WORLD INTELLOCRACY GOVERNMENT 
            by David S. Lawyer, Nov 1993
	         ***ROUGH DRAFT***

This is a rough draft for discussion purposes only.  Please don't
claim that I'm advocating this.  In fact, this draft isn't even
finished.

INTRODUCTION:  

Intellocracy (coined by the author) means government by the 
intellectuals (or the intelligentsia).  More precisely, it is 
government by citizens who understand the world and its problems much 
better than most citizens (and many politicians) currently do.  The 
level of understanding would be evaluated by examinations for which 
citizens would be paid if they passed.  The higher the examination 
score, the higher the payment.  It is hoped that eventually most of 
the people of the world would be able to make a reasonable score on 
such examinations and thus become "intellectuals" (or members of the 
"intelligentsia") in the above sense.  Then intellocracy would have 
much in common with democracy.  

Many persons who currently are considered to be intellectuals today 
would not meet the above definition due to their lack of knowledge 
about the world although they may be experts in a particular field of 
knowledge.  Thus many outstanding professors and Nobel Prize winners
would do poorly on the above examinations. 

Defining such a system to be government by intellectuals is a gross
oversimplification but it does explain the origin of the word: 
"intellocracy".  Intellocracy could of course be used for national and
local government and it should perhaps be tried out at such a level
before being used for a system of world government.  

While the concept of intellocracy as defined above may be a new one, 
the idea of world government has a long history.  An annotated 
bibliography of world government along with a brief history of the 
movement towards it may be found in "Strengthening the United Nations, 
A Bibliography on U.N.  Reform and World Federalism" [compiled by 
Joseph Preston Baratta.  Greenwood Press, New York, 1987].  Over 50 
model world constitutions have allegedly been proposed [Baratta, op.  
cit. p. 5].  The one being proposed here is much different than the 
other proposals.  

The main argument for world government is that it would prevent wars 
(including atomic war) but it would be beneficial in many other ways 
such as reducing global pollution and guaranteeing human rights.  
There are also arguments opposing world government but in order to 
make rational debate possible, one needs to first define just what 
type of world government we are discussing.  In this proposal it's a 
"maximal" one (with much more than just limited powers to prevent war) 
based on intellocracy.  Now back to the arguments for intellocracy.  

INTELLOCRACY:  

It is generally agreed that citizens today often "do not exhibit the 
levels of political interest, knowledge, rationality, and activity 
required by the participatory tenets of traditional democratic 
theory." [see Lee Ann Osburn, "The Problem of Participation, A Radical 
Critique of Contemporary Democratic Theory", University Press of 
America, 1985. p. 5].  Knowledge seems to be the key word here since 
with knowledge tends to come rationality, interest and activity.  A 
poorly informed electorate tends to make irrational and "wrong" 
political choices.  While participatory democracy usually means 
participation by means of referendums, town meetings, etc. the above 
statements apply with equal force to cases where the only form of 
participation is voting for candidates.  Rational choice of a 
candidate may even require more knowledge than choice among issues 
since candidates do not always make it clear exactly where they stand 
on certain issues.  

How can this situation be changed and voter apathy and ignorance be 
significantly reduced?  One way is to require that potential voters 
take examinations to determine their knowledge of the state of the 
world, world history, the social and physical principles which govern 
social and physical change, as well as the issues involved in the 
current elections.  Physical principles include some knowledge of 
chemistry, geology, and biology while ecology encompasses both social and
physical phenomena.  Persons with poor scores would not be permitted to 
vote at all (they would fail the examination) while persons with very 
high scores would have their vote count as several ordinary votes.  In 
other words, ones vote would be weighted by ones exam score in a 
non-linear manner.  One could of course retake the examination after 
additional study.  

One problem with this scheme alone (with no other rewards or 
penalties) is that this would make voting much more of a burden than 
it now.  Under current conditions only a small percentage of people would 
both pass the examinations (called poll-exams) and vote.  

There is a solution to this dilemma!  Pay people money for good scores
on such examinations.  For example, pay $100 for a passing score and
$1000 for an extremely high score with the possibility of earning this
reward (called exam-reward) once every year or two.  This would make it
worthwhile (in monetary values alone) for many people to study and take
the poll-exams.  

Poor people would have an especially strong incentive to do this since 
the utility of additional income to them is much greater than it is to 
a rich person.  If income tax were charged on the exam-reward income, 
then the relative incentive for poor people to pass the exam would be 
even greater since under a progressive income tax system they would 
get to keep more of the exam-reward than would a rich person.  

However many poor people would be handicapped by their lack of
education and reading skills etc. but this would engender a strong
incentive to obtain the necessary education and background.  Of course
many wealthy people would hopefully take the poll-exam also, since they
would usually not need to spend as much time preparing for it due to
their better educational background.  The objective is to encourage
both rich and poor (and in-between) to intelligently vote.  

