Monday, November 30, 2015

World Government, Part 1

(Note: This is mostly a direct quote from Chapter 28 of my book, Freedom or Serfdom?)

In North Korea, the people are held in bondage, not allowed to leave what amounts to a nation-wide prison; and speaking against their “dear leader” can bring a prison sentence or worse. In many Muslim countries women are not allowed to drive cars, or to leave their homes unless accompanied by a male relative. Resource-rich Venezuela has shortages of everything from toilet paper to food. The list of human misery goes on and on. What should we do about it?

One World
Should we create a one-world government, something to overcome all the national differences? Some well-meaning people seriously propose that, claiming it would stop war, poverty and other ills. Even President Harry Truman suggested turning the United Nations into what amounts to a world government.[1] This one doesn't just bump up against the shoals of reality, it crashes full speed onto the reefs of the real world.

The first question to ask about world government is, “Just who is going to run this gargantuan state?” Now the questions integrity and ability of the rulers return – with a vengeance. Why would anyone believe that the rulers of a world-wide government would have any particular wisdom or integrity?

If you want an example, just look at the United Nations. That organization has two authorities, the Security Council and the General Assembly. In neither do free, democratic countries have real power except for vetoes in the Security Council. In fact, third world tyrannies are the major voice in the General Assembly.

The UN Human Rights Council is an example of how a future world government might work. That council, which ostensibly promotes human rights worldwide, instead gives voice to tyrannies including China, Argentina, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.[2] Those tyrannies condemn the U.S. for things like having the death penalty, but give a pass to collectivist governments that imprison their opponents. An example of what UN rule would be like comes from the Convention on Rights of the Child, an international law applicable to every country that signed it. The Roman Catholic Church made the mistake of signing and is now ordered to reconsider its stance on abortion and pre-marital sex.[3] So much for freedom of religion under a world government.

Why would anyone expect a full world government to behave differently? When a tyrant rules in a place like Cuba, there is hope for eventual change, and that tyrant lacks a world-wide monopoly. If tyrants take over a world government, there is little hope that the tyranny will ever change.

The UN has also become a center for corruption, from cheating on Iraqi oil[4] to corruption and rape in peace-keeping operations.[5] Of course government corruption is not unusual in this world, but the difference here is that the UN is world-wide and accountable to no-one. If the corruptocrats gain the total control of a world-wide government, it will be impossible to stop their corruption.

How could we oppose the oppressive measures such a world-wide state would inevitably impose? There will be nowhere to flee, no way to escape. With the technology available today, officials would be able to monitor us nearly everywhere. Even if we disconnect from cell phones and web access, they will have satellites, roadside monitors, and probably other technologies not yet invented. A society such as that described in Orwell's 1984 becomes not only possible bit probable. We can only hope that such a government will be incompetent, incapable of enforcing its oppressive laws.

And, as we shall see in the continuation of this blog, we would lack the advantages of seeing how different systems work.

            m9hXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=efUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4077,4801132 (A link to an article in the Spokane Daily Chronical, Jan 25, 1946)

No comments: