CHAPTER 21
A NEW AGE OR A NEW WORLD ORDER?

We've seen that government, as we know it today, is not the benevolent protector we hoped it would be. Instead, it is a mechanism by which we direct the guns of government at our neighbors out of fear that they might choose differently than we would like them to. We reap as we sow. In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled. In failing to honor our neighbor's choice, we create a world of poverty and strife.

Even when we defend ourselves against those who take aggressive action, we begin by becoming aggressors ourselves. With the guns of government, we tax our neighbors to establish exclusive, subsidized police and military monopolies. Like most monopolies, these protection agencies are more expensive and less effective than they would be in the absence of aggression. As we learned in Chapter 20 (National Defense), actions undertaken for national security may have endangered us more than having no defense at all!

As long as we employ the guns of government to force our neighbors to our will, aggression will be the instrument by which we enslave ourselves. This is as true of global government as it is of our local and national ones.

To many, unification through world government symbolizes the end of war. Unification can be achieved in one of two ways: by choice (non-aggression) or by force (aggression). The result we get is very different depending on the means we use to get there.

For example, the physical and emotional joining that occurs spontaneously between lovers differs considerably from the forcible unification of rape. Global unity, achieved or maintained by aggression instead of by honoring our neighbor's choice, is the antithesis of universal love as well.

Let's examine five areas that world government (sometimes referred to as the New World Order) would address to see if its consummation would be an act of love or rape.

Controlling Population Growth

As we learned in Chapter 2 (Wealth Is Unlimited!), population density has little impact on a country's wealth. Both Japan and West Germany are more populated than Mexico and East Germany, yet the former two countries are both much wealthier. (1) Famine results from restricting the creation of wealth by aggression-through-government (Chapters 18 (Beacon to the World) and 19 (The Communist Threat Is All in Our Minds)), not from overpopulation. Nevertheless, prudent people know that the earth cannot sustain unlimited increases in population. Some believe the solution is to limit childbearing at gunpoint, if necessary through world government.

The "carrying capacity" of the earth depends on the type of society it sustains. The earth has a lower carrying capacity for hunting and gathering populations than for farming societies. Improved farming techniques regularly increase the yield per acre and the earth's carrying capacity along with it. (2)

Additional space in densely populated areas can be provided by multilevel buildings. Clearly, the carrying capacity of the earth changes with how we use the space that we have. The high standard of living enjoyed by the densely populated Japanese suggest that we are nowhere near reaching the earth's carrying capacity. Perhaps by the time we do reach it, colonizing other planets will provide another way of expanding.

In all likelihood, however, we will not need to worry about exceeding the earth's carrying capacity. As societies become wealthier, the number of births drops dramatically. (3) In the United States, we have come close to stabilizing our population, even though children are partially subsidized through income tax exemptions and encouraged by the structure of our welfare system.

The reasons people have more children in developing countries is not difficult to discern. In a rural economy, children contribute quite early to a family's financial well-being. Farming, especially in Third World countries, depends heavily on manual tasks simple enough for children to perform. If a world government were to limit the number of children a rural couple could have, they would lose a source of wealth-creating labor. As a family, they would be poorer and more likely to go hungry. A ban on children would probably create more famine, not less. As always, aggression-through-government is likely to aggravate the problem, not solve it.

In an industrialized economy such as ours, manual labor, especially child labor, creates little wealth relative to the work of experienced, skilled adults. As a result, children are a net drain on family resources for many more years than they are in rural economies. As nations become more affluent, people have the incentive to raise fewer children.

Thus, the most effective way to control population is to increase the Wealth Pie by doing away with the aggression-through-government that keeps the Third World poor. The most effective way to achieve zero population growth is to encourage the worldwide practice of non-aggression so that all people can climb the Ladder of Affluence.

Protecting the Environment Rainforests

As detailed in Chapter 18 (Beacon to the World), the clearing of the rainforests results from aggressive government policy. Third World governments fail to honor or defend the homesteading claims of the natives who inhabit them, especially when timber companies pay the heads of state for such oversights. The licensing laws and other restrictions on the creation of wealth imposed on the population (Chapter 18: Beacon to the World) drives people to exploit the rainforests as well. The same heads of state responsible for creating the rainforest problem will determine who represents their country in a world government just as these officials currently select who will attend the United Nations. Obviously, these representatives will defend the exploitation of the rainforest.

Special interest groups that profit from destroying the rainforests will lobby world government representatives in much the same way they lobby our domestic officials to cut down our national forests. The representatives do not personally profit from long-term planning for the rainforests, because they have no homesteading or ownership claim. By turning the rainforests over to special interest groups, however, these officials can be amply rewarded from the short-term profit the rainforests generate. World government representatives will have every incentive to turn their backs on the plight of the rainforests and their native inhabitants.

