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

Assuring Peace: World Federation?

Expand Messages
  • John Frazer
    From a discussion on the mailing lists of the Living Universe Foundation [www.luf.org] From: D. Baughn Reply-To:
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      From a discussion on the mailing lists of the Living Universe Foundation
      [www.luf.org]

      From: "D. Baughn" <dbaughn@...>
      Reply-To: fmf-social@...
      Subject: Re: Assuring Peace: World Federation?
      Date: 01 Dec 99

      John Frazer wrote:
      >From: "D. Baughn"
      >>Most don't know, but America didn't have the
      >>Constitution until 1787 or so... Before that,
      >>Americans were united under the Articles of
      >>Confederation. It was a weak structure where
      >>most powers were in the hands of the states.
      >>The states could mint their own money, conduct
      >>their own foreign policy (which Britain
      >>exploited quite effectively) and regulate
      >>interstate trade.
      >>The result was a disaster that created economic
      >>conditions akin to Weimar Germany or present day
      >>Russia.
      >>Not even the Great Depression or the Civil War
      >>disruptions caused as much instability and loss
      >>of wealth as post-Revolutionary America endured.
      >>Above all, the Confederation had a lousy time
      >>enforcing its laws or even collecting taxes and
      >>member dues from the states.
      >>Sound familiar?
      >
      >Meaning that the confederate period prior to the
      >ratification of the constitution was in many ways
      >remarkably similar to today.
      >Many of the same arguments I hear against the world
      >federalist ideas are _identical_ to the 1780s arguments
      >against the US constitution.
      >
      >>... Today, we live under ... the UN.
      >>The first attempt being the League of Nations.
      >>Both have the same shortcomings and weaknesses.
      >>And, if history is any lesson at all, a more
      >>stronger Union will be needed in order to
      >>rectify those shortcomings.
      >
      >Also, the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation,
      >the L.O.N., and the UN were put there pretty much
      >deliberately by the member states so they could hold onto
      >power, regardless of the international opinion of the uses
      >of that power.
      >
      >>Problems facing a world federal constitution:
      >>1) Balance of power between populous nations
      >>and the Rhode Islands of the world...
      >>...
      >>4) Balance of power between states in
      >>different modes of development.
      >
      >One concept I've found is called the "Binding Triad".
      >Each member nation is represented in 3 ways: One voting
      >share based on population, another based on the present
      >"1 nation, 1 vote", and also a share based on monetary
      >contributions to the federation.

      "also a share based on monetary contributions to the federation."

      I really like that idea.

      >>The constiutional authority to be final
      >>arbitrator in disputes and legal precedents
      >>is also another must. And, regulation of
      >>international trade, some representation by
      >>the people directly (but not like the weak
      >>Euro Parliament!)...
      >>... the world government should foremost have
      >>as one of its core functions to enforce
      >>international law and stop wars. That will
      >>require a global armed force under central,
      >>supranational control.
      >
      >The stated purpose of the huge US military is identical to
      >the stated purpose of the 'world federal police'.
      >If war were outlawed, surely a "police" force of about half
      >the US military size would be enough; think of the global
      >savings if individual nations didn't need big,
      >force-projection militaries.

      "think of the global savings if induividual nations
      didn't need big, force-projection militaries."

      Yup. Individual national forces would go the way of the state militias.

      >>It also needs to have an independent tax
      >>base that can't be held hostage to the whims
      >>of Senator Jesse Helms.
      >
      >How about being the prime contractor for the asteroid
      >mines? We want it to be strong, but not to bleed the
      >people? We know that there needs to be some amicable
      >solution to the Moon Treaty problem -I like the idea of
      >the immense resources & wealth being used directly to
      >raise the developing nations without their installing more
      >nuclear or petroleum energy industries.
      >How about raising the standards of living without ANY
      >Earthbound heavy idustries? Without taxation?!
      >(How about a government that's actually required to show
      >a profit at some level -that goes directly to developmental
      >programs.)

