Re: human rights and national sovereignty/ is an oxymoron

>
>Bagelhole1@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I just jumped in here by chance, but how sad, to encounter such a hopelessly,
>> uninformed and naive statement. All governments corrupt. If they are not
>> corrupt now ( which they all are), they will be. You know, "Absolute power
>> corrupts absolutely". So, if you want a quick route to world totalitarianism
>> set up a "World gov't.". No, there is only one real solution, IMHO, the
>> opposite of what exists today, 180 degrees. That means the end to all
>> sovereign entities. Sovereignty is what should not be tolerated, much less be
>> promoted.
>> 
>> Sovereign entities are responsible for war, humger, and torture. Yet you
>> tolerate them and accept them, take them for granted just like the air you
>> breathe. What is the bridge from here to there (violence to justice)? Laying
>> the groundwork for self-sustaining, mutually co-operative, non-sovereign,
>> consensus-based, small communities is the proactive, grass-roots way, which
>> the progressive community hasn't figured out yet. Because idiocy rules in
>> every group and throughout the world. That is why I expect this to be largely
>> ignored. But every once in a while, the swine are fed pearls.
>   
>Pat Gunning writes: 
>
>Tom, have you considered federalism? This is a world government in which
>the world police force and perhaps military, restricted by a world
>constitutional court and public sentiment, assures basic rights such as
>freedom of speech, press, exchange, ownership of legitimately-acquired
>property against confiscation by member states, and migration. The
>federated states retain the right to tax and spend so long as they abide
>by democratic principles and uphold the basic rights.
>
>-- 
>Pat Gunning, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
>Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises,
>Austrian Economics, and my University Classes
>http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm
>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm
>

     
        Ah, a rose by any other name. Two points:  One, this still fails to
address Tom's point about the institutionalization of such an entity as a
world government, regardless of its 'formal procedures.' [as you suggest,
above, 'federalism' would be immune from Tom's critique.] Certainly people
realize that it is informal political organizations that generally run
'formal well-balanced governmental systems' instead of the
albeitly-instituted checks and balances providing some measure of
'impartial' control. Look at NATO and the United States. Look at the "United
Nations," which has a veto board of 'more representative' 'equals'   Look at
the formal structure of the ex-USSR and the role of the Communist Party in
it, particularly the Politburo? Besides, impartial control is selectively
wielded. The United States has plenty of federalist checks and balances.
Still, these formalistic procedures are of little use--outside the symbolic
value of legitimation of informal power relations in the formal
structure--if the people who populate the positions fail to act. Case
example: certainly, without a formal declaration of war in the United States
Congress, it is illegal for the military to act in any fashion outside the
borders of the United States. Formal procedures are so many changeable hats
worn by informal power relations, as they dress for the occasions in the
white suit of their choice. 
        Point two, well, someone ought to theoretically explain why the
formal structure that so many people are willing to put their faith in has
failed to marionette informal power relationships as it is ascribed to
perform this function It seems to be other other way around, informal
structures of power marionetting formal structures of power, and certain
informal structures of power getting set up by the 'checks' of formal
structures.
     
        One point I would like to make on my lines of thought on this issue
of 'representative' governmental bodies, is to what extent one is able to
integrate BOTH informal and formal processes of power into one's model,
meaning the informal networks that one preferences with certain formal
structures should be taken into consideration.
        Honestly,  I am at a loss of what to actually say to C. Chase-Dunn
and W. Wagar--that their critical interests in world systems could come with
what seems to me to have rather less critical analysis of their own faith in
formal organizational balances; at least, as I suggest above, formal
organizational balances that fail to take into account informal power
relations within state structures.
        On a concluding and more optimistic note, I would leave open the
possibility that formal structures can be designed effectively, if only they
are able to comprehend and balance out (by preferencing) different forms of
informal power that the state structure calls into being, sort of utilizing
the government structure as a kit for preferencing various informal
relationships in society in counteropposition that the state structure calls
into being and organizes. I am considering work of state/social movement
theorists Kiresi et al., as well as some of my own work on city/county
mobilizations for structural change (unpublished) and other areas of
political sociology.


Regards,


Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
..