WHY A WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY (cont.)

What is espoused by the author is change.  Since 1900,man has experienced vast amounts of material transformation in his world--alterations which have affected more and more of us as time moves on.  This vast quantity of new experience has had a psychological impact upon the average person; and this, in turn, has had a lessening effect upon blind, mindless reliance on custom.  For the first time, in many societies, people have begun to realize that change may not only be desirable, but actually possible, and perhaps even inevitable.

Peter Singer asks in One World, "Is the division of the world's people into sovereign nations a dominant and unalterable fact of life?"  I submit that nothing is unalterable when the need for change is great enough.  And but a cursory mental review of conditions in the world today plainly calls out for something to be done to effect change.

We should not fear change.  Often, change is the only means by which problems can be effectively dealt with.  And it is helpful to keep in mind  that opponents of change are often the entrenched who are deriving benefit from the status quo, and all that it may stand for--frequently at consequent cost to the rest of us.  The change that I recommend, and hope to one day see, is unity throughout the world--of government, of language, and of many of the other things that are today customarily "different" from place to place, for no other reason than because they "have always been that way."  My primary reason for recommending unity across the globe is the fact that most, if not all, of the concepts, forces, and problems that we face, in one way or another affect all of our world.  It is at this time more or less universally understood and acknowledged that seemingly trivial human actions in one place can affect people on the other side of the planet.  This knowledge in and of itself produces a diminishing effect upon the value of, or necessity for, the sovereignty of individual nations.

Political, economic, and social activities are becoming worldwide in scope, and interactions among states and societies have increased on a wide variety of fronts.  In recent years, isolation has become impossible.  The fact that we all share a single world--and are thus a global community--is coming to be universally recognized.  The affairs and challenges with which we deal of late are transnational in nature; and the consequent need for international institutions has thus become unavoidable.  We should therefore all become cognizant of the future need for, and eventual likelihood of, a single world community. 

In such a world community, location of or distance from the beholder ought not be relevant factors (except as regards logistics).  In such a world community, the problems of neighbors who are ten yards away, and those of people ten thousand miles away, are equally deserving of the attention and effort necessary for their solution.

In the interdependent world that we have already become, cooperation appears to itself have become the only available means of attaining security.  Confrontation does nothing to assist in this direction, and should be completely shed as a choice of action.  Instead, humanity should attempt to work together to achieve economic vitality, environmental stability, and human rights--in short, a brave new world order which will serve to benefit all of us.

                                                                           * * * * *

The ever-growing singularity of our twenty-first century world has created an ever-increasing necessity for the development of common standards within society--of values, beliefs, political practices, and institutions.  This is apparently due to the fact that at the most basic foundation of every human being lie the same needs and consequent desires.  Yet a lingering persistence of outmoded and inappropriate political, economic, and social institutions, systems, and practices, in a number of places results in undue competition, distrust, conflict, and violemce. 

Indeed, it seems that many of our wars and revolutions can be ultimately traced to such absences of common standards among the parties thereto.  That is to say, everybody often wants the same thing, but are unable to agree on how to get it.  Then, instead of working together to achieve our desires or requirements, we often blame the other fellow for our lack of them; and resort to conflict with him in commonly fruitless efforts to attain them.  If we're "all in the same boat"--and most would agree that we are--we should all be paddling in the same direction, secure in the knowledge that in so doing we will eventually reach the shore upon which we are all seeking to arrive.

                                                                          * * * * *

No less a genius than John Maynard Keynes (who, in 1944, proposed the adoption of a common world currency, as well as global institutions to govern international commerce) once indicated that global collective action on an economic level was a necessity, because of the fact that in the "modern world" the actions of one nation spilled over into the affairs of many others.

Further attestation to the fact that our world has become a singular place, and that this condition should be acknowledged and acted upon, was well stated in 1970 by Nobel Prize recipient Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.  In his words,"...no such thing as internal affairs remains on our crowded earth.  Mankind's salvation lies exclusively in everyone making everything his business, in the people of the East being anything but indifferent to what is thought in the West, and in the people of the West being anything but indifferent to what happens in the East."

