Can libertarians ever condone world government?


You may recall that this blog was originally started to promote discussion of mediumship, afterlife research, and paranormal topics in the all-too-often anti-spiritual manosphere.

In case you have forgotten, here a repost of the first-ever picture posted to this blog – a picture of an afterlife researcher:

356px-WilliamCrookes

All of this ties into the issue of world government, and whether it can ever be legitimate.

Recently, I was browsing an afterlife-research-inspired website at:

http://noblesavageworld.com/2013/01/20/phs12-who-decides-what/

Very often, mediums and seance-goers preach along the following lines: “Everyone should just hold hands and meditate once a day and then universal brotherhood would dawn. We can have a peaceful world government and abolish wars if only incarnate people would recognize the SPIRIT of LOVE. It is necessary to use your years of earthly incarnation to devote yourself to unselfish LOVE, so that in the afterlife you will have good surroundings. And since wars lead to bad vibrations, just sign onto a world government so that blacks and whites and browns and yellows will live together as brothers and sisters….”

Here is an actual quote of such an ethical exhortation:

When we acknowledge our divine core as the only reality, and our worldly problems and suffering and preoccupations as illusion, then our noble side shines through more brightly and enlightens human society. We find greater peace within us as peace spreads around us. The savage side begins to retreat.

http://noblesavageworld.com/2013/01/14/phs11-embrace-the-divine-its-where-we-shine/

And they preach like this at great length. They never raise inconvenient issues, like:

1. United Nations Peacekeepers tend to rape and patronize prostitutes; they are not ascetic missionaries of toleration.

2. Governments get more corrupt as they get bigger, and a world-spanning government might be even more corrupt than the largest government of today.

3. Elections are often fraudulent.

So, an unarmed Haitian who gets to vote in a sham election before getting raped by a U.N. peacekeeper is supposed to “embrace the divine” within, and perhaps everything will sort itself out … or not.

The webpage linked above offers two principles:

1- Every decision should be made at the lowest possible level, but high enough to take into account the well-being of everyone affected by the decision.

2- Every individual and every group should be free to make decisions… within the framework that’s been set up by higher levels.

Principle #1 is just subsidiarity, which is well-known to any Catholics in the audience. Principle #2 seems to be a glittering generality. The lower ranks are free to choose, so long as they make choices condoned by the upper ranks! What assurance do the lower ranks have that the upper ranks will define their legitimate choices well? If the higher ranks are angelic minds clothed in flesh – which is not impossible – it might go well for a brief time. But angels in human flesh are few and far between in human history.

The linked site gives an example of an airport:

A new airport. Building an international airport involves a worldwide transportation network. There are travelers, mail carriers, and airline companies throughout the world who will be affected by the decisions about a new airport, so an international or world-level regulatory body—in this case the UN agency ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization)—has to be involved in the planning, development and operation of airports to ensure safe, orderly growth of the worldwide air travel network.

At the same time, all of the nearby home-owners and businesses will be impacted by the noise, so some neighborhood decision-making authority also needs to be taken into account.

Levels between global and neighborhood also come into play. Various ground transportation networks (bus lines, trains, subways, highways…) may want to link up with the new airport to move travelers to and from other destinations.

Within the framework of ICAO standards and recommendations, the various city and county governments and local and national aviation agencies provide funding and management for each airport.

So a new airport needs decisions to be made at various levels. National aviation agencies like the FAA make decisions within the framework set up by the world-level ICAO. State, provincial, and city government agencies make decisions within the framework established by those higher-level bodies. Airlines and other transportation companies and networks, in turn, make decisions within those established frameworks. Also taken into account is the well-being of the local residents and the environment (for example, ISO-14001).

I don’t like airports much. They are expensive and inconvenient places, and air travel often involves an oppressive level of “security theater.”

So we have international standards for airports, but I can’t choose what standard I get to work with. I am told that very rich people have a parallel airport system, and can fly private planes from public airports without going through security hassles. International standards haven’t helped with that inequality.

Here is an article about rich people on public flights:

Increasingly, though, rich people can opt out of the worst of TSA treatment by buying voluntary background checks and bypassing the rigmarole of the plebs. Now, the TSA is expanding its Pre-Check program, ensuring that pretty much everyone with any political clout will be spared the worst of it, letting the TSA’s treatment for aviation’s 99 percent spiral steadily downward

http://boingboing.net/2013/07/19/tsa-screening-about-to-get-a.html

I do not presently have evidence concerning rich people on private flights, so if you’re skeptical about that claim, you can wait until I get that evidence together.


Often self-proclaimed authorities on both sides of a public debate are equally distasteful to the public. Consider, for example, the issue of whether mercury-based vaccines cause autism. Big Pharma says no, fringe doctors say yes. I don’t trust the mercury peddled by Big Pharma, and I also don’t trust the globulin component macrophage-activating factor, known as GcMAF peddled by fringe doctors.

Unfortunately, all of us have some responsibility for researching contentious issues in fringe science, simply because political decisions depend on allegedly scientific reasoning.


International standards are all very well, so long as the man in the street does not feel oppressed by them. This is usually the case when the standards govern highly abstract matters. For example, everyone who reads this on a computer is probably using some standardized electricity supply. It might be 12 V DC from a solar panel, it might be 220V at 50Hz from an Afghan wall socket, it might be 120V AC at 60 Hz from a Canadian wall socket. But it is probably designed according to a major standard.

I like solar power. I haven’t chosen to obtain a solar power system. If I ever muster up the gumption to go solar, I will probably plug into a 12 V DC source, because that is a common standard for DC that I can CHOOSE. But I don’t feel terribly oppressed by the choice between 12 V, 220 V, and 120 V, so long as I get my system to run Linux.

If there were a worldwide system of international standards – would I be able to opt out of it? Would I have any power to choose my degree of involvement in it?

If there is a world government, and it starts well but degenerates into tyranny, what will the idealists say about the rebels who refuse to conform?

My answer is to agree with Principle #1 above – namely subsidiarity. And subsidiarity includes local gun-smithing and local gun-training. Here is another look at that 3-D printed ammunition video that I featured earlier:

The video features melodramatic music and a shout-out to Ross Ulbricht, who is not universally admired.

Here is a video from a more respectable public figure, Brandon Smith, featuring better music and a more defensive posture:

I would start by recommending free speech, but sadly I lack the technical expertise to recommend a free speech technology. I hear rumors that researchers are trying to develop a better version of onion routing, but I have insufficient expertise, and so I cannot teach my reader how to onion-route their data.

Perhaps the first international standards should be international standards on how to print 12 gauge ammunition, how to sew a thermal cloak, how to operate an I2P or HORNET node without a commercial ISP, etc. Perhaps those standards should be observed by individuals who remember the principle of subsidiarity, not by coercive overlords.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in paranormal and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.