Home Rule Globally
 
Home   Scuttle the Politicians   Mission   Message from the Founders   About Us   Join Us   Contact Us   News and Events   Photo Gallery   Donate Now   Discussion and Opinion   GRP  
 
 
Home
Scuttle the Politicians
Aspirations of HRG
Galakzial Declaration
Contest (CAWF)
De-fanging the UN
Fighting terrorism
Gentle Voluntarism
Federalists react
Launching Federation
Mission
Self-liberation
Servant Leadership
Joint sponsorship
Twillinger's Voyage
Volunteers
World Federalists
World Restitution Court
History of the WGM
About Us
Neighborhood
Terrorist Attacks
Announcement
Allocating authority
GLOBE-LIB
Clout
BOOK
Global Constitutions
Acting for Humanity
Group Violence
Privacy
Challenging Aspirations
Ocean Biomass Institute
Ologopolic domination
REPORT
Joseph Germaine
LIBERATING CENTURY
IN PRISON YET FREE
Discussion and Opinion
GRP
 
Fighting Terrorism
Advertising a book for a "generalist audience" is extremely different from adverting one for a "book-buyers market which is the interest of most book publishers. I need a "title" that can prompt the curiosity of a wide segment of society, comprising a few scholars and many grass roots generalists for whom some of the concepts might be difficult. I contend: [a] governing individuals, as distinguished from international law attempts to coerce nations as nations, is essential for dealing with terrorism; [b] the hazards of terrorism are perennial, because the greater the "military vacuum" the greater the temptation of some wealthy terrorist seeking militarily to conquer the world will continue for many centuries and millennia; [x]although military hostilities can be "minimized" there is trivial hope of truly "prohibiting" and completely abolishing war and military hostilities; [?] mutual assured deterrence is the one effective route for minimizing military hostilities, and[?] when it was initiated the "balance of power" concepts of sovereign nations managing internal affairs, but being entitle to comply with the treaty=based" rules of warfare" was an appropriate and effective way of truly minimizing military hostility. Any criticism of the treaty system international law, etc. should be based, not upon the lack of appropriateness for some earlier years, but the inappropriateness based upon changes of technology. With the availability of biological nuclear, and/or other modern weapons, the importance of minimizing military hostilities has extremely great priority than during any time in the 20the century. Some of the most potent weapons of the 21st century may not be disclosed to those lacking an adequate "need to know" for possibly fifty years. The great need is to launch, as soon as it can be agreed upon by the pertinent establishments, a supra-national federation adequately empowered to minimize military hostilities. One of the plausible methods might involve maintaining fair competition among an adequate number of monetary services offered by an adequate number of fairly competing non-governmental entities, plus a similar, completely independent network of non-governmental entities offering military services. Governments at all levels could purchase "rebellion deterrence" services on an "insurance contract" basis, much the way that in the USA at an earlier period, individuals bought fire insurance from fire insurance companies that maintained fire fighting services. The competing fire insurance companies had logos, and the fire fighters would protect a property if it had the correct log. That type of fair competition worked well for a while, but needs experimenting with on a global basis as regards both monetarism and militarism. If nations could be "de-fanged" so that no nation or other large governance entity [including all corporations, profit or nonprofit] were appropriately "de-fanged" and so that each governance entity [treating chambers of commerce, labor unions, churches, country clubs, lodges, cults, etc. as regulate able as "governments having jurisdiction over all entities within a zone" the much traditional international law could have value for many future decades, . HRG seeks a "supplemental" federation as among the potentialities, but is open minded enough to be stressing primarily the standard of "ratifiability" rather than any of the details. Illustrative examples of scores of types of "libertarian" federations" stressing "restitution" as a deterrence more effective than "threats of criminal punishment" ultimately has impact only to the extent that it impact "ratifiability" a still vaguer concept. There have long been advocates for a "united world" that might substantially abolish "traditional international law" Much of the federalist literature is of this type. To the extent that a nationalist is aspiring to retain or strengthen "internal sovereignty". HRG encourages such aspirations. What a federation needs to restrain are various aspects of "external" sovereignty, not merely of nations, but all "supra-neighborhood" entities such as churches. Dome political scientists have glorified various doctrines other