Today, in a society increasingly enmeshed by globalization, this characterization has become all the more accurate.  And in today's world such an assessment applies to many other aspects of life on earth as well.  Nowhere is the importance and desirability of greater global governance more apparent and compelling than in the realm of the environment and human welfare.

Environmental issues in particular know no political boundaries. Large areas of the earth, through which numerous national boundaries course, are affected by single ecological systems and problems.  Pollution crosses borders without so much as a momentary pause.  Disposing of toxic waste particularly requires a worldwide approach.  So too do issues such as climate stabilization, protecting the ozone layer, and global warming, concerning which only a cooperative global effort can suffice.

Regarding subjects such as human welfare, human rights, and human development, I must confess that I firmly believe we are all our brother's keepers.  In 1967, Pope Paul VI stated that developed nations were responsible for assisting developing nations.  In a work entitled The Law of Peoples, author John Rawls declares that "Well-ordered people have a duty to assist burdened societies."  However, if a single government directed the world, and the world consisted of a single political entity, there would be no destitute or "developing" nations.  Instead, there would simply be areas of our world that are more "developed" than others.  Under such circumstances, the fruits of man's accomplishments would, could, and should, come to be applied as necessary toward meeting the fundamental needs of all--without the necessity for international conferences, multi-state agreements, or--amazingly--consent by the political leadership within an impoverished nation (fearing that proposed assistance will fall into the hands of rebels or opposing forces).

 

                                                                         * * * * *

 

And now, terrorism has come to rear its ugly head, all over the world, and constitute the basis for a long and frustrating state of war.  At root, terrorism is but a horrible means by which members of certain factions, national or otherwise, express their anger with and hatred for other factions, national or otherwise, if not the rest of the world.  The causes for this anger and hatred consist primnarily of real or imagined wrongs or oppression on the part of such national entities, or factions within same, who become the objects of such terrorism.  For example, Palestinians claim that they are being overrun and oppressed by the state of Israel.  Hostile Arab groups harbor hatred for the United States and Western Europe by reason of their real or assumed support for Israel. 

 

As we know, terrorist acts are virtually always committed in the name of a nation, a faction, or an ideal; or as a reaction to an alleged insult, injury, or unbearable set of circumstances that said actors, and/or those on whose behalf they act, are said to have suffered or to have been made to bear.  Groups who commit themselves to terrorism are spawned, and/or harbored, and/or supported, by or within one or more nationbal entities--whose governments are usually too weak, corrupt, or themselves filled with hate, to prevent such groups from arising, or to deal with them once they do. 

 

(to be continued)

 

Please leave a  comment, or send an E-Mail to oneworld@tampabay.rr.com. 

 

 

 

WHY A WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY

I propose, and will herein set forth, some details for the implementation of a system of Universality or World Unity.  Pursuant to such a system, there would be universal understanding, via a common language, common systems, and the recognition and addressing of common problems and common goals.  I am firmly convinced--and I am rather certain thast most anthropoligists, biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and historians would agree--that we humans are a great deal more similar to each other, than different from one another.  This being the happy and fortunate case, I can be assured that the basic problems which confront me are similar to those of my brother as well--and that the fundamental goals which I harbor within myself as a civilized human being are actually simultaneously shared by the vast majority of civilized humankind everywhere.

I do not herein suggest a forsaking or abandonment of personal, family, local or regional feelings, traits, characteristics, or customs.  I consider these to be ingredients of that which we call "culture," and to be normal as well as somewhat necessary.  I furthermore have the deepest respect and admiration for customs and institutions which have been developed by numerous praiseworthy peoples over centuries of history and activity.  What I am seeking to promote, however, is a sense of acceptance of, and harmony with, the feelings, traits, characteristics, and customs of all, by all.  Most particularly, I seek replacement of what has come to be an almost automatic attitude of hostility on behalf of its membership and its culture, on the part of various groups, regarding real or imagined, past, present, or anticipated, offenses by other groups.  I desire to see these attitudes replaced by feelings of acceptance and amiability.  I have an unshakeable belief that we can all live together in peace and harmony; and that doing so would shortly result--not in a sacrafice, surrender, or handing over of rights or powers--but, rather, in numerous resultant benefits and gains which would naturally issue forth.

