The will of the majority is always vulnerable if the mechanism is not in place to arrest, and to reverse, the actions taken as a result of a minority’s aggressivity. This may be countered by a region’s capacity to muster sufficient armed force, (under licence from the World Government,) to arrest and to prosecute those who are pursuing their own group interests, in disregard of what has been pronounced as the majority’s conception of the common good. Or in more serious cases, then it will be the responsibility of the World Government to bring the situation back under their control.

If it is decided by the will of the majority that the actions of some particular region of the world is working towards the destruction and overthrow of the existing world governmental system, then in the last resort warfare has to be threatened. With all the refinement of diplomatic techniques, it will largely take the form of hinted suggestions as to what might, or could occur if the other side should not choose to climb down - along with terrorist and anti-terrorist activities in evidence within the major cities of the rival territories. But the need stands that the World Government should be in a position to enforce its decisions by armed force where necessary. And the quality of its armaments and of its training should be second to none.

The whole nature of warfare will doubtless be different from what we know today. We should anticipate that the other side will avail themselves of all manner of ruthless terrorist outrage, either threatened or perpetrated within our home territory. All this against a backdrop of life continuing as normal, up to the moment of its happening, with a persistent flow of professedly non-political tourists criss-crossing the continental frontiers. The front line troops may well be disavowed by the combatant groups, due to the clandestine nature of their operations. But the World Government’s regular armed forces will also be there, on the ready, for use as the ultimate heavy strike force, if they should ever be required.

We also need to be concerned with the reversal of trends where individual criminals are concerned. Indeed, there will always be occasions, even within a fair society, when punishment needs to be inflicted upon those amongst us who are breaking the rules that have been drawn up by the majority. But we should always be clear about its theoretical justification. Punishment for the sake of retribution cannot be justified within a society where empathy prevails. Our ability to identify with a wrongdoer and to comprehend his motivation, precludes the sentiment that he should be made to experience a similar fate to his victim, because we are able to see in him the personification of what we ourselves might have been like, had our genetic structure or our upbringing been different. The deterrent motivation for punishment comes into focus more especially at times when law and order is breaking down. Whilst we may empathise with such ideas in that they enhance the possibilities for self-preservation, we should remain aware that, on a broader scale, the maltreatment of criminals merely reinforces the divide between them, and us, to an extent that punishment of any kind then gets perceived as society’s rejection of them for our own selfish reasons.

A more unified world society will emerge if we adopt the corrective approach to punishment. The wrongdoer is taken into custody - or preferably only into open custody - while his behaviour is studied by appropriate medical experts, so that he can be persuaded by the use of social therapies to mend his ways, earning his release just as soon as we can convince ourselves that he is no longer a danger to any other member of society. But there is no crime which should be regarded as too abominable to warrant a necessary permanent exclusion from re-entry to the common fold. On the other hand even mild offenders, if it is judged that they still represent a danger to society, should in some instances be kept segregated from the rest of us - albeit under humane conditions, and with the possibility for re-classification never too distant in time.

Much study should be made as to the best ways of reintegrating criminals within the society they had formerly rejected. Systems should emphasise the concept of rewards for improved behaviour, far more than penalties for undesirable behaviour. The expense of rehabilitation will be less, in the long run, than the expense of letting them loose on society un-rehabilitated. And ideally, this is a service which would continue long after the rehabilitation has initially been established, to minimise the possibility for subsequent relapse.

If this is regarded as intrusive into the lives of former criminals, the line has to be taken that punishment does entail a loss of individual rights until such a time that his current behaviour warrants their full restitution. The rights of man are conditional on his co-operation with the rest of society. In the event of non-compliance, they may be forfeit. But in the last resort, a criminal should be given the choice of continued exclusion from the rest of society, or an instant reintegration with the rest of society after his behaviour has responded satisfactorily to more drastic medical treatment, such as lobotomy or castration. But these are extreme forms of treatment which should never be forced on a criminal without his considered assent.

The society which can learn to take its wrongdoers back into its social embrace displays the attitude where a more universal integration becomes a possibility, whereas the chastisement of criminals merely reinforces their concept of Them, and Us. A spirit of unity finally generates its own rewards, including that of a sharp decrease in social paranoia. It is when paranoia gets encouraged and ever more deeply rooted in our attitudes towards one another that people start perceiving the rest of the world as enemies . The psychology then exists for fractious discord and an inclination towards the outbreak of criminal violence, or even war.