The actual amount of reward money would be adjusted so that it would 
be less in poor countries but adequate to eventually induce a majority 
of people to intelligently vote.  People who passed the examinations 
would also be paid a small additional amount to actually cast their 
votes on election day.  

Where is all this reward money to come from?  Taxes of course, 
including a possible high tax on non-renewable energy and other 
non-renewable mineral resources.  The exam-reward scheme would result 
in a redistribution of income from those failed the poll-exam (or even 
neglected to take it) to those who passed it with high scores.  It 
would be a very strong incentive for citizens to study and understand 
the problems of the world.  

Many people have valid excuses for not taking (or passing) these poll 
examinations.  These include being too young, mentally retarded, and 
brain damaged.  Such people could be paid a compensatory reward 
payment to assist them in paying the higher taxes which the poll 
reward scheme would require.  For a limited period of time, such 
compensatory reward payments might be made to people who are 
illiterate due to no fault of their own etc.  

A major problem is:  Will the poll-exams be fair?  The World 
Government Congress would enact legislation to establish the 
Examination Commission which would consult with leading educators 
throughout the world to prepare the examination questions.  If a 
member of such Commission strongly objected to a certain question, the 
case could be presented to a closed session of the World Court prior 
to including it in the examination.  Even after the poll-exams were 
given, people could challenge exam questions before the world court 
and invalid questions would not be counted in scoring.  Due to the 
impracticality of giving one examination simultaneously to the whole 
world, different versions of it would be needed.  

The poll-exams must be fairly difficult since a little knowledge is 
often a dangerous thing.  For example, knowing only that Khrushchev 
said "We will bury you." taken out of context is quite misleading.  
One should also know that the Russian word for "bury" also has a 
figurative meaning and that Khrushchev later explained that he meant 
it in a figurative sense.  Yet this quote by Khrushchev taken out of 
context is insidiously repeated in many books.  

The existence of such poll-exams will engender much more accurate and 
detailed reporting of current events by the media.  Many people today 
watch TV newscasts which only superficially cover important news 
events.  People for whom this is the only source of news information 
would seldom be able to pass the poll-exams.  The result would be a 
public demand for greater depth of coverage and a vast improvement in 
TV journalism and the air-time devoted to it.  But television is not 
always the best means of gaining an in-depth understanding of events.  
The poll-exams would improve the coverage by the printed press as 
well.  

The impact of the poll-exams would drastically change the conduct of 
election campaigns because the people who hold the lions share of the 
votes will be aware of the issues and are not likely to favor 
candidates who skirt them or offer overly simplistic, vague, or 
infeasible solutions to complicated problems.  

Since the monetary reward for voting might not be sufficient to 
motivate rich people to vote, tax penalties might be imposed on them 
for failure to pass (or take) the poll-exam.  This could be done only 
after it became clear that their participation was below average and 
even the prospect of enacting such tax penalties laws might be be 
sufficient to encourage their participation.  

Thus instead of universal suffrage, we would have "intellectual 
suffrage" ("intelligentsia suffrage").  Under universal suffrage, many 
people do not take time to learn about the issues simply because it 
does not "pay" to do so.  The expected benefit to a voter for 
intelligently voting on a particular issue or candidate is the 
probability that his vote will result in a change of election outcome 
(often very low) multiplied by the benefit he would enjoy due to such 
a changed outcome.  In monetary terms this amount is likely to be low, 
perhaps only a few cents while the time cost of studying the issues 
and voting will take many hours of time and perhaps be "worth" 
hundreds of dollars.  Of course the outcome of the election will 
affect many other people and if one is altruistic one will count some 
of these benefits in the calculation.  But if one only asks the 
question "What's in it for me?" the rational answer will usually be 
that participation in democracy by voting is not often worthwhile.  
This helps to explains why most people in the U.S.  do not participate 
in voting (and even fewer intelligently participate).  

THE WORLD LEGISLATURE:  

The world would be governed by a unicameral legislature elected by the 
citizens of the world under intellectual suffrage.  Although the 
intellectual suffrage weights votes by poll-exam scores they would be 
further weighted by a quality-of-life factor of the country they 
resided in.  This factor would range say between one and two and would 
multiply all of the votes in such country.  

The quality-of-life factor would consider such factors as health 
(including diet and housing) and human rights.  One statistic 
reflecting health is life expectancy but for use in judging the 
quality of life only useful life expectancy would be considered.  Ones 
useful lifetime would not include time spent in hospitals or nursing 
homes (or the like).  Keeping unconscious people alive by artificial 
means would not increase the quality-of-life factor.  Air pollution 
and use of unhealthy drugs would adversely affect this factor.  

