Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!vlsvax1!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Experimentation and Danger
Message-ID: <28200377@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Dec-85 03:11:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200377
Posted: Sun Dec  8 03:11:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 06:27:15 EST
References: <816@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-81600:inmet:28200377:000:1172
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Dec  8 03:11:00 1985


/* Written  5:29 am  Nov 22, 1985 by franka@mmintl in inmet:net.politics.t */

>[discussion of "mean time to nuke war" in multinational vs world
> government situations]
>
>If small governments are so much better, why are the best governments in
>the world all of relatively large countries?  (Of course, the worst
>governments in the world are also all of relatively large countries.
>But that doesn't answer the question.)

I'm not sure it has an answer.  I rather prefer small governments
because you can move away from them relatively easily, and they 
can't command the degree of unwieldiness that large ones can.

I think your notion that a nuclear war is more probable under  one
large government than a small one has some justification,  but only
if world government turned out to be a very well-done thing indeed.

If it were any kind of democracy, and didn't overrule the "right" of
local rulers to count the ballots, we'd better get ready for 
Chinese in the schools.  I point this out not to poke fun at your
ideas, but to remind everyone that details of the organization of 
such a government would be CRUCIAL in determining its stability and
its character.