HOW TO ELIMINATE WAR IN THE WORLD

Fernando Alcoforado*


There are a number of countries that may be focus of wars in the world, including Syria, Palestine, Israel, Iran and North Korea. Syria is today the epicenter of a battle that brings together various actors: the great enemy regional powers (Iran and Saudi Arabia) and historical allies (the United States allies of Saudi Arabia and Iran's allied Russia). The Syrian conflict began when President Bachar Al Assad launched an offensive against the rebels of the Syrian Free Army. Meanwhile, other actors have stepped inside the rebel movement, followed by extremists from the Islamic State (ISIS) and the Kurds. It has become clear that the geopolitical interests of the parties involved are very different.

 

It can be said that Syria has a fundamental strategic importance because it is the last stone of geopolitical chess in the region whose fall of Bachar Al Assad would lead to the siege of Iran, enabling the Western allies to reach the territory of this country by the Mediterranean Sea and Iraq which would guarantee passage for Allied troops to reach Iranian borders. Syria, which borders Israel, has always been important in the Middle East and, especially today, is part of a very delicate geopolitical chess because it is an allied country of Iran, along with those who sponsor extremely aggressive terrorist movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas in opposition to the State of Israel.

 

The US-led attack by US President Donald Trump on a Bashar al-Assad air base in Syria on 4/4/2017 has widened the already deadlock between the United States and Russia over the civil war, with both sides promising a resurgence in the use of force. The tone adopted by the two nuclear powers was a threat, raising the tension between Washington and Moscow at a level similar to that experienced in the Cold War. The Kremlin called the US action "aggression" and "violation of international law" and said it would suspend the channel of communication with United States forces used to prevent the two countries from attacking each other in Syria, since both operate in the country. With indications that there was in fact a recent chemical attack on civilians in Syria, Washington and allies are considering carrying out an air offensive against the Assad regime. "Prepare, the missiles will arrive," Trump tells Russia. Russia, for its part, promises to shoot down all missiles against Syria. It is a situation that puts at risk the possibility of a conflict between the two major powers on the planet.

 

Palestine and Israel are the focus of a new world war because they have been in conflict since the end of World War I when Zionist Jews expressed the desire to create a modern state in their ancestral land and began to create settlements in the region, still controlled by the Empire Ottoman. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim their share of the land based on history, religion and culture. The great victorious powers of World War I decided the destiny of Palestine in favor of the Jews, being used for this of the League of Nations, thus configuring the arrogance that have always characterized international relations throughout history. The Palestinians saw in the patronage they gave first to Britain and then the League of Nations to the Zionist project of creating the national Jewish home in Palestine denial of their right to independence.

 

Since then, there has been much violence and controversy surrounding the issue, as well as several processes of peace negotiations during the twentieth century. The State of Israel was founded in 1948, following the UN's Sharing Plan, which divided the region, then under British rule, into Arab and Jewish states. After World War II, there were several conflicts between Palestinians and neighboring Arab nations that did not agree with the territorial division of the former Palestinian lands. Since the creation of the State of Israel, the conflict that has set it against the Palestinians has been the epicenter of a conflict between Israel and all Arab countries, with strong repercussions worldwide. There were wars with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, but without the tension in the region diminishing. During this period, Israel occupied the Sinai peninsula, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon. The State of Israel has sovereignty over much of the territory that was conquered after the defeat of the Arabs in two wars - the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948 and the 1967 Six-Day War.

 

In 1993, the Oslo Agreement was signed, which initiated the peace process with the Palestinians. Under the agreement, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would become a territory administered by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). In 2005, Israel withdrew its Jewish troops and settlers - under their protests - from the Gaza Strip. Despite the devolution of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank to Palestinian control, a final agreement still needed to be established. To do so, it would be necessary to resolve the main points of contention, which are the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlements. It is unlikely that the conflict between Palestinians and Jews will be solved today because existing international institutions are not able to build a negotiated way out of the conflict between these two peoples and among Israel and the Arab countries.

 

Iran is also focus of a new world war when it decided a few years ago to possess nuclear weapons and become a regional power - rooted in both Persian nationalism and Shia Islam - to end its fear of being the victim of aggression American and / or Israeli war. The Iranian government has convinced itself that only the true possession of weapons of mass destruction can free it from an external attack. 40 years ago, restrictions were imposed by the major powers that developed nuclear weapons to other non-nuclear countries, including Iran, limiting the use of nuclear energy to peaceful purposes, and preventing it from being used for military purposes. This was done through the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which legitimized the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China and tried to prevent other restricting their access to technology. Nuclear agreement with Iran was concluded in July 2015 after nearly 20 months of negotiations between the government of the Islamic Republic and a group of international powers led by the United States. The five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to terminate sanctions on Iran's nuclear program in return for its dismantling. The pact came into force in October 2015 and was actually implemented in January 2016 after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found that Iran's nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. The government of Donald Trump works, however, to prevent the agreement with Iran by restoring a conflict that seemed to have been remedied.

 

North Korea may be the focus of a new world war because tension between the United States and North Korea has existed for many years but has intensified since Donald Trump took over the White House. Donald Trump threatens to attack the Asian country if the Pyongyang regime continues with its military tests. It should be noted that between 1950 and 1953 occurred the Korean War that was part of the geopolitical dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was the first armed conflict of the Cold War, causing worldwide apprehension because there was an imminent risk of a nuclear war due to the direct involvement between the two military superpowers of the time. It should be noted that after the end of World War II with the surrender and withdrawal of Japanese troops, the north became an ally of the Soviets and Chinese, while the south came under US influence.

 

The United States entered the war alongside South Korea, while China (Soviet ally) sent troops into the conflict zone to support North Korea. In 1953, South Korea, backed by the United States and other capitalist countries, won several military victories. In 1953, the US government threatened to use nuclear weapons against North Korea and China if the war was not ended with the North Korean surrender. On March 28, 1953, North Korea and China accepted the United Nations peace proposal. With the end of the war, the two Koreas remained divided and the geopolitical conflicts continued, although they were no longer for the military area. North Korea currently remains with the communist regime, while South Korea remains in the capitalist system. At the present time, the United States and North Korea are one step away from the war whose conflict can start at any moment.

 

In addition to the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France, India, North Korea, Pakistan and Israel have nuclear weapons. Israel does not confirm or deny the reports of experts who accuse it of having a large nuclear arsenal estimated at more than 100 warheads, thus being the only country with such weapons in the Middle East. In turn, Iran and Syria was accused of having secret nuclear weapons programs. To date, 187 countries have ratified the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and none have withdrawn from the pact except North Korea, which did so in 2003. A number of countries have criticized the perpetual nuclear monopoly imposed by the treaty on legitimizing existing arms and does not admit that other countries have them. Iran is a signatory to the NPT that prevents the country from developing nuclear weapons, but grants the right to use and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The United States with Donald Trump considers that Iran's nuclear energy program aims at producing nuclear weapons and is not for peaceful purposes as claimed by the Iranian government.

 

In the contemporary era, international geopolitical chess points to the existence of three major players: the United States, China and Russia. The future confrontation between these three great military powers may result in alternative scenarios to the current one that is currently characterized by the decline of US hegemony on the world. Based on the three main protagonists of contemporary international geopolitical chess, it can be said that the United States aims to recover its global hegemony in the economic and military spheres. To achieve this goal, the US government's strategies basically consist of the following: 1) to bar the rise of China as the future hegemonic power of the planet; and (2) to prevent Russia from rising to the status of a great world power. In practice, the US government wants to avoid facing the future of two giants: China as a hegemonic power and Russia reinvigorated.


Two major nuclear powers, Russia and India, could act to strengthen the position of China and the United States, respectively. Russia's military strategy foresees Army and Navy rearmament with the use of conventional and nuclear weapons in response to an attack on the country [QUADROS, Bruno et alli.  A nova doutrina militar da Rússia: mais do mesmo? (The New Military Doctrine of Russia: More even?). Published on the website < http://www.enciclopedia.com.pt/news.php?readmore=181>]. NATO's expansion into Russian borders is the main external danger to the country. Russia would tend to support China in a conflict with the United States. India is investing in the armed forces to deal with its powerful neighbors, China and Pakistan, and internal security issues [See article Índia é o maior importador de armas do mundo (India is the largest importer of weapons in the world) published on the website < http://www.forte.jor.br/2011/03/24/india-e-o-maior-importador-de-armas-do-mundo/>). India could come to support US intervention in the region in the confrontation with China.

 

To stop China's rise as the hegemonic power of the planet, the US military strategy is centered in the Asia-Pacific region, without neglecting the Middle East to fight against terrorism, to defend Israel, safeguard its oil interests and face the threat of Iran. As an ally of the United States, Japan is collaborating with US strategy of "siege" of China  to strengthen its military power by 2020 [See article Japão reforça estratégia militar para reagir à China (Japan reinforces military strategy to react to China) posted on the website < http://www.portugues.rfi.fr/geral/20101217-japao-reforca-estrategia-militar-para-reagir-china >]. Another goal of the US military strategy is also to pressure Russia's alliance with China by developing NATO's actions in Europe and strengthening its military bases in Japan, South Korea, and Diego Garcia and the Pacific Fleet (FAGET, Ruiz Pereyra. Nueva estrategia militar global de Estados Unidos (New Global Military Strategy of the United States). Published in the < http://port.pravda.ru/mundo/11-01-2012/32735-estrategia_eua-0/> website).

 

It is important to note that the strategic objectives of Russia are: 1) to defend itself against the threat to its territory represented by the United States and NATO forces; 2) strengthen its position as supplier of natural gas to the countries of the European Union; and, 3) to attain the status of world power lost with the end of the Soviet Union. It is important to note that, after the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the socialist system of Eastern Europe, the project of the United States was the occupation of the border territories of Russia, which had been under Soviet influence until 1991 [MAZAT, Numa and  SERRANO, Franklin.  A Geopolítica das Relações entre a Federação Russa e os EUA: da “Cooperação” ao Conflito (Geopolitics of Relations between the Russian Federation and the US: from "Cooperation" to the Conflict). Published on the website <http://www.revistaoikos.org/seer/index.php/oikos/article/view/293>).

