Common Sense in Government

A planetary population with a high-technology development, that consists of sovereign nations, means a wholly crazy society. A population sharing one planet, but ordered on nationalism or internationalism, simply must be crazy. It is almost needless to say that in time, they would invent institutions and institutes, university faculties and lectorates, practicing International Justice or international law, rights and duties. This means a sociological impossibility, a monstrum, namely 'the rights of a group', a nation. (Only individuals can have, and do have rights & duties.) But a basis of nationalism is not a point of departure for the rights of man, for justice. These then, cannot, and do not teach, nor know about, the fundamentals of the rights and duties of man. Take an example of e.g. Ireland's neutrality during World War 2. (In parentheses, a mondially organized population would not know war, other than from the history books.) All national and international judicature would whole-heartedly agree that Ireland was in her right by staying out of the war. The reality however, is different. Let Monsarrat speak (The Cruel Sea) :

From a narrow legal angle, Ireland was within her rights: she had opted for neutrality, and the rest of the story flowed from this decision ... . As they sailed past this snug coastline, past people who did not give a damn how the war went as long as they could live on in their fairy-tale world, they had time to ponder a new aspect of indecency.

The very neutrality of Ireland costed thousands of lives, or, when we translate it into duration, it prolonged the war for six months, if not a year. A six year war, costing sixty million lives, should tell the tale. How can this extra murder be based on rights? Another question is with regard to the Irish people themselves. Only by a very, very small margin was England not overrun. Had this happened, with Ireland's neutrality in the balance, certainly, Ireland would have been the next stop for Hitler, on his way to Canada and the U.S.A. The Irish government had absolutely no right in remaining neutral, even if the population had wanted it so. Either the rights and duties of man are just as the whim of the moment dictates, i.e. a crazy world, or, they are so basic and unchangeable that experts all over the globe necessarily come to the same conclusions. As it is with natural science, when two opposing theories exist, one simply must be nonsense. When they can exist wholly logical side by side, we are dealing with a crazy world. When a man is a murderer, but over the border, over the fancy line, he no longer is a murderer, the line, the society that contrapt such a line, is crazy. During the Falklands crisis, two sociologists in both camps, Britain and Argentine, kept track of ideational indoctrination and theory formation in children (it was scientists then, that stood outside the war). It appeared that Argentine children held that geographico-logically, the islands belonged to Argentine. They also could draw a good picture of the geography of their country. The English children, on the other hand, could not draw their country very well, yet, they maintained that the free choice of the inhabitants would be the criterion for who was right and who wrong. Two, separate and wholly correct theories, leading to two totally opposite views about rights of man. Ergo, the WHOLE set-up of the (mondial) society must be crazy. Ergo again, when a solution is the correct one, both of the correct ideas of the children, must then be possible in perfect harmony. This is the case only with a world government. The Falklands, then, do not belong to either Argentine or Britain, but to the world-state, and everybody is allowed to live there or anywhere else. No wonder our fundamental Rights are so much as loose leaves in the wind. That they are violated by whims and circumstance, by skin colour, groups, self-imposed rights, illegal authorities and superstitious rituals, that there is no sign of a brotherhood such as there is in almost every animal species. We, that are not I's but mere (mental) bits of everybody else, the result of advertisements. No wonder, while Rights are only valid for persons themselves, not groups or corporations, we are not allowed to see to these rights. The butchery at say, Thermopyle, could not effect much harm to the people in Iceland, but today, with the whole planet at stake, and only decades to spare, with poisonous molecules traveling from Athens to Ankara in days, or to Alabama in months, we must be fundamental in justice, in rights and duties, and that is anti-national, anti-international, but mondial, integrative of population, mondial of organization, mondially governed. Then, there are these Conventions of The Hague and Geneva. A pre-Homeric stupidity indeed. What governmental stupidity is it to make war a blood sport, to make rules for war! The stupidity is NOT caused by the fact that wars occur, but by the fact that there are governments, nations, i.e. wars. Only a sovereign government could hit on the idea of rules for the war-sport, a mondial government would not have wars. Ambler said (The Dark Frontier):

The united mind of a people is the mind of a child. That is why you will notice a child-like quality about most successful politicians. They reflect the mass mind.