A basic amount of human rights would be guaranteed by the World 
Constitution.  Some counties might violate these rights more than 
others while other countries might grant additional human rights.  
These actions would also affect the quality-of-life factor.  The 
quality-of-life factor to assign to each country would be determined 
with the help of the World Human Rights Commission and the World 
Health Commission.  

Besides the Legislature, other branches of the World Government would
consist of the Judicial and Administrative Branches.  Before
discussing them, consider the what the powers of the world government
should be.  

THE WORLD ADMINISTRATION 

The World Administration would be headed by a troika of three 
Co-Presidents, each elected from one of three regions viz:  1.  The 
Americas (N.  and S.  America) 2.  Euro-Africa (Europe and Africa) 3.  
Greater Asia (Asia plus Australasia) 

They would have the right to veto legislation passed by the World 
Legislature provided that it was passed with less than a 60% vote.  To 
override the veto would require about a 55% vote of the Legislature 
(54% if only two Co-Presidents vetoed, 56% if all three Co-Presidents 
vetoed).  

The Co-Presidents would be in charge of the administrative apparatus 
of the World Government as well as the World Armed Forces.  They could 
only act in the use of these forces in conformance with legislation 
passed by the World Court in conformance with the World Constitution.  

THE WORLD COURT 

There would be one Supreme Court.  Inferior to it would be the 
Continental Courts, one in each Continent, and also a SeaPoleSpace 
Court to cover events on the high seas, polar regions, and outer 
space.  The judges for these courts would be appointed for life by the 
World Legislature.  These courts would exist mainly to hear appeals 
from the lower courts.  Inferior to the Continental Courts would be 
World Courts in the major cities of the world.  The World Legislature 
would establish the district boundaries for these courts.  

The jurisdiction of the World Court system would include both persons 
and organizations (such as corporations and governments).  The World 
legislature would codify the basic principles of international civil 
law.  Civil cases which were not of an international character but 
involved world law could be tried in State courts.  Disputes between 
parties within the same nation should first be brought to the national 
courts and if violations of World Law (or the World Constitution) is 
involved then appeals could be directed to the local World Court.  

POWERS of the WORLD GOVERNMENT 

The World Government would permit each member nation to enjoy (or 
suffer from) its own economic system which would today encompass a 
wide variety of socialist, capitalist, and mixed economies.  Its 
principle powers would be:  

1.  Prevent War and Control Arms 

Perhaps the most important power of World Government would be the 
enforcement of general and complete disarmament.  It would prohibit 
the manufacture or possession of military weapons (except those needed 
by the armed forces of the World Government (World Armed Forces) and 
the police forces of the nations).  It would limit the size of police 
forces of member nations of the World Government so that armies could 
not be formed under the guise of police forces.  The weakening the 
armed forces of nations would not necessarily promote opportunities 
for uprisings and revolutions since the World Government would also 
have the power to ban or regulate the possession of weapons by the 
populace.  

2.  Intervention in Civil Wars, Revolutions, and Unruly Governments.  

The legislature, by a 2/3 vote, could intervene in civil wars and 
armed revolutions, if necessary by using the World Armed Forces.  The 
formation of a new government in such a nation would be based on free 
elections with all parties to the dispute having the right to freely 
participate.  The election rules would be tailored by the World 
Legislature to the particular situation and would not necessarily 
involve intellectual suffrage.  If a nation repeatedly fails to 
enforce the human rights granted by the World Constitution or 
otherwise flagrantly flouts international law, the responsible parties 
may be arrested by the World Government with the possible help of the 
World Armed Forces.  In some of these case, the World Government would 
would supervise elections to elect new officials.  

3.  Territorial settlements between nations and within nations.  

Boundary disputes between nations would be settled by the World Court.  
After several years all countries would be required to either agree or 
disagree as to their boundaries so as to avoid further disputes.  The 
World Legislature would specify the extent of territorial coastal 
water which nations could claim, including additional waters for 
fishing rights.  

Any substantial region within a nation could secede from that nation 
and become an independent new nation provided it could muster 2/3 of 
the votes of the people of that region.  Votes of newcomers to the 
region imported for the purpose of influencing the voting would not 
count.  Nations would be encouraged to adopt more lenient laws for 
secession.  However secessions could be disapproved by the World Court 
if they were motivated primarily on selfish economic interests such as 
obtaining control of a resource-rich region and depriving the rest of 
the nation of the resource benefits.  

4.  Human Rights 

The World Constitution would guarantee basic freedoms to all people 
but they would be somewhat more restrictive than those found in the 
U.S.  Constitution.  For example, freedom of speech and press would 
not grant the right to make untrue statements or to publish 
obscenities.  It would not grant the right to advertise socially 
harmful goods.  Freedom of religion would be stated as freedom of 
religious or anti-religious beliefs.  It would not grant religions the 
right to engage in rites involving illegal drugs or physical abuse of 
people or animals etc.  