I additionally foresee, as a further extension of that which I herein seek to promote--being a condition which I consider to be an inevitable eventuality anyway--a blending of all of our cultures into a final universal super-culture of vast dimensions and greatness.  Still further, I predict an eventual natural unity among people as well (i.e., absent unnatural interference, I foresee an eventual single "golden" race of very healthy, very intelligent, and hopefully very happy people).  I am not espousing these blendings (although I recognize nothing wrong with them); I am merely predicting that this is what will likely occur anyway, whether we currently approve of this or not.  And I observe, and will herein describe, a host of present trends which indicate the likelihood that future generations will continue to proceed in these directions--albeit naturally and unintentionally, if not knowingly and willingly.  This being the case, I see no reason why we should not--at least on an elementary political level to begin with--move ourselves in the direction of the inevitable--but a trifle sooner.  Perhaps in so doing, we will help our world to survive long enough for this predicted inevitable state to attain complete fulfillment. 

I consequently look forward to an eventual day when we will all abide in a safe and happy world.  There will be sensible and cognizant planning, to meet the needs of mankind--without the disruptive influences engendered by inter-factional competition and hostilities; and relieved of the wasteful drain and danger wrought by the maintenance of armies and the stockpiling of weapons.  For the selfsame reasons, such plans thus arrived at will be remarkably capable of greater degrees of realization and accomplishment.  There will be consequent peace and brotherhood amonbg all people; and harmony will prevail upon the face of the earth!

                                                                        * * * * *



WHY A WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY

Go out into the middle of an open field on a starry night, and look up into the sky.  The million points of light that you see are a source of both amazement and wonder.  We are bedazzled by the very existence of such an array of heavenly objects, some larger by far than our own earth and sun.  And there are so many of them!  Moreover, some of the lights we  behold commenced their journeys toward our eyes many years before we were born.

Our universe is vast indeed.  Within the range of our telescopes are at least a trillion billion (i.e.,
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars.  Yet it is possible that intelligent life may exist on only one planet routinely spinning around one of these stars: To wit, our planet earth.

Where does this place our world within the infinite scheme of things?  Is it just a lump of matter mechanically revolving around one of these "points of light"?  Or is it, symbolically, the true "center" of this vast array of lights that constitutes our universe--being perhaps the only speck of matter bearing life forms who are aware of themselves and each other?  If it be the latter, then our unique status makes it all the more appropriate for us to take all necessary steps to preserve who we are and what we possess; to safeguard and to improve our physical world; the life that dwells therein; mankind, being the crowning quintessence of life thus far; and civilization, being the highest and best accomplishment that mankind's intelligence has wrought to date. 

                                                                          * * * * *

As time goes on, our intelligence and achievements continue to grow and to expand.  As this happens, it should become more and more apparent to all thinking people that we have a duty to use our gifts and accomplishments for the purpose of making the world a better and safer place for all of its inhabitants.  At the same time, and as a corollary of the above, it becomes apparent that we owe our allegiance to an idea, rather than a "tribe."  I submit that this "idea" consists of a concept calling for the application of the collective efforts of all of us, to improve conditions for all of us, without regard to, and without hindrence by reason of, the factions and boundaries that have shackled us thus far.

In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, John Locke tells us that "the earth and all that is therein is given to [all] men for the support and comfort of their being."  To me, this implies a concept whereby there ought be no boundaries--ethnic, political, or geographic--to deprive anyone of that which nature has bestowed upon all of us--or of that which mankind has in his wisdom discovered, created,  or devised.

I do not advocate universal free access to all things by all people.  That would seem to constitute a form of communism or socialism to which I do not subscribe.  What I do advocate, however, is a unification of all people, places, and things, guided by a single government, and directed only by logical and reasonable principles, for the benefit of, and improvement of conditions for, all of us.  This is not so much "pie in the sky" as it may at first sound.  For what I advocate is simply application of the resources that are presently at our disposal throughout the world to the difficulties and deficiencies that exist in various places within our world, without regard to national or other factional considerations,  This is simple, and completely feasible.  If there is a fire in Chile, and water in Argentina, it should be brought over what would have been the border, without impediment of national policy, to be used to extinguish it.  If there is famine in France, and a plentiful harvest in Germany, aid should be transported across the Rhine, without encumbrance by customs, or price supports for farmers.  Parenthetically, perhaps a few years later a problem will arise in the opposite direction, and need to be addressed in a similar fashion.   