Earth is divided into hundreds of areas of different nations, into a thousand different religions, into millions of differing ideologies, ideas about how Earth should be governed. Everybody has his own ideas about how things ought to be run. In fact it is part of the familiar paradox too, it says: everything is for me, only the scraps that I throw away do not interest me. All these differences, these divisions, are more or less ready for war. That is when groups can form that are dictated (controlled) by a group ideology (idealogy). It is in such way to understand Ambler's flag-makers in:

Somebody once called the ammunition industry the bloody international. He must have forgotten the flag-makers.

In the words of Wells, ideologies or nations, they are either at war or preparing for war. It should be possible in our modern society, with the aid of real science, to develop a system for government that leaves no scope for dissatisfaction in anybody. When we are able to walk the moon, we should be able to construct the fundamentally-, basically-, ultimate form of government that would guarantee everybody's whole-hearted support. Note: the development of a governing system by scientists, and NOT, as today, by governors, diplomats. In case of difficulty, we can always look at the children when they want to start a game in a 'FAIR' way. When nobody has the slightest reason for complaints about the form of world-government, because it is the only fair way, all politics (parties) stop at the spot, what is more, there is no longer any sense at all for diplomacy whatsoever. But there is Bogardus for example who, as sociologist, says:

He (Aristotle) arrived at what is the modern scientific conclusion, namely, that no form of government is to be worshipped to the exclusion of all other types.

He, in fact, denies then the possibility of a fundamental ethics, one that leads to a scientific-, ultimate-, fair-, sort of government that puts out all other forms as being non-scientific, silly, war-promoting, life-eradicating, that by right of all citizens of earth have to be kept away. His so-called modern scientific conclusion is from two years after Hiroshima and the civilized countries then, were not yet booby trapped by their own (??) nuclear power stations. This sort of sham-science we do not need. Ethics is about the right of everybody to grow up, and to live in an ordered (world) society, is about the duties of everybody to promote this organization. Personal ideologies then, should be identical. Most, if not all ideologies (usually at war with each other) like religions (also at war with each other) come down to the desire for the man to have a say in government. Because in a crazy society, one would expect plenty of crazy phenomena, most people in any group feel themselves-, or are in reality-, maltreated, unjustly dealt with, discriminated. They want to change that. Simple laws for fishery or food production/ distribution, or for safety control seem very unjust to those who are in the business themselves, the catchers, preservers, sellers, etc. Others, who never eat fish, who cannot in fact stand the very stench of it, wonder why these fishers cannot just obey these laws, why these laws could not be more stringent, or even why the poor brutes in the seas should be bothered with at all. Rules of the road, designed for maximum safety, we always want to apply to the others, we being free from them. The simple common sense reasoning soon shows that a system in which all Earth citizens would have a say, are practically impossible. So much for democracy. It would mean endless (continuous) referenda to be held on all decisions thinkable. Plebisoothing, plebiseething indeed. One would be filling in forms twenty four hours per day, even when all 5 billion citizens could be linked up to a giant computer. Besides, a decision about, say, the desirability or damage of the building of a dam in the Bamboozlian river valley, of necessity concerns all Earth citizens, but only those whose villages are to be drowned, add most fierce campaigning, totally unconnected with the desirability-, respectively damaging- aspect of the decision. Another important matter is that 999. 99 pro-mille of the citizens cannot even decide at all, lacking the necessary scientific knowledge.

Before he can vote, he must hear the evidence; before he can decide he must know.

said Wells in his Outline. The result of 5 billion votes (5 million when the population is reasonably checked) not based upon thorough knowledge against a hundred or so that 'are' thought over, must be disastrous for any planet we can think of.

Unless a man has education, a vote is a useless and dangerous thing to have. Outline.

was written by Wells years before Hitler proved it amply. But, it must remain possible for every serious problem to be brought to the notice of the government, even when the scientists (the stigmatized, therefore the 'officially approved') will not co-operate with the common citizen who brings it on. When we remember from history that common citizens had no access to their governments with the ideas and inventions that could have shortened World War 1 and World War 2 by some years (Parkinson), this need seems important enough to be incorporated in our plans (42). We should not forget the asthma, epilepsy, etc. that have been mentioned. In this, the government should over-rule the pre-Herodotean medicine concepts that do not work, and insist on scientific knowledge about curation, i.e. about life. Medicine men should not be allowed to let people suffer needlessly, and be paid for it grotesquely. Government should not only be mondial, it also, like science, should be based on common sense in order to be legal. When one of them is lacking, the other goes as well. A clearly stupid law, makes it the duty of every citizen to break it. Then, with Howard Spring:

God damn Engeland. And God damn Ireland. And God damn every country that thinks its dreams are worth one young man's blood.