Home Rule Globally
Abstract of -
Scuttle the Politicians
In this article John Ewbank contends that the risks of prolonging the status quo are greater than the risks of a democratically conducted shift to decentralized world federalism. If efforts are made to educate our establishments about the benefits of a world authority that respects the historically evolved national and local authorities, those establishments may become aware that they will ".benefit immensely from scuttling national political parties, which have outlived their usefulness as a result of evolving technology. If national political parties can be scuttled, then national militarism and national monetarism (the three main opressive features of the status quo) can be abolished while still leaving substantially the same establishments in charge. What is needed is adequate enthusiasm for a transformation as drastic as this."proposed shift to global governance according to the principle of subsidiarity."
This objective of getting rid of those three oppressive features while keeping substantially the same managerial establishments may seem contradictory, but it helps to understand that Ewbank felt that most politicians are bought and paid for by establishment interests. The commercial establishment is most prominent in that regard, but we also have academic, medical, legal, religious, labor and various other entrenched powers in our society. It is true that the financial and military establishments will have a lot of adjusting to do when their national character is abolished by a transition to world federation. But Ewbank is not proposing their functions be abolished. Rather they need to adapt to a new model more appropriate to integrated global communications, travel and commerce.
This article was the initial page of Home Rule Globally's original website because it touches on most of John Ewbank's ideas for world federation, as well as his program for HRG. It is the longest article on our website; much of what is set forth here is also dealt with by other shorter articles that focus on particular aspects. Distinctively, however, this article includes many details associated with John's libertarian attitude toward the private/public relationship. Of course he was a great idealist, fiercely egalitarian and civic minded, but he had deep distrust of centralized power, remote bureauocracies, and government regulation of private activities. For example he writes: "At the end of the 20th century, one diagnosis of the world is that it suffers from an overdose of coercion attributable to upper levels of remote bureaucracies greedily seeking excessive power."
A fair proportion of this article is devoted to proposing illustrative governmental structures that will tend to counteract the tendency of high officials to expand, prolong, and abuse their power. All regulations they enact or oversee should be simple, structural, and arbitrary (like the brackets in a tax code, for example) rather than larded with details like the US government's recent 2300+ page Dodd-Frank financial reform law. John's illustrative rule to prevent monopolies, for example, is "No corporation would (be allowed to) have more than 20% of any (established) market except as might be attributable to recent patents" (Bear in mind: John was a patent attorney!) Violating corporations would be broken up.