SOME SUGGESTIONS REGARDING A PROPOSED WORLD GOVERNMENT

Dictionaries define "government" as the organization, agency, or machinery via which authority over a political unit is exercised; and via which functions for or on behalf of said  political unit are performed.  These "political units" are also frequently referred to as "comunities" of people. 

Historians and political scientists tell us that to constitute a community, a people must feel and will something in common.  Such communities are generally described as groups of people who have developed or adopted habitual relations or communications with one another.  These habitual relations are said to originate from, and to be preserved by reason of, ideological ties shared by most members of that community.

                                                                * * * * *

It is my conviction, and consequently one of the basic purposes of the within, to declare and to convince, that at its most fundamental level, and in its most profound embodiments, civilized humanity has been, is, and will continue to comprise, but a single community, possessing similar ideological ties, which emanate from a single common human denominator.  As such, it is submitted that the human race already constitutes but a single political unit.  I base these conclusions in part upon the fact that, after a substantial number of years, digestion of much of humanity's literature, and a good deal of purposeful observation of a great many people in a great many places and walks of life, I have been repeatedly led to the same single simple conclusion:  that there are a vast quantity of similarities among people--and few, if any, real differences.  Considerations such as family, children, religion, food, shelter, clothing, income, possessions, and recreation, are common to, and occupy the attention of most, if not all, of us.  Thus, people may look different, dress differently, speak differently, eat differently, and amuse themselves differently; but their basic concerns, motivations, and reactions are essentially the same everywhere you go. 

In fact, it seems that minor differences, in things like food, shelter, dress, and recreation, have usually resulted from geographic and climatic variations in the numerous parts of the earth that serve as home to the various families of the human race.  As such, they are simply results of man's original, and to some extent continuing, separation from one another, into groups or factions wherein customs and institutions have arisen and developed independently.  But these minor differences do not indicate fundamental differences among people per se.  Actually, such sorts of differences can and do exist among fellow countrymen--even among members of the same family--who may happen to reside in different parts of the world (perhaps even within the same country--such as Maine and Florida, within the United States).

My basic point is that people's customs, habits, and conventions always arose and developed as results or functions of the same basic human concerns, motivations, and reactions.  As varying resultant forms of independent development, they cannot be, and thus should not be considered to be, the cause of the world being divided into groups of separate, different, peoples.  Moreover, these differences are not, and should therefore cease being considered to be, the basis for beliefs that the human race is comprised of a number of distinctly different peoples, communities, or nations.  And if what I have stated above be correct, then a single world government is the logical and appropriate ultimate form of entity to direct and guide this single political unit that is mankind.

                                                                      * * * * *

Government implies a concept and comprises a process whereby man, born free, surrenders a portion of that freedom for the sake of security within society, and protection from the dangers that exist in the world.  In return for this surrender of some of our freedom, we seek, and hope to obtain, a measure of benefit and protection via the entity that is governing us and the group of which we are a part.

 A major part of that which we surrender consists of the rendering of goods (such as taxes), services (such as performance of military duties), and forebearances (such as refraining from acts that we might wish to carry out, but are forbidden from doing by the governing entity, or "law").  All of these are theoretically directed toward, and are supposed to result in, the common welfare of the governed group. 

But after surrendering these freedoms, the members of these groups (collectively referred to as "society") ought still retain a number of rights that have come to be called "inalienable."  Among these rights would be entitlement to life and welfare; property (that is not potentially harmful to the owner or others); tolerance for one's beliefs (provided they are not criminal or inflammatory--that is not productive of harm to the believer or others); freedom to utter or publish lawful speech and other forms of expression; the right to pursue knowledge and education; and equal treatment before the law.  Moreover, in addition to all of these aforesaid rights, people are also entitled to conditions wherein no person, group, or entity can or will  be above the law, or relieved of responsibility to account for their affairs or behavior.

Reducing the above to its most fundamental terms, government can thus be described as a simple contract by and between the governed and their government.  An essential prerequisite to such a contract is identification of the persons or entities, or kinds of persons or entities, who shall guide and direct the parties who are to thus accept and submit to said government.

Man has progressed beyond the age when groups of primitive people were directed by the strongest or fiercest among them.  Rule by monarchs, whose only claim to domination is the fact that their parents and forebears formerly dominated the people whom they now seek to dominate, is so out of touch with today's reality as to be clearly unacceptable.  Moreover, I am sure we would all agree that humans everywhere deserve more dignity, respect and security than that which is afforded them by the rule of tyrants.

Climbing but a step or two higher, rule by the "stars" of the currently prevailing political party within a nation or state--stars whose positions of leadership are products of their popularity, charisma, clever speeches, and ability to play the political power game--manifests but another example of unsatisfactory qualification for those who will be in positions to resolve the fate of the contracting parties (and perhaps, at times, of the entire human race and the world within which we reside).

A few days ago, it was suggested that a method be determined and formulated whereby the most qualified--in knowledge, experience, and expertise--be identified for all of the tasks involved in providing security, protection, and benefit for people and their world; and, once so identified, prevailed upon to assume these tasks, and to perform them in a strictly logical, objective, and nonpolitical fashion, in return for appropriate compensation.  These "directors" or "guides" would, in effect, be parties to a "social compact" betaween themselves and humankind.  They would not issue directions or guidance that were originated or composed in a personal or arbitrary fashion.  Additionally, safeguards would need to be put into place to guarantee that personal gain or advantage--to anyone--would play no part in their thinking, functioning, or performance.  In short, any and all direction and gjuidance by these officials would constitute merely the most appropriate courses of action to be taken, in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the particular matter, as well as in light of the generality of conditions involved at that time and place, and in the world in general.