Ewbank’s comments about Joseph Germaine Dufour
 
© 111007 by John R. Ewbank, Suite J-112, Newtown, PA 18940
 
I have seen website presentations of the writings of Germaine Dufour for several years. Because he has recognized the residual impact of a truly hellish treaty system [traditional international law] and the advocacy of eventually achieving some type of world federation, I have long provided casual support for such projects. The CIA and FBI probably noted that long ago I was one of the few individuals having a record of significant responsibilities in the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party who supported Germaine’s arrest warrant for GWB.

The extremely long presentation about the Northwest Passageway required several hours for me to read, but I persisted. It sounds almost as if it were an opinion of the Law of the Sea Tribunal after a request by the Arctic Council for a ruling.

I share the concept that any “ownership” concepts are somewhat arbitrary. Germaine tends to maximize the “commons” involving “availability for all to use”.  My emphasis is vigorously at the opposite end of the spectrum. For more than 50 years we lived in a cooperative community [www.bryngeled.org] in which the land was owned by a responsible corporation, but each homeowner had a lease clarifying what were the contractual obligations of a lessee. Such contractual relationships are quite different from the concept of a “commons”. Whatever is “everybody’s business” tends to become the business of nobody with troublesome exploitation by a few and tragic deterioration and abuse.

Although the treaty system glorifies the right of all “flagged” vessels to navigate the “commons” of the “high seas” my contention is that there should be responsible boards “owning” and managing every square meter of the earth, including all seas and oceans.

Humanity has a moral obligation to seek to restore “ocean biomass” to a plausible degree instead of contaminating and mining it as has been the pattern during recent centuries. Germaine tends to glorify non-violence, and sometimes approaches the “non-resistance” perspectives of selected denominations. I prefer to retain the right of “self-defense” both as to individuals and as to attacks involving militarism. Aspiring to abolish completely all individual violence is obviously unattainable so long as global population exceeds about 1000. Aspiring to abolish military hostilities is obviously unattainable as long as the global population exceeds about 10,000. In the future, humanity might cope with the abundance of problems that will arise when and if world population approaches whatever is a sustainable population. HRG stresses that any “population management” should be at a purely neighborhood level, with strong opposition to the curtailment of individual freedom that results when giant bureaucracies try to manipulate future populations.

Some peaceniks seek an abolition of all war, as seems to be the passion of Germaine. I am a world federalist aspiring to minimize military hostilities, but assuming that terrorists will rebel for decades after the last successful rebellion. My definition of militarism embraces gangs of bullies on a playground.

Germaine does not recognize that terrorism has been long defined as military activity violating one or more of the many treaties defining how civilized war should be conducted. None of the writings of Germaine have developed the disdain for the treaty system that was achieved by the satire in the movie in which the American General, as a prisoner of war, was insisting that he was entitled to a tin cup.

Through the centuries, most terrorism has been by sovereign nations.
 
For 70 years I have advocated fair competition among garden clubs and other service organization, and fair competition among gentle usurpation groups relying significantly upon donations because of their lacking the desire [and/or clout] to impose the thievery of taxation. The Global Community might have been able successfully to enforce its arrest of GWB if it had had a trillion dollars of donations. Similarly, Home Rule Globally [HRG] might have had more impact if it had stimulated even $10,000,000 of donations. HRG and the World Community will be competing for donations during future years. Democrats, liberals, enthusiasts for an abundance of regulation by remote governments are likely to donate to the Global Community and its treatment of world federalist competitors as nuisances to be destroyed or ignored. Home Rule Globally will encourage those who share the aspirations of the Global Community to donate to it, and to also donate to the “fair competition advocacy” of HRG. HRG plans to post this essay at its site, and Global Community has had the donations permitting it to promise to post bona fide responses to its extremely long essay.