Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the larger the political entity, the less it needs to cater to the needs and wants of it’s citizens, while the smaller the political entity the more it must be accountable to it’s citizens. No great revelation there. When we examine the goals of the various political factions in this light, however, we can come to some useful conclusions. Some factions seek to make the political entity ever larger, others seek to make the political entity stay the same, while still other seek the smallest political entity possible. Obviously, the individual is the smallest possible political entity, and the one world government being the largest achievable at this time. Those who seek the largest political entity also seek the least reactive to it’s people, which allows them to be unaccountable.
During the time of Herodotus, the city state was the dominant paradigm, with notable exceptions. Them being Egypt and China. Either of them probably being the first example of the nation state in existence, a paradigm that would grow, to conquer the world even as armies of conquest marched across the land. The city state allowed many political experiments to be conducted at the same time. Some city states like Syracuse, under Dionysius, were tyrannies and others like Athens, were democracies, while still others were representative republics. The rise of the nation state was largely driven by wars of conquest. While the rulers of a large political entity are less accountable to the people, that larger political entity is better able to defend itself, from the depredations of aggressor states.
Most, if not all the political innovations, up to the rise of Marxism, have been aimed at increasing the accountability of the rulers to the people. Constitutionalism, democratic republics, representative government, separation of powers, etc… have all been implemented to limit the power of the rulers over the people. This has been done with the express desire, to create a Just system of government, even though the nation state is often too large, for the people to really control their government. Since the start of the Twentieth Century the trend has reversed. Rather than limiting the power of the rulers, the new goal seems to be to limit the power of the people, to effect their governments. The same people who are demand ever less individual representation also seek an ever larger political entity.
Since this information is common knowledge among the educated classes, we can conclude that those who seek the largest political entity possible, the world government, cannot believe that accountability to the people is important. Those on the other hand, who seek a smaller political entity, believe that accountability of the rulers to their citizens, is of paramount importance. The Enlightenment idea of natural Rights and the sovereignty of the individual, are the epitome of this, and the modern and post modern idea, that the group is the correct level of political representation, is the opposite. The two notions, that the group is the correct way of looking at representation and creating the largest political entity possible, create a system where the individual becomes a replaceable cog in the machine.
Any system that is the largest political entity possible, and the the group is revered over the individual, is one where you and I are mere sprockets in a vast machine, ordered and run by rulers instead of representatives. One that ignores natural rights and the sovereignty of the individual. The result of an ever larger political entity, and group representation, rather than individual representation, has only resulted in rulers that are unaccountable to the people. Which is the definition of tyranny. The elite are demanding ever more power over the individual. So we must ask ourselves, what do we want to live under, a system where we are machine parts, or one where we are sovereign individuals with Rights? Choose well, else the norm will become, Welcome my son… to the machine.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
