| |
09/08/08
|
||||||||||||||||
|
December
28, 2004 People are far happier doing what they actually want to do in life rather than what they may be most qualified to do. Human nature is such that people resent having the fruits of their hard labor forcibly taken from them and distributed to those who've quite literally done nothing to earn it. Their own desire for comfort and accomplishment as well as to care for their own families ensures they'll do their best to keep what they can for themselves. It doesn't matter to them if that puts them on a higher footing than that enjoyed by their neighbors; they would, in fact, encourage their neighbors to do the same. Most of us know that giving to the undeserving merely makes them less responsible for themselves rather than encourages responsibility. None of this means that many people who have more than others aren't charitable and that there aren't circumstances where charity is warranted. But charitable giving is a much different animal than is authority-endorsed and enforced theft, not least in the fact that the former makes the giver feel good while the latter leaves a disgruntled victim behind; the former gives those in need a hand up, while the latter gives them a hand out. Because Communism doesn't work, whenever it's tried the people involved typically have to be forced to stay involved. So even as such a form of government engenders resentment at best, it also generates fear of those designated to force continued participation and support of the system that's causing the problem in the first place. Before you know it, Communism exists largely in name only and is only the most transparent of covers for what is really a tyrannical state. The inevitable truth is that the only people who benefit from such a form of government are those at the top, and the longer they're at the top being spoiled with all of that power and its accompanying benefits (notably not redistributed to the "little people"), the more rabidly they're inclined to cling to their positions. That, in turn, merely accelerates the schism between those in absolute power and those at the mercy of that power. I'm a longtime Star Trek fan (something which, believe it or not, relates closely to what I've been saying). I love the idea of traveling through the galaxy and meeting and learning from the other intelligences I'm convinced are out there. But there's an undercurrent to the Star Trek universe I'm finding darker and darker as real time and technological developments unfold. If you've ever seen one of the Star Trek TV series or movies, have you noticed that there's little if any mention of money (Deep Space Nine fans will note an exception, but will they also note that it's not humans that are that exception)? Have you seen the sparseness of personal possessions in the characters' onboard quarters or in their apartments? Have you really thought about the repeated mentions of how earth's nations finally united under one government, and how most disease and all poverty have been eradicated? Did you ever stop to consider how it is that any time a character is needed to further a plot, a computer somewhere knows where they are and is usually able to communicate the need for their presence immediately? How about the real—and frightening—implications of the proudly stated fact that very few criminals are punished with prison because they're re-educated instead by mental health personnel? There's even been mention at times of such things as a comprehensive human DNA database for all, and broad aptitude testing for most (though it was implied that that testing was needed to enter the StarFleet Academy, it was also noted that only 1% of those tested were offered admission, and in one Deep Space Nine episode it was broadly assumed that virtually all students took the test). Because there is obvious peace—at least on earth—in the fictional world of Star Trek, and because just about everybody is happy and successful, Star Trek is a dream world for more than a few fans. For comparable reasons, many are enamored with the idea of the United Nations which, like Communism, doesn't sound like a bad idea on paper. The United Nations is, in general terms, intended to foster world peace. In reality, however, it's working to redistribute the world's wealth and to coerce those who won't participate into doing so. And much as the typical heads of smaller Communist efforts, it's also corrupt from the top down. Consider:
Aside from the notion of corruption, and perhaps even more importantly, the United Nations and some of its projects and resolutions fly directly in the face of some of the most valued liberties the Constitution of the United States guarantees will be protected for American citizens. Not least among them is the right to keep and bear arms. In its "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects," the UN requires member nations to (among other things):
The UN goes beyond mere government interference and directly mitigates parental authority with its 1989-1990 Convention of the Child, wherein it decides that:
Want a really good look at UN attempts to undermine US sovereignty? American soldiers take an oath to defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to uphold the Constitution. Yet soldiers sent on UN "peacekeeping" missions must declare an oath to the United Nations, one which supercedes their oath to the Constitution. One soldier who refused to place another oath above the one he took on behalf of his country was actually court martialed for failing to don UN uniform gear and take an oath to a charter he believes contradicts the Constitution (which, as it happens, it does). This American patriot was subsequently given a "bad conduct" discharge, a designation he continues to fight. Now no one would suggest that firearms be available for the taking on street corners or that children stay in homes where they're abused; and no one would advocate a child be refused medical care or be taken without cause from his parents; surely most would agree that American forces participate in protecting others largely helpless from genocide or invasion. But these various UN programs clearly make at least a concerted effort to interfere with the national sovereignty of member states even as they work toward an obvious redistribution of wealth both within and without those same member states. In fact, the only differences that I can see between a Communist state such as Cuba and the United Nations as a whole are these: Cuba is smaller, and Cuba is largely condemned by free nations around the world. Unfortunately, the UN is a global body, and too many still seem to believe it's the ideal answer to so many problems around the world. Of course, there's one other important difference, too: UN edicts are largely without teeth, and UN troops are mostly insufficient to offer real force. But how long can the latter last if the former remains true? And for how many more years will the UN be willing to offer "suggestions" and "conventions" before it gets down to business? With the clear weakness of the UN's Secretary General at the moment, and with a US administration that seems inclined to go along with the UN only when it suits its own purposes to do so, there may never be a more opportune time to get the United Nations out of the United States and the United States out of the United Nations. In fact, several groups have joined forces in an attempt to prevent the UN from requested physical expansions on US soil, and thousands of Americans have signed petitions to curb or eliminate US involvement with the UN. There's certainly ample cause and resentment to justify taking such actions, and enough public and political support to make them stick. For a moment, though, consider the underlying and most important point: UN efforts are, however they're written and read, an ongoing program to undermine both genuine freedom and American sovereignty. Even if such a world as the UN touts could be established and would work exactly as advertised, is it a world you're really willing to live in? A world where the goverment pointedly involves itself in everything from your decisions as to how to raise your children to a redistribution of your wealth to ensure a standard of living for others? (I grant you we already have something like that here, but can you imagine the tax burden on a worldwide welfare system?— something which, by the way, the UN is also trying to do.) A world where you - and others - are monitored for safety, security, and compliance? Where soldiers and police defend first the global ideal, then the masses, the individual a far distant third, and your country not at all? Do you want to make your home in a place where your actions would be dictated by cross-cultural political correctness at best? Is your hope for the future a world perhaps less cruel in some places but, as a result, not free anywhere? Even the imagined world of Star Trek, while pretty enough on television, is not a future I'd much care to see realized. The future envisioned by the UN is nowhere near so altruistic, and its reality will certainly prove to be far worse should we allow it to come to pass. Thankfully, I've always been partial to something else that Star Trek made famous, and that's the Klingon warrior. They may be harsh, but they believe in freedom and they're willing to fight for honor. In the end, it seems maybe some part of Star Trek can serve as a worthy example after all. That assumes, of course, that there are still some Americans who, like the fictional Klingons, believe in freedom and honor themselves.
Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House. E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com. |
Wyoming or Bust: Boston T. Party's Q&A on Free State Wyoming The Lesser Evil vs. The Greatest Good The (Too) High Cost of Politics Lady Liberty Interviews Michael Badnarik If You Can't Say Anything Nice... See Instructions Before Beginning Complete Archives for Lady Lib | ||||||||||||||
 |
Submit
Feedback
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|