"One world" not needed.

Commenting on the article "Openly Attacking American Sovereignty," in your April 17, 2006 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN, I can only say that I wholeheartedly agree that world government would be bad, bad, bad.

Many idealists who insist the United States needs to internationalize ask, "What if world government promoted liberty, free enterprise, and free trade?" I rhetorically retort, "You mean, like a limited constitutional republic as outlined in our United States Constitution?"

Looking at the U.S. Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation for that matter, what were the primary reasons for constructing such a document? The two main reasons given by the Founding Fathers for creating a strong, though limited, federal government under the U.S. Constitution were to protect the culturally homogenous states from external invasion by culturally different nations and to provide political clout for the regulation of trade with other nations. These two objectives were not being accomplished under the Articles of Confederation and thus necessitated a restructuring of the general government to meet these needs. Therefore, we can conclude that if there had been neither a necessity to defend against an external threat to the 13 states nor a desire to trade commercially with other nations, then there would have been no need for a stronger general government.

It is also argued that just as two squabbling citizens need a sheriff, two squabbling countries need world government. This is an oversimplification. There remains a difference between the causes of squabbles among culturally homogenous American states and multicultural nation-states under the United Nations (or some other would-be form of world government). The squabbles between culturally homogenous states under the Articles of Confederation were genuine squabbles but ones that could be settled amicably. Forcing nations that are politically, culturally, and economically different to be interdependent upon each other causes more squabbles than it solves. We saw this in part in the Civil War as the industrial revolution pushed the two economies diametrically apart and "solutions" imposed by the federal government only exacerbated the problems between the North and South rather than resolving them.

Finally, we must consider the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that makes the union between the states voluntary rather than a union by force or coercion.

Unfortunately, these circumstances do not exist under the United Nations. Even if the population of Earth interbred to create a homogenous culture, even if all nations adopted laissez-faire economic systems, promoted liberty, and were allowed to retain their right to secede, in such an idealistic utopia where mankind has mastered the art of self-government, one is left to question whether there would be any need for representative government at all. The sole legitimate function of delegated government is to protect the lives, liberty, and justly acquired property from cultural, political, and economic threats. Therefore, we complete our study with the query, "What need would there be for world government unless we are threatened by or intend to trade with extraterrestrial beings?" The answer is, "None!"

LYLE NEILSEN

Mesa, Arizona