Globalization and the Constitution of a One World Government

There are many matters of concern to men worldwide, debatable matters both social and political, most of them with roots going back to the Stone Age. As a result of the interminable debates over definitions and understandings, largely moral, of right and wrong, they've often spawned public 'issues'. However... whether resolved peacefully or not, whether they linger or not, they are always worthy of attention. After all, amidst avariciousness understandings have not yet matured.

The dictionary's definition of egalitarianism: 1. a belief in human equality esp. with respect to social, political and economic rights and privileges 2. a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

How globalization and a one-world government offers a golden opportunity for human rights

(1st edition - May 2008) by A.O. Kime

for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article

The battle for egalitarianism, a term which encompasses both 'human rights' and 'equal rights', has been a continuing struggle for thousands of years. By whatever term one might want to call these inalienable rights however, which could be considered under the umbrella of humanitarianism, it's all about justice. Every government, whatever its political ideology, claims to represent justice but in the end... few, if any, actually have. Tokenism is to be their legacy. Only the citizenry, it seems, have remained loyal to the ideal of justice. Yet, drawn from the pool of citizens is government... evidence the corruptible nature of institutions.

While battles over rights are being waged on several fronts, albeit by happenstance, an offense on several fronts carried out by different groups will prove more effective because a single unit becomes, in effect, an institution. And institutions, like a country, while productive initially to serve a purpose, always fail in the end because they soon begin to serve themselves instead. Even cooperatives have been known to turn on their members.

Yet, current events are shedding light on a new way to combat the continual abuse of rights... perhaps to eliminate the problem forever. It's creative and a chance-of-a-lifetime. But first, we begin by addressing the war and ongoing battles.

Human rights, the war of all wars

While a multi-front war has its advantages, as guerrilla warfare has shown, oftentimes too many individual battles going on simultaneously can also obscure the overall picture, where things stand. After all, it involves battles over political accountability, gun ownership, personal drug use, property rights, corporate slave-wages, prostitution, discrimination, prison conditions, abortion rights, death penalty, a living wage, family farmers, the homeless and more.

While military wars are usually fought on only one or two fronts, this war is effectively being fought on dozens while, at the same time, contending with in-fighting. In most wars one's enemies are generally known and can be identified, but that's not necessarily true in this war. While the most discernable enemies are often governments... administrations and attitudes can change and sympathetic allies are usually found within.

Even special interests groups could be the enemy if their interests run counter to someone else's rights movement. Human rights movements are often at odds with each other and can be, in effect, each other's worst enemy. Some human rights groups consider transnational corporations the enemy as they continually stiff American workers in favor of paying slave-wages overseas. Yet, it is often environmentalists who drive these companies overseas. While brothers-in-arms in one respect, they are traitors in another (more on this further below). The situation is fluid... as time renders the individual forces either stronger or weaker.

In short, we're in a war in which, like Vietnam, has no contiguous front line or discernable enemy often. It's more like guerrilla warfare. And while those of us advocating egalitarianism may seem unorganized, if not disorganized, so too are our enemies. While some are better suited to fight a war, largely because they have the distinct advantage of money, political power or backed by a standing army and police force, but, much like us, they are not a single unified force either... having personal gain on their minds and further disunited because of 'turf wars'.

Let's describe it even further... egalitarianism is in a war facing dozens of enemies from nearly every quarter of government and special-interest groups having caused, or trying to cause, the creation of unjust laws and regulations... such as anti-abortionists and anti-gun lobbyists. After all, if groups are 'anti' anything, it's usually at the expense of liberties. Even environmentalists are often guilty, most notably by utilizing 'junk science' which began with DDT effecting farmers and more recently has negatively affected the livelihood of ranchers. Of course, that's assuming a livelihood is a 'right'... and it would be if it isn't at the expense of another. In these cases, farmers and ranchers don't tread on anyone else's turf.

Most of these opposing forces are well-entrenched establishments and some have aligned themselves with (or created) think-tanks dedicated to mold the world into their own image. The strategy of governments, and sometimes special interests, is to conduct this as a covert war however, behind the scenes. The logic being... if they deny the war exists, they can't be called upon to defend their positions publicly. On the other hand, we common folks, we freedom fighters for egalitarianism, have, as an ethical matter, publicly aligned ourselves with our favorite causes.

