Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Response TO World Citizenship

Expand Messages
  • cpky999
    Dear World Citizens, I have read every post on this server. I agree with those who say that an international government will be an ultimate injustice to
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear World Citizens,

      I have read every post on this server. I agree with those who say
      that an international government will be an ultimate injustice to
      individual liberty. Nation-state governments that are corrupt are
      easier to change than a global entity. If the international
      community becomes corrupt tens of millions of people will die at the
      hands of corrupt policymakers. The nation-state may have flaws, but
      a global community will be a full fledged enbodyment of terror over
      time. A International government may be good in the beginnin, but
      look at all the examples of how corruption seeps into every society.
      It has happened to every power society in history and I do not want
      the world's young people have to die in a global war because we
      wanted a few years of peace.

      I am saying that a World Government that advocated peace would
      degenerate in a short time(within 100 years) to oppress those whom
      he/she disagrees. At least in America, their is a better way and
      that is to build up a third party(i.e Green, Libertarian, and
      Constitution) and work with those on your side in the two major
      parties to defeat undemocratic portion the nation. I do not have a
      solution to reform other nations, but my solution in the world's only
      superpower is a good start.

      The idea of a Tri-level Global Parliament makes sense, but I would
      rather deal with DC, London, Paris or other nation-state capital than
      to travel 1,000 plus miles to address elected officials. If a World
      Parilament in located in New York, DC, Brussels, Babylon etc.,
      someone will not have direct access to their international leaders.
      I world government would become very undemocratic and oppessive in a
      very short-time. Look at history, we all can strive to do better,
      but to adopt internationalism in a goal for peace will lead to the
      exact opposite.

      Long live the republic, nation-state, individual liberty, and
      sovernighty.

      Constitutionally yours,

      Clint Hary, Kentucky, USA
    • Gary K. Shepherd
      Hi I just wanted to point out what I thought were some misconceptions common among people who oppose world unity; and sometimes among world government
      Message 2 of 5 , May 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi
        I just wanted to point out what I thought were some misconceptions common
        among people who oppose world unity; and sometimes among world government
        supporters as well. It is often incorrectly assumed that a world
        government will inevitably be tyrannical. On the contrary, there is
        considerable evidence that, by its very nature, a world republic would be
        more democratic, and individual rights be better protected, than in the
        current system of nation-states. Consider the following points:

        1. Any real world commonwealth is going to have to recognize the right of
        free movement. Right now, if I wish to move a thousand miles to the east
        or west, I am free to do so, but if I want to move a thousand miles north
        or south, I will require the permission of at least two national
        governments. That is because there are national borders in the
        way. Freedom of movement will have enormous impact on individual rights.

        2. A democratic society cannot properly function without a well-informed
        public. Yet in the current nationalist-militarist system, the government
        can keep people in the dark because of '"national security". Sometimes
        this is just an excuse, but even when the government is sincerely trying to
        keep vital information from outside enemies, it still inhibits democratic
        decision making. In a world republic, without any outside enemies, there
        would be a free flow of information.

        3. Nation-states tend to be dominated by a majority ethnic group, which, in
        attempting to foster national unity, often try to remake minority groups in
        their own image. This leads to oppression, resentment and
        violence. Because a world republic would not have a majority group (even
        the Chinese and the Christians, the two largest subgroups of humanity, are
        only about one fifth of the population each), this tendency would be reduced.

        4, This tendency is particularly pronounced in countries where the
        minority group is of the same ethnicity as a country that is an enemy or
        rival. Bulgarian treatment of its Turkish minority is an example. Once
        again, because it has no outside enemies, a world republic would have no
        excuse to look with suspicion on people who look or talk "like them".

        5. Under the current system, many decision must be made without public
        input. The most obvious example is the decision about launching a nuclear
        war, something that will surely have impact upon us all. Because that
        decision must be made on a split second basis, it must be made by a small
        group of men, few of them popularly elected, and there is no opportunity
        for a public referendum on the wisdom of their acts.

        6. World unity will lead to a greater equalization of wealth among its
        citizen, even if there is no intentional effort to redistribute income
        (which is a shaky assumption, given the number of socialists in the world),
        because economists believe that the unification of an economy has a natural
        tendency to level out great differences in wealth. Even ardent defenders
        of capitalism admit that great extremes of poverty and wealth do not make
        for a stable society.

