Ken Gettys

Semi-retired, Volunteer computer instructor at local Senior Center

This conversation is closed.

Is World Peace Possible Thru World Law?

“We, the People of Earth, desire a world without war, hunger, and slavery; with adequate shelter, clean air, and drinking water for everyone! These are basic human rights, along with open access to the Internet that we demand of ourselves and our governments.” --- Ken Gettys, Hoh River, Washington, August 11, 2012

World Peace Through World Law was a book by Louis B. Sohn and Grenville Clark, first published in 1958, proposing a Revised United Nations Charter. Among other suggestions, they proposed:
•Allocating votes in the UN General Assembly based on member nations' populations;
•Replacing the UN Security Council with an Executive Council with China, India, USSR, and the US as permanent members, and no veto power; and
•Making a World Police Force the only military force permitted in the world.

Today we need to rethink the structure of government(s) on Earth and create a sustainable and secure worldwide civilization! There are people who will respond to any proposal of change with remarks that any world government could be taken over by a few people who would exploit the rest of the people of Earth for their own greed and profit. It is this fear that has prevented the human race from achieving the great and enduring civilization that it could achieve.

If we would only consider that it is only by making agreements (and enforceable laws) between people that we are able to survive at all. Otherwise we would still be living in caves and constantly fighting the other people around us just to survive. We are smart enough to create a better world for everyone!

Sign the petition at:
and help make a better world for everyone happen!

  • thumb
    Aug 22 2012: Law doesn't create shelter, drinking water, and food... Labor does. It's about time we start respecting that a bit more. What happens when law requires that shelter, water, and food, be granted to all citizens? Does law require certain citizens to farm, dig trenches, and build homes? Which ones? By force? By law? Isn't that called slavery?
  • Aug 22 2012: World Peace starts by respecting others.
    By holding the door for someone else. Lend a helping hand to others
  • Aug 30 2012: World Peace is a mental construct created by idealists and used for getting pretty girls to win stupid pageants. It will never happen. World Law is a continuation of the same construct. By definition law needs enforcement so how do you plan on enforcing world law thru world love? Does anyone believe in true evil anymore? Wake up and smell the napalm.
  • thumb
    Aug 27 2012: Only totalitarianism is possible through world law and totalitarianism rarely leads to peace and is more likely to lead to tyranny on the worst order.
    • thumb
      Aug 27 2012: I do not agree with the assumption that a world government could only be a Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. [See: ].

      The role of a world government could be limited to just preventing wars between nations (allowing nations to maintain standing armies that would not be allowed to pass beyond their national borders). This model is much like the states within the United States Of America where states are allowed to bear arms but not war against other states.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: Ken, Have you read much on George Serios. He is a big fand and super supporter of one world order with him as the head. He is the leading contributor and most frequent visitor to the White House.

    His method is to gain control through economics. He has accomplished this in smaller countries.

    His desire is to be a world ruler under one world order.

    The reason I present this is to demonstrate that absolute power in the hands of a few is extremely dangerous. By most definations his actions would be obsessive and boarder on mentally ill. However, he continues to have the ear of the US President. Money and position have no relationship to the creation of a better world for everyone. These are men of giant egos and agendas.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: Hi Elizabeth,

    Thank you for your input(s). Rather than refuting all the negative comments given in response by you and others to the proposed “United People of Earth” movement, I will continue to identify and act as a human being first (rather than as a citizen of any particular country) and work towards making the world a better place for everyone. Winston Churchill, said, "The pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty!". And I will continue to be optimistic that the human race can work together to solve problems and not continue to repeat the historical failures of the past. Repeat… We do not have to do the same things that have been done in the past!

