Bill Bartlett writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> >It wasn't true before the bombing that Yugoslavia was subject to the
> >NATO rules.  Now it is true,
>
> Now it has been demonstrated to be true, but before it was
> demonstrated, it was still true. Just nobody realised it.

Yes, including NATO.  The US has wanted Europe to take over that role
in Europe for a long time.  Now it has happened.  I think it will
eventually work against the US, because Europe will become a sovereign
equal to the US in military strength.  It will be another cold war.
We also have a cold war between China and the US, which now threatens
to move to a higher level.  In the long run, I think these cold wars,
with China's huge economy and Europe's western democratic politics,
will finally induce the US to make the UN into a real federation.
The US won't be able to claim they are fighting communism, and the
only way open to resolve the cold war issues that will arise will be
by appealing to a higher sovereign.  That will have to be the UN.

> > and NATO is, effectively, the enforcement
> >branch of European government.  But it's not a world government, and
> >it's not my idea of good government.
>
> falling short of your expectations of *good* world government is not going
> to be a huge concern to NATO, trust me. Why do you say it isn't world
> government? What makes you think what was done to Yugoslavia can't be done
> to Norway, if gets too uppity, or perhaps too socialistic? Or Korea? Or
> Tasmania

It can, I suppose, but NATO's purpose is to do defend Europe.  It will
stay close to home because its main purpose is still the defense of
Europe.  If it does venture out, it will be in the context of the UN,
which will have the effect of building the UN into more of a world
government.  Still not a good one, but a step in what I think is the
inevitable, and correct, direction.

> >No, I think that a combination of the UN and a NATO-like military
> >would be a world government.  There would have to be one less level of
> >bureaucracy, namely the nation level.
>
> You're not making any sense Martin, how can you have a "United Nations",
> without any actual nations? Unless the united nations that rule the world
> comprise just the united wealthy nations, or perhaps the united
> corporations.

I just mean the nations would be smaller states to prevent one, like
the US, from overpowering the others.  You can call those states
nations.

> >  There would be states like
> >Oregon and Tasmania, and some nations, like Norway, would become
> >states in this sense.  All large nations would have to devolve into
> >smaller states.
>
> Is this merely some sort of hoped-for future, or do you have some reason to
> believe it is actually possible?

Well, The USSR has already done it, although Russia is still quite
large.  Canada has been talking about doing it.  China is a mysteria,
but there are a lot of different languages spoken in China, so if
their government moves to far toward democracy, it might find itself
divesting like the USSR.  The US won't do it unless and until the rest
of the world looks like it does:  US style democracy, US style
capitalism.  Is that slowly happening or not?  It sure looks like it
to me.

> >  There would be a United States of the World.  I think
> >it would be similar to the US government with respect to the
> >separation of powers, and its constitution might be similar to the US
> >constitution.
>
> Yes, you would think that.

I just mean that is the way I see it happening.  I think there will be
a better implementation of social democracy than in the US (which is
too close to oligarchy), and I think that better implementation will
be pretty close to what Norway already has.  I don't see anarchism
winning the day because there are too many non-anarchist thinkers.  I
think there are different kinds of political brain wirings just like
the differences between the artist brain wiring and the scientist
brain wiring, for example.  I mean, some people become artists and
some people become scientists, and some people become corporate or
military leaders.  Some of the difference among the people who choose
these different types of work is probably accounted for by differences
in brain wiring.  If so, it is reasonable to believe that some of the
difference between people with left political beliefs and people with
right political beliefs is also accounted for by differences in brain
wiring.  If that is right, then I think the best solution, and
probably the only one acceptable to both ends of the spectrum, is a
Norwegian style government and economy, where, basically, the right
wing parties deal with economic issues, the left wing parties deal
with social issues, and everyone pays high taxes.

> [...]
>
> >> The US alone is the only other contender, I think NATO is
> >> prefereable. And probably more able to do the job, except obviously
> >> the US would be loathe to surrender its role as a regional
> >> government, ruling over the countries of Nth. and Sth. America and
> >> the Pacific region.
> >
> >I think you are right, but I think it will happen eventually anyway.
> >I think the EU's movement toward a US-like federation, and the
> >emergence of China as the most powerful economy, will force the
> >issue.  I don't know when.
>
> China "...the most powerful economy"? How might that happen?

Apparently it *is* happening now.  Everything I read says that it is
happening.

> Apparantly we are not moving in the direction of the break-up of large
> nation-states. There are certainly no indications that the powerful of the
> world are in any mood to voluntarily surrender their power over the less
> powerful. In fact the powerful seem to be forming a super-coalition to
> protect their common interests and enforce their will against the poor and
> the weak. A 'world' government along historically standard lines in other
> words.

I know it looks that way, and in the short term it is that way.  But I
think there are possibilities that these power builders are not seeing
and will not see until it is too late for them to stop.  The USSR was
an example, and China is another example in the making.  As the
Chinese economy develops, the Chinese government will not be able to
control its population the way it has done.  It recently banned what
is apparently a rather benign but popular religion.  I don't think the
people will stand for it, and now that it is possible for them to
communicate, they won't stand for it.  You're always the pessimist,
Bill.  You have to get off the island more often.

> The rich and strong are organising to re-inforce their exploitation and
> rule over the weak and poor, as they have done ever since class society
> first emerged. Only on a larger scale. The powerful are not going to
> voluntarily subject their global power to the democratic will of the world
> population in any meaningful way.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701