than "manageability", but HRG focuses most attention \upon seeking "meritocracy management" which is sure to vary significantly from area to area and generation to generation, etc. One of the goals of HRG is to encourage all humans to welcome collaboration and teamwork with Extra-Terrestrials, and to essentially assume that friendly ETs have long been observing humans to see whether their free choice would be the stampede toward suicide of the species, as apparently has occurred on some planets, or an "open mindedness" permitting teamwork within a Galactic Federation, which can be presumed to have been functioning for centuries. Galactic law must necessarily have most of the features of traditional international law, with treaties, analogous to the Briand Kellog Treaty, for minimizing the potentialities for military aggression, while acknowledging the appropriately of sufficient military clout to deter violent rebellion against any established government. Many federalist writers were mistaken in damning "traditional international law" when much evidence is available to indicate that it will be an almost perennial necessity in minimizing military hostilities within a galaxy. That is why science fiction has been so much better than political science textbooks in evaluating the legal relationships of the future. The HRG to many issues is to focus on the importance of entities seeking self-liberation while cherishing and utilizing the currently appropriate traditions, but explicitly shedding those traditions that no longer contribute to the per capita happiness of humanity. The title for the book I write might be "Charging a Globalize Military-Industrial Complex" because I envision a necessity for fair competition among an adequate number of munitions makers to assure that the non-governmental tiny Rebellion Deterrence Corp are not :obsolete" to whatever innovations a terrorist group might think would help them to exploit what they might interpret as a "military vacuum". Because most "peaceniks" glorify Eisenhower's attacks upon the Yankee "military-industrial complexā€¯. The world has much changed in the 45 years since he made his Farewell Address in 1951, and HRG lacks the utopian vision of "complete abolitionā€¯ of military hostilities" implied in such damnation of the Yankee military-industrial complex" which is certainly far more menacing than it was 45 years ago. Ike was not sufficiently explicit about the criticality of governing individuals and goofed by connoting the potentially of essentially abolishing warfare, as was the tradition of the Church of the Brethren in which he was raised. Some individuals can maintain their individual integrity while having as their vocation something relatively reprehensible such as being a paid assassin. Because I do not think that either paid assassins nor those who finance them will ever be extinct, my "management" perspective is to increase the "meritocracy management" approaches likely to "minimize" rather than "abolish" paid assassins. When you are in Rabat, my hope is that you will not try to minimize terrorism purely on the basis of a traditional rule such as "Thaou shalt not kill" but on the basis that terrorism, because it uses violence instead of nonviolence, and because it seems "dominating " leadership instead of "teamwork" management, is sure to stimulate such a large amount of defiance as to be substantially useless. Group non-violence has potential power. One of the early Defense ministers of Lithuania "self-liberated" its culture so effectively that it survived many years of military domination by the USSR [ trained its citizenry for nonviolence as the best :defense: against the overwhelming clout of the nearby USSR military collapses. This example is rarely cited by lawyers specializing in international law, because it was clearly "outside" the treaty system and an issue of effectiveness of "self-protection" by nonviolent, as distinguished from "violent" methods. My hope is that someday, Ewbank will have an opportunity to talk to some group of international law experts alerting them that traditional international law has probably been functioning well within the galactic federation, and still has tremendous potential usefulness in the management of humanity on earth, but that whatever federalization can be "ratifiable" should be welcomed by all international law experts. In view of what weapons have been developed, it is significantly miraculous that humanity has survived into the 21st century, and much of the credit for such survival should be credited to the experts on international law. Technology has now so evolved that within merely international law, no hope for survival exists. However, a supplemental federation, such as might be ratifiable, is much more desirable than an excessively powerful centralized United World.

Important websites
http://www.paulbhartzog.org
http://www.greenleaf.org

http://www.cdwg.org

http://www.carolmoore.net

Total Number of Visitor
34398

 
 

Copyright © 2007 Home Rule Globally. All rights reserved.