      Yeah. I've always thought that parking a large metal rich asteroid in
      earth orbit to mine would be great. Just have a quasi-corporate authority
      mine it and distribute the goodies equitably to use the proceeds for funding
      the world government. Hell, the US alone could pull the same thing off if it
      really wanted to.

      >I'm reminded of a scene from Heinlein's "the Moon is
      >a Harsh Mistress" where the founding convention of
      >Luna's government was urged to "Keep government small,
      >weak, & innofensive..." But we still want it to be
      >effective at the tasks we set it to.
      >The eternal problem with the whole concept of "Government".
      >
      >>...it should start out as a more exclusive
      >>club of nations ... The terms of entrance
      >>should be higher than the UN has had as some
      >>common set of socio-economic values will be
      >>needed...
      >
      >First: every nation inserts into its OWN legal structure
      >that it will not initiate warfare. This is also the prime
      >law of the Federation. At no level of leadership of the
      >federation will there be a 30 day, or 90 day period
      >before they must inform the congress of military action
      >and get consent...
      >
      >>From J. Steven Dodge 12/1/99
      >>The WTO is more effectively a world
      >>government than the U.N.
      >
      >No, It's not a democratic federation of all the world's
      >nations designed to secure peace & freedoms. This is
      >what's needed to control these corporate monsters.
      >
      >>... because it wields direct control over
      >>international financial policies, simply
      >>rejecting any policies it deems obstructive
      >>to its member corporations' "rights" to profit.
      >
      >And like NAFTA, there is no higher binding legal recourse
      >for appeals to counter it... Yet.
      >
      >>They (WTO delegates) were probably discussing
      >>how to get oriental and latino children to make
      >>(the demonstrators' picket signs, ponchos and
      >>T-shirts for ten cents on the dollar so they
      >>could sell them to us next year.
      >
      >If you hadn't heard, the UN is trying to get full
      >cooperation for the Rights of the Child. This covers labor
      >& the induction of children into militaries.
      >They're also heavily into Women's rights, and doing
      >something about cross-border pollution.
      >
      >If they had more constructive support they might get it to
      >pass, and be enforceable. As it is, they hear mostly from
      >conspiracy theorists and the Republicans.
      >
      >Various UN agencies have been, and still are carrying
      >efforts towards providing birth control & reproductive
      >health education to poor peoples around the world. As with
      >sex education everywhere it's been tried, it was extremely
      >successful at providing better health care to women &
      >children, and preventing STDs & abortions.
      >Time will tell us how the US republicans' antics (the
      >arrears payment act) affected these programs.
      >
      >>Thousands of hardheaded realists just raised
      >>public awareness in Seattle yesterday about
      >>the corporate bogeymen.
      >
      >Yes, and I mentioned the need to reign them in. It's another
      >critical problem that's being pointed to as a need for Law.
      >I'll bet that not a single demonstrator argued for a more
      >just, transparent, binding, and democratic international
      >means to solve the problem.
      >
      >From: "D. Baughn"
      >>...I think that the demonstrators in Seattle
      >>epitomize that opinion whether they are
      >>consciously aware of it or not.
      >>After all, if you are all for global
      >>environmental and labor standards then a world
      >>government is the best bet...
      >
      >I submit that all the "peace activists", "human rights
      >activists" the environmentalists, pretty much all the
      >demonstrations we hear about; These are mostly _addressing
      >the symptoms_ of the problems we have.
      >
      >The cause of the symptoms is the lack of sufficient
      >international controls.
      >
      >At a big citywide festival last summer, I saw a group with
      >various petitions about these problems. They had a big
      >colorful banner: "The Greatest threat to human survival is
      >Nuclear Weapons".
      >I took them to task over it. The greatest threat is the
      >continued right of nations to make war. All this noise
      >about disarmament is, and will continue to be fruitless.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.