 

Faced with the impossibility of an imperial state, balanced powers and a hegemonic power to ensure world peace, the time has come for humanity to equip itself with the most urgently possible instruments necessary to build world peace and control its destiny. In order to achieve these goals, it is urgent to implement a democratic government of the world which is the only means of survival of the human species capable of building a world in which every woman, every man of today and tomorrow has the same rights and the same duties, in which all forms of life and future generations are finally taken into account, in which all sources of growth are used in an ecologically and socially durable way.

 

The time has come for humanity to equip itself as urgently as possible with the tools necessary to build a world of peace. The UN that was founded after World War II has been inoperative throughout its history. It has not been successful in building a world of peace. There is an urgent need to restructure the UN and the international system so that it can exercise global governance that enables it to mediate international conflicts and ensure world peace. World governance to be pursued by the UN would aim at defending the planet's general interests, ensuring that each nation state respects the rights of every citizen of the world and seeks to prevent the spread of global systemic risks. It would avoid the empire of one and the anarchy of all. With world governance, it will be possible to fight against the war and end the bloodbath that has characterized the humanity throughout history. The monuments of War must be replaced by monuments of Peace from the constitution of a world government. To be democratic, the world government must be representative of all the peoples of the world. The survival of mankind will depend on the ability to celebrate a Planetary Social Contract representative of the will of the majority of the planet's population.

 

* Fernando Alcoforado, 78, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the University of Barcelona, ​​university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of 13 books addressing issues such as Globalization and Development, Brazilian Economy, Global Warming and Climate Change, The Factors that Condition Economic and Social Development,  Energy in the world and The Great Scientific, Economic, and Social Revolutions that Changed the World.

Comments

Stone-Eater Added Apr 13, 2018 - 6:26pm
The survival of mankind will depend on the ability to celebrate a Planetary Social Contract representative of the will of the majority of the planet's population
 
The survival of mankind will depend on the ability to celebrate a social contract between the forces who are in possession of the natural resources and are willing to share them for a common good for the planet's population.
 
Sorry for the correction. My English is not too good, but this way I understand it better ;-)
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 13, 2018 - 6:28pm
Thanks Stone-Eater for your contribution.
 
Stone-Eater Added Apr 13, 2018 - 6:55pm
Fernando
 
Thanks for your reply, but it seems a bit short ! I think you know which point I address, and it's in no way politically motivated.
Neil Lock Added Apr 13, 2018 - 7:40pm
Fernando: I have to say, most of your essay left me mystified. I don't do politics. But then you said: the time has come for humanity to equip itself with the most urgently possible instruments necessary to build world peace and control its destiny. Yup. But then, in the next sentence, you write: it is urgent to implement a democratic government of the world. Nope.
 
A little earlier this evening, on the Broken Clock's thread, I wrote: Unity divides. A world government is exactly the wrong direction to go in, because it could (and would) make policies that harm large sections of the population, and allow them no option but to form alliances to violently fight for their rights. Just as is starting to happen now in the USA. The result of worldwide "democracy" would be worldwide civil war.
 
In my view, in the short term we need smaller political units, not bigger. And in the medium (but still pretty damn short) term, we need to get rid of the political state, along with its ideologies, and (at least) its powers to tax, to make bad laws and to exempt itself and its cronies from the laws it makes.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 13, 2018 - 8:48pm
Dear Stone-Eater, I understood what you mean when referring to the "social contract among the forces that possess the natural resources and are willing to share them for a common good for the planet's population". From my point of view, the peoples of each country is that they are holders of the natural resources of the planet and it is these people who must celebrate the planetary social contract.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 13, 2018 - 8:57pm
I disagree with your vision, my dear Neil Lock. Contrary to what you say, the absence of a democratic world government is that it would contribute to the war of everybody against everybody, or to the global civil war. I disagree that a democratic world government would adopt policies against the interests of the world population. A world government would be monitored by a world parliament that would prevent it from acting dictatorially.

It is important to note that, historically, the international system presented three characteristics: empire, equilibrium and hegemony. The empire corresponds to the situation in which an imperial state holds the monopoly of international violence, as it did with the United Kingdom. The forces of the major nations would be in balance when the military strength of each of them is equivalent to what occurred between World War I and World War II when the United Kingdom declined and ocurred the rise of Germany, the United States and Japan. The situation of hegemony was exercised by the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II in their respective areas of influence. The hegemonic State does not seek to absorb units reduced to impotence, does not abuse its hegemony, and respects the external forms of independence of States. The hegemonic state does not aspire to the situation of empire. Hegemony is a precarious form of equilibrium. With the end of the Soviet Union, the United States has for some years exercised a global hegemonic position that is currently being challenged with the rise of China and the reinvigoration of Russia.

Neither with the empire, with the situation of equilibrium and hegemony did peace settle on the planet. Despite the repeated intentions of all the countries in the world to maintain world peace, three major wars (1st and 2nd World War and the Cold War) occurred in the 20th century. In the First World War (1914-1918), about 9 million people died. Only twenty years later, the Seco
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 13, 2018 - 9:02pm
Complementing:
Neil Lock, neither with the empire, with the situation of equilibrium and hegemony did peace settle on the planet. Despite the repeated intentions of all the countries in the world to maintain world peace, three major wars (1st and 2nd World War and the Cold War) occurred in the 20th century. In the First World War (1914-1918), about 9 million people died. Only twenty years later, the Second World War (1939-1945), which killed between 40 million and 52 million of people.

Moreover, the violence of conflicts in our time has no parallel in history. The wars of the twentieth century were "total wars" against combatants and civilians without discrimination. Historian Eric Hobsbawm (The Age of Extremes, Company of Letters, 2008) complements: "Without a doubt it was the most murderous century of which we have recorded, both in the scale, frequency and extent of war, barely stopping for a moment in the decade of 1920, as well as the human catastrophes it has produced, from the greatest famines in history to systematic genocide. " The tragedy of wars in the 20th century is also summed up in these words by John Keegan (A History of War, Pocket Company, 2006): "In this century, the frequency and intensity of wars also deformed the perspective of ordinary men and women. Western Europe, the United States, Russia, and China, the demands of war have hit most families for two, three or four generations. The call to arms has led millions of sons, husbands, fathers and siblings into the battle, and millions have not returned".

We must end the state of war that is permanent in the history of humanity. Only a world government would prevent the world from being led into the war of everybody against everybody.
George N Romey Added Apr 13, 2018 - 10:07pm
Seems like the US neocons want a global war with at least Russia and Iran. Syria has become ground zero for the start. The only stopping them is the Trump and Pence contingent. Not much of a hope.
Prof Claudewell Thomas Added Apr 13, 2018 - 11:58pm
Prof.Fernando,
Thank you for a well written and well thought out exposition.While I agree that world government is the only rational answer to revolution and repeated conquest and exploitation,I fear that we (homo sapiens)are in the grip of the non rational and that emotional appeal to group,class,and national identity will not allow it but will foment the "war of everybody against everybody" until our extinction or until some unforseeable pan crisis forces a cooperative( and contingent) cooperation.(  A massive,deadly pandemic perhaps?)
Prof Claudewell Thomas Added Apr 14, 2018 - 12:02am
 Please make that last 'cooperation' just operation. cst
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 3:30am
Situation: In a Syrian war that killed hundreds of thousand people we are supposed to get upset because a few dozens were killed with gas.
 
Globalists: We have written an international law that bans a weapon for no reasons at all, but we are G-d and our international laws are therefore the law of G-d!
 
Morons: Oh, I don't like to see the war that results from enforceing pointless international laws. Lets give these people MORE power and ask for MORE international laws so we see MORE of such law enforecement wars. We promise that this is the road to peace.
Neil Lock Added Apr 14, 2018 - 4:21am
Fernando: As Randolph Bourne told us, war is the health of the state. As long as "Westphalian" nation states and "sovereignty" exist, there will be wars. So, to get rid of wars, we need to get rid of the current system of irresponsible nation states - with their arbitrary borders, political ideologies, bad laws, heavy taxes and all the rest. Thus far, I'm right with you. 
 
Where I disagree is in what we replace it with. I see your vision of a world democracy as a non-starter. For democracy, even in its early stages, encourages the development of factions. So, a world democracy would quickly degenerate into squabbling factions of different ideologies and policies.  At any time, half the world population or thereabouts would feel oppressed by, and angry about, the policies of the faction currently in power. Think of how Trump haters feel about Trump, and Hillary haters about Hillary; then make that world wide. No, thanks. And it wouldn't be long before it reached the next stage, where the ruling classes get together against the interests of the people they rule over. It would be, at best, about as democratic as the Soviet Union was.
 
My own vision is of a simple, cut down core set of ethical rules and obligations, supported and (where necessary) enforced by an honest, non-politicized system of governance. Like an umpire or a referee, whose remit is to deliver justice and to keep the game of life moving, but not to enforce the ideology or policies of any faction or movement. I like to think that such a system would, indeed, become world wide; but in a very de-centralized way. 
Neil Lock Added Apr 14, 2018 - 4:28am
Prof. Claudewell: You talk of "emotional appeal to group, class and national identity." You're quite right, those are a big part of the problem.
 
Myself, I think that to overcome the current system and to get rid of war, people will have to reach an identity as human beings. And this identity I see as being be defined, not by group, class, nation, race, culture, religion or the like, but by how individuals behave towards each other. As I like to put it: Human is as human does.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 4:32am
Whenever nations break down wars follow. And primary biological fact like our ability to form tribal structures will NEVER go away.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 14, 2018 - 5:45am
Only a world government would prevent the world from being led into the war of everybody against everybody.
 
In theory we have the UN. But we see that a world government would never work. It would get back to "who is the strongest will have the right on his side", as we see in Syria just today again.
 
A world government would also mean total control of the population by one group - and in fact we're on the way to that with digitalization.
 
Who can secure that the voices of smaller nations are respected when it's even today not the case ? The US declares Assad is a criminal, and BANG.
 
Other voices which deny that are brushed aside....
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 6:59am
Too late!!
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:00am
Only a world government would prevent the world from being led into the war of everybody against everybody.
 
