist.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WorldCitizen] Welcome to WorldCitizen@onelist.com


> From: albin.axen@... (Albin=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Ax=8En?=)
>
> Hallo, I am very glad to have reached you.

Hallo, I am very glad to have reached you.
I have starteda new political party, the worldparty with the goal to be
established in all the countrys of the world.
I wonder if you are intersted in this party.
It is basically socialliberal.
I will try to establish it here in Sweden now and get in to the parlament.
This is important to me.

I have created a mailinglist for this party, the worldparty-mailinglist.

Greetings Albin

Hi all.

I must agree with the post by Mihajlo Acimovic.  I found the introduction to
World Citizen unrealistically utopian.

The world has been controlled by a ruling class in a feudal system since Roman
times at least.  To think they would allow a bunch of well meaning
WorldCitizen idealists to take over their "hard earned" right to rule over
all.  Not really.

This world is one giant protection racket, that follows the basic business
rules that governs mobsters.  We have had 2 world wars and many other, with
many millions of deaths - for the sake of power and profit of the ruling
mobsters (governments) in each nation.
Do you think these people are going to pay any attention to idealists other
than to murder or oppress them?  Not so far.

If you want your ideals to become reality, you have to first work out how to
overthrow a regime of political control that DOES NOT STOP AT MURDER to
protect itself, it's power and it's profits.

Talking about how good things could be, doesn't cause the corrupt system to
move aside.

Gary.
--
Copyright © "om1975" 1999.  All rights reserved.
You are free to use this text, but credit it to me.
Private emails welcome.  mailto:om1975@...

>
> Many people in the world already want governmental protections and assistance
beyond the nation-state and know that the only way that we, as humans, will
eliminate human rights abuses is by fulfilling human needs, responsibilities and
rights as well as by outlawing war and the war systemwhich are perpetuating
poverty and oppression throughout the world.

dear worldcitizen

i remain unconvinced.  big is bad.  governments are dangerous motherfuckers
unless their power is very limited.  how is a world government going to protect
these rights against countries it regards as non compliant?  in the manner of
the last NATO excercize in protecting "human right?"  I suspect this sort of
model is very likely.   It all sounds lovely in the abstract, sort of like a 2
am freshman dorm rap session view of how to solve the worlds problems, but the
devil is in the details--always is

james stauffer

Dear Mihajlo Acimovic:

Thank you for continuing the dialogue about human rights, world citizenship and
world law.

In your message, you expressed concern about world law and how world law and
human rights can be legitimized.

Law is a human construct we use to provide order and ensure our rights and
responsibilities within our community.  Now that we are aware that we are living
in one world, our community, then, is the planet as a whole.   To protect it and
our human diversity, we must through peaceful means implement and fulfill
universal human rights, responsibilities and needs for everyone everywhere.  The
implementation and fulfillment of universal human rights, responsibilities and
needs is what we mean by world law.

Why should it happen now? you ask.  Because we are living in international
anarchy, a (non)system which perpetuates violence between so-called sovereign
nation-states and which is, in the nuclear age, omnicidal.  Although we may be
able to govern ourselves locally, local governance, alone, cannot be proactive
in dealing with global issues such as war, environmental devastation, and other
structural violence or oppression inherent to the military and industry union
that spends almost 3 trillion dollars a year preparing for and waging wars. 
People do not just need information to survive, people need resources that are
now being squandered by national governments on preparing for and waging war.

All human beings ARE world citizens, by birth and in fact.  Our human/world
citizen status is based on two universally accepted legal principles:  jus soli
and jus sanguinis.  Jus soli means the right of the earthin other words, ones
citizenship is based upon where you are born.  All humans, at least presently,
are born in the world (planet earth).  Jus sanguinis means the right of the
bloodin other words, ones citizenship is based upon who are parents are.  All
humans are born of human parents.   Citizenship may be defined as our rights,
responsibilities and needs as we protect or implement them within a particular
communal framework.  Thus, when we put world in front of citizen, we are
describing all human beings born on the planet, with human parents and who are
living in this global village.  More importantly, we are affirming all human
beings right to participate in the governing of this worldin implementing and
protecting our mutual rights, responsibilities and needs.

Registering as a world citizen is simply an extra step that over 1 million
people world-wide have done since 1949 to officially and legally raise their
allegiance beyond the nation-state.  Whether someone has officially registered
or not, we each as humans have the right and responsibility to decide how we are
going to govern our world.  The world government is you in microcosm and
humanity in macrocosm.

Sovereignty--our human right to determine how we will live--resides in the
individual person and in humanity.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
reaffirms in Article 21(3) that The will of the people shall be the basis of
the authority of government. . . Because I am sovereign, I have the right to
choose my own political allegiance, just as you do yours.  If I choose to give
my allegiance to a World Government of World Citizens and others also do the
same, do you want to deny us this fundamental right?

How and why do governments form in the first place?  Because people are
sovereign, they can come together to decide that they want to govern themselves
based on certain principles and common goals.  They decide to come together to
form governmental institutions and structures because they know that anarchy
will prevent them from ensuring that their mutual rights, responsibilities and
needs are met.  Consider the Declaration of Independence as a basis for
understanding how and why we create governments.  It states, . . . that all
(humans) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
HappinessThat to secure these Rights, Government are instituted among (humans),
deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . .  Because
the national governments are destructive to our human rights, we can institute
new government, human government, that helps us to fulfill our rights.