Representatives who are steadfast in their determination to preserve the rainforests will be pressured by other domestic special interest groups to sacrifice the rainforests to gain votes for their particular cause. A person willing to sacrifice domestic special interests for the global good will be replaced by a candidate able to maintain the lucrative special interest support. Special interests will influence the world government as they do in every country today.

As a result, world government will not protect the rainforests any better than national governments do. A policy that permits the destruction of the rainforests will do so on a global level, instead of a national one. We have only to observe how our national forests are sacrificed locally (Chapter 8: Destroying the Environment) to see what we can expect globally.

The way to protect the rainforests, as described in Chapter 18 (Beacon to the World), is to recognize the homesteading claims of the native inhabitants. Historically, governments have failed to do this. Instead, native people (including those indigenous to the United States), have been ruthlessly pushed aside so that special interests may be served.4 More aggression-through-government will be part of the problem, not the solution.

Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of individuals or tribes owning part of the earth. Ownership conjures up the image of a selfish other withholding a part of Mother Earth from other fellow humans. A global "commons" sounds more inclusive, more sharing. These images, however, are sheer illusion, perhaps even perpetrated by the special interests that profit from such an outlook.

Because selfish owners want to profit as much as possible from their land, they have incentive to treat their property in a way that increases its value to others. The price that owners can get for the land depends on how other members of society value the care given to it. A selfish owner has incentive to heed the priorities of the whole.

What would prevent a special interest group from purchasing the rainforests? Nothing as long as they were willing to pay the full costs of them. Today, the rainforests cost special interests only a convenient payoff to those who control these lands and do not benefit by long term management. The price of buying rainforest property from owners who can profit from long-term care would be much higher. Exploitation is no longer affordable.

Government officials who control the commons are as selfish as property owners. However, these officials profit only when they favor the special interests over the common good. If those controlling the rainforests nobly attempt to do otherwise, special interest groups probably will see that they lose their jobs. The interests of the few work against the interests of the many. With aggression, looking out for Number 1 goes against the welfare of the whole. Without aggression, the same drive becomes harnessed for the greater good. We truly live in a win-win world!

Endangered Species
On Land. Some conservationists see a global government as a way to enforce worldwide bans on hunting endangered species, such as elephants and rhinos. Such bans threaten first-strike force against those who try to create wealth by "harvesting" these unclaimed animals. The guns of government are used to prevent homesteading of wild herds in much the same way as they are used to prevent homesteading of land. Environmentalists support such bans in the belief that they preserve endangered species. In fact, just the opposite is true.

For example, elephant hunting has been banned in Kenya. In 1989, these animals numbered only 19,000, down from 65,000 in 1979.5 On the other hand, in Zimbabwe, homesteading claims of natives to elephants on their land have been respected. Elephant products can be legally sold. Naturally, the natives protect their valuable elephants from poachers. The natives raise as many elephants as possible so they can sponsor safaris and sell elephant ivory, hide, and meat. As a result, the elephant population has increased from 30,000 to 43,000 over the past ten years. People will protect the environment when they own it and profit from it.

We never worry about cows and horses becoming extinct. They are plentiful because we own them and profit from their use. We have motivation to make sure they propagate. Ownership encourages effective stewardship of wildlife, just as it encourages protection of the land. Although it happens from time to time, few people are foolish enough to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

On Sea. The same principle applies to marine life as well. In some states, homesteading of oyster beds is permitted. Private oyster beds are more prolific and profitable than public ones. The owners have incentive to invest money in caring for the beds and harvesting them sustainably. (6)

Unfortunately, the guns of government are used to prevent individuals and groups from homesteading parcels of ocean other than oyster beds. As a result, no one has incentive to fish sustainably. In the first half of this century, shrimp fishers along the Gulf coast attempted to homestead these areas as a group to prevent overfishing. (7) The government refused to recognize their claim.

Many other environmental benefits result from ocean ownership. If an oil tanker wanted permission to cross a fishery, owners likely would demand that the tanker carry adequate insurance or have safeguards against rupture. Insurance costs would be lower for ships with such safeguards, thus encouraging careful construction of tankers. As a result, oil spills would be less likely. Oil companies would be ready to deal with the few accidents that occurred since delay would increase the cost of righting the wrong.