I agree totally.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:02am
Opher, you are sick.
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:03am
Ben - that's a matter of opinion. But I do not like war or environmental destruction, genocide or barbarity. I guess that's where we differ.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:06am
I'm against world domination by a government. That's were I differ from Hitler and you.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:17am
Oph
 
Please explain the advantages of a world government....;)
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:32am
Prof. Fernando, Thank you for this captivating and geopolitics self-elevating read. All this mess stemmed from the mistreatment of the Palestinians. If that mess was settled between them and Isreal, all this shit would not have ensued. What right does the water company have to tell me I cannot dig my own well to secure water and not depend on the mandates and the exorbitant cost of the water company?
Stone-Eater Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:42am
Rupert
 
Thanks. The same applies to Nestlé in Ivory Coast....
John Minehan Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:06am
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Attributed to Plato.
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:06am
Stone - jurisdiction over war, poverty, overpopulation, pollution, global corporations, crime, tax evasion, rainforest destruction, animal extinction.
We've just got to figure a way of preventing corruption and too much control.
Without it we are doomed (But first we'll wipe out every other species).
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:08am
Ben - I respect life, all life, and want to put an end to war, poverty, genocide, racism and environmental destruction - that's why I differ from Hitler and you.
Go ahead - let the multinationals trash the place for profit and kill everything, enslave everyone and create the greatest, most obscene inequality on earth.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:14am
Oph
 
Illusion. What IS corruption ? If the cop in Cameroon stops the car, show your passport please, ah we have to figure that more closely, please come with us. Ok. I hand him unnoticed a 1000CFA bill, about 2.50 $, and he smiles at me, because he knows with his meager salary he gets problems to feed the family.
 
And we CRY CORRUPTION. Fuck it Oph LOL
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:15am
Opher, you are a SOCIALIST
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:16am
SOCIALISM IS SLAVERY
Stone-Eater Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:24am
BTW: We don't need a world government. We don't need ANY government as we have it today. Ask the Bamileke, Dogon, Senufo or other tribes. There the ELDERS advise the young, and is respected. My wife is a Kouyate, the preservers of history right back to Sundiata Keita. And up today the advice of the old is respected and followed.
John Minehan Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:40am
Russia and the PRC tilt toward Iran in an attempt to check the growth of Sunni Salafist groups like IS and AQ.
 
At one point, I hoped we would also . . . .  
Dino Manalis Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:49am
I hope so, but America; Britain; and France had to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons!
Doug Plumb Added Apr 14, 2018 - 8:59am
The world wide suicide rate goes down during war. Wars give us stuff to make movies about. Wars relieve boredom, the biggest enemy in our overly civilized society - that is what the masters of societies think - see Report From Iron Mountain.
Michael B. Added Apr 14, 2018 - 9:06am
War is nothing more than murder and armed robbery on a massive scale.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 9:08am
Exactly
Doug Plumb Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:08am
If all the troops just decided to put their guns down, point their finger, and break into uncontrollable laughter, the NWO would be truly fucked.
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 2:07pm
Stone - that's small scale stuff. Some of those creeps are pedalling billions.
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 2:12pm
Ben - you sound hysterical. Calm down. I don't see the Scandinavians as slaves, do you? I don't think any of us in Britain became slaves when we had a socialist government did we? No. What we got was a fairer society, a great health system and nationalised industries. Now I suggest you stop exaggerating and being daft.
To want a fairer society with less inequality, fair taxes and great public services is not slavery by any stretch of the imagination. It might not be what you want but that's up to you. 
You seem to want to be ruled by a wealthy elite who control everything you do, rip you off at every opportunity, give tax breaks to the wealthy, run down public services and are driving society on a road to ruin through greed.
I don't.
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 2:13pm
Michael B - murder, armed robbery and an exertion of power.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 2:45pm
Opher, you are dishonest. No Scandinavian country is socialist. Sweden, however, has gone so far to the left that I have nothing positive left to say about them and I don't see them as a free people anymore. Norway is a bit behind. Denmark is actually quite conservative for European standards. High taxes, but they allow free speech, uphold the rule of law and so on.
 
When did you have a socialist government in Britain? Was it the paradise? Because all I hear is that the homeless get sheltered, the meadows blossom, the hungry get fed and the ill get healed when there is socialism. So you had that in Britain. Interesting.
 
Well, but there is also something like the real socialism. The thing that emerges when the socialist do what they say that they want to do. Germany had socialism.
 
I don't want exploration etc. Socialists want that they are the rich who enslave everybody else, tell them what to work, punish people if they don't work, and stripping dissenters off the right to go to work.
 
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 14, 2018 - 3:50pm
Such baloney.
opher goodwin Added Apr 14, 2018 - 4:05pm
Ben - you do talk rubbish - following the war we had a socialist government that brought in the NHS. In the sixties and seventies too. Then we had Tony Blair. 
I don't really care if it is socialist or whatever - just fairness, an end to inequality and warmongering, proper public services and a better world.
What the hell do you stand for.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 14, 2018 - 4:20pm
Tony Blair stood against warmongering? So here we go. That is socialism. You can be a person who sees no war that you don't like but your followers will still pretend that you are an angel. Socialism is nothing but a heap of lies and oppression.
George N Romey Added Apr 14, 2018 - 4:32pm
Oppression either by corporate power or the state is no good. Scandinavian countries may pay high taxes but its directed towards the people. Unlike the US which spends about half of its budget on the war machine. There’s also the lost opportunity cost. Think if the US had a leading 21st century infrastructure versus the left overs from the 50s and 60s we have.
 
How to fix a country that has gone so horribly wrong over the past more than 30 years? I don’t think you can at this point. That ultimately either leads to permanent appeasement and acceptance of the elitist serf state, or revolution. However revolutions do not guarantee much better. The US got lucky in the 1780s. The Russians did not in 1917.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 14, 2018 - 4:33pm
Opher
 
"I don't really care if it is socialist or whatever - just fairness, an end to inequality and warmongering,"
 
A pipe dream. There is no such thing as equality particularly in wealth distribution. 
 
BJ
 
"Socialism is nothing but a heap of lies and oppression."
 
Yes, the record is not good here. 
Leroy Added Apr 14, 2018 - 7:54pm
Welcome back, Fernando!  You were sorely missed. And thanks for the history lesson.
 
It's probably no surprise to you that we would disagree.  Rather than a world government, we need to become more local.  We need to be closer to our elected politicians.  With a world government, we all become sheep, except for the elite leaders.  Most people who favor such a government assume they are part of the elite who must rule the rabble.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:08pm
I agree with you, dear George Romney, that there is little hope that a world of peace will be built. Despite this, we must strive to build a world of peace.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:10pm
Prof Claudewell Thomas, I agree that there is great difficulty in establishing a world government for the reasons you have pointed out. Perhaps, we will move in this direction only after a global catastrophic crisis that has emerged as a result of a pandemic or climate change. For me, it is quite clear that the ordering of the world economy, the global climate and international relations will only be rationalized with the existence of a world-wide governance that has the ability to mediate conflicts of interests among nations and peoples.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:11pm
Benjamin Goldstein, the construction of world peace depends on the celebration of a planetary social contract (the law of the planet Earth) through which global structures (government and world parliament) will be built to stablish consensus among nations and peoples and to mediate conflicts when they exist. This is the true road to peace.

Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:13pm
Neil Lock, I believe that a well-structured world democracy would contribute to the establishment of constructive relations between nations and peoples. Only if democratic practice were not realized could it degenerate into conflicts between factions with different ideologies and policies that would at any moment part of the world's population or people would feel oppressed and irritated by the policies of the ruling group. The risk of this happening exists, but we must take this risk in view that humanity may even disappear in the chaotic world in which we live with the escalation of wars that tends to grow. I disagree that a basic set of ethical rules, simple, reduced, supported, and (if necessary) applied by an honest, non-politicized system of government, is capable of eliminating wars in the world in which we live. The construction of world peace depends on the celebration of a planetary social contract (the law of the planet Earth) through which global structures (government and world parliament) will be built to stablish consensus among nations and peoples and to mediate conflicts when they exist. This is the true road to peace.

Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:14pm
Neil Lock, I agree with your remark to Prof. Claudwell when you say that people have to achieve their identity as human beings and not as a group, class or national identity. It is on the basis of this principle that I defend the thesis of building a planetary social contract for international relations to lead to peace, not war.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:16pm
Benjamin Goldstein, we must reverse this situation with the celebration of a planetary social contract (law of the planet Earth), through which global structures (government and world parliament) are established that allow the consensus among nations and peoples and mediation of conflicts when they exist. This is the true road to peace.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:19pm
Stone-Eater, I agree that there is great difficulty in preventing world government from being controlled by a group. I believe that a well-structured world-wide democracy would contribute to the establishment of constructive relations between nations and people differently from the situation prevailing today. Only if democratic practice were not realized could it degenerate into conflicts between factions with different ideologies and policies that would at any moment part of the world's population or people would feel oppressed and irritated by the policies of the ruling group. The risk of this happening exists, but we must take this risk in view that humanity may even disappear in the chaotic world in which we live with the escalation of wars that tends to grow. One fact is clear: the current model of society governing our destinies has failed and needs to be changed. The construction of world peace depends on the celebration of a planetary social contract (the law of the planet Earth) through which global structures (government and world parliament) will be built to stablish consensus among nations and peoples and to mediate conflicts when they exist. This is the true road to peace.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:22pm
I am happy, dear Opher Goodwin, for agreeing with our view that a world government is necessary to eliminate wars for the benefit of mankind.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:23pm
Dr. Rupert Green, I am glad to know that we have come together on this crucial issue for humanity, which is war. The construction of world peace depends on the celebration of a planetary social contract (Earth's largest law) through which global structures (government and world parliament) are established that enable the establishment of consensus among nations and peoples and the mediation of conflicts when they exist. This is the true road to peace.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:23pm
John Minehan, we must make the living see the end of the war as the dead, according to Plato. This will only happen with the celebration of a planetary social contract (major law of planet Earth) through which global structures (government and world parliament) will be implemented that will allow the building of consensus among nations and peoples and the mediation of conflicts when they exist. This is the true road to peace.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:24pm
George Romney, I make my own words presented in your commentary on the Scandinavian countries and on the other aspects you have addressed.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 14, 2018 - 10:25pm
Leroy, it is with joy that I return to contact with intelligent people like you. I disagree with your view that it is possible to eliminate wars by acting locally. We are living today a world dominated by chaos in international relations, in the global economy, among other issues resulting from the inexistence of an international system to be managed by a world government. The current international anarchy gives way to an escalation of competition and conflicts that go beyond the regulatory capacity of existing structures. Local governments must collaborate with the world government to overcome the current chaos.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Apr 15, 2018 - 5:06am
It’s an interesting theory but just that....a theory.
 