The state of the war and shotgun rule

In reference to the 'war', let's continue to characterize it as such and use terms such as 'enemy' which has a way of emphasizing the seriousness. Let's also refer to the overall movement for egalitarianism as an 'insurgency', however lawful and civilly obedient each organization may be. Well, we're not really 'insurgents', most Americans don't see the need for that, not yet anyway. As to our stated 'enemies', they're not really, with few exceptions they're merely the loyal opposition (albeit misguided) and in other circumstances, our friends. It just helps put things in perspective.

So, for being a bunch of mostly unorganized insurgents, we're still holding our own in places but overall have gained little ground... and certainly nothing notable of late. The Miranda ruling was notable but that was 42 years ago (1966). However, that's from a legislative point-of-view. From a regulatory standpoint, due to shotgun rule, we've lost ground... a lot. Then, of course, the laws of the land sometimes change which may favor one group at the expense of another... such as over abortion and the death penalty.

Since the enemy (governance in this case) is fighting this as a covert war, and therefore cannot employ offensive tactics overtly, they aren't gaining much ground either, except for the federal mandate that prohibited judges from using their judgment... relegating them to mere clerks. This enemy remains content to rely on defensive tactics, believing this is a war of attrition and that the will of the insurgency can be broken. Offensive nibbling, of course, occurs. In their heavily fortified positions, surrounded by a standing army and police force, it seems they have little to fear from us name-calling and tomato-throwing insurgents.

This can almost be compared to World War I, a few yards gained here and there, often to be lost again. In this regard the war could be described as a stalemate... except, that is, for having been infiltrated by the enemy's disguised shotgun regulators. However, if one was to factor globalization into this analysis, being a powerful force gathering on the horizon, of enemy design largely, the situation then looks awfully bleak... at least at first glance.

The legal battles over human rights

While the consequences of any battle are usually soon evident, some outcomes could play a roll in the success or failure of future battles. Any war strategist would say it usually takes a particular victory in order to win other battles. In this war, a landmark case or case law can often set the 'judicial tone'. Except carrying out an orderly sequence of victories is easier said than done. Which are more important? Is there a golden trendsetter? Those in charge of overseeing each particular battle will, of course, claim theirs the most necessary... and plow ahead. Yet, they cannot fight an effective battle without such an aggressive attitude. Still, every battle must be won before victory can be declared, even if the same battles are fought over again as often the case.

Globalization and the one world government

The ongoing battle against globalization is seemingly pivotal. After all, globalization is commonly considered a ominous threat to liberties and a legitimate concern. If this war is lost then all other battlefields would be overwhelmed by this mightier enemy... seemingly. While this particular battle is one which ground is being lost daily, however slow, the tide is heavily in favor of the enemy (or so it would seem). In fact, this battle is so big it could qualify as a war by itself and seldom on this front are yards gained back. It's not so much 'see-saw' as often the case on the other battlefields.

While the prospects for the insurgency in this battle look hopeless, surely to lose... yet, as if a gift from providence, it is within our ability to dictate the terms of our surrender entirely. It would amount to a victory. After all, globalization doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, properly structured it could be a very good thing. It could eliminate most, if not all, regional injustices throughout the world. While the insurgency still has enough ground left, well-positioned to dictate, but as these battles rage on, more ground will be lost... so our terms must be obtained before it's too late. Perhaps some American-style values can be retained, maybe many can, it depends upon the success of activists as they battle each link in the chain of command... which would also include untying the ropes of the shotgun regulators (the scope of laws being overly broad).

Rather than letting fate decide, we should instead be thinking about how we could help shape this one-world government... keeping in mind that whatever laws and regulations are in existence as globalization solidifies, that's probably what the one-world government will look like. As an addition gift, providence gave mankind leverage and enough time.

As merely a fetus today, we don't yet have a fully developed one-world government... a single world authority must precede it and that hasn't quite happened. The most probable scenario is a 'de facto' one-world government would rule for several centuries before anything is declared 'official'... although on behalf of the U.S. it seems the Bush administration has already laid claim, assuredly the reason why he opposes the International Criminal Court (ICC). After all, jurisdiction equates to 'control'.

Even though America is well-positioned today, along with the power to exert authority, full control takes time to develop. Since it wouldn't be natural for a government to voluntarily cede a powerful position, we can expect its 'involvement'. If it wasn't America though, it would be another... it's human nature to try ruling. Since there is, and will be, ideological and religious opposition to the concept of a one-world government, likely powerful, an 'official' one-world government may not occur for another 200-300 years. Religious fanaticism, of course, holding out the longest. Even under ideal circumstances, it's doubtful an 'official' one-world government is possible before the year 2100. One necessary step we haven't seen yet is a single currency... and probably won't for 3-4 decades. The powerful Euro promises to delay that timeline even further.

