Some believe that we are rapidly moving towards a world
government. The European Union was one of the most visible expressions of this
motion. NAFTA, ASEAN, and other trading blocks were seen as small moves in the
same direction. The UN was the dream of the mushy-headed, those living on
intellectual welfare with no real-life experience of how wealth is created.
A world government would be unsustainable if it ever came
to pass, for the kind of people who work in governments always take pride at
backstabbing one another, as well as their competitors in other governments.
People’s lives have changed tremendously, given easy travel and high
technology, but the structure of governments has not changed.
The world is becoming increasingly complex, but the
institution of the state has remained mostly unchanged, making large
governments very brittle….
So far from world government being likely to happen, the
future belongs to smaller states. But this will happen after a lot of turmoil.
Most banks comply with US bullying, although the cost of
compliance is horrendous for financial institutions around the world. One day a
breaking point will come and they will stop. Perhaps an alternative
international currency will trigger this….
The bigger states will break
Before the world starts ignoring the diktats of the
United States, America will become increasingly heavy-handed. Anything it
doesn’t like will be considered "terrorism." For Americans, privacy
will cease to exist. This is not based on prophecy, but on the history of how
human civilizations have evolved and gone out of existence. The Roman Empire
disappeared. So did the English and the French empires.
In other large countries — India, Brazil, France, the UK,
etc. — the institution of government will come under huge amounts of stress, as
heightened expectations of a populations hugely influenced by the modern-day
welfare system can no longer be met. The world is becoming increasingly
complex, with new technologies and cheap traveling, but the institution of the
state has remained mostly unchanged, making large governments very brittle.
While all conventional religions are tribal in nature,
they at least have elements of compassion, honesty, and other virtues. But
statism thrives on hatred for other people.
To me the “Arab Spring” was the first visible sign of
this. So was the democratic movement in Hong Kong. Behind the facade of higher
vision and increased nationalism is indoctrination of a populace that is
incapable of critical thinking, the kind of populace that in earlier
generations would have stayed out of having an opinion on public policy. They
have come to see democracy as a magic wand that delivers whatever one aspires
for, merely through the vote. Nationalism is the emotional crutch for their
failure to be self-dependent and their lack of self-confidence. None of these
fake, irrational values can keep big nation-states glued together when the crunch
time comes.
The result will be the possible breakup of many of the
larger states. Would the US also break up? The irrational tribal slogan — “we
are the biggest and the best” — can keep the US together for only so long. So
far from world government being likely to happen, the future belongs to smaller
states. But this will happen after a lot of turmoil, ironically made worse by
the fact that in general, today’s populace is likely more statist and patriotic
than the previous generations.
Central America: case studies on small countries
I have been very impressed with how well Hong Kong and
Singapore are organized. In fact, I have become enamored with small countries.
I recently spent two months travelling in Central
America, trying to understand its economy and people….
These small states recognize the economic importance of
expatriates and mostly let them get on with their lives. Protecting property
rights is their core competence. Nicaragua, for example, has become an
attractive place for property investment, offering the cheapest options for
those who can navigate this emerging country. In terms of expense, Panama is in
between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Panama offers quality at a reasonable price. It also uses
the US dollar, which is not the best way to run a monetary policy, for it is
still dependent on a fiat currency, but this ensures that Panamanians cannot
run their own printing press. Of course, they have no central bank of their
own, and hence no cartel that comes with it.
Why is a place such as this, relatively conflict-free and
wth enormous natural resources, not very rich?
Not only Americans and Canadians but also those from
Ecuador, Venezuela, and other countries are finding safety in Panama. As a rule
of thumb, small countries offer asset protection that big counties don't, for
if these small countries stop respecting property rights, expatriates will fly
away with their money.
Neither Costa Rica nor Panama has a military. This not
only saves what would have been about 5% of the GDP in wastage but it sets a
certain way of thinking among the citizenry. War is the health of the state,
and statism is the worst religion. While all conventional religions are tribal
in nature, they at least have elements of compassion, honesty, and other
virtues. But statism thrives on hatred for other people. When you have the
military solely for defence, narrowly defined (as is the case with Singapore
and Switzerland) or have no military at all (as in Panama and Costa Rica), the
social mindset is not about hatred for people who are different.
The repercussions are far-reaching. Less hatred also
means fewer social conflicts within such societies, and hence a lack of civil
wars within these countries. One must still be cautious about isolated crimes….
When traveling around in Costa Rica and Panama one must
wonder — as I did — why a place that has been relatively conflict-free and has
enormous natural resources is not a very rich place. Businesses tend to hire
expatriates as much as they can. Locals are not known for their work ethic. Why
this is the case, I am not sure. But that is why I travel, for it forces me to
think about issues that would otherwise not occur to me. It hones my
understanding of cultures, politics, and economics. Again, as an individualist,
what I care about most is what affects me; and I doubt that the realm of One
World Government would stimulate me much.
-----------
See also:
Pol. Ideology 61: Raison d 'Etre of Government, January 30, 2015
Pol. Ideology 62, Marx and Hayek on Property Rights, May 19, 2015
Pol. Ideology 63, Alternative Economic System, May 25, 2015