As this microcosmic world government is evolving, it is up to you and all humans
to participate in making it a macrocosmic vehicle to implement human rights and
world law.  We can conceive of a myriad of forms that a fully-functioning system
of global government can take. We have a draft Statute of the World Court of
Human Rights, in which individuals would have standing to sue national
governments and others for violating their human rights.  A voluntary World
Peace Guard could act as roving ombuds persons helping to prevent belligerent
conflicts, offering peace and conflict resolution and prevention skills and
education.  You may already participate in a World Citizen Referendum at the web
site www.worldservice.org and we can foresee the probability of humans en masse
voting on global issues through the Internet.  Various groups around the world
are already promoting a Peoples Assembly or World Parliament in which humans,
as human beings first and foremost, will legislate world law.

Many people in the world already want governmental protections and assistance
beyond the nation-state and know that the only way that we, as humans, will
eliminate human rights abuses is by fulfilling human needs, responsibilities and
rights as well as by outlawing war and the war systemwhich are perpetuating
poverty and oppression throughout the world.  As mentioned above, the World
Government of World Citizens is asking humans about their interest in global
government through the World Citizen Referendum and through forms sent by mail
to individuals around the world who may register as world citizens.

The term sovereign human rights is used to emphasize the fact that human
rights belong to each of us as individuals.  As you have stated, all human
rights are sovereign human rights.

As you are aware, this new World Citizen Forum has been on-line for about one
month.  With limited funding, we have not yet had the opportunity to promote the
Forum to the extent that we would like.  How would you like to assist us in this
promotional effort?  Also, there are many registered world citizens who do not
even know how to use a computer, let alone have access to one.  Thus we continue
to do outreach and provide forums for world citizen dialogue locally throughout
the world through the World Syntegrity(TM) Project, a grassroots process in
which individuals participate in global decision-making, and through
letter-writing.

Peace is a process and peace exists within you and me as individuals.  When we
use the terminology of evolving peace, we mean evolving the peace that exists
within us to an outward peace toward others and with the environment.  Peace
also is a consequence of law that we establish between us.  We are talking about
a global social contract among humans to live together based on agreements that
we make with each other as humans.

With regard to your question about the World Service Authority (WSA) World
Passport, anyone may get the passport and other global human rights documents
and services provided by the WSA.  You may download application forms at
www.worldservice.org or you may send your mailing address to WSA, 1012 14th
Street, NW, Suite 1106, Washington, DC 20005 and we will send out an information
packet.

We appreciate your participation in this dialogue and look forward to hearing
from you soon.

Sincerely,

David Gallup, Esq.
General Counsel, World Service Authority(R)


"Free web-based email available now at http://www.theglobe.com"

What is the background of the World Service Authority?   diamond dupree

Bravo, Mihaljo.

My name is Natalie Davis; I'm a journalist and social activist presently
(but not for long) living in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. I was born here, but
I consider myself a world citizen (while scoffing at this new-world-order
one government for all thing--as you said, nobody asked me if I wanted a
government). Your response to the welcome message was most welcome.

As to the passport... I want one too.

natalie

Hi

I think this isn't the first time that I am posting to this list. Still, I
haven't introduced myself properly. I am a social activist from Yugoslavia,
currently in Budapest and awaiting a cultural visa for Fortress Europe. I
received that welcome message this morning and couldn't help answering a part of
it.

>It is past time that we as human beings >recognize THE global society based on
>just world law and human rights. The World >Government of World Citizens is a 
vehicle
>to legitimize such an actual world.

Legitimise before whom? What world law? Is it the U$ law of greater force? You
know, that one that says U$ can sell bilions$$ weapons to Suharto, so he can
successfuly kill 3 million people in under a year. Face it, law is something
that the rich bullies have made to force everybody else into doing something
they normally wouldn't. No human rights lobby has changed that ever. Why should
it happen now? Besides, if you give people all the information they need, you
will find that they are incredibly capable of ruling themselves. No big
world-ruling-ordering-evreyone government needed there.

>the World Government of World Citizens is the
>global representation of registered world >citizens.

So, You don't give someone a citizenship and has has no right of vote, no
ability to influence the decisions of that government, even though that person
is forced to live whith it's decisions. I could presume that you don't know that
hundreds of milions of people are currently living whithout citizenship of the
country they are in. Could be a milliard/billion by now. Still, I'll presume
that you don't care. If you wanted a self-sustainable society that functions,
you would have said that every human (not citizen, HU-MAN) has the right to
influence the government's decisions. Isn't it a government that pretends to
rule all mankind?

> The World Government is a people-
>based endeavor in the process of building a >minimally centralized, sovereign,
and
>democratic global government

Sovereign? To what? Who could endanger a sovereinty of a gov. that rules
everyone? Is there another world I don't know about?

>with appropriate organs to secure peace through >world law

What organs? Who will make the law? Elected/appointed by whom?

>and to protect fundamental human rights, the >rights of ethnic and social
minorities, as
>well as ecological rights as defined by the >growing body of declarations and
covenants
>from the United Nations and other global and >regional forums.

You cannot protect something that has not been established. Human rights are
currently being abused by every government in the world. It has been so for as
long as there are records. This World Government(R) (or is it Inc.) of yours
obviously plans to continue the practise, as it has forgotten to ask "the world"
(HUMANS might be more appropriate) if it/they want/s a government.

>of sovereign human rights.

What are "soverign human rights"? Are there any human rights that are not
sovereign?

>The purpose of this recently-created  electronic >forum is to maintain
>contact with many of the hundreds of thousands >of registered world citizens

Then why does it have 26 subscribers in total? It exists for at least a month
now. The world citizens must have had enough time to subscribe to it.

>evolving world peace through world law via a >democratic, sovereign government
of world >citizens.

Evolving peace? Tell me, how does a peace evolve?
You would have looked much less of a hypocrite if you had written creating world
peace. Over a half of the countries in the world are presently involved in some
sort of internal or external war.
Again, what law? Again, what sovereignty?

Actually, I like that passport stunt. Can I get one? Could help me a lot.

Mihajlo Acimovic, in transit
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/mihajlo
mihajlo@...