Owners would also be more likely to invest in artificial reefs to bolster the fish population. Whalers could operate only with the permission of the owners, much as hunters must request permission to stalk deer on privately owned land. Ocean owners profit most by making sure that the valuable species in their region are not hunted to extinction. Migrating species could be protected by agreements between adjoining owners. Since some ocean plots might be quite expensive, corporations or conservation-oriented groups might purchase them. Conservationists could simply buy ocean lots favored by species they wish to protect, much as the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society purchase land today. If conservationists did not wish to buy ocean plots outright, they could pay owners for hunting rights and then not exercise them. Instead of lobbying government officials in the hopes of achieving effective legislation, they could buy protection of the environment directly!

World government would be unlikely to institute these reforms. Traditionally, governments have taken charge of the oceans much as they have done with the rainforests, disregarding the claims of those who have tended them. Instead, governments have turned these sensitive environments over to special interest groups. Since these groups do not actually own these areas, they cannot profit by giving them long-term care. If special interests groups had to purchase ocean plots or rainforests, instead of simply paying off government officials, destroying these environments would no longer be profitable. Only long-term planning would protect such an expensive investment.

Controlling the Greenhouse Effect

The media talk about the "greenhouse effect" as if it were established fact. Our meteorologists can hardly predict tomorrow's temperature accurately, yet somehow predictions of a few degrees of global warming over the next few decades is supposed to be possible! I don't need my Ph.D. in biophysics to know that this kind of logic just doesn't add up!

Every week, I scan the prestigious Science magazine for the latest in the global warming debate. Scientists cannot seem to agree on whether or not global temperatures are rising unnaturally. Satellite data from 1979 to 1988 reveal no warming trend at all.4 Surface measurements reveal an increase from 1880 to 1940, but little upward movement after 1940, the years of heaviest industrial activity (see Figure 21.1). (5)

Some scientists believe the increase in temperature earlier in this century was simply due to the urbanization of rural areas during that time. Urban areas tend to trap heat more than rural ones. (6) Temperature-sensing de-vices are usually located in cities and might reflect these fluctuations.

If, in spite of evidence to the contrary, we assume that the world is warming, what would cause it? The earth has gone through several Ice Ages and warming cycles without human help and might be doing so again. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the ozone level correlates better with sunspot activity than with human endeavors. (7)

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), for example, were introduced in the second half of this century, while the largest temperature increases were seen before 1940. (5) CFCs do destroy ozone, but so do volcanoes. In 1976, for example, the eruption of the Alaskan Augustine Volcano produced 570 times as much chlorine as was put into the atmosphere by CFCs and other chlorine emissions in 1975! (8) Consequently, banning CFCs would have minor impact on ozone levels. However, stopping the sale of CFCs at gunpoint, if necessary might have significant impacts on the health of the poor in developing nations.

The CFCs are used primarily as refrigerants. Current substitutes are more costly and less effective.9 Worldwide refitting and shifting to these substitutes may cost as much as $100 billion within the next decade. Unable to afford new refrigerators, the poor, especially the Third World poor, may have to do without. Food spoilage with the accompanying threat of food poisoning is much more common in the tropical countries of the world and could become more frequent. Banning CFCs could very well kill long before a hole in the ozone ever could. That's a hefty price to pay for an inaccurate weather prediction.

Note: Zero line shows the average temprature for the years 1951-1980. Source: D. James E. Hansen, NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Reprinted with permission of Consumers' Research Magazine. 1991 by Consumers' Research, Inc.

Such a sacrifice is likely to be unnecessary, even if we one day experience a greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is purported to account for about 49% of all greenhouse gases. An increase in carbon dioxide along with global temperatures will stimulate the growth of plants, both on land and sea. Farmers would enjoy bumper food crops and warmer oceans would produce larger plankton populations. Plants absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (10) Global temperatures would probably be normalized by Nature's self-regulating global ecosystem.

Should we ever face global warming, we may find it a pleasant surprise. A tropical earth would have more bountiful plant and animal life and require less fossil fuel for heating. Since the geological record suggests we may be due for an Ice Age, (11) inducing global warming might actually prevent a greater catastrophe!

Finally, the earth is such a large heat sink that any warming resulting from human activities would occur gradually over several decades, giving us plenty of time to react. Rising seas would inch forward year after year, providing ample time to build dikes and sea walls. (12) If a chemical were damaging others in any way, its price (in a non-aggressive society) would rise in order to compensate the victims. A high price would discourage use and encourage innovative substitutes without aggression.

A global government, patterned after the governments of today, would undoubtedly expect taxpayers, not the aggressor, to make the victims whole again. If people died needlessly because of a banned chemical, the representatives of a world government could claim sovereign immunity, as our own government did after poisoning people with fallout from nuclear testing. More aggression-through-government is not the solution to global warming, real or imagined.