We need mankind much further down the road before we reach a cohesive whole.  The problem, as mentioned above, is that humans are inherently tribal but only on a small scale.  It takes war, a massive catastrophe or a truly authoritarian brand of government to break those bonds.  Even then once war ends or time makes the catastrophe fade we revert to our tribal nature.  Even authoritarian governments fall, it may take some time but they do fall.  Unfortunately they are often replaced by the next authoritarian in line, to quote Pete Townsend, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
 
I think we are breaking farther apart.  The election of Donald the Thud, Brexit, the rise of the radical right-wing, Russia’s turn back towards authoritarianism under Putin, all of these events herald the turning of the clock back.  All it took was 70+ years....and even those years were hardly the time of milk and honey.
 
I like your vision, Fernando, I really do.  I am anti-war by nature, I think we are all better off in democracies.  But your vision requires the shattering of boundaries and requiring mankind to actually work together towards a common goal.  We are all too apt to blow each other the hell up.
 
There is a reason why Utopia literally means “no place.”
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 15, 2018 - 5:37am
Eliminate humans. Job done. 
 
Next.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 15, 2018 - 7:05am
Democracy don't work. Why ? Because humans are too selfish for that. We all get lost in theories while not realizing that human structure is pretty simple.
Leroy Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:03am
A world government can only exist at the barrel of a gun.  It would be constant war to suppress malcontents around the globe.  It would force everyone into a standard unit that would submit to world domination.  It is an unnatural state of man.  It is naturally unstable.  We would have no inalienable rights.
George N Romey Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:24am
Leroy I agree. Not all people desire or could handle democracy. The Scandinavia countries do so because they are so much smaller. Who is easier to keep more accountable, your local mayor (particularly if you live in a smaller city) or your senator? We’ve seen how much of a failure the UN has become.
 
What the US should be is the nation that people around the world want to emulate. But we’ve have people in charge both public and private that have no commitment to this country even though their wealth was made possible by patriots before them.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 15, 2018 - 9:09am
re "I am happy, dear Opher Goodwin, for agreeing with our view that a world government is necessary to eliminate wars for the benefit of mankind.  "
 
It may be a view that a lot of people agree with, but neither logic or history give the idea approval. We do know that concentrations of power lead to corruption and abuses of power. No where is this more evident than with the current oligarchy that is pushing for world hedgemony.
From a strictly logical point of view, only one man made technology has prevented violence, this is the common law. It is opposed to concentrations of power and is the biggest threat to the world oligarchy plan for world government.
Leftism has shown its dangers empirically and rationally, it can never work.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 15, 2018 - 9:17am
Leroy
 
A world government can only exist at the barrel of a gun.
 
Thanks.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 15, 2018 - 9:19am
Doug
 
If you'd have left out the -ism, I'd find your comment spot on ;-)
Shining One Added Apr 15, 2018 - 9:58am
Fernando Alcoforado "A world government would be monitored by a world parliament that would prevent it from acting dictatorially." Who is going to be in this "world parliament"? Unelected rich elite like the ones in control of the EU? You wrote an erudite article. However it was interspersed with half truths and out right lies ( intentional or otherwise). I would be happy to point them out at a later time if you so require.
 
 
 A one world government has been a plan for many years by certain secret societies, of which you are no doubt aware of, indeed, even apart of. How else would you hold the positions that you do (they like to have one of there own in such positions). Whilst your intentions seem honourable, albeit some what idealist, they reveal an underlying preliminary causation. That of control. One ring to rule them all, if you like. The power to control other people is an extremely enticing feeling. The power to control every person on the planet is sublime in it's misunderstood nature.

 Over the last several decades there has been an accumulation of concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer. Equally, an accumulation of corruption and misuse of that power. To force a complete centralisation of that power on this planet, at this time, is to invite hell on earth. Just as the forced, mass migration (organised) taking place in Europe right now, the level of being in the population is utterly unprepared and antithetical to that mergence.
 
 The most meaningful and ingrained changes to humanity happen naturally. The birth of a new paradigm often comes about very slowly and with great upheaval in the process. Wars have been going on since the dawn of man. However, in conjunction with that, there has been a gradual increase in the enlightenment of humans as a whole. 
Stone-Eater Added Apr 15, 2018 - 10:17am
However, in conjunction with that, there has been a gradual increase in the enlightenment of humans as a whole. 
 
Yep man huh, fuck get me that iShit over so I can post my fucking fries on FB, heh, gonna get me some clicks man and I'm gonna so show off with me new sneakers yknow gotta nail that Instachick who sent me some pics man ain't she hot dude :-)
Stone-Eater Added Apr 15, 2018 - 10:19am
....Sorry just had the urge LOL
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 15, 2018 - 10:48am
Fermando
 
"Benjamin Goldstein, the construction of world peace depends on the celebration of a planetary social contract (the law of the planet Earth) "
 
There is no such thing as "a planetary social contract ." This is left-wing prattle of the most elementary sort. And, the UN is a joke and a failure. 
Neil Lock Added Apr 15, 2018 - 11:17am
Fernando: I’m a little confused as to how you see the ideas you put forward being put into practice.
 
So, a few practical questions about your “Planetary Social Contract.”
 
1. Who will write it?
 
2. How will it be agreed?
 
3. Who will be allowed the opportunity to sign it, or to choose not to sign it?
 
4. What will happen to those individuals who refuse to agree to it?
 
5. Will individuals later be able to repudiate the contract on the grounds that it has failed to deliver what they were promised?
 
...and about your planetary government, too.
 
6. It seems that your vision still allows for national governments, but they will be subservient to the planetary government. Would individuals unjustly harmed by national governments be able to go to the planetary government for relief and compensation?
 
7. Would the planetary government require all national borders to be open?
 
8. Would individuals be able to vote for members of the planetary government? Or would only “representatives” of those in power in one nation or another have a right to vote?
 
9. If the planetary government itself fails to keep to its side of the planetary social contract, how will those harmed by such a breach obtain compensation?
 
10. Will the planetary government hold officials of national governments accountable for the effects of their actions?
 
11. Will officials of the planetary government be held personally accountable for the effects of their actions, in the same way as anyone else?
 
12. How would a planetary government avoid the forcible imposition of the customs of a majority culture on members of minority cultures? For example:
 
12a. If Muslims – for example – were to become a worldwide majority, would the planetary government allow them to set and to enforce a worldwide ban on the eating of pork or the consumption of alcohol? If not, how would it prevent them?
 
12b. If a majority, either globally or in one country, desired the removal of a minority culture – for example, Jews or Catalans – would the planetary government allow them to commit genocide against that minority?
 
13. What would happen if a policy imposed by the planetary government was later shown to have been wrong? For example, if green policies imposed on the pretext of “defending the planet’s interests” were shown to have been based on fraudulent pseudo “science?”
 
14. If there are enclaves that resist the power of the planetary government, would that government have the right to make war against the people in them?
Leroy Added Apr 15, 2018 - 11:46am
15.  Would Israel be allowed to exist?
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 15, 2018 - 12:09pm
NL
 
Those questions you appropriately suggest above are part of the Natural Law of the Rousseauian form of the 18th century. The left just love to stand up and cite a host of higher authorities or abstract notions to solve insoluble problems that are intractable. 
 
We  have seen what happens when leftist authorities mandate the law and social order:  Mao, Castro, Ortega, Maduro, Lenin, Stalin, Obama.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 15, 2018 - 12:31pm
Neil
 
Wow.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 15, 2018 - 12:38pm
leftist authorities mandate the law and social order:  Mao, Castro, Ortega, Maduro, Lenin, Stalin, Obama.
 
What you don't seem to understand is behind all these actors was THE CAPITAL which allowed them to get to their post.
 
Ask Donald Tusk (Goldman-Sachs), Macron (same) the German populist party AFD with B. Von Storch (same), Blaise Compaoré (Burkina Faso - France), Paul Biya, Cameroon, Blaise Gnassimbé, Boris Yeltzin, Petro Porochenko.
 
The CAPITAL.
 
Then you have....Kwame Nkrumah, Thomas Sankara, Lula, JFK.....Saddam, Kathafi.....Assad ?
 
oh, hang on, JFK ? Yep. The ones who have realized the force of THE CAPITAL are ousted or killed.
 
It's not about "left" or "right".
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 15, 2018 - 1:44pm
I wonder if Autumn Cote is THE CAPITAL.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 15, 2018 - 4:37pm
Stone-Eater
 
"What you don't seem to understand is behind all these actors was THE CAPITAL which allowed them to get to their post."
 
Ah! Hark! We are favored to hear some enchanting echos from 1848, where the foundation of modern left-liberal thought processes began. It is the evil servants of money that torture the masses. 
 
"oh, hang on, JFK ? Yep. The ones who have realized the force of THE CAPITAL are ousted or killed.
 
It's not about "left" or "right"."
 
It is all about the "left" and "right" as the moderates are simple silly putty for the extremists on either side.
 
Show me a moderate and I will you show you a stooge who mindlessly wiggled his or her way between extreme opposites. 
 
Capitalism is a pyramid with the lessers and losers at the base and beyond reach of the apex. 
 
The Pyramidal Theory of Capitalism Explained in Simple Terms.
 
http://ryckki.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-pyramidal-theory-of-capitalism.html
 
"
Capitalism[1] is mostly misunderstood and is not popular with people who cannot participate in this natural trade system. Capitalism is “unfair” and only the greedy can play the game and these tenets are solid political platforms for leftist politicians and policies we are told. Theories of government and other social structures often describe the capitalist process using the pyramid as an illustration of how it appears to function.[2] The pyramid has, as its most important feature, an apex at the very top and a broad base with steep sides offering the impression that it is a long and arduous clime to the top where the power resides and represents a corporation or a collection of corporations in the advanced stages, but smaller pyramids spontaneously form even in primitive societies. The climb to the top is indeed difficult, expensive and even the slightest mistakes can collapse the pyramid into several pieces. Few pyramids survive for more than a few decades and most corporations fail within a mere 5 years of operation.
 
