Also insane.
You may have noticed the mob, swinging their senseless placards, throwing things at cops as if the cops were the source of all the evils in the world. Nary an economic degree amongst these dolts, I'd wager, yet they presume to lecture world leaders on how to run their economies.
Leaving aside the old axiom that one must not negotiate with terrorists--and what else would you call people who deliberately set out to injure police officers?--let's examine what these people (who claim to have good intentions) are trying to accomplish, shall we?
Well, they call themselves 'anti-globalists'. I think of them as the Flat Earth Society, since they are ignorant of some pretty basic global truths.
For instance, they want aid to Africa immediately tripled. Since 1948, over $500,000,000,000 in aid has been given to Africa, making for some amazingly rich dictators and, well, not much else. It's pretty clear to anyone with so much as one functioning brain cell that money alone won't save Africa.
They want rich countries to cancel the debt owed by poor countries. In and of itself, I have no problem with this...it's not as if anyone at all expected any of that debt to ever be paid, anyway. But it won't help anything. All the interest being paid on all that debt will simply be redirected into a few Swiss bank accounts, and the debt will start its upward spiral all over again.
The anticapitalist zealots direct most of their ire towards multinational corporations--you know, those things whence come all the jobs. While some of their accusations are legitimate--many of these companies are not exactly paragons of social or environmental responsibility--the protestors seem to believe the multinationals can be forced to accept their utopian vision if they only...throw enough rocks at enough police officers. I don't see the logic. Do you?
Unlike the rioters, I have some possible solutions that just...might...work. I don't know how exactly to implement them, because they involve quite a few paradigm shifts that as of right now seem unlikely, to say the least, but I would like to throw them out there for your consideration. Be warned, these are radical.
1) WE NEED A ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT.
I might as well start off with the most radical assertion of all.
By "one-world government", I most emphatically do not mean any sort of United Nations. No, this would be a truly global undertaking, modelled on some hybrid of the Canadian and American governmental systems. To wit, each present-day country would be a state/province/territory in the Global Federation. The same sorts of checks and balances we see in federal systems of government would be in place to ensure some semblance of fair governance for all. And this government would have teeth: the decisions of its world court (whose judges would come from divergent backgrounds) would be final and binding...there would be a global army to back them up, if need be.
A one-world government would have the following advantages:
- It would eventually eliminate nationalism, which is one of the common ingredients in warfare, by virtue of elevating perspectives.
For instance, back in the days before 1776, the 'United States' was anything but united. It was a collection of colonies that were forever at odds with each other, mostly over trade. Through some democratic miracle, an overarching country was formed, gathering all these disparate colonies into itself and adding new ones as the years progressed. People soon realized the inherent advantages of living in a federation. Their pride in their little corner of the world may never have wavered--Virginians are still proud of being Virginians--but they're also proud to be American. Their perspectives have been elevated.
Or think of Europe. A Frenchman is no less a Frenchman for belonging to the European Union and spending euros instead of francs and centimes. His perspective is being elevated.
- The one-world government could act to standardize the world economy and economically 'liberate' poor countries, without force of arms, in a way all but impossible otherwise.
For instance, such a government could set a minimum wage (and a maximum wage, a concept I strongly believe in). Multinationals would have no escape, because there would be no country exempt from world law. More: we could have global environmental laws and global human rights statutes.
- Dictators, tyrants, and despots would be consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one-world government, acting on advice from its Security Council, could freeze their assets--all of them--if they persisted in human rights abuses. An empty stomach is a powerful persuader.
- Armed conflict would be, eventually, all but eliminated.
Disputes between nations would be settled at the World Court, whose mandate would be to ensure win-win solutions whenever possible.
I really don't see a single downside that wouldn't in time prove itself to be very positive.
2) WE NEED A NEW DEFINITION OF "WEALTH".
(Thanks to Neale Walsch for clarifying this point in my mind.)
Right now, the wealthy are those who have the most. In my future ideal dreamworld, the welathy would be those who share the most. And they wouldn't share because it was required of them...they'd share because they saw how sharing was in their best interest.
This would totally revamp the economy. Consider something as banal as lawnmowers. How often do you use your lawnmower? Once a week? Once a fortnight? What does it do the rest of the time? Just sit there, right, being useless--oh, it's helping to feed that idea you have of yourself as a wealthy person in some tiny way..."I have a lawnmower!"
What if you shared that lawnmower with everyone on your block?
Well, that would free up a hell of a lot of lawnmowers, to be distributed among the poorer people who presently have no lawnmower. It would also force lawnmower manufacturers to upgrade their quality control considerably. It would bring people together. And disputes between neighbours over who broke the lawnmower, or whose turn it was to use it, could be resolved by little neighbourhood councils.
Again, given a few paradigm shifts, nothing but upside.
3) WE NEED A TOTALLY TRANSPARENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
By this I mean openness in nearly every detail concerning money. Neale Walsch had a great idea in his Conversations with God books: that all price tags bear two prices: the price you pay and the price the retailer paid. "Your Cost" and "Our Cost", as it were. This would drastically reduce gouging.
If Susan saw that Steve got twice as much remuneration for doing the same job, what do you think would happen?
If Mbusa saw--actually saw--that his employer was paying him one ten thousandth of what the company president made--what do you think would happen?
If ABC Company's books showed that they gave nothing to the environment, or to the poor, over the past year--and everyone could see that and then immediately compare it with XYZ Company, who donated ten percent of their profits--what do you think would happen?
These three suggestions--which do not originate with me, but which certainly resonate with me--would change the world. In a good way.
No comments:
Post a Comment