Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

Feedback

Email

Links

Debate

What's New?

Home

One World Government

The United Nations is the trade union and social club for national leadership elites. The highest principle upon which it is founded is the spurious idea that there is such a thing as a nation and that nation must be run by a home grown local government no matter how that government is constituted.

• One tin pot dictator is a kleptocratic tyrant.

• Two dictators are a sinister axis of evil.

• Two hundred tin pot tyrants are ... the sole source of moral legitimacy in the world today?

I think somebody needs to re-examine the basis of their morality.

The UN exists to stop nations having wars, against each other. Under this regime keeping standing armies is pointless for home defence because if you are invaded the tyrant's trade union send the boys in to sort out the aggressors. So why do nations like Burkina Faso have armies? Because the UN doesn't offer any protection against internal rebellion.

This is CRAZY. Nations that can't afford the basics have to raise taxes to pay for an army to, well, defend the right of the president to raise taxes and pay an army, that's it. That is all they can afford to do. The simplest nations are just legitimized protection rackets, warlords with a suite in a New York hotel and a seat on the UN. It is not as if they choose to be like that, there is no alternative. If you don't run the country as a kleptocratic nepotistic warlord with minimal control over a bunch of armed thugs somebody else will do the job for you. No other system of government is stable or “legitimate”.

The UN and the way it is set up ensures that the poor countries of the world will be run this way for ever, or until the trickle down effects of globalization bring in enough riches to make a native democracy a possibility. Democracy is expensive, it requires a surplus of wealth and a large middle class before it is sustainable. The last thing those warlords who are enjoying that lifestyle (probably among the highest standards of living ever enjoyed by any members of our species in history) want is for the UN to mutate into a world government. But that is exactly what would be in the best interests of their people.

The poorest countries of the world can never hope to progress as long as the current status quo exists. The UN protects nations from external aggressors but guarantees and legitimizes the armed struggle for power within each sovereign nation. This is enough to ensure that the poorest people of the world will be in a constant state of war or the threat of war from internal forces.

To the man in the shanty town or rice paddy there is no significant difference between inter-nation and intra-nation war. Both are very bad for his health, welfare, happiness, prosperity and life expectancy. No longer does anybody have to fear being governed by a disdainful foreign power. Now they have to fear being governed by a disdainful local power that the rest of the world has granted the status of unimpeachably legitimate government. This is absurd and wrong. It is absurd to declare any rule by foreigners as being evil and any rule by those within arbitrary old colonial borders as legitimate and beyond reproach.

The UN is a club in which tyrants, warlords, military coup leaders, monarchs and leaders of one party states are the majority. How can such an organization produce any form of moral legitimacy? Why do the left look to the UN as some kind of beacon of goodness when if they were introduced to those who are casting their votes on an individual basis they would wipe their hands afterwards? The UN is full of nasty tin pot dictators and thugs. Surely the simple fact that they are not stooges of white regimes or white owned multinational companies is not enough to make them morally acceptable as arbiters of what is or is not cricket on the world stage?

Imagine that you were a poor peasant in a third world country, what would you most want your nation to spend its tax revenue on? A presidential palace? A national airline? A junket to send some jumped-up army colonel to New York to decide whether Israel is being naughty? Or would you prefer investment in police, roads, ports and honest courts that would allow you to take a full part in world trade?

Why doesn't the left see this issue the way it is? If you put ten white bankers and politicians around a table they see it as multiplying their vices so why is a hundred murdering torturing tyrants sitting in a semi-circle in New York multiplying their virtues?

© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited