G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

. . . it includes not only the more conventional fields of activity but also
mental health, housing, nutrition, economic or working conditions, and
administrative and social techniques affecting public health. 5
This simply means that the United States is bound by treaty to uphold its pledge to
promote unlimited government meddling around the world; to promote the very thing
against which it fought a revolution two hundred years earlier.
Advocates of this Old World concept of unlimited government quite naturally do not call it
Old World; they like to think that they have discovered something new. Nor do they call it
meddling; they prefer to think of it as "providing assistance." Certainly, they would not
want it called socialism; "national programming" is the term. Call it what you will, the end
result is still the same.
But, of course, this is a study of the UN, not a treatise on the relative merits of collectivism
versus individualism. Except as this subject is unavoidably implicated in what we have
dealt with so far, let us simply summarize the whole issue by saying that socialism and all
other manifestations of collectivism (such as fascism, communism, etc.) would be just fine
except for two considerations: first, they have never worked (as the saving goes, socialism
will work in only two places: Heaven, where they don't need it; and Hell, where they
already have it); and secondly, they are immoral. History has proved the first point beyond
all doubt, and logic substantiates the second.
Using the police-backed power of government to force people to perform acts that would
be charitable if voluntarily performed, is like the Good Samaritan using a club to intimidate
others into helping the poor traveler who had been beaten and robbed. At the point where
he threatens to use force to accomplish what is, in his mind, a noble cause, he then
becomes no better than the original attacker who, for the sake of argument, might have
committed the robbery to secure money for what he considered to be a noble cause. This
is just a refined version of saying that the ends justify the means. If we accept that thesis,
there is no end to the legalized plunder that will be our lot.
Not all of the collectivists at the UN are promoting their schemes out of ignorance or
innocence. Being indifferent to the moral implications, they also know full well that their
proposals are not leading to the kind of workers utopia that they keep predicting. They
know that free enterprise is far more workable and productive than socialism but they work
tirelessly to promote socialism just the same. Knowing that all collectivist systems must
have planners and rulers--the elite to run the lives of the rest of us--they hope to be in line
for the top jobs.
Consider the following remarks made by Edward H. Carr, writing in the UNESCO
Symposium on Human Rights:
If the new Declaration of the Rights of Man is to include provisions for
social services, for maintenance in childhood, in old age, in inadequacy
or in unemployment, it becomes clear that no society can guarantee the
enjoyment of such rights unless it, in turn, has the right to call upon and
direct the productive capacities of the individuals enjoying them. 6
Someone always has to pay for these schemes, of course, and in the United Nations,
Uncle Sap . . . er, Sam is elected. In 1953 the General Assembly voted to create a special
UN fund for world economic development. A few years later, when it was learned that this