tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/19/85)
All the countries of the UN have already agreed to human rights accords equivalent to your restrictions imposed by the meta-government, Cliff. Most of them just ignore them because there is no enforcement power. How do you suggest the meta-government enforce its rules? (If it doesn't, it is no different from today.) -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/21/85)
> All the countries of the UN have already agreed to human rights accords > equivalent to your restrictions imposed by the meta-government, Cliff. Most > of them just ignore them because there is no enforcement power. How do you > suggest the meta-government enforce its rules? (If it doesn't, it is no > different from today.) I know surprisingly little about the UN, could you please reproduce some text and the name of the appropriate document that supports your claim. To refresh memories, here is my meta government desire: >>> National governments may not kill their citizens and >>> People may emmigrate at anytime assuming another National >>> Government is willing to accept them (this includes incarcerated >>> criminals). Remember, killing citizens includes death penalties. Emmigration at any time includes convicted criminals. Enforcement? Just let a country get its act together and smoke the remaining countries with a sufficiently higher standard of living, lower crime rate, non-troublesome unemployment, etc. The difference will be so dramatic that all the non-citizens will have quite a bit of incentive to join the coalition. "We will bury them :-)" --Cliff
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/27/85)
In article <690@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: >> All the countries of the UN have already agreed to human rights accords >> equivalent to your restrictions imposed by the meta-government, Cliff. Most >> of them just ignore them because there is no enforcement power. How do you >> suggest the meta-government enforce its rules? (If it doesn't, it is no >> different from today.) > >I know surprisingly little about the UN, could you please reproduce some text >and the name of the appropriate document that supports your claim. To refresh >memories, here is my meta government desire: > >>>> National governments may not kill their citizens and >>>> People may emmigrate at anytime assuming another National >>>> Government is willing to accept them (this includes incarcerated >>>> criminals). > >Remember, killing citizens includes death penalties. >Emmigration at any time includes convicted criminals. > >Enforcement? Just let a country get its act together >and smoke the remaining countries with a sufficiently >higher standard of living, lower crime rate, non-troublesome >unemployment, etc. The difference will be so dramatic >that all the non-citizens will have quite a bit of incentive >to join the coalition. "We will bury them :-)" > > --Cliff This is not sufficient answer. If a country is willing to ignore the accords and implement a death penalty then it can use it to prevent emmigration! Where then is the accrd? This is essentially what some countries are doing now, and it seems to be very effective, especially in combination with misleading or false reports about the more pleasant countries. I am sorry, but without enforcement a sufficiently egotistical leadership could easily abrogate the whole concept! And I have grave doubts about emmigration of criminals. Many of these people are highly anti-social and could not live peacably anywhere. Or do you think the Atlanta Child Murderer can really be trusted not to do it again if only he were allowed to emmigrate? Such people *must* be locked up or killed, for the safety of everyone else. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (03/03/85)
> And I have grave doubts about emmigration of criminals. > Many of these people are highly anti-social and could not live > peacably anywhere. Or do you think the Atlanta Child Murderer > can really be trusted not to do it again if only he were allowed > to emmigrate? Such people *must* be locked up or killed, for the > safety of everyone else. You seem to forget, or ignore, that the emmigration is allowed only if the receiving sub-meta-country accepts the criminal. If a country wants to accept a mass-murder, that is up to the country to decide...personally I don't see why any country would do such a thing. However, if a country wants to accept all the criminals who were caught in violation of an anti- drug law, then the accepting country has much to profit by this move. Essentially, the emmigration law would provide for an international law, where truely serious crimes would be internationally illegal, yet the law wouldn't be dictated by the richest countries. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > > {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen > or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen --Cliff
jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/05/85)
> You seem to forget, or ignore, that the emmigration is allowed only if > the receiving sub-meta-country accepts the criminal. If a country wants > to accept a mass-murder, that is up to the country to decide...personally > I don't see why any country would do such a thing. What do you do with the criminal that NO country accepts? Libertaria would be stuck with him since they don't pay taxes to support prison systems and the Meta-government wont let you kill him. > However, if a country > wants to accept all the criminals who were caught in violation of an anti- > drug law, then the accepting country has much to profit by this move. Profit? In what way? Elaborate please. J. Giles
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/13/85)
In article <715@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: > >You seem to forget, or ignore, that the emmigration is allowed only if >the receiving sub-meta-country accepts the criminal. If a country wants >to accept a mass-murder, that is up to the country to decide...personally >I don't see why any country would do such a thing. However, if a country >wants to accept all the criminals who were caught in violation of an anti- >drug law, then the accepting country has much to profit by this move. > >Essentially, the emmigration law would provide for an international law, where >truely serious crimes would be internationally illegal, yet the law wouldn't >be dictated by the richest countries. > You missed my point, what do you do with those people who are *not* accepted for immigration, and who *refuse*, or are unable to pay for their upkeep? There will be many of these, and there are only three alternatives: 1) let them go free, 2) lock them up (either in an asylum or in jail), or 3) kill them. The first is undesirable since it releases people *no other* country will take back into your own society. The second costs money, where are you going to get it? and it may be percieved as an attempt at coercion, tho I see it mainly as a way of excluding violent people from society. The third most definately constitutes coercion. Thus some form of coercion seems *inevitable*, and may in fact be *far* better than the alternatives. Or can you see another alternative for the incorrigable. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (03/17/85)
> You seem to forget, or ignore, that the emmigration is allowed only if > the receiving sub-meta-country accepts the criminal. If a country wants > to accept a mass-murder, that is up to the country to decide...personally > I don't see why any country would do such a thing. I can think of some very good reasons why some countries might want to accept mass murderers -- countries like Libya and Syria that make a business of international terrorism would probably love to get their hands on notorious and skillful criminals so that they can send them right back to their origonal countries to cause trouble. Even if they were caught again, what could we do but send them right back to their sponsor countries, so that they could get re-equipped and shipped back again? If this became the case, I think we would see a lot of "accidental" killings of criminals by police agencies, to prevent them from gaining asylum in countries which had more friendly attitudes towards terrorists. Probably then the thing to do would be to have the international police force investigate such occurrences, but for this to be effective such a police force would have to become much too large to be considered just a "meta-governent". In fact, I doubt that any such meta-government could be effective at all unless it had the degree of control over its member nations as the federal government has over the states, for instance. Wayne