The Real Danger of World Government

(Cross-posted at Heritage)

Even more than rent-seeking and government expansion here at home, the greatest danger of a left-leaning Obama administration may be the danger of capitulation to a new world government.

In the past, “One World Government” has been seen as a rallying cry of a fringe group, not something that many in the mainstream would either fear or desire. But, suddenly today it is on the lips of world leaders. The recent financial crisis is being blamed on a lack of world government.

The Financial Times reports:

Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

But, the financial crisis was not caused by a lack of international regulation. Financial crises in the past have tended to occur more due to intervention than due to lack of regulation, and each of the banks that failed in this crisis was regulated by at least one country. Monetary policy was a major cause of the 1929 stock market crash and is implicated in just about every other crash.

In addition to dangerous monetary policy, one of the underlying causes of the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s was government industrial policy, “As part of their industrial policy, governments have directed funds toward favored industries at low rates of interest… This leads to excess lending to the companies that are well-connected and who may have bought influence with government officials.”

This is the same kind of corruption and rent-seeking we’ve been seeing back here at home, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and in other areas of government. Extensive government reach into markets is what causes crashes and recessions – not a lack of even more expansive government reach.

These leaders want not only to abandon capitalism as we know it, but they want to force these ideas upon all countries by regulating companies at the international level. This kind of anti-market world governance would not make peace more likely, nor would it make free trade more possible or financial crises less frequent.

Mandatory Service and The Road To Serfdom

(Cross-posted at Heritage)

There has been a small uproar around Obama’s call for a “civilian national security force” especially one “that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military. But many have said that these words were taken out of context. If you read the whole speech, they argue, it is clear that he just wants to expand the Peace Corp a little bit*.

Similarly, there was a mild uproar about his call for mandatory service from students, but many said that the programs were never intended to be mandatory. The college program was optional community service in exchange for a larger education credit, and the high-school one was no different from adding an art class or something to the public high-school curriculum. Obama initially called both mandatory on his change.gov website, but after the buzz began he changed the wording and removed several sections of the site.

But now there is new evidence that the critics are right. He does favor mandatory service and it might be worse than we thought. He has chosen Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel wrote a book called The Plan in 2006. On page 60-65 of the book Rahm calls for universal conscription of 18-24 year olds for civilian service in order to prepare for a potential terrorist attack.

“All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”

In a 2006 radio interview Rahm explains more about the program. He speaks about the dangers of a chemical attack and about the wonderful common experience that all Americans could have by being drafted for 3 months into a civilian national security force training program. He seems to be using the fear of attack to justify drafting all youth into a militaristic civilian security force – something more reminiscent of a dictatorship than a democracy. And all of his calls to unity and common experience only confirm his preference for nationalism or collectivism over individualism and freedom.

That Obama has chosen this man as his chief of staff should give anyone pause. This man has a “Plan” for the country that involves training our youth like soldiers, and calls upon “a new patriotism that brings us together again in a common mission” for his plan which will “unite us in a higher national purpose.”

If this is Obama’s vision, then there is great reason for concern. We are treading very near the Road to Serfdom.

* …and create a Classroom Corps and Health Corps and Energy Corps and Veterans Corp, and a Homeland Security Corp – as one blogger wrote “Here a Corp, there a Corp, everywhere a Corp Corp.”.

America Serves

(cross-posted at Heritage)

President-elect Barack Obama has quietly changed the meaning of the American Dream and introduced a proposal for American Serfdom. In America, what it means to serve one’s country is very clear. It is voluntary and for the purpose of defending the country during a time of war, or for the purpose of upholding the constitution by serving, for example, as a judge or on a jury.

Obama has reinterpreted the American Dream of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as a collectivist ideology. He believes it is a dream about the collective happiness. He connects the notion of “service” to the American Dream, as he interprets it:

When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream.

Obama is wrong. It is called the American Dream because in America the individual is secured rights and liberty, and with those rights protected and liberty ensured anything is possible. The American Dream is an individual dream. It is the dream of each of us, not the dream of a collective hive, or a collective outcome. This is not to say that private charity in un-American. Private charity and civil society are very much part of the American spirit. But this is because they are private and voluntary.

But then Obama goes on to describe what it means to him to serve. He has a list of new “corps” to add to his expansion of the Peace Corps. Then he lists “a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” That is, 500 hours of mandatory community service.

Obama says that it is when “you choose to serve” that you are connected to the American Dream. But this quote is used to bolster support for a program which includes mandatory community service for every American child and college student. So, now mandatory community service is the American Dream. Now, it is not an independent pursuit of a better life but performing manual labor for the state that constitutes the American Dream.

Now to serve one’s country in America will have the taste of being a servant to the state, a serf, rather than the proud voluntary service of a free man.