Very pleased to receive your note Professor Chomsky.

Wouldn't the Third world free itself if it could? Wouldn't any prisoner free themselves?

The answer I am seeking in the First world is love, is empowerment, is giving. Simply that. I believe strongly that our human instinct for goodness, for survival and for love is much stronger than the political structures we have created. Even though the process of "electing" representative governments allows each of us the freedoms to follow whatever individual path we have taken, while the elected ones make the critical social/political decisions of our time, we are, as you have noted, increasingly desperate, disenchanted with the state of human affairs.

Either, Osama Bin Laden, if indeed he is culpable, is insane or angry. I argue for anger. While non-state sanctioned terrorism is condemned by the legitimate social institutions of our day how can we ignore the overwhelming evidence that some things we humans are doing are costing others greatly. The anger which motivated 9-11 was not accidental but evidence of a larger dis-ease. The rich world needs to ask what we are doing to cause such anger.

I have watched with considerable interest the beautiful and tragic struggle of the world's first peoples in their efforts to overcome the impacts of imperialism and expansionism, not to mention the violent ideological competition in recent human history. I have long argued that we have all been robbed of our aboriginal heritage. Imagine how the world might have been if in fact the European colonizers had rather syncretized the cultural influences they encountered in the societies they discovered, as the indigenous peoples around the world tried to do when they crossed paths with the Europeans. Absent any romantic notion of the noble savage, I argue simply a present human instinct for the best of all possible approaches. Syncretism indicates an optimism, an instinct for goodness if I may.

I know too well the depths of despair in the modern democratic spirit. It has been stunted as you illuminate. America has failed in its promise to the world 200 years ago. American democracy is failing as is Canada's. The true strength of democracy must rest in confidence that human beings have in the democratic systems that serve them.

The evolution of democracy is not complete, so then the dissatisfaction we feel is evolutionarily necessary. We are discovering that the process is not complete, that we give over far too much once we have conducted a democratic election.

We realize the growing chasm between what we instinctually understand to be necessary steps humanity must take and the, arguably, opposite direction we are heading with corporate, economic interests leading our societies.

I believe Professor Chomsky that instinctually we must be displeased with our electoral processes. The displeasure will drive us sooner or later towards the essential tools we need to further human social evolution. I argue for sooner rather than later.

I imagine Homo Habilis having held the stone in her hand for considerable time while just what to do with it came upon her over time. Necessity being the parent it is. The tools are laying on the savannah before us, democracy and digital technologies combined will push human socio-political evolution, as far as I am able to determine from where I am perched.

Recently, there was a petition on the issue of forgiving Third world debt. 25 millions responded. I argue for a much more formal vote. I am not in a position to articulte what question is best to ask of humanity in the referendum I propose; however, it may be again on forgiving debt.

I imagine Sir, a moment, a challenge being issued by as many Nobel Laureates, academics, influencial human beings as one may assemble. Let us call a vote, finally, an accounting. After too many generations of poverty and hunger, after too many generations of ineffectual competing national approaches to these humanitarian concerns, human society has elvolved through its displeasure to the point where change is inevitable.

We either take the necessary decisions and make the obvious steps forward or we will be selected out.

We in the First world simply need to recognize that true democractic power still rests with the individual and that the tools are now available to exercise that power. We have the resources in terms of technologies and captital, we have an instinct for survival, I hope. Goodness help us if the opposite is the case.

Kelly James Maroney

Letter to the editor Washington Post

July 20, 2003

An Argument in Favour of Global Democracy

The evolution of democracy must be towards an individual, democratic, global access for each human being in the decision making process on species-level matters.

Imagine the list of questions that should be answered globally, democratically, beginning with the Third World, Climate Change, Human Rights, and ending where? Nationalized democracy is still relevant; however, considering the state of our world, global issues must be best decided within the context of a global democracy.

No single democracy with a large share of power can be sufficient in determining species-level matters. For that matter, neither can any possible combination of national states be left to decide issues that affect humans as a species. Democracy need not exist only at the national level. On available evidence, nationally limited democracy seems non- functional on matters affecting we humans as a species.

To argue in favour of democracy with national limits is counter-evolutionary. The course of the evolution of democracy cannot be contained within the political boundaries historically drawn or within those boundaries presently being drawn or redrawn.

If democracy works it works for humans as a species. Democracy may finally be measured on matters of critical importance to our species. Modern human tools facilitate the evolution of our species, as did the archaic humans’ tools in their time.

A combination of digital technology as a tool and democracy as a tool makes possible now the growth of global democracy on matters affecting we as a species. The first referendum must be on the Third World.

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:20 AM Subject: Re:. A proposal from a Canadian teacher - very brief -

Kelly,

.Personally I hope you succeed. I am also involved with a campaign started by Action for UN Renewal called the Arms Reduction Coalition (ARC). See brief details below. We could also have an ARC vote. I will support the motion because I have been told that some 30% of the debt was to buy arms (scrap metal which the poor peoples will have to make sacrifices to pay back over then next 20 years).
Good luck.
Regards ... Karl

28 July 2003

My feeling is that we would support it, with two reservations.

1. Referendums are dangerous. This one is OK but other groups with a lot of money could generate support for a war, for example.
2. Cancelling the debt alone would not be nearly enough. Apart from the difficulty in actually cancelling it, do you cancel debt owed by private businesses, but the lack of fair trade means that they cannot export and cannot keep out imports subsidised by America and Europe. The EU has just confirmed the CAP which gives enormous subsidies to farmers who then export the goods to the third world.
Jim Addington