"One world" not needed.(LETTERS TO THE EDITOR)(Letter to the editor)

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 ...