NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/misc/headline/5633

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-15 | 5.7 KB

Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5633 alt.activism:14855 talk.politics.misc:39892
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!maccs!mcshub!physun!bunker
From: [e-mail] (Alex Bunker)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: physun.physics.mcmaster.ca
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:18:56 GMT
Lines: 111

In article <[e-mail]> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alex Bunker) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Strand) writes:
>>>  Are you prepared to have your government force involuntary sterilizations
>>>  and involuntary abortions (and perhaps more) on individuals? In other words,
>>>  is effective population control possible under a free system, or does it
>>>  require a totalitarian system, a la China?
>
>>NO NO NO! populartion control program can be EDUCATIONAL in nature!
>
>They certainly can be, but will they be?  Given that we have a billion
>voter bloc in China that needs mandatory controls because of their own
>local population densitiy do you really think that they will be
>sympathetic to others who do not want mandatory controls?
>
>>>  Peace and security between nations, perhaps (by the threat of more force
>>>  than they can bring to bear, remember!) but what about peace and security
>>>  *from* the world government? If we cannot trust nations to refrain from
>>>  warring with each other, how can we trust a world government to
>>>  refrain from
>>>  making war on us?
>
>>Democratically elected governments operate under a constitution and
>>are restricted by this. A world government can no more make war on its
>>people than the US govenrment.
>
>Does this also apply to Serbia?  What about England and Northern
>Ireland?  El Salvador?  The Philippines since Marcos?
>
>>>ab>    Labor legislation (to ensure an even global economic playing field)
>
>>>  Sorry, but the global economic "playing field" cannot be levelled. As I
>>>  tried to point out to "Frank", a ski instructor just isn't going to be paid
>>>  very much in Guam. Differences in geography, population distribution, re-
>>>  sources, and so on, make it impossible to construct an economic system that
>>>  overrides these differences. Just can't be done.
>
>>This is true but standard laws for the labor negotiation process etc are
>>nice
>
>Why?  Personally I think they are very bad.  The current system
>penalizes those who make ridiculous laws and makes it very obvious
>they are screwing themselves.  If we're all hamstrung by the same laws
>then the ill effects will not be so obvious becasue there won't be
>anything to compare with.

But that is what I want I want to take away the proplem in the world
today caused by the fact that all countries have to sink to the lowest
common denomenator in labor and environmantal legislation or else be
bankrupted. Now no environmental legislation,minimum wage legislation
social charter for minimum standard of living, legislation to ensure
the collective bargaining process is possible because if one country tries,
the robber barrons of the multinational corporations just head off to
another country that is willing to sacrifice its environment and social
standards to make a quick buck. I want to leave these robber Barrons and Gary
nowhere to hide. When this is the case everyone will have to conform
to these regulations and business will be just as profiatable because
all the competitors will be on the same playing field.

World government is inevitable. If we do not set up a democratic world
legislature it will be the multinational corporations which will form
a capitalist oligarchy. Several people are on the directing board of
of more than one multicorp. They will dictate labor policy, the degree of
environmental policy,etc.. by flexing their economic muscle on the nations
of the earth which shall be powerless against them because of what I have said
above.

Which do YOU want?
well I can see people having arguments for both sides.

for multinational corportaions

Business will be unfettered people will
have the greatest freedom  to do what they want
within the confines of maximum short
term financial gain. A world government
could com with a world burauchracy that
will be unwieldy and just as corrupt
as any other government existing today
except noone would be able to escape
(The plan is that by world government
I mean ALL of humanity on moon mars etc...
NO ESCAPE)

for world government

rule by the multinational elite
will lead to unsustainable growth
with every policy made by every nation
being dictated by maximum short term
profit for THEM. The poor will be doomed
NOTHING will be done to alleviate the
cycle of dispair, crime and violence rise.
The development, in the absense of long term
planning will be unsustainable. The mostly elderly
fellows who run the multicorporate oligarchy MCO will
not be alive that long so they do not really care.
Humanity will become a cancer devouring the environment.
the MCO will dictate the gospel that we are allready
hearing of "maximum consumption" because this is
what lines their pockets. Since everything we see
hear etc.. in the media will be controlled by them
this will be all pervasive. Most higher life forms
will be extinct within 200 years.

There IS no other choice if we do not establish a
WG we will get a MCO. Which do you prefer?

ALEX

time is running out