It is my belief that as human individuals, we are born into this world with natural rights that are inviolate; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property or Happiness which has been expressed eloquently by Thomas Jefferson. Anything less puts us in the status of slaves, indentured servants and farm animals. My impetus for this blog is to serve as the clarion call to others, like minded or not, that our freedom is at stake in a world of increasing collectivism.
It's also desirable, don't you think? I mean, not a big government, but a way to enforce individual rights and freedoms all over the world (you know, so Rwanda doesn't happen again... or Darfur...)
Government's can't enforce natural rights, only recognize them and protect them. If you look to an example of a world government in today's context, look at how well the UN has done with Darfur and Rwanda. Totally feckless because they don't believe in action. What did Frederick the Great say? Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.
UN sucked at Rwanda and Darfur because no one would "punish" them if they did not intervene. If you had a world government, voters from all over the globe could threat to vote for someone else if they didn't stop genocide...
Constituency politics. FDR was the first presidency to truly take advantage of it. On one hand, people's moral barometers should guide them in doing the right thing. It shouldn't be left to politics, popularity or polls. The fact that people seem not to shows a failure of our spiritual institutions to teach values anymore, but that is another subject. On the other hand, in some cases it's hard to see who is the aggressor and who is the victim, like in the Balkans. In the case of the African countries, it's a bit more clear cut. The only suitable punishment is for the UN to be kicked out of NY. Even the poorest countries' diplomats live like kings compared to those back home, and even compared to you and I. You have to see it to believe it.
4 comments:
It's also desirable, don't you think? I mean, not a big government, but a way to enforce individual rights and freedoms all over the world (you know, so Rwanda doesn't happen again... or Darfur...)
Government's can't enforce natural rights, only recognize them and protect them. If you look to an example of a world government in today's context, look at how well the UN has done with Darfur and Rwanda. Totally feckless because they don't believe in action. What did Frederick the Great say? Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.
UN sucked at Rwanda and Darfur because no one would "punish" them if they did not intervene. If you had a world government, voters from all over the globe could threat to vote for someone else if they didn't stop genocide...
Constituency politics. FDR was the first presidency to truly take advantage of it. On one hand, people's moral barometers should guide them in doing the right thing. It shouldn't be left to politics, popularity or polls. The fact that people seem not to shows a failure of our spiritual institutions to teach values anymore, but that is another subject. On the other hand, in some cases it's hard to see who is the aggressor and who is the victim, like in the Balkans. In the case of the African countries, it's a bit more clear cut. The only suitable punishment is for the UN to be kicked out of NY. Even the poorest countries' diplomats live like kings compared to those back home, and even compared to you and I. You have to see it to believe it.
Post a Comment