5.  Jurisdiction over International Zones 

The seas, polar regions, outer space above a certain altitude, and 
astronomical bodies being explored by man would be under the 
jurisdiction of the World Government.  

6.  Control of the Natural Environment 

It would regulate both local and global air and water pollution as 
well as prevent desecration of the land by dumping of toxic substances 
or by man-caused erosion of topsoil.  The earth, water and air would 
be considered the heritage of all mankind and would eventually (after 
say 200 years) become the common property of the human race.  Air 
pollution would include global air pollutants such as radioactive 
fallout, carbon dioxide, and florohydrocarbons.  The World Government 
would regulate the production, labeling, use, and disposal of toxic 
substances.  

7.  Product Quality Labeling 

In order to aid consumers in their selection of products, the World 
Government would have powers to require the labeling of products as to 
quality, content, size, efficiency, safety and other properties.  

8.  Taxation 

Since each nation would have its own economic system which includes a 
distinctive tax policy, taxes would be paid by the member nations to 
the World Government.  For each nation this tax levy would be 
proportional to the net national product less a subsistence deduction.  
This deduction would be the amount needed for its population to exist 
at a near-starvation level.  Thus the very poorest countries where the 
population is near starvation would pay little (if any) tax.  

However the World Government would have the right to levy taxes on the 
extraction of non-renewable mineral resources so as to encourage 
conservation and recycling (where possible).  

9.  Regulation of International Commerce and Communications 

Discrimination in tariffs for international travel, freight, and 
communication could be prohibited.  States would retain the right to 
restrict immigration but would be compelled to permit emigration 
provided the emigrants reimbursed their government for any recently 
subsidized education.  

The International Communications Commission would regulate 
international communications and set standards for digital and analog 
communications.  It would allocate frequencies and maximum power for 
international radio and television and regulate interference 
(including jamming).  It would enforce rules set by the World 
Legislature regarding the content of international broadcasts while 
not interfering with the right of free speech as specified by the 
World Constitution.  

10.  Extradition of Criminals 
 Fugitives from justice would be returned to the appropriate state to 
face criminal charges.  However such persons could appeal to a local 
branch of the World Court in cases where they claimed they can not 
obtain a fair trial in the nation seeking their return.  If such 
claims had merit, the World Court branch could try the case itself or 
propose some other remedy.  

The World Government criminal investigators would, in addition to 
uncovering violations of World Law, seek out fugitives from justice 
who had committed especially serious crimes.  

11.  Regulation of International Vices:  Gambling, Prostitution, Drugs, 
and Abortion 

If laws on these topics are significantly different from one nation to 
another, then by merely crossing the border citizens of one nation may 
legally participate in an activity which is illegal in their home 
nation.  What is wrong with this?  For one it engenders an excessive 
amount of unnecessary travel.  Examples abound in the United States 
where people travel hundreds of miles in order to gamble.  Such 
wasteful travel not only cost money but also pollutes the air and
depletes energy resources.  Another objection is that this allows the
rich (who can easily afford to travel) to participate in activities
which the poor cannot.  Uniform laws would solve this problem.  

However, nations might be permitted to enact more restrictive laws on 
these "vices" but should be encouraged not to do so in order to 
maintain uniform laws.  Toward this end nations would be required to 
have a 2/3 majority vote in their legislatures to override world law 
with only a 1/3 vote required to repeal their more restrictive law and 
conform to world law.  

One exception to this would be abortion which some consider not to be 
a "vice".  States could enact laxer laws on abortion provided they 
took measures to prevent residents of other nations from taking 
advantage of such laxer laws.  

12.  The World language 

A new world language would be developed and it would eventually 
replace all existing languages.  With everyone speaking and writing 
the same language, international communications would be facilitated.  

13.  Patents and copyrights 

Uniform laws would be established for international copyrights and 
patents.  They would balance the right of the author/inventor to 
receive adequate compensation with the right of the public to use the 
creative work.  Individual nations could have different laws which 
would apply only to works created by its citizens and used within that 
nation.  In this case, filing of only one application (a combined 
intranational/international form) would be needed.  

14.  Model codes 

Model legal codes would be written and continuously updated.  They 
would include uniform vehicle codes, building codes, criminal codes 
etc.  Nations would be encouraged to adapt these codes, or perhaps to 
adapt them with minor modifications.  Only moral suasion wold be used 
in promoting these codes and no monetary benefits (or the like) would 
be used to bribe nations into accepting them.  Such codes could have 
alternate versions and optional sections etc.