In any event, a one-world government is inevitable. So, instead of fighting the inevitable, let's put ourselves in position to shape it instead. There is only one way to do that and nothing less will work... we must have in hand an ideal constitution to be applicable which cannot be denied (more about this further below). To begin the process, any number of drafts could be created in the spirit of being in competition with each other. These various drafts, in order to stay in the running, would need to be circulated around the globe continually for input and refinements keeping everyone up-to-date, always on the same page. The idea would have an incredible amount of appeal but the entire population of the world, every class, would need to be involved, otherwise... forget it.

Mnemosyne knows it, the muse know it and surely God knows it... the whole world working on a single document would prove an unparalleled uniting force of historic proportions.

There shouldn't be open resistance to it initially by any government, seen only as an instrument applicable to some 'improbable' government in the distant future. However that could change as the time draws near depending on what ideologies and special interests are threatened. Caution must also be taken this document doesn't embarrass governments or create a premature stir. Once becoming an acceptable document to the populous worldwide for such an occasion, and known about for several generations, no governing bodies on earth, even collectively, could safely inject anything different. Much can be drawn from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (external link).

Still, we may have to contend with a de facto one-world government for some time which would string things out. In effect, ongoing confrontations and court battles.

Human rights

While human rights is the most important issue, it's overshadowed by globalization only because globalization will dictate the future course of human rights. In order to trump the possible negative effects, an ideal constitution is not only a powerful playing card, it's a royal-flush.

There are many groups involved in egalitarianism and it can probably be said that their progress, or lack of, is largely dependent on which country these groups are fighting. It's not easy anywhere though, in equating liberties as a threat to their control, all governments are 'ferociously stubborn'. However, the mere existence of a perfect constitution, as if a bulldog awaiting the owner's attack command, should positively affect all rights movements.

While the terms commonly used to legitimize human rights have been 'natural', 'fundamental' or those 'self-evident', but because these terms are subject to interpretation perhaps evidence of some type is needed to strengthen claims of being 'inalienable'. God-given rights shouldn't be a matter for negotiators. If only Mother Nature could speak.

When one addresses human rights today, it's more about which are being denied (individually) rather than what the entire makeup of human rights should be... therefore a fog surrounds the matter worldwide. Uncertainties exist as to what 'should be' overall and their ideal (reasonable) limits. It's the loophole through which the trespassing governments jump. Keeping a list of these 'inalienable' rights in the forefront for all to see, the various human rights organizations have failed (miserably). Such a list should be as visible as 'wanted' posters in a post office.

In other words, by addressing issues only when they arise is the same as if confronting a landlord over a leak without providing a list of all else wrong with the house. In the landlords opinion, all else is seemingly not important. It's also the same as if charging a criminal with just one crime even though he committed several.

Although government is a collective enterprise, comprised of all branches of government, 'government' itself is ultimately the guilty party be it by denying these rights through legislation, regulations or by simply ignoring protective laws which might exist. After all, under the protection of sovereign immunity government agents are rarely held accountable. Usually though, the devil is in the details... such as denying benefits to part-time workers. These 'details', otherwise not to grab the attention of the populous as a whole, is where much of the abuse lies.

While perhaps it is questionable whether ground has been gained overall in respect to egalitarianism, there lies more hope under full-fledged globalization and it's within our ability to dictate terms. However, as said, it must be done decades before globalization has solidified. Until then, retaining or reclaiming civil liberties will require a continuing vigilant effort. Otherwise, we could lose gun-ownership rights, the freedom of the press and the right to march in protest. Of course, that's assuming water cannons and rubber bullets are not infringements. These are absolutely necessary otherwise we almost certainly would lose every right. The maximum amount of pressure therefore must be maintained, successes will greatly determine the amount of trouble a 'perfect' constitution will face when the time comes.

Yet some might argue that such a strategy would only work initially, that once a one-world government has a foothold, things can easily change for the worse, after all, who could then stop it? Without a powerful constitution with teeth, nobody... civilization as God would see fit, would be doomed.