    To the goal of forming the 15 person volunteer task force (that I mentioned in a previous reply to this debate and the reason why I got up this morning a few hours early) was to write job descriptions for these positions. If it were up to me (and it is not… this is up to the majority of people who will vote for these people who may become the founding leaders of the “United People of Earth” government), I would want optimistic, problem solving type of people who could lead the earth towards a better tomorrow. Perhaps a social scientist, a doctor, a historian, a political scientist, an environmental scientist, a Unitarian/Universalist Minister, a Peace Core worker, a military strategist, and seven other types of people from various parts of the world could work together to define the “United People of Earth” government.
    Now I am off to work better define the types of people and on the job descriptions.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: P.S. Not a cynic, do have lots of ideas about all the good things peple should have. Yes to all the things Ken has listed but No to how he proposes getting them because there are too many other cultures out there, who can contribute such richness but U.S.A. might not realise the value of them now because of their own lore. Jusitice is blind and looks for balance yes but whose set of scales do you want to use. Am a passionate environmentalist and do not want to be living in a pyramid with a flooded basement. Look to the increasing desertification of inland U.S.A. and drought conditions, look at the flooding in India. We must make sure everyone has enough nutritious food and fresh water to drink. There is a massive problem with the global weather systems, not global warming but world system meltdown and it is due to the acitivities of humans. Do some home housekeeping before gossiping with the neighbours about other people. Get a social security network in place, restore your own land and people, don't cherry pick other people's solutions, build on what is already known but remember the planet is a finite resource. We might colonise Mars eventually but what about Earth.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: Ken I have looked at your argument and your profile. As an N.Z./U.K. citizen I am very scared. Your imagery abd triumphalism have been heard within the last 80 years, let alone throughout history. Pyramid structures of any description ultimately do not work. In Ancient Eygpt, the majority were slaves (not just the Jews). The Carian people literally cut their foreheads with knives not just to say they were not Eygptians but also to say they were not slaves either. (see Herodotus, Ancient Greek scholar 5th century BC). Ultimately it took a combination of small events that escalated to destroy Ancient Eygpt. The bit that involved people could be seen as a metaphor about the dangers of a lack of genetic diversity. All the first born children died and then the rest of the young fit men were drowned. Science can only trace DNA and human evolution through maternal DNA. As men age they pass on more and more genetic defects to their children. Women may be stronger but they soak up all the environmental toxicity, literally dying young where resources are scarce. BRCA1 is a genetic difference that helps ensure babies in times of long term famine. Any highly stratified society gives immediate short term benefits but in the long run is poisonous for the majority. Look at the political allegories of George Orwell and tell me differently. Look at what North Korea is doing to try and appease U.S.A., To Korea and the rest of the world, sing Pokarekare Ana, like the troops sang to the children during the Korean war. Convince me your party will not end up in the majority living like animals, in fear of denouncement by their own neighbours. Gon on, tell me it won't be so and I do not want to hear you are a party of love and truth. Pictures without dialogue can be misinterpreted or forged, a hive society does not work. We are not bees we are people.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: Hello Everyone and a thank you very, very much to those who have added their comments and opinions!

    I did not cite the wisdom that was in the 1958 “World Peace Thru World Law” book by Sohn and Clark as that offered a number of reasons for world law and would answer some of the objections raised in this Ted Talks debate.

    I did move forward to a “call to action” and that was to encourage you to sign a petition because if enough people sign the petition it will show that we do have the courage to move beyond our current national, religious, and mental boundaries towards making the world a better place for everyone. Also if enough people sign the petition eventually it will hit the main stream media and the word will get out to everyone in the world!

    In the mean time, we also need to find a 15 member task force of very savvy and intelligent people, from around the world, from various scientific, social, and religious disciplines, who can gather (via the Internet) to define and propose a way to a better world. Then thru the power of the Internet, we can vote to approve their proposed set of World Laws, setup this world government, elect a group of leaders (maybe some from the startup group), and perhaps call our new world government: “The United People of Earth”. And this method does not require the approval of existing governments, organizations (e.g. the UN), or religious leaders (so don’t wait for them)! It is up to you and the people of Earth to make it happen!

    To get this work group started, you may email me before the end of this debate on September 21, 2012::

    with your nominations of individuals, along with their qualifications, affiliations, and interest in working for the people of Earth!
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2012: Even if all the countries of the world united as one and with one world government, there would NEVER be world peace because of "religion" so long as there are so many religions there cannot and will not be peace.
  • thumb
    Aug 23 2012: Think about giving a million dollars to someone who can not manage a hundred thousand dollars with wisdom.

    Now, think about asking someone who can not even walk gracefully on a lush green grass to climb mount Everest on crutches.

    It is not the inadequacy of laws that hinders world peace. It is the fact that humans will always have excuses for breaking the law if there is a selfish agenda that is hindered by such; or if the demands of the laws become inconvinient.
  • thumb
    Aug 22 2012: I really believe that the entire Canadian populaton minus a few dissenters would be on board. Our favourite Prime Minister is considered one of the greatest Canadians of all time for winning the Nobel prize for coming up with the idea of Peace Keeping. A Canadian basically wrote the UN Human rights Charter (yes. I know about your lovely Elinor) and we like the concept of a peaceful world. We just have to get those neighbours of ours on board. It is a BIG job.
  • thumb
    Aug 22 2012: The law doesn't make the people, the people make the laws.

    World peace starts with people having good relationships with everyone else. Law should only help guide that common cause and nothing more.
  • Aug 22 2012: After sufficient centuries, I think a world government and world peace are very likely.

    First, we will have a world of abundance. When there is no longer material need, few will have the motivation to fight. Then we will have world peace. The world government will be the instrument for standardizing laws that are not used very often.

    World peace THRU world law seems unlikely. We can't get Russia and China to agree about the lawless Syrian regime.
  • thumb
    Aug 22 2012: What percentage of "wars" are currently being fought within a region governed by one entity. World law or world government would just mean the next world war would be a civil war between two groups of Terrestrials.
  • thumb
    Aug 22 2012: No. It is not a zero probability but it is exceedingly improbable. You mention the common response to One World Government; ". . . any world government could be taken over by a few people who would exploit the rest of the people of Earth for their own greed and profit. " You do not however offer an argument against that majority opinion. What is the fallacy with it?