of the World?
last time I was in the voting booth, New World Order wasn't one
of the choices on the ballot. But ready or not, here it comes. In
a question and answer session at the Economic Club of New York,
George Bush confirmed that by this phrase he means world rule by
the U. S. government through the Security Council of the U.N. Or,
as he once defined the purpose of the recent war, making sure that
"what we say, goes."
U.S. government which can't balance the budget or make Washington,
D.C., safe now seeks global dominion. "Globaloney," Clare Booth
Luce called it.
Founding Fathers would have recognized this as the hubris that destroyed
ancient Rome. From their study of history and politics, the Founders
knew we could not have limited government at home and imperial sway
overseas. A State that claimed the right to topple other governments
would hardly abstain from running our homes and workplaces.
de Tocqueville wrote that "In no other country in the world is the
love of property keener or more alert than in the United States,
and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward
doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned."
That was the foundation of America's economic greatness. The welfare
state obliterates our property rights. The New World Order (NWO)
targets what's left.
cost of bribing and bombing other countries added to an already
gigantic military and foreign aid budget will bankrupt us. During
the Iraq war, there were 33 other wars going on. Is the U. S. going
to cure them too?
bureaucracies exist to devour what is private, the NWO provides
a new excuse. From HHS ("ensuring healthy soldiers for the world")
to the Department of Education ("teaching children to bear any burden,
pay any price, for global democracy"), every agency will bloom.
the NWO breeds deference to the government. If D.C. can run the
world, why not our families and companies too?
libertarians say: Don't worry, be happy. The global economy, because
it's global, hampers interference by domestic bureaucrats. In fact,
it gives the government incentives to expand internationally, as
we already see in securities, banking, and tax law.
conservatives, seeing the linkage between global trade and global
government, urge protectionism. But this wealth-destroying policy
makes no more sense than outlawing American industries because the
government will aggress against them. In addition, the institution
deciding who does what to whom under protectionism is the executive,
the very branch of government seeking world hegemony.
like Robert Kuttner in his End
of Laissez-Faire champion a NWO and its politically managed
trade, world currency and central bank, global EPA, and universal
welfare exactly the arrangement John Maynard Keynes advocated
in the 1940s.
von Mises called this "the delusions of world planning."
politicians may talk of world law and world peace, their regulatory
and financial apparatus must create conflict, Mises demonstrated.
"Government can give to one group only what it takes from another."
Thus it merely creates at the world level what it begat at home:
"bounty receivers" and the "more numerous class of bounty payers."
talk" about a "world authority" to bring "world peace" is "in vain,"
wrote Mises. It would simply divide nations into two groups: "the
exploiting and the exploited; those restricting output and charging
monopoly prices, and those forced to pay monopoly prices." The "inevitable
result" must be "new wars."
need not be that way, of course. George Washington urged us to "observe
good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony
great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in
extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political
connection as possible."
by entangling our destiny" with foreign governments, should we "entangle
our peace and prosperity" in the toils of their "ambition, rivalship,
interest, humor, or caprice?"
this century, we have heeded that advice about as often as we have
obeyed his injunction to "cherish the public credit" by using it
"as sparingly as possible."
urge, wrote John C. Calhoun, that it is the mission of America to
spread "liberty over all the globe by force." He called this "a
sad delusion" that would threaten our liberty. Instead he
urged "moderation and justice toward all nations" and the avoidance
of "war whenever it can be avoided."
should send "her benedictions, and her prayers" to "wherever the
standard of freedom has been or shall be unfurled," said John Quincy
Adams. But "she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy"
lest she be entangled "beyond the power of extrication, in all the
wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition,
which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental
maxim of our policy would insensibly change from liberty to force."
America "might become the dictatress of the world," but "she would
no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."
this not the New World Order? Give me the old American republic.