ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT: LARRY HILLEBRAND ATTACKS CORBETT'S NOTION OF INEVITABLILTY.

Larry Hillebrand
July 2001

Bob,

Beg to differ with your viewpoint - in a nice academic argumentative way.

Corbett writes:

"I think the signs are there that globalism, moves more and more toward one world government, are very likely to occur in some form or other in the 21st century. It won't be without a terrible struggle on the part of nation states, and particularly those like the U.S. with the most to lose, but I just can't see how the nation state structure can survive."

Hillebrand replies:

Background:

The nation state concept of political organization arose during the 18th Century - not so long ago - and this model replaced the working model of centuries - the autocratic structure.

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of nation states has exploded. The UN now numbers some 141 member nations. This number of members makes for a very inefficient, perhaps impossible, structure to be capable of functioning in a mode other then that of a debating society.

The demise of the Soviet Union provided many new nations. The break up of the former Yugoslavia, the formation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and dismemberment of the empire formed countries of Africa, have all added many new nations.

And the process continues - Palestinian, Kurds, and Armenian 's are all agitating for their own space. And many other groups visualize a higher degree of independence. The factual trend is toward splintering, not towards centralization.

I agree that the current situation is untenable. Many of these newly formed states are clearly not economically viable and exist only at the sufferance of their neighbors. Sufferance is a condition which exists in good times. But what will emerge is not as obvious ...

T he idea of a nation state is that of a polity, formed by a common culture, ethnic, racial, or religious basis. People who choose to form a closer union - a shared experience.

Please read the above statement closely as it is the key to all that follows. Note that I did not include economics, or political "ism" as a rationale for union.

Now, based upon above some theorems to be tested by peer review:

1. Nations exist to support and maintain the prerogatives of the elites of those states. (This is not to say how states are created, this is how they exist.) The primary function of a state is not to provide the greatest good to the greatest number.
2. Government, be it of a nation or of a world, is not, and will not be, based upon altruism. World government will never exist until it has another reason for existence. And an elite who envisions profiting from its existence. It will need to have a functioning mechanism to establish parameters of behavior, and a means of coercion to enforce its will.
3. It is international globalism which allows the proliferation of nation states to exist. It is mercantile globalism which is the mechanism which provides the essentials necessary for national survival. eg You want oil? You got money? You got the oil - any amount, anywhere, anytime.
4. Nation States will continue as long as the elites of those states can obtain the essentials deemed important to them.
5. Crunch time comes when the answer to the question is - You want oil ? I won't give it to you as there is not enough to go around, or I need it more then you.
6. Technology has changed the great game of nations from "Zero Sum" to "Bigger Pie." Zero Sum" game means that for you to have more I have to have less; the total amount is fixed. "Bigger Pie" says to increase the total amount of food we can fertilize, raise more food on the same land.

   All technological solutions eventually lead to "Zero Sum."

7. Will the nation state survive when the choices are: Maintenance of the ideal of forming a closer union vs in order to maintain the desirable benefits of union we will need to lower our life style ?
8. Or will the future begin when the alternative is faced: What do we have to do to maintain our standard of living in face of shortages of material things we need ?

I am interested in supporting / contending views....

Larry Hillebrand