Concerning the economics of such transfers, things must, of course, be paid for, when and if at all possible.  I believe in private ownership, where appropriate.  But I also advocate a worldwide economy, wherein the price of wheat in France will be more or less the same as in Germany--or in America, or in Bangladesh--by reason of the fact that there would be a single currency worldwide, and a single set of economic standards and regulations worldwide.  The only cause for variation in prices might be things like quality, or scarcity, or season, or cost of transport to different places. 

                                                                         * * * * *

In the early 1950's, Albert Einstein stated: "I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual."  This was an accurate appraisal by an acknowledged genius.  For across the world, we may look different, dress differently, eat differently, and worship differently--but our needs and desires are fundamentally similar.  To the extent that we can understand and appreciate their nature and value, all of us want personal safety, economic security, good health, and personal freedom for ourselves and our loved ones.  On the other hand, each one of us is unique; and by reason thereof, inclined and entitled to direct and express ourselves in accordance with the manner in which we have each individually developed.  What stands in the way of universal availability of all of these sorts of basic rights--which belong to all humans--are the complications caused by factionalism, and by the ever-ongoing conflict whose origins lie in this very factionalism that I herein denounce.

                                                                          * * * * *

ONE WORLD (cont.)

Having shed our shackles, we will be able to apply all of our attention, directly and without interruption, to the real problems which beset us.  What are these "real" problems?  I think we must all agree that there are a number of aspects of our lives and our world that clearly require correction and improvement, in order for twenty-first century civilized society to deserve to be called logical and sensible.  I will descroibe many of these--which most of us are already well aware of--in the future.

As a general proposition, virtual unanimous agreement by mankind that a particular condition is hurtful or harmful, or potentially so, would be a reliable determinant that change or improvement is indeed necessary.  Some of these conditions are quite obvious and apparent, and come readily to mind:  illness, hunger, ignorance, poverty, homelessness, crime, various emergencies and catastrophes, as well as the current sorry state of our environment, to name but a few.  However, in the final analysis, it would be necessary to compose and resort to a high-principled, just, competent, and humane system, in order to consistently arrive at proper decisions regarding what problems shall be considered such; as well as whether, in what priority, and in what fashion, man's efforts would be employed to alleviate them.  In short, it should be a function of the will of the world, naturally exercised through a single super-efficient, logical and objective, guiding, directing and executing entity, to determine these things, and to carry them out.

Problem-solving, as well as other functions of government, should be carried on and directed by such a worldwide entity, free of national or political concerns, competition, pressure, and strife.  It should be composed of the most eminently skilled and highly capable peoiple--those who are most proficient to accomplish what is in actuality the most critical work amongst all human endeavor:  the direction and guidance of our world.  For this, the world's most crucial pursuit--not merely constituting just recompense--but more importantly, in order to make certain that the most highly skilled and eminently capable people are attracted and retained--the world's most rewarding system of compensation must be established.  Too often today, under our present grossly imperfect system, the most talented and able among us will shun public service, government, and especially the frivolous, childish world of politics which is usually prerequisite to such service; and opt instead for the significantly less pressuring, and frequently more financially and/or otherwise more rewarding, private sector.  No longer will our most brilliant leaders choose only to direct brokerage houses and manufacturing facilities; while our world's most critical affairs often wind up in the hands of mediocre--but popular--politicians, and/or their friends.  Further, no longer will a person with no more than average skill and competence have a loud, perhaps determining, and possibly damaging, voice in world affairs because he happens to be one of the few capable persons--or worse, the most popular or personally powerful person--within the bounds of a certain defined geographic area of our globe (which we presently call a "country").

