SOME SUGGESTIONS REGARDING A PROPOSED WORLD GOVERNMENT (cont.)

As time goes on, we are all becoming increasingly aware of the fact that mankind's interests and activities are more and more global in character and/or impact.  It has consequently been suggested that this requires the institution of systems of global governance, somewhat as are herein proposed.

However, it is easy to foresee that the idea of a global government would not sit well with the people who constitute our current governing bodies, which rule over today's  variety of nation-states.  It is also likely that the average ordinary citizen, while possibly dissatisfied and fearful as regards mankind's present state of affairs, and able to recognize in theory how a single world government could solve a great many of these problems, would nevertheless be equally afraid to endorse or witness so drastic a change in that which custom has caused to become accepted as an invariable status quo.

But I do believe there is hope nonetheless.

Society and government have both evolved, and continue to evolve, in a direction toward ever-increasing freedom for the individual.  This evolution has resulted in progressive reduction in the supervisory role of the political bodies under which we live.  It has caused a gradual abatement, from near-absolute direction of citizens' lives, to mere attempts at maintenance of justice and efficient functioning within the nation.  Add as an ingredient the fact that we currently live in a twenty-first century world containing many specific present and impending crises; and there is yet hope for change to take place.

Two commonly known principles of political science and human behavior, borne out as well by numerous illustrations from history, consist of the facts that catastrophe reduces support for the establishment; and that a common threat is often the catalyst for union. 

Regarding the first of these, it is unfortunately all too possible that something might come to pass in the not too distant future that can neither be stopped nor controlled by one or more of our existing national governments.  The second of the aforesaid principles tells us that the materialization of a common enemy who is a threat to many and seems frighteningly powerful to all may serve to prompt the threatened parts to unite in order to confront and overcome it.

It is possible that something of this nature will be the wake-up call that convinces many of us that our seperation into a melange of hostile camps is of benefit to none of us; and that we must instead somehow "join together," to seek and pursue direction that will be protective of, and beneficial to, everyone, as a single worldwide society.  Hopefully such a coming event would be recognized and thus dealt with, by a finally united world, early enough beforehand to prevent the tragedy that might have otherwise come to pass.

                                                             * * * * *

Meanwhile, and hopefully in lieu of needing to await the coming of some major crisis or catastrophe, it is obviously my intent to convince people of the advantages of what I have been proposing.  I do not seek nor wish for any sort of revolution or uprising.  Rather, it is hoped that, eventually, enough people will be ready and willing to make an informed and voluntary decision to pursue change.

                                                             * * * * *

It is commonly known today that a major challenge to the founders of the European Union has been similar to a challenge that faced the United States' "founding fathers," namely, devising a method for larger and smaller countries, or states, to share power.  This, however, is the very reason behind my characterizing a "union"of separate individual nations (or states) as having little advantage over their prior situation as mere uncomnnected nations.  It is my belief that only a total joinder of all nations into a single worldwide entity will accomplish beneficial results.

For the people of Nation "A" to desereve "more to say"--and possible consequent "better treatment"--than the people of Nation "B," merely because Nation "A" happens to contain a larger  population; or more land area, or wealth, or resources, than Nation "B," is illogical.  But under an arrangement whereby all people are members of a single entity, all would be entitled to equal consideration, and, consequently, equal treatment.

                                                          * * * * *