For what purpose do we have politicians? I might not be the right person to provide an answer, but for the sake of this text, we accept that they are there to govern a state. I think most politicians themselves would be unable to disagree with that statement. (Unless, of course, their office is more local. But we leave them at that this time.)
If they are democratic, they can claim that they have got this right by the people they govern. This can be questioned, but for this discussion, we accept that too.
They build their legitimacy on that they rule with the assumed consent of the ruled.
If we accept the statements above, a politician should have influence in his state, but not in another. His legitimacy ends with his own country's borders. What happens on the other side, is none of his business. This especially must hold for adherents of democracy, since democratic legitimacy cannot reasonably be valid outside the area of the relevant electorate.
Let us go further than that. When a politician expresses an opinion about something in another country, no matter what, he oversteps his authority. If he then tries to influence even the minutest detail abroad, he commits what ought to be considered a capital crime and be punished accordingly.
Private individuals may have opinions about anything and have legitimate interests anywhere, but those holding a public office may not. Their office strictly limits them geographically. That is, they often (always these days) take undue liberties, but that does not make it acceptable. Every place must have the right to build its existence on its own preferences and conditions, grow and mature in its own way, without undue interference. Conformity is no advantage, except for the one who controls the conform structure. There is no reason whatsoever, why every state should be similar in structure, set of values, or in anything at all.
And when it comes to problems, let them be defined, and solutions designed by those it concerns; in the way they, not others, choose.
Unfortunately, oversteps are systematic. Most politicians boast of their meddling, considering it praiseworthy. Without going into details, some relatively recent examples are: the situation in Myanmar (Burma), Iran, the system of North Korea, the situation in Afghanistan, the laws of Liechtenstein or the Cayman Islands. Or why not Kosovo some years ago? How quickly western countries were there to assist in "building infra-structure"! Rubbish, their purpose was to ensure that Kosovo became a state built on their principles, fearing that something different would be created. Maybe something people would find better. These politicians take tax money to extend their political influence into areas and questions far beyond their competence and office; and to force their ideas on people whose lives are none of their business.
Now I know what some of you would say: that North Korea, for example, or Afghanistan, is a threat to others. But would they really be that if others did not all the time threaten them? Of course North Korea needs nuclear weapons. Every state which does not accept to be a vassal of a nuclear power, must have its own nukes. It is a matter of preserving genuine independence, the possibility to be different. As long as anyone has such weapons, everyone else needs the same. That is an indisputable axiom of real politics. The official nuclear powers are scared to death that others would be similarly armed, because they would lose the power they still have over others. I cannot see that that would be a bad thing.
(Here I want to point out that I do not approve of the North Korean system, neither am I defending it – but I don't approve of meddling either. Leave North Korea to the North Koreans – and analogous with all other states. Just one thing is always wrong: meddling into others' business.)
That does not mean that I look forward to a world full of nukes. Of course it would be better if no one had them. But that is not the world we live in, and I doubt it will ever be. One cannot erase the knowledge. No matter laws or treaties, nuclear weapons are here to stay, at least as a potentiality.
Lofty words in its charter notwithstanding, the United Nations was originally set up by the colonial powers (and the United States) for the purpose of continuing colonial rule under the formal pretence of abolishing it. This is as governmental privatisation of today; they rid themselves of risk and responsibility, but keep the ultimate control. The UN, however, works with financial blackmailing, threats, and ideological brainwashing and programming; thereby forcing the world into common standards, while actively exterminating everything not suiting into the model. This is the worst destroyer in human history! The existence of an international organisation like that is totally unjustified, except if its sole purpose and authority were to stop states from interfering in other states, stop politicians from one state from poking their noses into something on the other side of the border; and to punish transgression.
Before anyone accuses me of being unrealistic, let me make clear that I am aware that a world of non-interference is viable only if no one interferes. As soon as one does, others have to do it too; for their own defence. So we are far from this ideal, and it is hard for anyone to begin. In fact, we are moving in the other direction, we live in the ultimate meddler civilisation. But it is wrong to see the problem only as one between state and people (as is often done). There exists an analogous abuse between states, where dominating ones completely block the possibility for another state to try something new and different; or, should that be actual, hang on to something old that works well. Conformity, equality, and unity are no recipe for human survival - diversity and difference are; difference under mutual respect and acceptance. That goes for groups of people, tribes and states, as much as for individuals.
I still hold on to what I wrote in another time and another place: "Life is diversity and difference; conformity and equality exist only in death. Why would we deliberately strive for death?"
Related articles:
Either Health Freedom or Slavery - A Little of Each is not Possible
Private & Public – Is it Justified With a Free Press When Privacy is Outlawed?
Nation & State, Art & Culture; How confusion serves a purpose
Discrimination & The Legal Fiction of Private Ownership
Antiterrorism: Fight a Monster and Become a Worse Monster
Justice, Law & The State As a Self-Contradiction
Copyright © 2009, 2021 Meleonymica. All Rights Reserved.
Here you find all my writings about privacy & antibigbrotherism, and here about philosophy.
You find all my writings on Read.Cash, sorted by topic, here.
Read also: What You Need to Know about Copyright