Modern capitalism is actually a complex confluence of “isims” rooted in basic human nature and conduct and demonstrated clearly in history as a process that is disciplined and operates mostly in a nonpolitically slanted manner. This is because political “thinking” is not truthful or sound in the business world. The leaders reside at the top of the pyramid, enjoy a disproportionate share of the benefits and retain their position at the apex until the system fails to perform to standards then the pyramid collapses or waits for new leadership and they lose their jobs or are given other assignments with less power. The detractors of capitalism cite a plethora of negative performance factors including but not limited to mercantilism, unfair trade mechanisms, barter, black markets, greed, discrimination, economic imperialism, smuggling, war mongering, excessive wealth accumulation and more. The many other accusations and condemnations are mostly directed at attacking the uneven power distribution of this system using observations and complaints focusing on how capitalism fails to treat all individuals equally or even at all either inside or outside the pyramid.  This essay provides a simplistic discussion of the core attributes of capitalism in lecture form and shows its benefits contrasted with other social systems that employ control and command structures by governments. The descriptions are given in the simplest terms and without caveats. It is amusing, in contrast, that Marxism, Fascism and socialism, among others, only permit a few citizens, usually 3-5%, or sometimes much fewer, to enjoy the full benefits of their society thus establishing an elite control group that objectively attracts all the complaints that the detractors use to criticize capitalism and their complaints are even stated directly in their very same terms. Thus hypocrisy is an inborn attribute of those who attack capitalism with limited complaints and blindly offer an alternative system that is less efficient. Most socialist and other leftist organizations mostly select certain people that would be quickly demoted in the capitalist world for their manifold failures in numerous areas. Failure to provide minimal goods and services for their citizens [or frequently known as victims] is usually not a sufficient criterion to demote politicians. Thus Castro’s Cuba is some kind of model to be praised as is Kim’s of North Korea despite destitution and starvation and the need for a huge police state.
 
Capitalism is a subset of l
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 15, 2018 - 4:39pm
cont'd
 
"Capitalism is a subset of local governments and does not pretend to govern in its pure form. Many socialist governments closely control capitalist pyramids for their benefit as did Italy in the 1920s and Germany in the 1930s. What is very clear is that capitalism is admittedly an excluding process and not even remotely inclusive with respect to entire populations or even small groups in a given region of the planet. I maintain that capitalism is the natural default social mechanism of sharing and production by small groups and that when significantly perturbed the elements that were used to generate this capitalist system, however small, are scattered or dismembered for a time, but those elements will spontaneously recombine with new players and new resources and even new places if necessary and is thus regenerated anew. No matter how large a corporation may get it is only and ensemble of smaller departments or divisions that are subdivided and controlled by middle management. The only process that prevents the broad-spectrum rise of capitalism is government or some similar force that directly focuses negatively on the capitalistic progression and these are usually shown to be places of high poverty, oppression and failure like North Korea, Cuba, the USSR and parts of Eastern Europe or just about anywhere in Africa. Those forces must dismantle or prevent commerce from operating in free markets to be successful then they have to provide for their citizens what capitalism could have provided and frequently they cannot do so. Capitalism is self-regulating and continuously improving—two attributes conspicuously absent in many forms of government. The profits from capitalism are viewed as evil and greedy until one realizes that such wealth is useless if not used to form new pyramids or to buy goods and services or build real estate. 
 
Capitalism produces capital as its product and this is usually money at risk for expansion or held to be used later. The theory that capital is used to create new jobs is offensive and mysterious to many in the leftist political camps who believe that government can create jobs, and it cannot. Many liberals cannot bear to think about the fact that 99% of the tax revenues in the US come directly or indirectly from businesses or from taxes on salaries of their employees. Many think the government can ‘create jobs’ but they only create parasitic bureaucratic or other questionable positions that burden the taxpayers. Such arguments, though true, inflame the left who have nothing in their future except what they can drag out of higher taxes and regulations.  California is the best example of how not to run a government outside of Cuba or a few spots in Africa."
 
Non-capitalists are either servants or beggars. 
 
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 15, 2018 - 5:20pm
War is a punishment for sin.  The notion that we have wars because everyone doesn't have the same amount of resources, etc., is silly, at best.  It's not the poor that start wars.  It's those who are greedy for things and power.  As long as there is evil in the world, there will be wars.
Dave Volek Added Apr 15, 2018 - 6:01pm
Fernando
 
Welcome to Writer Beat and kudos to you for trying your best to answer the posts. We have had more than a few academics come here to disappear when the going gets a little rough. 
 
On one hand, I would like to have world government. I find it very feudalistic when 6% of the world's population gets to choose the most powerful political position--and the other 94% really have no say in the process.
 
On the other hand, I don't think a world government modeled after western democracy is going to serve us well. It's not too hard to envision that China and India will be the new power brokers. It's not hard to imagine that they will use their power to work their own self-interests rather than for the benefit of the world at large. 
 
I invented another system of democratically elected governance. There are no political parties or noisy election campaigns. The foundation are the neighborhoods of about 200 residents each. Neighbors vote for someone of good character and capacity for governance. Elected representatives rise based on their skills for consultation. 
 
I can see this model being used for a world government.  
John Minehan Added Apr 15, 2018 - 6:03pm
"12a. If Muslims – for example – were to become a worldwide majority, would the planetary government allow them to set and to enforce a worldwide ban on the eating of pork or the consumption of alcohol? If not, how would it prevent them?"
 
In that example, Sharia would not require it, as these things (pork) are permitted to Christians or Zoroastrians or Buddhists or in the case of alcohol are permitted to all these groups and Jews (collectively, "People of the Book" or "Dhimmi").
 
Since Dhimmi pay the poll tax and  Muslims do not, Islam, historically, was less zealous about seeking converts than some sources imply. 
Dave Volek Added Apr 15, 2018 - 7:52pm
John
Nice questions indeed.
 
I don't think the Muslim world is as moral as it portrays itself to be. I know a few Muslims who drink alcohol. In Cairo, I saw a few pigs being raised because pigs can eat a lot of garbage food and turn it into food suitable for human consumption later. It is only when the radicals get power, does Sharia (or should I say their version of Sharia) gets implemented. If Islam adopted some version of democracy, a moderate version of Sharia would prevail. I believe this version would allow both Muslims and non-Muslims to participate in Sharia as they see fit.
 
The issue of taxes is one of historical exaggeration. One of the early caliphs made an edict that Muslims would be exempt from paying taxes--because only Muslims could fight for the cause. Many Christians, Jews, and pagans converted to Islam rather than pay taxes. The treasury went low very quickly, so the edict had to be reversed. Since then, Muslims have been paying taxes to their Muslim governments. 
 
 
 
 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 7:54pm
Jeffry Gilbert, I agree we need to go further down the road before we come to a cohesive whole. I agree that we are stepping back into the international system with the election of Donald Trump, Brexit, the rise of right-wing radicals, the return of Russia to authoritarianism under Putin, etc. I think it is preferable to avoid war, a huge catastrophe or a real authoritarian brand of government to break the tribal ties and, consequently, make the international system rational. You are right in concluding that we are all in the world very apt to blow up each other. It is for all this that I desire the breaking of borders and that there is a common goal for humanity as a whole that contributes to eliminating wars and enabling human progress as a whole. We need to keep the human beings from being killed so the work is done. I think we need to act as citizens of the world in order to reverse this situation by fighting for the constitution of a world government. In this sense, a World Forum for Peace and the Progress of Humanity must first be established by Civil Society organizations from all countries of the world. The objectives and strategies of a global mass movement for the constitution of a world government aimed at sensitizing the world population and national governments to a world of peace and progress for all mankind will be debated and established in this Forum. This would be the path that would make it possible to turn the utopia of world government into reality.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:01pm
Stone-Eater, the alienation of people is the main weapon used by the holders of the means of production and political power to avoid raising public awareness of the economic and political bondage in which it is subjected and resulting in rebellion against the inhuman economic and political systems in force in the world. That is why democracy does not work. The alienated people is therefore an impotent individual. This individual, deprived of everything that is his own, is not capable of assuming the responsibility of guiding society and cannot perceive the possibility of economic, political and social change. The end of the alienation of the human being is fundamental for the progress of mankind and for democracy to work.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:03pm
Leroy, I disagree with the scenario that you outline for a future world government that you consider possible only with the use of force to repress the discontented. Your position is dissonant with mine because you start from the premise that it is not possible for humanity to become aware of the need for a world government that is capable of building a world of peace and progress for all human beings. While I advocate the end of chaos in the international system, you defend, in practice, its maintenance. When I admit the constitution of a world government, I consider that it would aim not only at world economic order, but, above all, to create the conditions to face the great challenges of humanity in the 21st Century, which consist of: 1) Cascade economic and financial crises; 2) Revolutions and social counterrevolution around the globe; 3) Cascade Wars; 4) World overpopulation; 5) Deadly pandemic; 6) Extreme climate changes; 7) organized crime; and, 8) Threats from space, whose global actions to neutralize them are impossible to be carried out by national states alone and by current international institutions. To make a world government viable, a World Forum for Peace and the Progress of Mankind must first be established by civil society organizations from all over the world. The objectives and strategies of a global mass movement for the constitution of a world government aimed at sensitizing the world population and national governments to a world of peace and progress for all mankind will be debated and established in this Forum. This would be the path that would make it possible to turn the utopia of world government into reality.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:06pm
George Romney, my disagreement that I presented to Leroy also transferred to you. I disagree with your thesis that not all people want or could deal with democracy. Democracy does not work because of the alienation of the population. The alienated people is therefore an impotent individual. This individual, deprived of everything that is his own, is not capable of assuming the responsibility of guiding society and cannot perceive the possibility of economic, political and social change. Democracy will come to work with the end of the alienation of the human being. I do not agree that democracy works in the Scandinavian countries because they are small in population. It is clear that on a global scale the effort to practice democracy would be much greater, but it would not be impossible.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:07pm
Doug Plumb, I agree with your reasoning that neither dominant logic nor history gives approval to the idea of ​​world government. What I want is to break with this logic and with the bad examples of history. My purpose is to build an innovative solution to the international relations that are characterized today by systemic chaos. My desire is to break with the logic that prevails today in that the global oligarchies exert the world hegemony that tends to take the world to the catastrophe. The constitution of a world government would not only address the economic order on a world scale, but above all, create the conditions to face the great challenges of humanity in the 21st Century which consist of: 1) Economic and financial crises; 2) Revolutions and social counterrevolution around the globe; 3) Cascade Wars; 4) World overpopulation; 5) Deadly pandemic; 6) Extreme climate changes; 7) organized crime; and, 8) Threats from space, whose global actions to neutralize them are impossible to be carried out by national states alone and by current international institutions. With a world government, it will be possible to order the world economy and the global environment, as well as to eliminate the war to end the bloodbath that has characterized the history of humanity.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:11pm
Shining One, my project of world government does not aim at controlling people as you point out. The constitution of a world government would create the conditions to face the great challenges of humanity in the 21st Century which consist of: 1) Economic and financial crises; 2) Revolutions and social counterrevolution around the globe; 3) Cascade Wars; 4) World overpopulation; 5) Deadly pandemic; 6) Extreme climate changes; 7) organized crime; and, 8) Threats from space, whose global actions to neutralize them are impossible to be carried out by national states alone and by current international institutions. I disagree that the constitution of a world government is the same as inviting hell to Earth because hell is what characterizes the world in which we live now and which tends to worsen in the future. What I propose is to create on Earth an environment in which human beings achieve their happiness. I disagree that changes should occur naturally. Throughout the history of mankind, the changes that have occurred have resulted by the action of man from the need imposed on each epoch.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:13pm
RycK the JFK Democrat, I agree with you that the UN is a joke and a failure and I repudiate your statement that the proposal of a "planetary social contract" is a leftist prattle of the most elemental kind. Prattle is your position that rejects this proposal without presenting solid opposing arguments.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:18pm
Neil Lock, initially, I thank you for the clever questions you put forward. My Answerwers to your questions are as follows:
 

