A Patriots Manifest Date May 14 2008
William White
Going back to at least the founding of the Chinese empire in 200BC and maybe even 3000 years earlier there was a standard political model based on the following facts:
Up until 1200-1500 AD disease pools : smallpox in India; TB in Europe and so forth kept civilizations separate; going from one civilization to another to pick up new technology or food crops was very dangerous.
Empire building by moving into barbarian hinterlands, adding infrastructure and letting the higher carrying capacity increase population base had a lot of positive effects. Barbarian hinterlands ran out about 1900.
(Article Continues Below)
|
These facts led to a standard model of semi-socialized empire as an endpoint. The UN, NAFTA and the WTO are based on this endpoint. But that endpoint was based on assumptions that are hard to defend anymore:
Innovation is now more important than diffusion. Up until at least 1860 virtually all advances in technology were plug and play variations on devices that were in use prior to 1,000. Electric telegraphy, to take an obvious example of presumed exception to my generalization, was descended from what is now believed to have been costume jewelry industries: selling gold plate as gold may predate BC. In order to accomplish this rip-off the wires, wet cell batteries and solenoids of the telegraph were all needed , which is why Morse is famous for developing his code. When diffusion was limited an amplifier was needed to get the word out rapidly. That amplifier was the bureaucratic imperial state. With better communications this use is going bye-bye.
Since diffusion and innovation were formerly so rare bureaucratic interference with innovation was rather low cost/high revenue. Up until 1900-60 reasonable arguments against the New World Order could not marshal enough facts to make a decent case: bureaucratic revenues/bureaucratic costs was much higher than 1.
Constitutionalist/libertarian arguments need to focus on these and related facts in very simple terms. Take the tin hat arguments against the UN, NAFTA and WTO, they come across as obstructionist. A positive argument in the form of “no taxation without representation” can be substituted to abolish or reform in an acceptable fashion these currently imperial institutions while sounding “moderate” and electable. Have the General assembly of the UN stay the same only elect the US representative directly and try to persuade our allies to do likewise then try to make the security council be representative either on the basis of population (5% US vote) or UN dues (15% US vote). That would bring the UN to heel. Likewise an elected bicameral NAFTA or WTO legislature would be a very different creature. Opposition to such reforms can be denounced as statism, anti-democratic and numerous other hard or impossible to refute arguments that attack the intelligence, decency and/or integrity of our opponents.
I have no idea what the exact results of such reforms would be but this I do know we, as a nation, don’t have to consult anybody about how we choose our representatives to international bodies. I also know that representatives that report to the American people will see their jobs as a stepping stone to the presidency or Secretary Generalship and not pull stunts that might endanger their ascent to higher office so the current POTUS can look good in Paris, London, Ottawa, Geneva or Mexico City. It will result in different problems than what we have now. Having a UN rep that gets the US out of the UN and presumably the UN out of the UN as a way to win the American Union presidency is a possibility that our international opponents will have to fear. The same thing is true in reverse for our representatives in the American Union vs. the UN. “I am the elected representative of the United States” is much stronger than “I am the appointed representative of the US government”. This is the kind of reform that is a) needed and b) can be sold.
Innovation is now more important than diffusion. Up until at least 1860 virtually all advances in technology were plug and play variations on devices that were in use prior to 1,000. Electric telegraphy, to take an obvious example of presumed exception to my generalization, was descended from what is now believed to have been costume jewelry industries: selling gold plate as gold may predate BC. In order to accomplish this rip-off the wires, wet cell batteries and solenoids of the telegraph were all needed , which is why Morse is famous for developing his code. When diffusion was limited an amplifier was needed to get the word out rapidly. That amplifier was the bureaucratic imperial state. With better communications this use is going bye-bye.
Since diffusion and innovation were formerly so rare bureaucratic interference with innovation was rather low cost/high revenue. Up until 1900-60 reasonable arguments against the New World Order could not marshal enough facts to make a decent case: bureaucratic revenues/bureaucratic costs was much higher than 1.
Constitutionalist/libertarian arguments need to focus on these and related facts in very simple terms. Take the tin hat arguments against the UN, NAFTA and WTO, they come across as obstructionist. A positive argument in the form of “no taxation without representation” can be substituted to abolish or reform in an acceptable fashion these currently imperial institutions while sounding “moderate” and electable. Have the General assembly of the UN stay the same only elect the US representative directly and try to persuade our allies to do likewise then try to make the security council be representative either on the basis of population (5% US vote) or UN dues (15% US vote). That would bring the UN to heel. Likewise an elected bicameral NAFTA or WTO legislature would be a very different creature. Opposition to such reforms can be denounced as statism, anti-democratic and numerous other hard or impossible to refute arguments that attack the intelligence, decency and/or integrity of our opponents.
I have no idea what the exact results of such reforms would be but this I do know we, as a nation, don’t have to consult anybody about how we choose our representatives to international bodies. I also know that representatives that report to the American people will see their jobs as a stepping stone to the presidency or Secretary Generalship and not pull stunts that might endanger their ascent to higher office so the current POTUS can look good in Paris, London, Ottawa, Geneva or Mexico City. It will result in different problems than what we have now. Having a UN rep that gets the US out of the UN and presumably the UN out of the UN as a way to win the American Union presidency is a possibility that our international opponents will have to fear. The same thing is true in reverse for our representatives in the American Union vs. the UN. “I am the elected representative of the United States” is much stronger than “I am the appointed representative of the US government”. This is the kind of reform that is a) needed and b) can be sold.
__________________
Socio-biology and selection is a fact of life and death not a political option
Politics is a continuation of war by other means
Calling congress a parliament of whores insults the morals and principle of crack whores
Socio-biology and selection is a fact of life and death not a political option
Politics is a continuation of war by other means
Calling congress a parliament of whores insults the morals and principle of crack whores
The views expressed by William White are his and his alone and may not be the views expressed by A Patriots Manifest. Thank you .... Michael Roller...