Everybody, I believe, is in favor of world community; we all like the idea of world community. But I think we're very confused, we've got two different models of what world community is or could be. One model of world community is globalization, by which I mean, here is basically the erasure of national boundaries. So you have one big direct global community. The other vision of global community is internationalization. You still have nation states with boundaries but the relations across those boundaries become more and more important. So you have international trade, protocols, United Nations, so forth, but the fundamental unit remains the nation's state with its boundaries and it controls trade of goods, trade of capital, flow of people. In the other model, the globalization model, boundaries are basically erased, so internationalization, you have a community of communities that builds up to a federation of a global world, global community. In the other vision of globalization you erase national boundaries, you basically destroy or undercut national communities in the interests of building up an immediate total global community. But that total global community has no historical roots, it doesn't really exist and so I think what happens is that you fundamentally destroy the real institutions of community, of mutual caring that exists within national boundaries, in the interests of a rather fictitious and badly thought out idea of a single global. You know, a world without boundaries, a world without borders that makes a very nice song lyric but i's not a very good basis for policy and for taking mutual care of one another in institutions of community.