Who will write this?
Answer: Representatives from all countries of the world
 
2. How will it be agreed?
Answer: Most decide democratically
 
3. Who will have the opportunity to sign it or choose not to sign it?
Answer: Representatives from all countries of the world will sign it
 
4. What will happen to those individuals who refuse to agree to this?

Answer: The Planetary Social Contract approved by the representatives of each country will be approved by plebiscite by the populations of each country. If most of the populations of each country reject the Planetary Social Contract, it will not be carried forward. The condition to exist is that the Planetary Social Contract be approved by the totality of the world population.
 
5. Can individuals later repudiate the contract, claiming that they have not fulfilled what they were promised?
... and about your planetary rule as well.
Answer: If the Planetary Social Contract and the world government do not satisfy the majority of the world population, there may be a new pronouncement of the population of all the countries of the world.
 
6. It seems that their vision still allows national governments, but they will be subservient to planetary government. Individuals unjustly harmed by national governments could go to planetary government for relief and compensation?
Answer: National governments will act according to the interests of their populations. There should be compatibility of national economies with the global economy, the local environment with the global environment, etc. always on negotiated bases acting the world government as mediator. Individuals will be able to turn to the world government that would seek to mediate the conflicts of each national government with its citizens.

7. Would planetary government require that all national borders be opened?
Answer: The world government would seek global economic integration in a negotiated way, making national borders open.
 
8. Could individuals vote for members of planetary government? Or are only "representatives" of those in power in one nation or another entitled to vote?
Answer: Individuals will vote for candidates who will hold office in government and in the world parliament
 
9. If planetary government itself fails to maintain its side of the planetary social contract, how will those affected by such a violation obtain compensation?
Answer: The rules for compensation to those harmed by noncompliance with the Planetary Social Contract must be contemplated in the text of the Planetary Social Contract.
 
10. Will planetary government hold national government officials accountable for the effects of their actions?
Answer: Officials of national governments will respond for their acts according to the laws of each country.
 
11. Will planetary government officials be personally held accountable for the effects of their actions, just like anyone else?
Answer: World government officials will be personally held accountable for the effects of their actions
 
12. How would a planetary government avoid the forced imposition of the customs of a majority culture on members of minority cultures? For example:
 
12a. If Muslims - for example - were to become a world-wide majority, would planetary government allow them to establish and impose a worldwide ban on the consumption of pork or alcohol? If not, how would that stop them?
Answer: The world government would respect the culture of every people in the world.
 
12b. If the majority, globally or in one country, wanted to remove a minority culture - for example, Jews or Catal would planetary government allow them to commit genocide against this minority?
Answer: the world government would work towards universal fraternization mediating conflits
 
13. What would happen if a policy imposed by planetary government were shown after it was wrong? For example, if the green policies imposed on the pretext of "defending the interests of the planet" were based on pseudo-"fraudulent" science?
Answer: World government policies would be approved based on most of the countries represented in the world parliament.
 
14. If there are enclaves that resist the power of planetary government, would this government have the right to wage war against the people in them?
Answer: The world government should work to avoid enclaves that restrict its power by meeting its demands. Any kind of intervention, if necessary, should have the approval of the world parliament.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 15, 2018 - 8:20pm
Answering your question, Leroy:

Would Israel be allowed to exist?

Answer: All countries, including Israel, would have the right to exist.
Shining One Added Apr 16, 2018 - 6:03am
Fernando, as I said before, you idea is idealistic. In the words of Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Maybe, in the next millennial, would the individuals of the world be open to such a thing, after we eradicate, greed, corruption, and acceptance of psychopathic personalities. Hopefully before the individuals with those traits eradicate us.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 16, 2018 - 3:32pm
Fernando
 
"RycK the JFK Democrat, I agree with you that the UN is a joke and a failure and I repudiate your statement that the proposal of a "planetary social contract" is a RycK the JFK Democrat, I agree with you that the UN is a joke and a failure and I repudiate your statement that the proposal of a "planetary social contract" is a leftist prattle of the most elemental kind. Prattle is your position that rejects this proposal without presenting solid opposing arguments.of the most elemental kind. Prattle is your position that rejects this proposal without presenting solid opposing arguments."
 
It is incumbent   upon  you to show us the foundation of such social contract. The least you could do is to recite some J. J. Rousseaux where the notion began, at  least in Europe, of such a thing.
 
My argument is as follows: there is no governing body that can enforce such a social contract so it does not exist and has never been practiced to any to prove it can work. [I ignore Sweden as they are major gun dealers] We live in a capitalist world where the elites run things and generate the wealth and jobs. The socialist world is collapsing everywhere unless you think the EU is a success without investigating their debt structure and the looming collapse of Greece, Italy, Ireland and Slovenia. 
 
I  understand the left wants something else, but they have failed in all their  attempt at decent government: PRC, USSR, Cuba , most places in Africa and South America, Cambodia, Viet Nam and Malaysia. 
 
There is no such thing as equality. 
 
Leftist prattle keeps such phony notions alive. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 16, 2018 - 3:36pm
Shining On
 
"Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.""
 
A very instructive probe as it reveals the ignorance of most of our so-called citizens. Most Americans think our government  is a democracy when the word does not appear anywhere in the founding documents. The framers, looking back to Plato and Aristotle and Locke and Rousseau never intended for all citizens to vote as it causes problems like we have now with terminal entitlements in debt terms. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 16, 2018 - 3:41pm
Fernando
 
"Who will write this?
Answer: Representatives from all countries of the world
 
2. How will it be agreed?
Answer: Most decide democratically
 
3. Who will have the opportunity to sign it or choose not to sign it?
Answer: Representatives from all countries of the world will sign it
 
