World Government

Oscar B. Johannsen

[Reprinted from The Gargoyle, June, 1959]

It is an interesting facet of human nature that in the field of politics and government few attempts are made to utilize scientific methodology. This is partly because of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of performing experiments. But, it would appear that it is also due to man's unreasoning assumption that natural laws have little or no part in the field of human relations. At any rate, the attitude seems to be that even if there are natural laws, humans by one means or another can achieve almost any desired goal where social problems are concerned.

In the matter of world government, it is quite likely that a scientific approach would consider, at the very least, the following three questions.

1. Is man capable of government?
   
2. If he is capable of government, of how much government is he capable -- local, state, national, international?
   
3. Even if he is capable, is government necessary?

It is an unfortunate truism that these questions never seem to be raised when men periodically go off the deep end and seriously consider establishing a world government. For that matter, the questions are rarely raised when considering local or national governments, although the third question has been discussed, if only in an oblique fashion, by philosophers.

Apparently, man, without even being aware of the questions, answers them in the affirmative, i.e., that man is capable of government; of any degree of government; and that he needs government.

But the inquiring mind feels that a thorough philosophical, and as scientific an inquiry as is possible, should be made. Certainly, an attempt should be made to arrive at some down-to-earth conclusions.

Is man capable of government? A simple question but not so simply answered. Before one rushes in with the claim that obviously man can, as he's been governing himself since the dawn of recorded history, it might be pointed out that he seems to have done a thoroughly miserable job of it. So badly has he done it that thinkers, running the gamut from Machiavelli to Spinoza, have attempted to set up rules by which man can govern. None of the rules seem to work. It is doubtful if there is a form of government which man can imagine which has not been tried.

The answer to this question is an elusive one for it embraces an analysis of man himself -- his psychology, philosophy, as well as physical makeup. Can some men who are the equal of all other men -- equal in the sense of equal rights to life, liberty and access to the earth -- have the right to govern other men? If they have the right, they are capable, since wisdom and justice are two aspects of the same thing. Therefore, if something is the right thing to do, it is also the wise thing to do, which implies that man is capable of doing it.

On the other hand, if it is true that "he governs best who governs least", possibly this is so because man cannot govern, and therefore "least" means not governing at all.

Probably no truly satisfactory answer will ever be found. However, if man keeps this question before him, at least it may curb any propensity he may have to feel that whatever governing he is doing is being done well. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", as Lord Acton said, which fact should place plenty of doubt in the minds of would be governors that man is capable of doing a good job of government.

It should be obvious that the answer to this question is important, for if it is discovered that man is not capable of government, then such organizations as the United Nations are an impossibility and men should not waste their time trying to establish the impossible.

If we come to the conclusion that man can govern, the next question is of how much government is he capable of?

The simpler a thing is, the more likely that man can do it. Therefore, if government is at all possible, it would be on a local level, the one nearest the family level. Experience teaches us that small clubs can be run fairly well and to the reasonable satisfaction of the members. But it also teaches us that the larger the club, the more difficult to direct it, and the greater the likelihood of dissatisfaction on the part of many of the members.

By simple analogy it would appear that the form of government which might be possible would be that which is similar to a small club in which all members have the right to participate in voicing their views and in arriving at decisions. The closest approach to that of which we are aware is the town hall meeting, such as practiced in New England, At these meetings the collective problems of the community are discussed and decided with all members of the community participating.

But when we come to governing units above the local level, we are up against the physical fact that all the members of the community cannot participate. When we are dealing with large numbers of people over large areas of land, it is impossible for them to come together in one place to make collective decisions. Since it is impossible, does this mean that the Almighty did not intend man to govern on that scale, and that, therefore, the physical impediment is evidence that man is incapable of government of any degree above the local? As He provides us with all the necessary equipment and ability to do the things necessary for us to live well and in harmony with one another, when we come up against an obvious impossibility, does it not mean that it is something we are not able to do?

Certainly even the most cursory analysis of the organizational setup of a world government indicates that man is incapable of government of that degree. One example should suffice. Representatives would obviously be required, but what will be the proportion -- one for every million people? Is an educated European or American thus to be classed the same as some poor savage living on the African veldt? Is representation to be made on the basis of extent of territory, wealth, education, or what? As there can be no satisfactory solution to this single problem out of a host of problems, isn't this evidence to the social scientist that world government will not work?

The answers to the first two questions propounded are certainly debatable, and arguments pro and con no doubt will be adduced down thru the ages to come. However, when we come to the question, is government necessary, the answer is one which is much more satisfying for it involves a physical fact which cannot be denied.

That physical fact is that two things cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Therefore, two equal human beings cannot occupy the same land at the same time. Yet both are equally entitled to the land. The problem then is, how to divide up the land, that is, how to divide up the equal opportunities of the earth among the equal claimants of the earth with justice to all. Try as one may, there seems to be no way in which this problem can be solved without some collective action. That means some sort of collectivity must be established in which all the equal claimants can be present to make their claims. This would indicate that it must also be a small collectivity, i.e., local self-government, such as the town hall meeting.

The fact that these physical relationships indicate some government is definitely necessary has a bearing on the question is man capable of government, for if something is necessary for man's well being, the Almighty provides him]with the capability of doing it.

Now this problem of dividing the land among the equal claimants is one which one who understands Henry George can really get his teeth into because he understands economic rent. He knows the anarchist is wrong. He knows that government is needed because there is this physical problem which results in the creation of economic rent.

But it also seems to help answer the second question, for it indicates that government must be on a small scale so that all the equal claimants can participate in making their claims.

For one thing, it is impossible for the human brain to comprehend all the diverse opportunities throughout the world and apportion them among the claimants. The most the brain can do is to evaluate the opportunities in a small area and to bid for them there. As long as a free flow of men from one area to another exists, no injustice is possible for if one location has the greater opportunities those desiring to use them can come there and hid for the privilege.

In conclusion may it be pointed out that it would be naive to assume that man will establish government on such simple lines as are indicated by the answers to these questions, certainly not for generations to come. But certainly, if man is to live in ever expanding civilizations, he will have to learn that growth is synonymous with simplicity and decentralization of government, not complexity and centralization, as is the trend today.