        7. Unity will also lead to greater economic freedom. Disregarding the
        effects of tariffs and regulations, the mere existence of different
        currencies tends to inhibit free trade between individuals. A farmer in
        country A may wish to sell to a hungry person in country B, but if the
        currency of A is stronger than the currency of B, then he cannot do it and
        still make a profit. So A is stuck with surplus food, B is stuck with
        malnutrition, and everyone loses. A common currency will eliminate this
        restriction.

        8. Traveling to a world capital (wherever it is located) to personally
        address legislators may be difficult, but no more so than for a national
        citizen from, say, Vladistok to travel to Moscow, or from Nome to travel to
        Washington, D.C. In fact as poverty decreases and restriction on travel
        ease, it may be even easier.

        9. There is an unwritten rule that the larger and more diverse a
        constituency group, the harder it is for a specific political group to
        dominate it. (Madison, I believe, speaks about this in the Federalist
        Papers). The world republic, having such a wide diversity of groups and
        opinions, would thus be extremely hard to control, even by a group that was
        willing to use oppression and violence.

        10. While it is true that it may be easier for national citizens to
        influence their national governments than it would be for world citizens to
        influence a world government, it is also true that it is next to impossible
        for the average national citizen to influence the actions of the
        governments of other countries. This wouldn't be a problem in a world where
        decisions made by national governments didn't effect people in other
        countries, but in reality there is a very visible ripple effect. What one
        nation does (especially rich and powerful ones) effects the lives of people
        who have no say whatever in that nation's policies. A world republic would
        give everyone a vote on what effects them.

        11. Many policies and actions undertaken in the current system are done
        under the influence of huge multinational corporations, which often have
        more wealth and power than the national governments that are supposed to be
        regulating them. When individual rights conflict with the profits of such
        huge conglomerates, it is easy to see which side loses. A world republic
        would have the clout, and the jurisdiction to reign in the multinational
        corporations, while leveling the economic playing field for smaller companies.

        12. There is no reason to believe that a world republic, once established,
        would remain forever unchanged. In fact, there is good reason to believe
        that our descendents will be able to recognize its flaws better than we can
        (after all, they'll be living in it) and will act to correct those errors
        by whatever constitutional processes they establish. I believe that we can
        trust that should the world government ever begin to act in a dictatorial
        manner, the people will act accordingly, just as they have down through the
        centuries. It is even possible that they might someday abolish the world
        republic, if they decide it is necessary; but I doubt that they will do it
        to return to the system we have now.

        I apologize for the length of this reply. However, I did want to present
        these points in full for your consideration.

        Peace and Unity,
        Gary


        At 05:33 AM 4/24/2002 +0000, you wrote:
        >Dear World Citizens,
        >
        >I have read every post on this server. I agree with those who say
        >that an international government will be an ultimate injustice to
        >individual liberty. Nation-state governments that are corrupt are
        >easier to change than a global entity. If the international
        >community becomes corrupt tens of millions of people will die at the
        >hands of corrupt policymakers. The nation-state may have flaws, but
        >a global community will be a full fledged enbodyment of terror over
        >time. A International government may be good in the beginnin, but
        >look at all the examples of how corruption seeps into every society.
        >It has happened to every power society in history and I do not want
        >the world's young people have to die in a global war because we
        >wanted a few years of peace.
        >
        >I am saying that a World Government that advocated peace would
        >degenerate in a short time(within 100 years) to oppress those whom
        >he/she disagrees. At least in America, their is a better way and
        >that is to build up a third party(i.e Green, Libertarian, and
        >Constitution) and work with those on your side in the two major
        >parties to defeat undemocratic portion the nation. I do not have a
        >solution to reform other nations, but my solution in the world's only
        >superpower is a good start.
        >
        >The idea of a Tri-level Global Parliament makes sense, but I would
        >rather deal with DC, London, Paris or other nation-state capital than
        >to travel 1,000 plus miles to address elected officials. If a World
        >Parilament in located in New York, DC, Brussels, Babylon etc.,
        >someone will not have direct access to their international leaders.
        >I world government would become very undemocratic and oppessive in a
        >very short-time. Look at history, we all can strive to do better,
        >but to adopt internationalism in a goal for peace will lead to the
        >exact opposite.
        >
        >Long live the republic, nation-state, individual liberty, and
        >sovernighty.
        >
        >Constitutionally yours,
        >
        >Clint Hary, Kentucky, USA
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >"I have believed that the only way peace can be achieved is through world
        >government" (Jawaharal Nehru)
        >
        >For more information: www.worldservice.org and info@...
        >
        >
        >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >

        Gary K. Shepherd
        Documents Center
        Morris Library
        SIU
        Carbondale, IL 62901
        618-536-2163
        gshepher@...
      • molork <molork@yahoo.co.in>
        if u have a democratically elected world government,there is one major problem.If a particular groups of people lving in a particular state or region wish fro
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 16, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          if u have a democratically elected world government,there is one
          major problem.If a particular groups of people lving in a particular
          state or region wish fro more fund for their area they would need
          some one in their region in power.if every vote counted equally then
          effectively the most productive region will be bled by the most
          populous nation.The emergence of parties which are regional and serve
          the purposes of a particular region are inevitable.for example, in
          india we have so many different states with different languages.In
          many states the governments are formed by 'regional' parties ,not
          national ones.Although the govt. at the centre is lead by a national
          party it is a coalition of soo many regional parties,this makes it
          very unstable.
          And conducting free and fair election would be a mammoth task.imagine
          the need for an unbiased organisation and maintenance of peace and
          security during such election.The question of who conducts the
          elections is a difficult one to answer.we need a council to conduct
          these elections and this council will again have to be an elected
          council.

          --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "Gary K. Shepherd"
          <gshepher@l...> wrote:
          > Hi
          > I just wanted to point out what I thought were some misconceptions
          common
          > among people who oppose world unity; and sometimes among world
          government
          > supporters as well. It is often incorrectly assumed that a world
          > government will inevitably be tyrannical. On the contrary, there
          is
          > considerable evidence that, by its very nature, a world republic
          would be
          > more democratic, and individual rights be better protected, than in
          the
          > current system of nation-states. Consider the following points:
          >
          > 1. Any real world commonwealth is going to have to recognize the
          right of
          > free movement. Right now, if I wish to move a thousand miles to
          the east
          > or west, I am free to do so, but if I want to move a thousand miles
          north
          > or south, I will require the permission of at least two national
          > governments. That is because there are national borders in the
          > way. Freedom of movement will have enormous impact on individual
          rights.
          >
          > 2. A democratic society cannot properly function without a well-
          informed
          > public. Yet in the current nationalist-militarist system, the
          government
          > can keep people in the dark because of '"national security".
          Sometimes
          > this is just an excuse, but even when the government is sincerely
          trying to
          > keep vital information from outside enemies, it still inhibits
          democratic
          > decision making. In a world republic, without any outside enemies,
          there
          > would be a free flow of information.
          >
          > 3. Nation-states tend to be dominated by a majority ethnic group,
          which, in
          > attempting to foster national unity, often try to remake minority
          groups in
          > their own image. This leads to oppression, resentment and
          > violence. Because a world republic would not have a majority group
          (even
          > the Chinese and the Christians, the two largest subgroups of
          humanity, are
          > only about one fifth of the population each), this tendency would
          be reduced.
          >
          > 4, This tendency is particularly pronounced in countries where the
          > minority group is of the same ethnicity as a country that is an
          enemy or
          > rival. Bulgarian treatment of its Turkish minority is an example.
          Once
          > again, because it has no outside enemies, a world republic would
          have no
          > excuse to look with suspicion on people who look or talk "like
          them".
          >
          > 5. Under the current system, many decision must be made without
          public
          > input. The most obvious example is the decision about launching a
          nuclear
          > war, something that will surely have impact upon us all. Because
          that
          > decision must be made on a split second basis, it must be made by a
          small
          > group of men, few of them popularly elected, and there is no
          opportunity
          > for a public referendum on the wisdom of their acts.
          >
          > 6. World unity will lead to a greater equalization of wealth among
          its
          > citizen, even if there is no intentional effort to redistribute
          income
          > (which is a shaky assumption, given the number of socialists in the
          world),
          > because economists believe that the unification of an economy has a
          natural
          > tendency to level out great differences in wealth. Even ardent
          defenders
          > of capitalism admit that great extremes of poverty and wealth do
          not make
          > for a stable society.
          >
          > 7. Unity will also lead to greater economic freedom. Disregarding
          the
          > effects of tariffs and regulations, the mere existence of different
          > currencies tends to inhibit free trade between individuals. A
          farmer in
          > country A may wish to sell to a hungry person in country B, but if
          the
          > currency of A is stronger than the currency of B, then he cannot do
          it and
          > still make a profit. So A is stuck with surplus food, B is stuck
          with
          > malnutrition, and everyone loses. A common currency will eliminate
          this
          > restriction.
          >
          > 8. Traveling to a world capital (wherever it is located) to
          personally
          > address legislators may be difficult, but no more so than for a
          national
          > citizen from, say, Vladistok to travel to Moscow, or from Nome to
          travel to
          > Washington, D.C. In fact as poverty decreases and restriction on
          travel
          > ease, it may be even easier.
          >
          > 9. There is an unwritten rule that the larger and more diverse a
          > constituency group, the harder it is for a specific political group