4. What will happen to those individuals who refuse to agree to this?"
 
Such nonsense. I note  you do not use the UN as some body where such votes can congeal and produce some governing body. 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 16, 2018 - 4:06pm
Dave Volek, I thank you for the compliment about me. I agree with you that the model of democracy practiced in the West that excludes most people from power would not be the ideal model. I agree that China and India will use their power to serve their interests. What we have to do is break this logic that inevitably leads to war between nations. In my opinion, your governance system proposal is excellent when applied in strictly local elections. It can be admitted that the representatives of each country to compose the executive power and the parliament of a world government are chosen among the most voted in each of the places of each country according to the model that you propose. But for this to happen, it is necessary to begin a worldwide movement in defense of the peace and progress of mankind through forums that would be held in all countries of the world. In these forums the objectives and strategies of a worldwide movement would be debated and established by the constitution of a world government aimed at sensitizing the world population and national governments to make a world of peace and progress for all humanity a reality. This would be the path that would make it possible to turn the utopia of world government into reality.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 16, 2018 - 4:06pm
John Minehan, my answer to Question 12a is as follows:
The world government would respect the culture of every people in the world.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 16, 2018 - 4:07pm
Dave Volek, my answer to Question 12a is as follows:
The world government would respect the culture of every people in the world.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 16, 2018 - 4:08pm
Shining One, mankind has advanced in all fields of activity when systems and prevailing ideas have become infeasible. Many idealistic projects have come true with the evolution of time. If these projects were not feasible, humanity would still be living with outdated systems and ideas. We need to break the paradigm that we have to live with systems and ideas that can compromise the very existence of the human being on the planet. I believe that the project of world government will be inevitable as a measure of humanity's survival that not only the current generations, but especially the future generations of the world will have to assume.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 16, 2018 - 4:10pm
RycK the JFK Democrat, the European Union is an example of a social contract celebrated among countless European countries, having as one of its objectives to end the wars that have occurred in Europe for centuries. Those who know the history of Europe know what the celebration of this social contract is, which is based on cooperation between the countries of this continent. It is not by chance that several countries of the former Soviet bloc wish to join the European Union. I agree that there are conflicts of interest in the European Union, but they are all resolved through EU mediation with litigants. The European Union is the embryo of a future world government. With the example I have presented from the European Union, your statement that "there is no body that enforces such a social contract so it does not exist and has never been practiced to prove it to work" does not support . I don´t understand your quote from the socialist world. At no time did I argue that socialism as it was implanted in the Soviet Union would be the model of world government. I would not make this proposal because socialism as a system has failed all over the world. I hope you do not consider my arguments like prattle.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 16, 2018 - 4:28pm
RycK the JFK Democrat, nonsense are your comments that don´t present counterarguments that should deserve respect. I don´t consider the UN implemented after the 2nd. World War in 1945 because it has failed in its purpose of securing world peace of the same way that the League of Nations deployed after the 1st. World War. It is because of the ineffectiveness of the UN that I propose the creation of a world government with a representative world parliament of all the peoples of the world. Improve your arguments to answer me. Quit your gossip.
Shining One Added Apr 17, 2018 - 4:48am
Fernando, you said, "the European Union is an example of a social contract celebrated among countless European countries". Celebrated by whom? Celebrated by the unelected officials who govern it? Celebrated by the central bankers, who forced other countries to join it, at the point of a financial sword? Celebrated by the owners of large corporations who now have wide sweeping powers that can over rule national sovereignty? Perhaps, you think it is celebrated by the millions of people that now live in life long debt because of it?
 You conveniently (for you) use expressions and words that have ambiguous or wide ranging meanings. Hyperbole is frequently used to disseminate propaganda. It is also used in debate as a way of never "getting to the point" so as not having to defend your self on one particular point.
 I noticed you omitted to comment back about my insinuation of dealings with secret societies. We often learn more about people from what they don't say, than what they do say. I am not a fool, and I realise I am not going to back you into any corner. I will however reaffirm my stance on the whole issue as being one of control. Control of the few against the many. Your main thrust of argument is based on the eradication of wars. You seem to imply that the people of the world need to be controlled so as to avoid more wars. When in reality it is never the people who start the wars, it is the governing bodies that start them. The same type of governing bodies that you suggest should run the entire world. Maybe we should all move to Switzerland seeing as they have not gone to war or been attacked since 1847. They seem very particular, those evil dictators don't they.
Leroy Added Apr 17, 2018 - 6:27am
"Would Israel be allowed to exist?

Answer: All countries, including Israel, would have the right to exist."
 
Thanks for your reply.  All Muslim nations--more or less--think that Israel does not have the right to exist, even Egypt.  Most of Europe wishes that Israel would disappear.  A French bureaucrat summed it up with his comment, "That shitty little nation."  I can see by your article that you have the same bias against Israel as most Europeans.  If the vast majority of nations agree that Israel does not have a right to exist and are willing to revoke its nationhood, what prevents this world government from eliminating Israel?  What are the safeguards?  The record of the UN on Israel is not a good one.  I am skeptical of any world government.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 17, 2018 - 1:26pm
Fernando
 
"RycK the JFK Democrat, nonsense are your comments that don´t present counterarguments that should deserve respect."
 
If you presented a scenario that was reasonable then proper counterarguments would be designed and then suited to your post. 
 
Your title is absurd: "
HOW TO ELIMINATE WAR IN THE WORLD"
With 10,000 years of recorded wars this is not possible. You offer no reasonable solutions.
 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 17, 2018 - 1:29pm
Leroy
 
""Would Israel be allowed to exist?

Answer: All countries, including Israel, would have the right to exist.""
 
This is the correct [in my view] answer but religious barriers do not permit such an easy solution. Islam has defined Israel as the infidel or worse and needs to be 'scrubbed off the map.'
 
With narrow social views Israel could not be readmitted via the UN. 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 17, 2018 - 2:18pm
@ Fernando "Syria, which borders Israel, has always been important in the Middle East and, especially today, is part of a very delicate geopolitical chess because it is an allied country of Iran, along with those who sponsor extremely aggressive terrorist movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas in opposition to the State of Israel."
 
Would there be an America if Britain had ascribed the terrorist label to the settlers? Is there a difference between the aggressive terrorists who use their bodies, suicide vests, as weapons, as opposed to the passive terrorists who use radio frequencies to kill?  Is one a better kill than the other, or is the recipient of death more accepting of being aggressively or passively murdered?
 
Neil Lock Added Apr 17, 2018 - 3:20pm
rycK to Fernando: Your title is absurd: "HOW TO ELIMINATE WAR IN THE WORLD". With 10,000 years of recorded wars this is not possible. You offer no reasonable solutions.
 
rycK, I agree with your last sentence, and I'm going to respond to Fernando in due course. Probably not soon, unfortunately; I'm extra busy with paid work, and that has to come first; for now, I only have time to make short comments like this one. But I'm on Fernando's side on your first two sentences. His title is not absurd at all.
 
And I've already, on this very thread, offered a solution: "get rid of the political state." rycK, you might want to write down your own suggestions as to how to solve the problem, and publish them here.
 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 17, 2018 - 11:07pm
Shining One, I disagree with your statement that the social contract was celebrated by the central bankers. The EU social contract was celebrated between the leaders of each country. In all countries there was a plebiscite to confirm what was celebrated by its rulers.   I did not consider secret societies because I do not see them as a problem  to the constitution of a world government. You are mistaken in stating that my purpose is to control the people of the world to avoid wars. In reality, what I want is to eliminate the obstacles represented by the economic groups that profit from the war and by the great powers that wish to impose their hegemony globally. In no paragraph of what I wrote I stated that my purpose would be to control people. Quite the contrary, with world government, the people of the world would be empowered.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 17, 2018 - 11:09pm
Leroy, you are mistaken in saying that you see in my article the same prejudice against Israel as most Europeans. I did not understand how you came to this conclusion. When I said that all countries, including Israel, would have the right to exist, I made it very clear that the world government would not have the power to create or eliminate countries.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 17, 2018 - 11:12pm

rick the JFK Democrat, I disagree that my arguments are not consistent. Your assertion that the title of my article is absurd is because what separates us is that I am a lover of world peace and you want war to prevail as it has been going on throughout the history of mankind. His position demonstrates his blindness associated with insensitivity to human suffering.
 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 17, 2018 - 11:14pm
Dr. Rupert Green, I did not understand why you questioned the expression terrorist movements as opposed to Israel. In calling them terrorists Hezbollah and Hamas I did not want to make them irrelevant. The American settlers were also terrorists because they terrified the British who dominated America before their independence. Your reading of my article is misleading. I suggest a re-reading of my article to review your position.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 17, 2018 - 11:16pm
Neil Lock, you said you would offer a response in opposition to my thesis in due course. I will await your reply to answer you in due form.
Shining One Added Apr 18, 2018 - 6:27am
Fernando, you stated, "I disagree with your statement that the social contract was celebrated by the central bankers."
 To begin with, I did not refer to the "social contract", I referred to the European Union, of which you said the "social contract" was similar.  You are twisting my words to suit your agenda. The European Union, was anything but a "social contract". It was formed without the approval or asking, of the people who you pretend to care about. That being said, you offer no rebuttal as to why you think the central bankers were not celebrating the implementation of the European Union.
 "The EU social contract was celebrated between the leaders of each country." That goes with out saying, they owe allegiance to the central bankers. Not the people.
 "I did not consider secret societies because I do not see them as a problem  to the constitution of a world government." Of course you don't, being a member, you are more than happy with them implementing their agenda.
 "You are mistaken in stating that my purpose is to control the people of the world to avoid wars." 
 "In no paragraph of what I wrote I stated that my purpose would be to control people."
 I guess you should of made human psychology one of your many accomplishments. Then you would understand that often what people say, is not what they mean and the things they avoid talking about are often the most important. The whole idea of a government is control of the people behind the power of a gun. No matter how you dress it up, that's what it comes down to. Do as we say, or you will go to prison or die. It is also very telling that you went from the, world government wanting this, to, "my purpose" May I also suggest some study of the ego. 
 I fear that my future contributions to this topic will be few, if at all. As in my opinion, judging by your stalwart replies, defending such a draconian, deceitful idea as a world government, any expressions of revelation about the true purpose of that endeavour will be met with continued repetition of the same basic tenants of this insidious enterprise, disguised as a utopian dream.  
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 18, 2018 - 1:43pm
Fernando
 
"... I am a lover of world peace and you want war to prevail as it has been going on throughout the history of mankind."
 
How did  you divine this theory??
 
You and your theory are incoherent. 
John Minehan Added Apr 18, 2018 - 3:23pm
I remember a comic book (Green Lantern #61 [June, 1968]) where Allan Scott, the Green Lantern of a parallel world called Earth 2, decided after a particularly frustrating day to banish all evil from the world at the end of the first Chapter.  So he used his power ring, an incredibly powerful mystical object, to do so.
 
The Second Chapter picks up with Hal Jordan, Green Lantern of Earth 1, flying over Utah coming back from a mission in outer space and seeing a big blob in the Salt Flats, which turned out to be the entire population of Earth 2, including Allan Scott.
 
It strikes me that if you wanted to end war, you would need to get rid of all the people, at minimum.    
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 18, 2018 - 7:36pm
Shining One, I will not insist on convincing you of the need for a world government because you seem to demonstrate that you have no knowledge of the evolutionary dynamics of humanity that has evolved from village to city-state, from city-state to nation-state and from nation-state for the constitution of Union of States and Economic Blocks like European Union and Nafta. Just missing fulfill the last stage of this evolution, which is the constitution of a world government that will not only address the economic order on a world scale, but above all, create the conditions to face the great challenges of humanity in the 21st Century which consist of: Economic and financial chain crises; 2) Revolutions and social counterrevolution around the globe; 3) Cascade Wars; 4) World overpopulation; 5) Deadly pandemic; 6) Extreme climate changes; 7) organized crime; and, 8) Threats from space, whose global actions to neutralize them are impossible to be carried out by national states alone and by current international institutions.

