I couldn't agree more. I don't know why Eric thinks a world
government is
so horrible.
Simple. Governments always go bad. Those who routinely criticize
the USA--a society originally designed as an agrarian rationalist
utopia--should ask themselves why they would want a powerful
world government as the only game in town. When that world
government eventually goes bad, there will be nowhere to go to
get away from it. Would you want the USA to govern the entire
world? Then how would some UN world government be any better? It
would probably be worse.
Or try Schumacher's _Small is Beautiful_, subtitled "Economics as
if People Mattered." He makes a convincing (Buddhist) argument
for decentralized economic power. Many local problems are best
solved locally, by people with intimate knowledge of the problem
and who will be directly affected by the problem.
The notion of a benign global dictatorship asks too much of human
nature. Look how creepy and corrupt the UN had become before some
of the "reforms." And look at how the need to placate everyone
had prevented certain reforms, such as nuclear nonproliferation
agreements. Sure the UN does a lot of good. Judy is right to cite
UNESCO and UNICEF. It's great when countries cooperate. But one
could argue that these good efforts came from nations cooperating
rather than from a monolithic entity directing the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