This is why we need ironclad safe-guards, crystal clear. From the lack of clarity, as we've seen, legal battles only continue. For civilization as a whole, setbacks can only be avoided with a 'perfect' international constitution. It would be fitting if humanitarian organizations began the process. It would give it credibility. In considering the eternal effect of a one-world government, it's the last opportunity to correct the inadequacies of constitutions past.

A pending constitution in circulation worldwide, one which is widely accepted as the most perfect possible, to be applicable to a one-world government sometime in the future which we all believe is inevitable, would have an impact so great it would be nearly impossible to imagine. This single document, if known to exist by everyone, in which practically everyone was involved, would do more for justice in the first decade than all the efforts combined since the dawn of civilization. Idealistic? Well, the founders of the American constitution and those of the Enlightenment weren't intimidated by idealism.

Issues, rights and moral obligations

While the individual battles over such things as gun-ownership, drugs of choice, property rights, prison conditions, a living wage and the death penalty are more discernable, the fog of war less dense individually, but whether issues, rights or moral obligations, the associated insurgencies have only their special interests at heart. Someone concerned about gun-ownership probably doesn't care whether the guy fighting for better prison conditions wins or not. Merchants fighting for property rights are definitely not aligned with those who fight for a living wage. And those fighting for the legalization of drugs would have their share of enemies. If only cooperation was possible, one might think, these groups could then actively support and assist each other... except for the fact their membership would likely have differing views. For example, as to the death penalty, the National Rifle Association would have members on both sides of that issue.

Actually there is no organization at all... each fighting their own battle and with each other fighting. Due to this, at least half of these movements will be defeated, going down one-by-one. Not all will lose however, some defeats are actually victories for others. It depends on which side you're on... although nobody is against property rights except governments and the environmentalists. The strongest sector, those defending the right to bear arms, might be able to hold their territory because they're well organized, have enough money, and are, of course, well-armed. However, the outlook for some positions appear dismal because they have to be on the offensive, they don't have much left to defend. The positions of some, like 'drugs of choice', were lost decades ago and declared a sovereign possession of the invaders. In other words, in this war it's easier to defend than to conquer, especially old ground long lost.

Still, despite the uphill battle, the first order of business should be to have dismissed government claims to our body. After all, showing up in court with a body perceived to be encumbered is surely a disadvantage. Not only does coolness suffer in a rented suit, but legitimacy.

Rights and limitations within this constitution should be clear to everyone, including governments. As it is, rights issues are often vague or non-descript. It's a matter of keeping a full list of what should be legitimate rights in front of everyone at all times. A new constitution doesn't necessarily need to be crafted after the older models either... its design could, and should, be more ingenious and 'dynamically clear'.

Other battles and the environmentalists

There are also other battles on other fronts going on, basically all dealing with injustices of one sort or another. They would include unethical corporate activities (overseas slave-wages) while, at the same time, benefiting from 'tax breaks'. Equal taxation comes to mind as well such as overtaxing a product like tobacco.

Environmentalists stand out as troublesomely unique however. While they fight many the same enemies in trying to preserve the right of future generations to an unspoiled environment, they also go the furthest in subverting the rights of others to serve their own agendas. While they should be commended for some of their accomplishments except all too often they employ underhanded tactics... and operating anonymously is an admission of guilt. They're now the sworn enemies to most workers, farmers, ranchers, businesses and those fighting for property rights. Because of their propensity to support only animal rights, most environmentalists also vigorously oppose any type of gun ownership. Over their battles with factories, they have demonstrated little sympathy for worker's rights who lost their jobs as a result of employers moving overseas in favor of more lenient environmental laws (for that reason also). In this respect, environmentalists, because they cannot control their insatiable and usually unreasonable appetite, are the enemy as much as government... at least in America.

Then you have the do-gooders who want a law against everything... the gravest threat of all.

"With what simplicity I should have demonstrated that man is by nature good, and that only his institutions have made him bad" Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
~ purchase through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Authorhouse ~

Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues

Social and Political Issues of America

Globalization and the Constitution of a One World Government

How globalization and a one-world government offers a golden opportunity for human rights

Human rights, the war of all wars

The state of the war and shotgun rule

The legal battles over human rights

Globalization and the one world government

Human rights

Issues, rights and moral obligations

Other battles and the environmentalists

NEW... (Dec 18, 2007) see our latest article The Search for Neanderthals in North America

Send email to allen@matrixbookstore.com with questions or comments about this website.

Last modified: 05/05/08