…what does it spell? Un – as in French for one. But the notion of unity doesn’t seem to be that popular in today’s world. Even less popular is the U.N.
Ever since the United Nations Security Council proposed to blunt the edge of America’s imperialistic designs by not supporting the invasion of Iraq, hating the U.N. has been about as hip and cool as hating France. In both cases, the people doing the hating have proven themselves reactionary and – in some cases (i.e., excluding my friends) – extremely nearsighted. Of course, these tendencies are magnified by exposure to the idiotic punditry prevalent in mass media.
All of this came to me while reading a brief description of the political treatise of the philosopher Benedict Spinoza (né Baruch Espinoza).* In Spinoza’s view of politics, humans (and, indeed, all living beings) are born with a natural tendency toward staunch individualism. They are also, however, designed by nature for communal life.
Observation of the people around you will support this idea. Despite what our forefathers would have us believe, we are not all created equal. People who are very different from our own selves are all around us. These differences range from physical proportions and abilities to talents and mental capacity.
This variety suggests that humans benefit the most from living in groups and organizing themselves to create social institutions. The most important of these institutions are the governments we form, and it is through these means that everyone is allowed to live in a greater degree of comfort. Man provides for society those things his ability permits him to provide and benefits from those who possess abilities he does not.
Ideally, government provides a guiding hand for conducting this commerce of needs. But Spinoza points out that government should never exceed the measure of necessity. Individual rights should only be encroached upon insofar as they encroach upon rights of others. The price one pays for protection from the self-serving violence of others is the surrendering of his own right to commit such violence unto someone else.
It is a simple ideal and that is what makes it so beautiful. It is logical, symmetrical, and mostly airtight. But Spinoza goes on to point out that state entities are still stuck in the stage of basing their actions in individualism. Despite the fact that these states have provided for helpful organization amongst their own citizens, they have been unable to reach such a union amongst each other. He asserted this notion in the 17th century, and since then progress toward establishing a workable government among nations has been excruciatingly slow.
Surely, the United Nations, as it presently stands, is by no means the realization of an ideal international ruling body. It is rife with flaws, inconsistencies and biases. But the suggestion that it should be done away with is absurd in light of the fact that it is the only common forum provided amongst almost all nations. People who say that the U.N. is obsolete and ineffective might do well to take a wider view of the situation and see that its role is to arbitrate on behalf of all nations as opposed to a handful. Often it is that we find the good of the many requires that individuals who are so equipped make sacrifices. So it is with nations. Conversely, those nations who commit crimes against the common good must be held accountable to the common will, not to the will of just one or two nations.
It therefore becomes obvious that certain leaders’ (namely, our own) unwillingness to work with the United Nations – though based partially in very real shortcomings of that organization – is mainly the product of those leaders’ inability to view the world around them with an open mind and to see long-term detriments as opposed to short-term benefits.
This brings me conveniently to another point that Spinoza makes. It is one of the perennial flaws of democracy that we insist upon electing anyone to government. Why is it that if you want to, say, be a journalist, you have to get at a least a degree in journalism, but if you want to be a senator you only need to look good in front of a camera? Believe it or not, being the CEO of a corporation does not automatically make someone a credible candidate for public office. Nor does being a celebrity. It is also worth pointing out that one would probably not go to a plumber if he wanted a tooth pulled.
The last election really showed our tendency to elect mediocrity to public office. Sometimes it seems the more stupid you are, the more the American people will think you are perfect for office (thus, our president). I even found myself toying with the notion that perhaps only those who prove they really care should be allowed to vote. The idea of limiting suffrage, however, left a bad taste in my mouth – it obviously smacks of fascism. The idea of approaching the matter from the other end and establishing requirements for those who hold office, however, tastes like the sweet fruit of logic. Is it too much to ask that someone who is going to hold an elected post in the federal government have at least a bachelor’s degree in political science? I don’t think so. Nor does it seem like a breach of democratic tradition. It seems, rather, like the exercise of good hiring practices.
* I know what you’re thinking: "Listen to Boo and his name dropping – is he trying to prove something, or what?" Well, the short version of my justification is, yes, I am trying to prove something.