Of course, safeguards must nevertheless be instituted and put into place: 
     a)  to prevent a reversion to the political process, of the sort currently resorted to, for the choosing of these "experts";
     b)  to permit, and to effectuate means for the removal and/or replacement of such of said officials as should, per predetermined objective criteria, be found to be, or to have become, less than faithful, reliable, or otherwise appropriately qualified for his or her function;
     c)  to constitute a system of "checks and balances," whereby none of such officials and/or groups of same might commence upon behaviors or policies that could degenerate into any form of "dictatorship"; 
     d)  to comprise a "last-ditch" process (based upon objective parameters) whereby a pre-ordained percentage of the world's population will be enabled to compel the commencement of efforts to find some or all alternative individujals, and/or an alternative method, via which our world will be governed.

                                                                 * * * * *

Application of rational thinking to the question of how our world should be organized and administered seems to naturally and logically point to that which I propose herein.  As the single, most fundamental, and most encompassing and all-inclusive, entity to which every single one of us belongs, our world should be perceived and considered, managed and directed, in the same fashion as any large and important organization--only more so.  It does not require the mind of a managerial genius to realize that a business concern could not function effectively--nay, could not remain in operation for long--if its various departments or branches were directed by the most "popular" people in the company; or if each department were obligated to expend a major percentage of its time, resources, and personnel upon supplying itself, and maintaining readiness, for potential inter-departmental or inter-office strife; or, worse, if they were in a state of chronic conflict and occasional mortal combat with each other. 

Perhaps, here, the reader might ask whether I propose the abolition of anything resembling competition.  Of course, I must acknowledge that competition is a helpful concept, and is frequently resorted to as a motivator in efforts to promote quantitative and/or qualitative excellence.  However, to be honest, I must admit that I consider competition to in fact be but a contrivance, and an artificial motivational tool.  For nothing positive is ever actually produced, per se, from "beating the other guy."  At most, competition is merely a reason for me--or my team--to strive harder.  But there are other reasons--perhaps more worthy reasons, perhaps more inspirational reasons--which might be generative of yet greater degrees of motivation and accomplishment.

I would point out, for example, that many of mankind's most beneficial and splendid achievements were not in fact motivated by a sense of competition--but, rather, by desire for enrichment; by feelings of duty, morality, idealism, or devotion; and, particularly, by that most powerful motivator of all: love.
Moreover, even competition, as it exists in our business, professional, and athletic worlds today, generally does not go so far (and never should go so far) as to contemplate actually harming or annihilating the competitors.  Rather, it merely seeks to stimulate more and/or better products, service, or performance.  This, in turn, frequently produces a resultant overall improvement throughout the entire industry, profession, or sport itself; which ultimately redounds to the benefit of all consumers or spectators.  If competition among nations were merely of this nature (i.e., a number of national entities, competing--by striving to offer better conditions and services as a means of generating more applications for citizenship from among the world's populace) my present efforts would be less, if at all, necessary, and these urgings probably unwritten.  However, a cursory consideration of the history of the world to date clearly indicates that this aspect of international "competition" has been, and continues to be, quite different, and far more catastrophic.  Thus, to those among you who support and would retain the present national system by reason of a supposition that conversion to Universality would remove competition and create a bland and unproductive environment, I respectfully declare that this is not likely.  For the gravity of that which is at stake, togethetr with the potential for the resultant benefits to be had from World Unity, will constitute far more potent forms of motivation, toward a bright and promising new age.

                                                                       * * * * *

I would venture to submit that humanity has progressed, sociologically and technologically, to a point where a system of World Unity is not only presently appropriate--but actually acutely necessary.  As I will often state subsequently herein, I am of the opinion that mankind has advanced to a pooint at which we are not only ready for Universality--but that we need it now, if we are indeed to survivie.

To citizens of the United States (an assemblage of fifty states--whose very seal bears the legend "e pluibus unum"), as well as to those of so many other nations whose present composition is but an agglomeration of a number of smaller, formerly separate, states, nations, and/or groups of peoples, I would point our that Universality is but an extension of, a further fulfillment of, and the ultimate destination of, the underlying trends toward assembly and unity which have been taking place before the eyes of all of us since the beginnings of civilization.

If a threat to our entire globe (perhaps, for example, by an alien force from another planet) were to manifest irself at some future date, I am rather certain that such a fortuitywould generate an immediate about-face in our relations amongst ourselves, and foster a spirit of cooperation and unitymuch along the lines which I suggest herein.  But, actually, such a mortal threat does already exist at this very instant.  Ironically, this threat comes not from afar--but from within--being directed toward, as well as issuing from, our very selves!

