Imagine for a moment such a conference did occur and that suitable peace treaties were ratified. What would such a world be like ? What would be the gains ? And what would be lost ? Are there any difficulties ?

(CHRISTOPHER - check out the new challenge I've just posted.)

Can we expect everyone to cooperate? Perhaps I'm pessimistic. Hobbes argued that the rule of Kings was necessary to keep the population in line. He would have thought a democracy an impossibilty. But the USA for all of its faults, does seem to function OK. So perhaps larger version are possible - ie., Europe.

But what about:

1. cultural differences, where values conflict. ie., some cultures believe
that both men and women have equal rights to voice their opinions and
make their own choices while others do not.

2. we have just lost the right to appeal to the Privy Council in England.
Some people have argued that this right was essential because the
Council was independent of NZ and, therefore not prejudice.

If we had a world court, where would we get independent opinions
from ?

3. If once a world power hijacked this process and used it to its own
end. Surely then, we would be stuck in a world-wide dictatorship.
If we were much more independent then world peace and security
would be held by a balance of power between the most powerful
nations (ie., post-Napoleonic Europe to 1914; Cold War 1945-1989)

4. Wouldn't large scale cooperation mean that potential cultural and
problem-solving knowledge & skills would be lost. It would be as if
the whole world was one big Macdonalds !

Within a country, a police force and the justice system enforces cooperation by punishes those who are uncooperative. Internationally, the League of Nations did not have enough clout to enforce cooperation in the 1930s as they could not stop aggression by the Axis Powers (in fact, the Sudeteland (excuse spelling) in Czechoslovakia was given to the aggressor by international agreement & a blind eye turned to other invasions).

Similarly, the United Nations has had similar problems. AN attempt to overcome this difficulty was to give the dominant world powers (in the 1940s) permament positions on the Security Council. A second attempt has been the setting up of UN security forces to act as peacekeepers etc.. But in several cases (ie., Rwanda, Iraq?) this control of aggressors has still failed.

So how would the system you're proposing solve this problem? There will always be rogues(individuals, corperations or states), and rogues will always get the best gear they can to fulfill their aims. So far, I can see no solution.

Are you proposing that most of us would have to live like ostrich with their heads in the sand. While a particularly nasty police force etc. would protect us from the rogues?

The ostrich--head in the sand approach is what many of us take now. We live in a society dependent on cheap labourers who can never live in the luxury we do. All democracies from Athens on, has depended on 'slaves'; if the citizens have to spend all their time meeting their needs they don't have time for the higher thinking required in a democracy. Furthermore, we have unions and (now) values that requires workers to be paid so highly that if these people made our clothes etc. we wouldn't be able to afford as much as we have.

And what about terrorists etc.? - OK., we live in NZ so there's not much risk. But what if you are in USA ? Or travelling internationally, which is what people of our social status do frequently? Can we be protected from them without wars, innocent people being killed, torture and places like Guatonemeno Bay (how ever you spell it ?).

So perhaps what you propose isn't much different from what we have now.
However, the idealist in me (wherever it is?) believes in a more caring society. And that there are more 'reasonable' ways to tackle such rogues.

But perhaps reasonable is the wrong word above. What you are proposing may in fact be more reasonable than what I ideally wish for. If we wish to live in an eye-for-an-eye world (ie., of the Old Testament; Greek tragedy etc.) then your suggestion is more reasonable than my idealism. But revenge or preventive cruelty (to stop equivalent cruelty) creates a hard and destructive society. The alternate approach is that of care and love. It is also the response of compromise. - I can see your response here, what if they refuse to compromise? (logically I'm stuck but morally ?)

That leaves us with psychologists - what will they do ?

Why disc jockeys - I guess they coudl be considered as not masterminds
but jockeyminds