          to
          > dominate it. (Madison, I believe, speaks about this in the
          Federalist
          > Papers). The world republic, having such a wide diversity of groups
          and
          > opinions, would thus be extremely hard to control, even by a group
          that was
          > willing to use oppression and violence.
          >
          > 10. While it is true that it may be easier for national citizens to
          > influence their national governments than it would be for world
          citizens to
          > influence a world government, it is also true that it is next to
          impossible
          > for the average national citizen to influence the actions of the
          > governments of other countries. This wouldn't be a problem in a
          world where
          > decisions made by national governments didn't effect people in
          other
          > countries, but in reality there is a very visible ripple effect.
          What one
          > nation does (especially rich and powerful ones) effects the lives
          of people
          > who have no say whatever in that nation's policies. A world
          republic would
          > give everyone a vote on what effects them.
          >
          > 11. Many policies and actions undertaken in the current system are
          done
          > under the influence of huge multinational corporations, which often
          have
          > more wealth and power than the national governments that are
          supposed to be
          > regulating them. When individual rights conflict with the profits
          of such
          > huge conglomerates, it is easy to see which side loses. A world
          republic
          > would have the clout, and the jurisdiction to reign in the
          multinational
          > corporations, while leveling the economic playing field for smaller
          companies.
          >
          > 12. There is no reason to believe that a world republic, once
          established,
          > would remain forever unchanged. In fact, there is good reason to
          believe
          > that our descendents will be able to recognize its flaws better
          than we can
          > (after all, they'll be living in it) and will act to correct those
          errors
          > by whatever constitutional processes they establish. I believe
          that we can
          > trust that should the world government ever begin to act in a
          dictatorial
          > manner, the people will act accordingly, just as they have down
          through the
          > centuries. It is even possible that they might someday abolish the
          world
          > republic, if they decide it is necessary; but I doubt that they
          will do it
          > to return to the system we have now.
          >
          > I apologize for the length of this reply. However, I did want to
          present
          > these points in full for your consideration.
          >
          > Peace and Unity,
          > Gary
          >
          >
          > At 05:33 AM 4/24/2002 +0000, you wrote:
          > >Dear World Citizens,
          > >
          > >I have read every post on this server. I agree with those who say
          > >that an international government will be an ultimate injustice to
          > >individual liberty. Nation-state governments that are corrupt are
          > >easier to change than a global entity. If the international
          > >community becomes corrupt tens of millions of people will die at
          the
          > >hands of corrupt policymakers. The nation-state may have flaws,
          but
          > >a global community will be a full fledged enbodyment of terror over
          > >time. A International government may be good in the beginnin, but
          > >look at all the examples of how corruption seeps into every
          society.
          > >It has happened to every power society in history and I do not want
          > >the world's young people have to die in a global war because we
          > >wanted a few years of peace.
          > >
          > >I am saying that a World Government that advocated peace would
          > >degenerate in a short time(within 100 years) to oppress those whom
          > >he/she disagrees. At least in America, their is a better way and
          > >that is to build up a third party(i.e Green, Libertarian, and
          > >Constitution) and work with those on your side in the two major
          > >parties to defeat undemocratic portion the nation. I do not have a
          > >solution to reform other nations, but my solution in the world's
          only
          > >superpower is a good start.
          > >
          > >The idea of a Tri-level Global Parliament makes sense, but I would
          > >rather deal with DC, London, Paris or other nation-state capital
          than
          > >to travel 1,000 plus miles to address elected officials. If a World
          > >Parilament in located in New York, DC, Brussels, Babylon etc.,
          > >someone will not have direct access to their international leaders.
          > >I world government would become very undemocratic and oppessive in
          a
          > >very short-time. Look at history, we all can strive to do better,
          > >but to adopt internationalism in a goal for peace will lead to the
          > >exact opposite.
          > >
          > >Long live the republic, nation-state, individual liberty, and
          > >sovernighty.
          > >
          > >Constitutionally yours,
          > >
          > >Clint Hary, Kentucky, USA
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >"I have believed that the only way peace can be achieved is
          through world
          > >government" (Jawaharal Nehru)
          > >
          > >For more information: www.worldservice.org and info@w...
          > >
          > >
          > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          >
          > Gary K. Shepherd
          > Documents Center
          > Morris Library
          > SIU
          > Carbondale, IL 62901
          > 618-536-2163
          > gshepher@l...
        • Gary K. Shepherd
          HI I think at least partly this problem could be solved by having parliamentary districts that had roughly the same population, as congressional districts in
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 17, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            HI
            I think at least partly this problem could be solved by having
            parliamentary districts that had roughly the same population, as
            congressional districts in the United States do. As to conducting the
            election, I doubt that the effort and expense that it would require would
            come close to that required for even a relatively small war, such as the
            one that was fought recently between your country and Pakistan.
            Peace and Unity,
            Gary

