By: Garry Hamilton

A friend of mine, Duncan, who from time to time sends interesting links to a list of his acquaintances, recently sent out a link to a column in the UK’s Telegraph, and invited comment.

From the article, there are such observations as:

Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word “global”, as in “global economic crisis”, meant: “It’s not my fault”.

. . . and . . .

To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.

. . . and . . .

. . . if there was no popular choice about approving supranational “legally binding agreements”, what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest?

Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro‑bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.

There’s plenty more, and it’s quite well written.

One of Duncan’s readers, whom we’ll call “John,” responded thus:

I think it will eventually happen… we are one world after all. I doubt it’ll be for another 60 – 100 years though as too many people will fight it. The comments are really more interesting than the article…

“. . . we are one world after all.” Really?

I beg to differ. Our “world” has very little in common with the “world” in, say, Zimbabwe or Rwanda.

With this — and recent world events — in mind, I responded myself, to wit:

• Whereas the USA has generated more prosperity than any other nation on Earth, and
• whereas the USA enjoys more liberty and personal freedom than any other nation on Earth, and
• whereas the USA was established as a constitutional representative republic, and whereas the overwhelming preponderance of nations wishing to dictate policy to the USA are tyrannies, and
• whereas all forms of tyranny assert the rightness of their form of tyranny, and
• whereas nonetheless, historically and currently, people from all over the world seek to migrate to the USA, and
• whereas they do not do so because they seek more rules, restrictions, or government, and
• whereas the United Nations is a collection of many tyrannies, a few democracies, and only one such republic as the USA, and
• whereas the UN accords equal standing to nations having little to no liberty alongside nations having greater liberty, and
• whereas to subjugate the USA to a plurality of tyrannies cannot but reduce and abridge liberty in the USA, and
• whereas an abridgment of liberty in the USA would be accompanied by abridgment of liberty worldwide, and
• whereas this would result in a worldwide tyranny,
• Now therefore, be it resolved: a One World Government is necessarily a tyranny and to be avoided at all costs.

(Unless, of course, you think that all the tyrannies would convert, overnight, to constitutional representative republics.)

Conclusion: Unless and until the Free nations of the world outnumber in both number and size the tyrannies of the world, any One World Government would be a really bad idea for liberty and free men.

While there is other, more subtle reasoning to support this same conclusion, reasoning that goes to the motives of anyone who would want the kind of power and authority inherent in a One World Government structure, it seems to me that the coarser, more obvious rationale works just as well.

The “simplicity” implied by “Citizen of the World” is entirely illusory, and the reality would be dark and byzantine beyond comprehension. It is entirely possible that a global government would be a bureaucracy that consumed in excess of 100% of the production of its citizen-subjects, creating a taxation singularity that would suck the entire economy into its black hole.

Autonomous governance by people who can know and appreciate the realities of those they serve will always outperform a large, centralized government, both in terms of liberty and economy.

Mankind may someday be enlightened enough to attempt something like that. Give it another couple thousand years. For the moment, given the state of Man, a Global Government is Global Tyranny.