World War or World Government

on Tuesday, 08 February 2011. Posted in James Kelley

World War or World GovernmentWhat if you had to choose between world war and world government, which one would you choose? Before you answer, let’s look at things in greater detail.

First, let’s consider why I would ask such a question. I ask the question because we may soon face that difficult choice. Events in Egypt have recently raged out of control. Similar things are unfolding in other nations as well. Couple that with the violence that erupted all over Europe last year and you have a very dangerous situation. This could even be the very early stages of a world war.

Now that we have looked at why the question gives world war as a possibility, let‘s look at the other possibility, world government. Any attempt to bring about world government will be sold to you as an end to war. In fact, both the League of Nations and the United Nations were based on this premise. Of course both of these organizations failed in that lofty goal. 

Recently Henry Kissinger, when speaking about the events in Egypt, said that those events were just the first act of a long play. It is interesting that he chose the word “play” to describe what’s going on. He could have said that this might be the beginning of a world war — but he didn’t. He described it as a play. A play is already written before the actors start doing their thing. A play is an illusion, either to entertain or to make a point. Were the events in Egypt written before they began to play out? Are those events an illusion created to make a point?

Soon you will likely hear a clamor for a stronger version of world government. People like Henry Kissinger will probably argue that the League of Nations and the United Nations failed because they didn’t have enough power. After all, they are voluntary organizations. They also have no standing army or police force. You will soon hear a call for a world government that no longer has these limitations. The argument will be that a strong world government can bring about an end to war.

Now that we understand why the question was asked, let’s look at world war and world government in greater detail and try to decide which is worse. First consider world war. I’m sure you are aware that world war involves a great deal of death and destruction. In World War I about 21 million people died. In World War II nearly 80 million lost their lives. Another world war would probably result in more deaths than the previous two combined.

That all sounds really bad so why not just choose world government? First, if a government has a large geographic reach, the people have less choice. This is simple, really. You can easily escape the reach of a city government that you don’t like. If you don’t like what your city is doing, you can move to a nearby city. With national government, it’s a little more difficult. If you don’t like what your nation is doing, you have to do some research to find out where you want to go. Then you can begin the long process of applying for the proper papers to allow you to work. Then you have to learn a new language. It’s a bigger deal. Now consider your options if you don’t like what a world government is doing. Unless you have a space ship in your garage and know of a nearby habitable planet, you are out of luck.

Second, when more power is concentrated into the hands of fewer people, there is more opportunity for corruption and abuse of power. First let’s consider corruption. Corruption can be defined as the money that government officials receive from some third party in exchange for some unwarranted government favor. If you oversee a city with a $2 million budget, the most you can steal through corruption is $2 million. Actually it is a lot less because you have to keep the amount small enough so it doesn’t get noticed. The bigger the budget, the more potential for theft of this kind.

Now let’s move from corruption to abuse of power. Think about what would have happened if there had been no other governments to stop Adolf Hitler. What if he had not been Chancellor of Germany but instead had been of Chancellor of the World?

Third, consider vote dilution. Let’s assume that the world government allows you to vote. When you are 1 of 200 people voting in a city election, your vote really matters. When you are one of 6 billion voting in a world-wide election, your vote has very little impact on the outcome of the election.

When you consider these factors, the problem with world government becomes apparent. Now I ask the question again, if you had to choose between world war and world government which one would you choose?  

James Kelley is a graduate of the University of Central Florida and the University of Florida. He has been a general practice attorney for over 13 years. He is also an author who has written two law books for the general public. He has been active in many political campaigns including the recent congressional elections.

Comments (1)

  • pacifist


    22 March 2012 at 05:52 |
    even rotten peace is better then honest war but what we all have to realise we cant go on breeding like rabits we are intiligent enough to understand if we dont change we will be changed only problem is you cant trust the devils who are enforcing change on eutanasia illegal in most countries tomorrow it will be compulsory.first we have to abolish money if we want to go into better future,money makes us all to live fraudentally and destructive way.without global dictatorship there is no way that humanity will survive.

Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.