            At 04:44 PM 12/16/2002 +0000, you wrote:
            >if u have a democratically elected world government,there is one
            >major problem.If a particular groups of people lving in a particular
            >state or region wish fro more fund for their area they would need
            >some one in their region in power.if every vote counted equally then
            >effectively the most productive region will be bled by the most
            >populous nation.The emergence of parties which are regional and serve
            >the purposes of a particular region are inevitable.for example, in
            >india we have so many different states with different languages.In
            >many states the governments are formed by 'regional' parties ,not
            >national ones.Although the govt. at the centre is lead by a national
            >party it is a coalition of soo many regional parties,this makes it
            >very unstable.
            >And conducting free and fair election would be a mammoth task.imagine
            >the need for an unbiased organisation and maintenance of peace and
            >security during such election.The question of who conducts the
            >elections is a difficult one to answer.we need a council to conduct
            >these elections and this council will again have to be an elected
            >council.
            >

            Gary K. Shepherd
            Documents Center
            Morris Library
            SIU
            Carbondale, IL 62901
            618-536-2163
            gshepher@...
          • Ian Green
            ... The problem you describe is often cited by people arguing against direct democracy, or indeed democracy in general in the room full of 100 people with 51
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 20, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 04:44 PM 16/12/2002 +0000, molork wrote:
              >if u have a democratically elected world government,there is one
              >major problem.If a particular groups of people lving in a particular
              >state or region wish fro more fund for their area they would need
              >some one in their region in power.if every vote counted equally then
              >effectively the most productive region will be bled by the most
              >populous nation.The emergence of parties which are regional and serve
              >the purposes of a particular region are inevitable.

              The problem you describe is often cited by people arguing against direct
              democracy, or indeed democracy in general in the "room full of 100 people
              with 51 voting to kill the other 49" hypothesis. In reality this is a
              problem with democratic socialism! You see it in India because of the
              socialist nature of Indian government. I'm not suggesting that this is not
              also the case with Australian or American governments.

              The problem is solved by recognizing some fundamental principles in a
              constitution. People need to recognize that you cannot "vote funds!" It is
              nonsensical. People can decide to *work* to produce funds, but as for
              voting they can only vote whether or not to steal funds from one group or
              another!

              If the constitution restricted government to the business of government,
              that is, determining what is criminal behavior and what are the penalties
              for such, and relied on minimal, equal and non-discriminatory funding by an
              agreed method, then government should not become a cash-cow for
              group-action thieves!

              I say group-action because it is commonly observed that people who
              individually would not rob another individual or who would not kill another
              individual strangely when involved in a mob or in a community-sponsored
              action, such as a war, or a genocide such as occurred in Rwanda, they
              somehow bring themselves to becoming either active participants or
              accessories to murder and theft.

              I have for some years promoted *constitutional* direct democracy to answer
              all of the anti-democracy, pro bureaucracy arguments.


              ---------
              Ian Green
              Direct Democracy Forum
              http://ao.com.au/ddf/
              http://www.DirectDemocracyForum.com/
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ddf/

              "Every person a member of the legislature!"
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.