You show that you are ignorant about the creation of the European Union by stating that there has not been a "social contract" among the rulers of each country and endorsed by its people through referendum. It is clear that large corporations and bankers have benefited from the creation of the European Union and that the European Union needs progress to contribute to the democratization of its decisions. I have said that the European Union is an embryo of a future world government. Your comment that "the whole idea of ​​a government is the control of the people behind the power of a weapon" conveys the perception that you act as an anarchist who does not admit the existence of a government.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 18, 2018 - 7:37pm
rycK the JFK Democrat, I did not divine that you wanted the war to prevail.  Just read what you have written to note your pro-war stance by stating that what I stand for in defense of world peace is worthless chatter. Contrary to what you say, me and my theory with proposals for peace-building are consistent because my article presents consistent historical arguments that justify the constitution of a world government.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 18, 2018 - 7:38pm
John Minehan, your thesis that if I wanted to end the war, I would need to get rid of all people is the scenario that could occur if nothing is done to turn the planet Earth into an environment of peace and progress for all mankind with the constitution of a world government.
Neil Lock Added Apr 19, 2018 - 5:05am
Fernando: Thank you for your answers to my questions.
 
It seems that you see a “planetary social contract” being developed in a way similar to the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. That document is probably the best (or least bad) thing the UN ever did. And yet, it has huge flaws. It’s like the proverbial camel – “a horse designed by a committee.” It contains good and important statements of real rights, but also a number of centralizing and all but socialistic aspirations. An example of the latter would be “free” and “compulsory” education which cannot be achieved without violating other rights – in this case, the property rights of those who would be required to pay for it.
 
That document was produced at a particularly easy time to do such a thing, when the political classes had come to realize that the nation state system wasn’t working – even for themselves. If something similar was attempted now in the form of a “planetary social contract,” I think it would simply be taken over by the vested interests to implement their agendas. The green interests, the financial interests and, yes, the warmonger interests. The interests of us human beings would not even be considered.
 
Besides which, I think it’s wrong to call this idea a “social contract.” A social contract is a contract to join a society for some purpose. It is a contract between individuals, acting as themselves, and the society they are joining (or not). Each individual must be able to decide for himself or herself whether or not to join. But what you propose is not like that. Your idea is basically an inter-governmental contract. It would allow political governments, which already fail to defend the rights and interests of the people they are supposed to “represent,” to gang up and impose whatever agendas they can agree are flavour of the month. Such as, for example, the green agenda of which the UN has been the main driver, and which has been used to force stupid, collectivist, costly and ultimately destructive policies in energy, transport and other areas.
 
I don’t see how any “planetary government” based on such an idea would be much different from the EU (or the Soviet Union), except in one respect; it would be world-wide, and so it and its dictatorial edicts would be inescapable. I expect it would have much the same characteristics as the EU; remoteness, bureaucracy, a desire to meddle for the sake of meddling, and a disdain for the little people. And while there might be lip service paid to “democracy,” it would simply get on with implementing its agendas without regard for the people. Let’s face it, national governments already implement their agendas without any more regard for “the people” than the absolute minimum they can get away with. World government would be worse. And the “world parliament” would be, just as the European parliament has been, no more than a rubber stamp. If even that.
 
To me it seems that these ideas, of world government and planetary social contract, are like building a new shiny looking dome on top of buildings whose foundations are already collapsing. In my view, they would make things worse, not better. The problems of our times, such as war, are caused by nation states. And so, any change for the better has got to start by changing nation states into something better. Change must begin at home.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 19, 2018 - 10:14am
Fernando
 
"rycK the JFK Democrat, I did not divine that you wanted the war to prevail.  Just read what you have written to note your pro-war stance by stating that what I stand for in defense of world peace is worthless chatter. Contrary to what you say, me and my theory with proposals for peace-building are consistent because my article presents consistent historical arguments that justify the constitution of a world government."
 
Let us both get grounded on two items:
 
[1] there has never been peace for even a decade on this planet as far as history goes back into time. 
 
[2] all attempts at  organizations that might stop war have failed to date. {LON, UN}
 
 You have no firm plan to set up any such organization and it would fail anyway due to [1] above. 
 
"...my article presents consistent historical arguments that justify the constitution of a world government"
 
Such arguments are mere fluff or hokum. We have heard this all before and it goes for naught. 
 
Learn the arts of war or lose. 
 
jmnsho
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 19, 2018 - 10:20am
Neil Lock
 
"Besides which, I think it’s wrong to call this idea a “social contract.” A social contract is a contract to join a society for some purpose. It is a contract between individuals, acting as themselves, and the society they are joining (or not). Each individual must be able to decide for himself or herself whether or not to join."
 
I agree. 
 
The notion of some 'social contract' stems from J. J. Rousseau.
 
The Social Contract
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract
 
The Social Contract, originally published as On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Rights (FrenchDu contrat social; ou Principes du droit politique) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is a 1762 book in which Rousseau theorized about the best way to establish a political community in the face of the problems of commercial society, which he had already identified in his Discourse on Inequality (1754)"
 
To find out more about J. J. please read Intellectuals by Paul Johnson and find out what a mess this guy was. 
Neil Lock Added Apr 19, 2018 - 2:08pm
rycK: Don't worry, I know how much of a mess Rousseau was. There's a case to be made that his thinking was the straw that broke the back of the Enlightenment. And I don't think he treated David Hume very well, either.
Neil Lock Added Apr 19, 2018 - 3:12pm
Fernando: To give you a bit more on my views on war, social contract, political societies and related matters, please see two of my articles on this very site from a few months ago:
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/19822-On-Political-Societies-and-Political-Governments
http://writerbeat.com/articles/19941-On-Political-Ideologies
 
The comment threads are also quite interesting - particularly the second.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 19, 2018 - 4:39pm
Neil
 
From your link:
 
"The fiction that sustains the idea of political society, and so political government, is the so called “social contract.” Here’s the idea behind this fiction. We, the individuals who form the political society, consent to submit to the authority of a government. We give away some of our freedoms, and we take on obligations to other members of the society. In exchange, we – in theory – receive protection of our remaining rights."
 
I think J. J. and Fernando seem to view a 'social contract' as some obvious conclusion of good government drawn by progressive minds. 
 
One thinks of Plato here in a quest for perfect government.
 
From  history we see that such 'contracts' are locally defined by laws or edicts from strong rulers. Since these contracts differ immensely from region to region the notion that there is some basic set of human laws is easily rejected. 
 
There is apparently no universal  political contract given the variants in societies. This busts a few balloons in leftist ideology. 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 19, 2018 - 9:23pm
Neil Lock, you have realized the concept of planetary social contract that I believe would be celebrated by the governments of all the countries of the world. I consider pertinent your concern that the planetary social contract can be assumed by groups interested in implementing their agendas that you identify as greens, warmongers, among others. This will happen if Civil Society in every country in the world does not participate in the process. I consider it vital that people be mobilized in every country in the world to give their opinion on the world government that they would like it to be implemented to avoid what you considered a possibility. I disagree that the UN Charter was easy to do because the nation-state system was not working. In 1948, the national states were in full operation except for the countries defeated in the war.

I disagree with your consideration of thinking it wrong to call this a "social contract". It is a mistake to say that the social contract I propose does not have the participation of individuals from each country. The ruler of each country must bring to the covenant of nations the opinion of all its citizens regarding the constitution of world government. The social contract that I propose considers that the heads of state must defend the position of its citizens. Each individual in each country must be able to decide for themselves whether or not to constitute a world government. I propose an intergovernmental social contract based on the opinion of the citizens of each country.

When I mentioned the European Union as the embryo of a future world government, it does not mean that it should operate in the same way. The fact that the European Union is not functioning satisfactorily does not mean that the world government is not working well either. Contrary to what you think, the idea of ​​world government and planetary social contract aim to prevent the collapse of a decadent society like the one where we live in. You are mistaken in imagining that the problems of our time, such as war, will be solved with changes that should begin in each national state. For change to start at national state, there needs to be a planetary social contract that will make this happen.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 19, 2018 - 9:26pm
rycK the JFK Democrat, I agree with you that in the 6,000 years of human history there were only 292 years of peace. This does not mean that one should not fight to end the bloodbath that has characterized the history of mankind. I agree that the League of Nations and the United Nations have failed to secure world peace. This is due to the fact that they were structured on the basis of Kant's recommendations in Perpetual Peace which suggested that a federation of countries be formed, not a world government. Your arguments that I have no consistent proposal to eliminate wars have no support. As for the study of the problems of war and peace, I am well informed. I do not need your recommendation because I've read Clausewitz, Suntzu, Raymond Aron, Paxton, among other authors. I would suggest you get a better understanding of this issue.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 20, 2018 - 1:56pm
Fernando
 
I appreciate where  you are coming from and as for war I suggest you also read Montgomery, Julius Caesar and Miyamoto Musashi  in 

The Book of Five Rings Hardcover – May 15, 2012

I have a 1st edition. 
 
"Your arguments that I have no consistent proposal to eliminate wars have no support."
 
I am not in favor of war other than as a defense mechanism. I do not reject your attempts at achieving universal peace, but I fully agree her with you, but I see little practical advances to achieve such a system in progress anywhere.  You need some common base for all these groups to agree with . That is difficult if not impossible. Changing Islam is going to be next to impossible. So it is with North Korea  and parts of Africa. 
 
"I would suggest you get a better understanding of this issue."
 
I understand the issue--I just do not see a practical solution ahead. 
 
Yours is a noble attempt  and this is a fine article. Thanx.
 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 20, 2018 - 4:01pm
rycK the JFK Democrat, besides the authors I have already mentioned, I have read the Book of Five Rings, plus works by Eric Hobsbawm, John Keegan, Samuel Huntington, Bernard Nadoulek, Immanuel Wallerstein, Pascal Boniface, Nahom Chomsky, Kissinger, etc. I also suggest you read these authors if you have not already done so.
I am glad to know that you aren´t in favor of warfare but as a defense mechanism and that it does not reject attempts to achieve world peace. I agree with you that it is a huge challenge to end wars because of the great obstacles that need to be overcome. You cited the case of Islam and North Korea as good examples of obstacles. Thank you for considering my effort as a noble attempt and consider our article as a good article. Thank you for enriching our debate.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Apr 21, 2018 - 1:27pm
Fernando
 
Thanx for the reply and for a great article. 
 
rycK
Fernando Alcoforado Added Apr 21, 2018 - 9:09pm
I thank you for your words, rick the JFK Democrat.