Well, it seems to help.
I believe that a part of our problems, whether they be economic, social or cultural stem from the prison that is the modern-day nation-state, where once we had a small and distant government rule over a small and lightly populated(by todays standards) polity, we now have a large and increasingly belligerent state, attempting to rule over millions, tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of people, resulting in misrule, tyranny and increasing impoverishment.
It is a simplistic argument, I know, but hear me out. Is it at all possible that a ‘democracy’ like the United States can actually represent the will of 310 million people, in an area the size of Europe? Each representative in the Congress represents on average about half a million people, I’m not sure about you, but I don’t think it is even possible to meet half a million people in one lifetime, and even if it were, could anyone remember very many of them? Can an elected representative in the American Congress actually represent 500,000, as they would wish to be represented?
The senators, represent the states, so, the Alaskan senators, will represent about 600,000, a large number, the Californian senators will represent 35 million people. Now even if you think that there may be a possibility, however unlikely, that a representative can actually represent half a million people, can anyone, in their right mind say that someone can accurately represent 35 millions?
What about a world government? Some people seem keen on that, how many representatives would we have to a world Congress or Parliament or Assembly or whatever it might be called? One thousand? That would mean each representative would represent about seven million people, so we could increase the representatives to ten thousand, then what? Well we could all be represented, but how efficient would such an assembly be? Could there be a possibility of companies, pressure groups and others buying votes? Could it mean an ineffectual, pointless debating chamber that would quickly be overtaken in importance by the bureaucracy?
The European Union is an attempt to make things big, about 400 million people jammed together to form one state, well they are trying. The European Parliament is famous for its irrelevance, there are 736 MEPs(Members of the European Parliament) and there will be 750 MEPs at the next European elections, due to the expanding EU. Britain has 73 MEPs, Germany 99, Malta 5, France 74, Ireland 13.
Now, if for some reason, every MEP from Ireland, Malta and Britain voted against something which they believed would be harmful to them, say, banning English, they would be outvoted and their votes would mean nothing. In a world parliament, if every white nation joined together to prevent, lets say, compulsory compensation to third world states for colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, slavery and racism, what do you think the result would be?
Even democrats should be able to see this, democracy can’t, and won’t work as the state or nation becomes too large, the only form of government which works in a large nation or state is dictatorship, or at least authoritarian government. China is run by one party, Russia is a managed democracy, India is a corrupt democracy, Brazil is another corrupt democracy.
These places work, after a fashion, but they are not in any sense ‘democratic’ and nor should they be, democracy would cause chaos and lead to wholesale looting of one group or region, to placate the violent anger of another.
America is the odd one out, it resembles a managed democracy at the federal level, but at the local level can actually be very free, towns, townships and counties which are rural and white tend to be ably governed, even small states like Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota and other mid western and Rocky Mountain states seem to get along fine. It is when we look at the large states where problems arise, California, New York, Florida and Texas. Texas seems well run(I’m an outsider) but the diversity being allowed will kill that place too.
Small polities on the other hand seem more likely to be wealthier, healthier, happier and freer than the teeming empires of diversity and crime.
The first examples are the ones above, the small American states, they are reputedly some of the best places to live in the world. And then we have some small places in Europe;
The bailiwick of Sark, is about two square miles, it has its own government, and is very lightly taxed, no diversity(I’m sure someone will try to cure that soon), a pleasant landscape, and plenty of sea views. No poverty, no crime and no cars! only 600 people live here and their parliament, the Chief Pleas, has thirty members, meaning each person, not voter, each man woman and child has one member for every twenty of them. Now, is it possible to get to know your twenty electors? I think there is, and if three or four tell you how strongly they feel about something, do you think the representative will take notice?
The other Channel Islands are also small, rich, happy and free, Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney all have their own assemblies, elected by a few thousand people, who know each other and so can actually have an effect on their votes, and who can call them afterwards to have a cross word if necessary. None of them are in the EU, all have low taxes and good public services.
The Isle of Man is another good example of a successful small country, although it has a somewhat larger population then Sark, at 85,000 and is about 500 square miles. But it is small enough to be run well, for its own people. It has, the Manx say, the oldest parliament in the world, the Tynwald, which has 24 members, meaning that they represent about 3,500 people apiece. A massive electorate when compared to their Sark counterparts, but still a wee bit less than the half million that each American representative has. It still seems likely that each member of the House of Keys(the lower house in the Tynwald) will know a good part of his electorate, or at least be available to all of them, if they so wish. Man is rich, lightly taxed and again not in the EU. They also have a wonderful custom, where each year on Tynwald Day, they read aloud all the laws passed by their assembly over the last twelve months, in English and Manx. I imagine this may give the members pause for thought when a long and boring piece of legislation is passed, knowing they will have to stand at Tynwald hill and listen to it being read out out twice!
