They understood that there are three basic establishment forms of government structure incorporating geopolitics, geo-economics, and geo-culture. The world systems encompassing all elements of government are now subject to United States capitalism, European socialism, and Chinese communism. All other government economic systems in the world are part of, or react to, each one of these geo-government structures.
The discussions first centered around each country’s individual situation dealing with current events. The delegates quickly realized that the problems of debt, economic growth, and government services were similar in context and experience. Further, the electoral process is challenged.
For instance, in one country, national elections are to be held in this summer. Three candidates preferred by the electorate are being barred from the ballot by a Supreme Court established and operated by the United Nations. So far, petitions to the U.N. requesting relief have gone unanswered. The sovereign responsibility of the government to conduct elections on behalf of the citizens is being stymied and circumvented by an international body. The judicial forum is dominated by political influences that are not in the best interest of, or sought by, the people of the country in question. This is an abhorrent situation which Americans cannot even fathom. What would happen in the United States if a foreign governmental body, that did not share our values or worldview belief systems, had the ability to restrict candidates based on criteria of their choosing for qualifications? And think about the circumstances if that were, in fact, the situation in the United States, and there was nowhere to appeal the decision of injustice.
In addressing societal problems in the aggregate, the conversation naturally progressed into universal rights. What are in fact the underlying principles critical to the success of sound efficient government? The evaluation concluded that solutions should be derived for the people’s rights, not the rights of government. That, in the wisdom of the people individually caring about their families and children, the best decisions of government processes are derived.
As an observer at the event and advisor on economic topics for consideration, I could only wonder if this wasn’t the same dialogue, in composition and emotion, that the Founding Fathers of America conducted prior to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The natural principles that percolated to the top by the buoyancy of truth represented were: we desire freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to assembly, right to petition government for grievances, right to a fair trial by a jury of peers, the right for conflicts to be adjudicated by a court of law that is dedicated to a constitution rather than a cause, the right to start a business without government interference, the right as a family to decide their own values, and the right of a state to determine laws supporting the morality of the people.
Upon examination of the three dominant forces of government structure in the world today, they came to the conclusion that the only possible economic system that provides freedom of choice is capitalism, measured and held accountable by moral values, resulting in free enterprise.
In the United States today, young leaders are emerging demanding pure socialism for the replacement of capitalism and free enterprise. It is important to remember that nowhere in the consciousness of socialism is the imperative of freedom. Choice is not a consideration. Diversity of opinion is discouraged. Standardization as dictated by government is the operative policy.
One could find this ironic; that people who have lived under various forms of socialism all their life now reject it as a viable option. By exercising discipline in distress, they have not reached for a rainbow without substance, or the object of frustration, as a normal course of business. They have dedicated themselves to the time and effort required to understand that socialism has never worked in world history, has never worked for them, and therefore, a fate that they are not willing to impose upon their children.
The questions that followed were about the United States. With all our mistakes, with all of the wrongs that have had to be made right, and with all of the inequalities yet to be addressed, how has America maintained the priority of freedom as the basis of our purpose?
I felt grateful to be included in the dialogue with these selfless leaders. And I quietly, humbly to myself, felt unabashedly proud to be and American citizen. And at the same time, I felt an enormous obligation to do everything possible within my skill set to protect inviolate the initiative of the founding of America.
As the United States faces its own economic, social, and governmental dilemmas, may we have the same discipline in distress as the leaders from these countries. For it is not about us. It’s about our children. And, in our commitments, the unalienable rights ordained as freedom are ours to protect for the generations.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?