                                                                          * * * * *

ONE WORLD (cont.)

Once we have removed this grinding stone which I call factionalism--against which all of our efforts have until now been painfully and needlessly dragged and scraped; once we have loosed the bonds of national autonomy--which have hurtfully strangled and hopelessly fettered man's efforts for far too long; humankind will for the first time be free to "pull in one diredction."  And in what direction shall that be?  It will be that direction in which man has been attempting to progress since the dawn of civilization.  It is that direction in which all reasonable and socially concerned segments within our world actually desire to proceed at this very moment--but are unfortunately hampered by a multitude of factional considerations and self-defeating priorities.  That direction is toward all of those things to which our common sense impels us to strive:  at root, the enhancement of civilization; solution of the universally acknowledged problems of mankind; the betterment of all of our lives; and objective improvement of our physical environment (i.e., our world).

There would be an end to wars, with their attendant horror and strife.  No longer would millions of lives need to be heroically sacraficed--on the battlefield and off--for the sake of patriots' respective nations.  No longer would hapless populations within our cities--including countless women, children, sick, and elderly--be maimed and killed, as bombs and missiles are rained upon them via the guns and aircraft of billigerent nations.  No longer would the citizens of vanquished nations be abused by "liberating" armies, and enslaved by the subsequent occupation of victorious nations.  The simple reason why all of this is not only possible, but within our reach at this very moment--the uncontrived and  uncomplicated expedient by which all of this can be readily and easily brought about--is merely this:  In a world guided by Universality, there would be no nations.  Rather, there would simply be One World!

                                                                     * * * * *

And what would be lost--what must be sacraficed--in the accomplishment of this admittedly novel and sweeping--but actually simple and painless--conversion, from a national to a Universal system?  Absolutely nothing--except the guardedness and conflicts, the need for armies and weapons, the waste of time and talent, wealth and resources, which the service of a useless, outmoded, and counterproductive concept begets and necessitates.

Leaders will still be needed, to direct and operate the instrumentalities and organs of government.  But they will be leaders of the people--not of a nation.  As I will describe in subsequent postings, military--or more accurately quasi-military or police-type--entities and forces will still be required the world over, to maintain and preserve civil peace, law, order, and liberty.  But they will be fighting crime and adversity--not each other.  I imagine that manufacturers of bombs and other devices of war and destruction will not initially like this concept.  Nor, possibly, will a percentage of the aforesaid present military, who must quickly realize that the size of a force necessary to accomp;lish purposes of peace and police would be a good deal smaller than those multiple forces required for the carrying on, or even the deterrence, of warfare.  However, I am rather certain that a sizeable number of such competent and capable personnel and resources, thus no longer needed for bellicose endeavors, could and would be quickly and effectively applied toward the accomplishment of numerous brave new enterprises--particularly in light of the vigorous season for mankind and the world which I foresee as an inevitable consequence of the adoption of the processes which I herein espouse.

                                                              * * * * *

In simple terms, the result of the actualization of my recommendations will be a unified, peaceful, rational, intelligently planned, sensibly directed, and smoothly functioning world; wherein the needs of all men will be properly attended to.  The abilities and resources in every corner of our world will be mobilized toward one purpose:  the meeting of the needs, and solution of the problems, of all of us--instead of a splintered fragmented arrangement wherein the parts are not only less than the total of the whole; but are, in addition, rendered further ineffective by reason of the fact that the parts are engaged in chronic battle against one another.

At last, our fears of that dread final nuclear, or biological, or chemical holocaust, wherein all that mankind has presently achieved shall be wastefully obliterated, can be discarded forever.  At last, the machinery of war can be converted to the instrumentalities of production; "guns" and "bombs" devised to destroy microbes instead of men.  Ships and planes will be used to carry only passengers and
goods--and nevermore hatred and death, to human targets who are not very different than their own captains and crews. 