Issuing Global Currency

A single, global currency sounds heavenly to world travelers who are constantly exchanging one type of money for another. However, these different currencies are an important part of the self-regulating marketplace ecosystem, even though the marketplace is hardly free from aggression. Each country's central bank has the power to inflate the currency as much as it wants, thereby increasing its profits. However, if other countries' central banks don't follow suit, this plan is foiled.

For example, if our Federal Reserve starts inflating our currency while the Japanese central bank does not, our dollar becomes worth less compared to the yen. Savvy investors bring their dollars into the banks and exchange them for the more valuable yen. The more the central bank tries to increase the money supply, the more people fearfully convert their dollars to something else. The banks can't profit if people won't take their dollars. The diverse currency in the marketplace ecosystem still regulates the central banks to some extent.

If everyone is forced at gunpoint, if necessary to use a single global currency, these checks and balances are destroyed. The central bank can manipulate the money supply at will. Through inflation, wealth would be transferred from those who had no property and savings to those who did. Alternating inflation with deflation would bankrupt those who failed to accurately predict the timing of the cycles and invest their resources accordingly (see Chapter 9 (Banking on Aggression) for a review of this process). Those who control the money supply would get richer at the expense of the less fortunate.

The power at the apex of the Pyramid is so great that a global currency would allow those who control it to have more power than any ruling elite has ever known.

Keeping the Peace

A global government would centralize military capability. Nations would turn their weaponry over to the international "peace keeping" force. When enough countries had joined, the global government could force the remaining nations into the pact in the name of global unity.

Once disarmed, nations could not go to war against each other. Peace would presumably ensue. In practice, the guns of world government would simply be pointed alternatively at majorities and minorities. Just as in our country, they would take turns being victims and aggressors. As always, aggression would favor the well-to-do. Special interest groups would once again triumph.

The banking interests would inflate the currency rapidly, redistributing wealth to those who are already well endowed. The earth's oceans and rainforests would remain in the custody of representatives who profit most by allowing special interests to exploit these resources. As usual, aggressors would not be required to compensate victims. Sovereign immunity would protect government officials when their actions harmed others. The world would grow ever poorer.

As we realized our mistake, we might try to assert our independence from the global government. We would then have to fight the combined weaponry of the entire world!

A worse fate might befall us, however. With no country permitted to try different ways of relating to others, there would be no example for us to imitate. With education controlled globally, the ideas of non-aggression might never be taught at all. We certainly didn't learn about it in our schools in spite of our heritage as the first modern country to recognize the importance of the first principle of non-aggression, honoring our neighbor's choice. We might never realize that there could be a better way, a path to peace and plenty.

We might remain in another Dark Age, so blind that we never realize that a win-win world is just within our grasp.

Earlier, we asked ourselves whether global government was the unity of love or rape. We've seen that a world government operating on aggression will not give us the unity we seek. Instead of a haven, it will be a trap. Instead of a blissful union, it will be enforced bondage. Instead of controlling selfish others, we will once more find ourselves controlled.

Only when we honor our neighbor's choice will we have true unity. We love others as ourselves when we treat their choices with the same respect we give our own.

When we practice non-aggression, we undo the damage we have done. When we right our wrongs, we have no reason to feel guilt or separation.

Together, these two principles make up the practice of non-aggression. Isn't this how we want others to do unto us? Isn't this the way we want the world to be?

People who do good things for the environment should benefit, and the people who harm the environment should pay the cost of the harm they cause.

- Richard Stroup, Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, Montana

The world's 150 governments have historically been enemies of the environment.

- Richard Stroup, Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, Montana

I am certain that most working climatologists believe that there has been no significant increase in temperature in the last 100 years.

- William A. Neirenberg, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Even a 5 percent decrease in the ozone layer, as calculated by the most pessimistic scenarios, would increase ultraviolet exposure only as much as moving sixty miles south-the same distance as from Palm Beach to Miami.

- S. Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia

...probably more people would die from food poisoning as a consequence of inadequate refrigeration than would die from depleting ozone.

- Robert Watson, NASA scientist, referring to the effects of a CFC ban

Government, in its last analysis, is organized force.

- President Woodrow Wilson

...once having joined the One-World Federated Government, no nation could secede or revolt... because with the Atom Bomb in its possession the Federal Government would blow that nation off the face of the earth.

- Cord Meyer, Jr., first president of the United World Federalists

...the need of a growing solidarity with our fellows and a growing collective soul in humanity is not in dispute. But the loss of the self in the State is not the thing these high ideals mean, nor is it the way to their fulfillment.

- Sri Aurobindo, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT

We shall have world government whether or not you like it-by conquest or consent.

- James Warburg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1950.

If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts and the world will govern itself.

- Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING