Previous

Contents

Next

What Would the Libertarian World Order (LWO) look like?
by Gerald Montgomery
The NO State Project
infobot23@earthlink.net

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

I think the time has come to call the game. A world SuperState is here. The entire legal groundwork is in place. Dubya has handed the USA into the talons of the New World Order and Obama is going to seal the deal by delivering the Republic into total tyranny. The American Union has already been authorized. Canada, the US, and Mexico are now considered one trading bloc.

The Constitution is, for all practical purposes, gone.

The Great Experiment is over. The future is a technological fascism that will put everyone on the planet under house arrest. RFID chips track everything we buy, everything we consume, the very money we use to try and stay semi-anonymous with in our daily transactions. Our cellphones constantly narc on us to the corporatist elites that are the real face of this march to world governance.

I think I can safely make the observation that the "trend" right now is to establish the first global SuperState that every patch of dirt on the planet must fall under the jurisdiction of.

So let's go with the trend.

If world government is where the sum of human civilization is being herded, then let's start thinking about what that world government ultimately could look like.

I propose an immediate citizen's think-tank to lay the groundwork to be used in creating a Constitution for the United Confederation of Earth, a world voluntary association whose form is Republican in design, and hardcore libertarian through and through.

How do you build a global republic?

I don't know, either. However, I think we should find out. On the up side of this, we already have an excellent template to work from on this project: our own beloved Constitution for the United States of America.

As a sub-assignment to the main assignment above, I want this constitution to frame a real government, not another new and improved version of The State to contend with. I refer you to AJ Nock's brilliant analysis of the The State in Our Enemy, The State. Nock clearly identifies the characteristics of a State and the American Constitution founded an American State. There is much in philosophy that we want to carry over from our own US Constitution into the United Confederation Constitution—everything that is but the bloody State!

Definitions of Terminology

Before we can go any further, let's first make sure we all understand what the hell we're talking about here. First, what is a Confederation and how does that differ from a Federation or Federalist construct?

I'm going to float the actual LEGAL definition of a Confederacy here since this is where we are going with this: a legal agreement between consenting peoples.

CONFEDERACY - An agreement between two or more states or nations by which they unite for their mutual protection and good. This term is applied to such agreement between two independent nations, but it is also used to signify the union of different states of the same nation, as in the confederacy of the states.

Now, let's examine the legal definition of a Federation. You'll see why we want a Confederacy and not a Federation.

A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, 'covenant') is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central ("federal") government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.

Now here's the key difference that makes a difference: "By definition, the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not. A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation: (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation. (2) Decisions on day-to-day-matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member). (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity."

Now onto the differences that really make a difference:

The State is "an institution "forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group."

Nock identifies a key point: that there are TWO and only TWO methods by which man/woman satisy their need(s) and desire(s):

1. The Economic Means: the production and exchange of wealth.

2. The Political Means: the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others.

Therefore, The State is "the organization of the Political Means."

Think about this: "Its (The State) primary function or exercise was not by way of Paine's purely negative interventions upon the individual, but by way of innumerable and most onerous positive interventions, all of which were for the purpose of maintaining the stratification of society into an owning and exploiting class, and a propertyless dependent class. The order of interest that it reflected was not social, but purely antisocial; and those who administered it, judged by the common standard of ethics, or even the common standard of law as applied to private persons, were indistinguishable from a professional-criminal class." Albert Jay Nock, "Our Enemy, The State" Chapter Two.

Now, let's contrast this with the idea of "government."

Government: "Its origin is in the common understanding and common agreement of society; and "the design and end of government," he says, is "freedom and security." Teleologically, government implements the common desire of society, first, for freedom, and second, for security. Beyond this it does not go; it contemplates no positive intervention upon the individual, but only a negative intervention. It would seem that in Paine's view the code of government should be that of the legendary king Pausole, who prescribed but two laws for his subjects, the first being, Hurt no man, and the second, Then do as you please; and that the whole business of government should be the purely negative one of seeing that this code is carried out." Albert Jay Nock, "Our Enemy, The State" Chapter Two.

The more I read and reflect upon this subject, the more I am compelled to admit that part of our predicament today is our own Constitution. I say that the Bill of Rights (the original Ten Amendments) is the most valuable portion of the document and everything else needs to be scuttled. Heresy, you say? Blasphemy? Our beloved Constitution established the American version of the State in America. Now, circle back and reread the distinctions between a State and a government. Our Enemy is the structure called the State. It must go. Or there will never be anything approaching REAL human freedom on this planet. Period. That is my point.

Further meat to back up this observation can be found in these books: Hologram Of Liberty by Boston T. Party (Kenneth Royce) and Hamilton's Curse by Thomas DiLorenzo. Both of these books illustrate quite persuasively that the Federal Constitution contains within it the means by which the Federal Leviathan unleashed itself Constitutionally to become the micro-managing beast it is today.

So a call to "return to the Constitution" really won't solve the problem at all. It will merely reset the clock and somewhere in our future, our posterity will be facing off with the same monster we're plagued with today.

Based on what we've examined above, I now want to throw out the baseline nucleus for our proposed enterprise: The Constitution for the United Confederation of Earth.

1. The Universal Bill of Rights. I am currently drafting this document. This will become Article One of the proposed Constitution. It is the basis of EVERYTHING else the document will become. It is the SUPREME LAW that can never be nullified, diluted, or regulated away. The idea of an extremely limited government existing SOLELY to enforce these rights against transgressors. NOTHING MORE.

2. Representative Democracy: this sham needs to die a horrible death. I think the two-hundred plus years of our experiment with this animal shows conclusively now that it degenerates into a legislature up for grabs to special interests. There is no way in reality one representative can be the "voice" of a large segment of society. Individuals are individuals. First, they act in their own best interests. In the end, these political creatures always end up doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of what the "will of the people" might be.

3. The Swiss Model and the Jeffersonian Ideal of Local government being the real seat of power: We need to model our efforts after the Swiss organization of Cantons and our own examples still very much alive in the states of Vermont and New Hampshire. The ideal that all "governing" is done at the township level, the county level, not at some far removed centralized location like "Washington, D.C." I feel that this division of power can be further diluted: to the Individual level. Every member of society is a Sovereign in every way. There will be no separate class of "lawmakers" because we will all be the Lawmakers.

4. Super-Majorities: Anything that becomes agreed upon must be passed by a super-majority of those voluntarily contracting to be bound by the terms of the agreement(s). No 51% and its passed bullshit. This safeguard will prevent the danger of pure democracies from coming to pass: "Tyranny of the Masses."

5. No standing armies. None. No UCE Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. All citizens, being armed to the teeth, will be the military. Again, I invite you to look at the Swiss model. Military science, I propose, should be a part of every citizen's schooling—like PE or art class. If any member community is invaded or attacked, every member of that community becomes a guerrilla fighting force overnight. There isn't an army on the planet that can defeat this method of internal defense. No more Pentagon, no more military-industrial complex. No more CIA.

6. No more police forces. This is a big one. In today's current environment, I see the police being a bigger threat than NORTHCOM. Again, in the nineteenth century, all citizens had the right and duty of any police officer to arrest and detain aggressors. In the UCE, police duty will be everybody's responsibility. You're armed, you see a crime, you intervene on the spot and deliver the malecontent into the local court system for a fair trial by jury and sentencing. Indeed, the statistical studies of John Lott prove beyond all doubt that citizens are much more level-headed and responsible with the use of deadly force than police officers are. So why do we need these increasingly militarized thugs in Darth Vader uniforms? Answer: we don't. Do away with this sad institution.

7. No more Eminent Domain. This is a key grant of power that makes a State a State. Abolish the concept forever.

8. No private banking system. Proof of this truth: look at where we're at today. The entire planet is about to be rolled up by elite bankers into a one-world technocratic fascism run exclusively by banksters. Possible alternatives are the example being set by the folks running the Liberty Dollar or ideas floated by Robert Anton Wilson i.e. hempscript.

9. Scuttling the legal entity known as the "corporation." We need to revisit Thomas Jefferson's warnings about corporations. Corporations now have more legal right in the world than human beings do. Corporations and private banks are the bane of real civilization. Free enterprise will never be free with corporations running amok in our world.

10. The UCE Prime Directive: The Prime Directive "holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense or retaliation against aggression."

These above 10 points are a good start. I invite any and all interested parties to make contact for debate/discussion of these important issues. Our activism needs to focus on REAL solutions, not band-aids that solve nothing. I see the efforts directed at "taking the system back" as being ultimately inconsequential. This "system" is so far gone now, it is not redeemable. It needs to die. We need to focus our efforts on what is going to REPLACE the monstrosity we've got.

Designing an apparatus for all people, one that enshrines natural rights, is the only sustainable goal left. For we are truly on the precipice now that Bucky Fuller warned of: we have but two choices left—Utopia or Oblivion.

Reprinted from social.bureaucrash.com/profiles/blogs/what-would-the-libertarian

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!