Another interesting place is the Principality of Liechtenstein, it is a small place, that makes Switzerland look big. It is about 60 square miles and has 35,000 people. It is ruled by a prince whose family have held this fief for over 400 years, the people are rich and lightly taxed, the public services work, the streets are clean and it is not in the EU! Surprise surprise! This little place has had no experience of war since Napoleon and was the only place in Europe to give asylum to 500 Russian nationalists who fought against the Soviet Union in the Second World War, whilst larger more powerful states like the US and Britain happily handed over hundreds of thousands of poor souls who disappeared in Siberia.
San Marino, the worlds oldest republic, is a tiny little place in Italy with only 24,000 people, it is independent, and has been since St Marius established his monastery on Mont Titano in 301AD, it is not part of the EU, is rich, happy and free. It has no national debt, unlike neighbouring Italy, and has no ‘diversity’ to talk of. It is lightly taxed and has a constitution that can be traced back over 400 years.
We have all heard of Monaco, another rich, free place ruled by a prince, and Andorra? A Co-Principality between Spain and France, which is also rich and free.
Gibraltar, a British colony on the south Spanish coast. Iceland a large country, but with a small population, only about 300,000. Luxembourg, the Faeroes and the Swiss Cantons, some of which are not much bigger than Liechtenstein.
All of these places have something in common, they are all small, all have small homogenous populations, all are wealthy, all have contented populations, all of them are well-governed and lightly taxed, all of them are free. Even the principalities, even here the people are freer then many of us who live in big ‘democratic’ states, which exposes the lie about monarchies being old-fashioned totalitarian states. Iceland was able to reject enslavement to the IMF due to its small size. A few thousand people converged on their parliament, which is about as big as a normal house, and threatened to burn it down if the parliament passed the act which would have enslaved them. This forced the government to put the issue to referendum which resulted in its rejection. Man, Sark, Alderney, Jersey and Guernsey are not completely independent, but this means very little in any real sense, they rule themselves for the most part, foreign policy and coinage being the only things they don’t have, and for small places like this, foreign policy doesn’t really mean all that much anyway. Politics in these places is extremely local, people don’t go into politics to make their fortune, or to lord it over anyone else, as who would be impressed that you are a member of the Chief Pleas or Colonial Assembly of Gibraltar?(Well I would, I would be fascinated) People don’t go into these assemblies to conquer the world, or change the world, only to have a say in how the local school is run, or to oppose licence changes for pubs, or to campaign for a road to be repaved. these are boring, irrelevant things to the entire world, except for the tiny corner where it does matter. In short, those who lust after power, leave these places for pastures new, leaving these little pieces of well-governed earth, to remain the same. Perhaps the most tory of places?
So what am I saying? Well, small government is good government. And perhaps if we are to focus on politics, we should focus on the small? Although I despise ‘democracy’ as a sham, as it is in large states like Britain and America, on a small, local scale, representative government, as opposed to democracy is a good thing. If you could go and get yourself elected to a parish council, or a town council, you could have an effect. You could oppose foolish spending, you could oppose some silly declaration or propose a good and worthwhile thing. Immigration can’t be stopped at the national level yet, perhaps we could make illegal immigrants uncomfortable at the local level by denying a business licence, you don’t have to say why, or you could oppose it on environmental grounds!
I have read that the future will be one of small states, city states and the like, I don’t know if it is true, but I do think it would be a good thing. The large, centralised, bureaucratic states of the last century are failing. They have lost their legitimacy and are about to go bust, they no longer look out for their people, they only look out for their own financial futures. Too many in government, such as that worm Tony Blair and Nickolas Sarkozy, used the power of their states to wage cowardly wars against third world nations, partly, I’m sure because it massaged their egos. A Tony Blair as a member of the Chief Pleas or House of Keys would be of no danger to the world, or even to a country, even if he managed to convince the assembly to import millions of immigrants, the other parts of the country would be ok.
So let us get elected to our small local councils, lets start positioning ourselves to be the leaders of the remnants of these failed nation-states, I predict that this is where and how we begin to take back what has been so unjustly taken from us and ours.