The years following this conversion will bear witness to the availability of a greater quantity of talent, funds, and resources for the amelioration of the ailments and problems of the world than has ever been available since the dawn of civilization.  For in putting an end to inter-factional strife, the necessity for each of many factions to simultaneously employ and expend ridiculous sums of wealth and effort upon weapons and other means of guarding against and fighting off one another will be obviated.  This sinful waste, whereby the several efforts and numerous products of nations are utilized to serve no more noble or useful a purpose than holding each other at bay--and, in effect, only serving to counteract, counterweigh, and cancel out, each other's goods and labors--will be over and done with once and for all.

                                                                    * * * * *

A further logical and inevitable result of this new-found abundance of concern and provision for humanity which the union of its members would naturally foster will be an ability to do that which is required in order for every human to enjoy a significant standard of comfort and dignity, at every monent in every corner of our world.  Thus, no longer will infants die of starvation, while a prosperous nation next door, or across the sea, lives in luxury.  No more will the very government of that starving nation be constrained to ignore the pleas of its people, while expending and employing a large measure of its wealth and resources upon the production and acquisition of armies and armaments.

The populace of all corners of our world will be equally entitled to goods and services necessary for healthy and dignified existence; always coupled with opportunity to attain improvement via unlimited access to educational resources.  And there will, in fact, be a great deal more available for these purposes, by reason of the fact that major portions of our manpower and resources will no longer need to be squandered upon perpetual preparations for battle, varieties of defensive measures, and that vast myriad of additional related expenditures of wealth and talent--in multiple--by numerous countries, which our present system of national entities now necessitates.

It will no longer be necessary for certain people to suffer and starve; "imprisoned" within certain defined giographic areas which happen to be insufficient to meet their minimum requirements for healthy dignified lives--while, not very far away,vast expanses of lush verdant lands are devoted to perhaps nothing more essential than aesthetics.  No longer will critical services be withheld from persons in need thereof by reason of their post office address; or because they happen to live on the "other side" of a line drawn centuries ago by a surveyor, or the signers of a treaty.

                                                                  * * * * *

(Please leave a comment--or send an E-Mail to oneworld@tampabay.rr.com)

ONE WORLD

In these postings, I wish to respectfully propose a comprehensive change--though not by any means a revolution.  It is an alteration which can and should be accomplished with no violence or bloodshed.  Power shall not be snatched from anyone, nor suddenly attained by anyone.  My poroposal entails, in fact, neither a destruction nor a taking--but, rather, merely a conversion--of power; from the many governments ruling the present confusing, confused, bickering, disarrayed agglomeration which is today's world, to a unified model of super-efficiency and super-capability, which will effectively serve the needs of that for which government and its institutions exist: civilization, mankind, life, and the world. 

I refer to the movement which I herein advocate as "World Unity"; and the general state of affairs which will result from the steps which I will describe herein: "Universality."  Universality is defined in the English dictionary as "a quality of universal comprehensiveness and unrestricted versatility."  I have adopted theses terms as generic significations of that which I describe and call for.

I use the term "factionalism" to refer to the opposite of Universality--the "enemy," if you will.  Thus, for the purposes of what will appear herein, factionalism is the opposite of Universality; and is to be avoided and corrected, wherever it appears to  constitute danger to the peace and well-being of civilization and mankind.  Of course, I do not mean to be girdeed, trapped, or "locked in," by definitions (dictionary or otherwise) of any words or terms.  I simply resort to them, and set them forth herein, as "tools," or "handles," for the sake of convenience and clarity in these urgings, and that which will, hopefully, eventually follow.

I envision a great improvement in our world, if the simple steps which I propose herein be taken.  For, in removing factionalism from our daily lives and thought, we are not removing or destroying any person, place, or thing; rather, we are simply removing or omitting a harmful and unnecessary concept.  This removal or omission will result in the elimination of that which has all along been the basis--a needless and useless basis--for most of the conflicts which we have come to regard as normal, inevitable, and even necessary.  In discarding the concept of national autonomy as a sacred ideal for which lives and blood are to be spent, a nation shall not be thus yielding to another nation.  Rather, it shall be simply joining with its fellow nations, in a forward and upward progression; whereby a more worthwhile concept and more deserving entities (i.e., civilization, mankind, life, and the world) shall be beneficiary of our common efforts.

                                                                 * * * * *