Posted on by Nathan Riley

A Ceasefire Would Benefit Israel and Iran

Throw a party, that is what Freedom Democrats should be doing. They should be getting stronger and finding new supporters.

Get everybody together, the election is over, the Democracy is safe. Donald Trump’s days of overthrowing the government and falsifying election results seem finished now that he has won. He wants to be boss and leave his mark on history.

Wars in Palestine and Ukraine agitate Freedom Democrats. War is the opposite of freedom. In war the powerful tell the weak what to do, and the soldiers kill to prove they mean it. President Kennedy said that peace does not require some fantasy of harmony. “It requires only” that nations and groups “live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.”

Freedom Democrats favor peace. Got a complaint take It to a lawyer or a diplomat. Don’t shoot and be a brute.

In Ukraine and Palestine, bullets and bombs are flying;  families are crying. Young men with lives to live are robbed of their future; tens of thousands are dead or their bodies mangled.

Israel is bringing out a blood lust among its own people and leaders in the United States. Trump’s love of Israel is part of a larger movement in the U.S. accepting all-out war. To be a supporter of Israel requires tolerance of brutal warfare.

Trump’s choice for Defense Department Chief, Pete Hegseth, argues there is only one way to fight, that is fight to win. In this view, wars are not a popularity contest where local groups can be persuaded to support our side. The objective is forcing an invaded nation to submit to our policies or face fatal consequences.

When we left Afghanistan, the people we thought were on our side fled and in a matter of days the Talian took control. We thought that supporting women’s rights, schooling, and other services would win popular support. But the Afghanis realized that without U.S. soldiers the Taliban were going to rule and Muslim Sharia law would prevail.

Hegseth’s view is that soldiers must be warriors and should have the full backing of the U.S. government and fight until they win. Afghanistan is 2.5 times larger than France. Pacifying, or perhaps the word is “subjugating,” such a large country would cost billions. The number of soldiers required probably would prevent the U.S. from fighting anywhere else in the world.

Thus, Hegseth’s ideas lead to two potential conclusions: Afghanistan is not that important and shouldn’t be the United States’s number one priority. In this case the argument leads to nonintervention. Or, alternatively, the size of the U.S. military must be drastically increased, and the U.S. budget must pay for all-out war.

People in the United States are not joining the military in large numbers. The U.S. avoids confronting this issue. It adjusts its targets down to coincide with new enlistments; only with this sleight of hand can the D.O.D. claim its targets were reached. Why all-out war in a far-away nation like Afghanistan would increase enlistments is beyond my comprehension.

Hegseth’s nomination is controversial. He is not crazy and Republicans may well unite to back him, and it might be possible to split the Democratic minority in the United States senate, giving Hegseth additional support.

The downside to his view is that American public opinion should accept an extraordinary level of violence. The movement towards an American security state and away from democracy would proceed by making the country accustomed to all-out war. This is a dangerous prospect.

This article is being written before the Israeli cabinet has agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon. Stopping the killing is a victory for Israel; it means that the Palestinians are abandoned. Iraq accepts Israel’s domination of this people and the increase in Israel’s size to include Gaza and the West Bank.

Presumably, Israel should curb its hostility towards Iran. Iran in turn will likely accept Israel’s right to drill for oil and gas in the Mediterranean off the Lebanon coast. In other words, Iran and Israel will benefit from the ceasefire and the Palestinians get nothing.

Hamas will have left the Palestinians crushed. No other Middle East nation is willing to risk Israel’s wrath by going to war in support of the Palestinian cause. Undoubtedly, this is a lesson that the United States and Israel hope will be accepted by the Palestinians. Rather than think of Hamas as heroes they will be convinced that Hamas’s adventurism has harmed their lives. Surely, this is a lesson that Israel and the United States support.

If there was world government, then Palestine could take its complaints to the United Nations and try to end the apartheid separation between Muslim and Israeli. Unhappily, the ceasefire will demonstrate to Israel and the Middle East that policies deemed genocide by the International Criminal Court prevail.

The Palestinians will be left to suffer without any meaningful international support. World government could produce an opposite result without death and destruction.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Immigration Crisis

In case you missed it, the growing number of immigrants in this country is a major political issue. Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump becomes the new President, they and their political party must deal with the political fallout.

The arrival of hundreds of thousand of Venezuelans will move the nation to the right. They and most U.S. journalists have an easy explanation for their plight: socialism. Venezula used to be a wealthy Latin American nation until it took control away from the U.S. oil companies pumping black gold from the nation’s large reserves. This political act forced Venezuela into poverty. According to the U.S. version of events, President Nicolas Maduro led a reign of political oppression, stifling Venezuelans who supported the privileged position of the big oil companies.

It wasn’t U.S. wealth and prosperity that brought the Venezuelans to the U.S. border. It was the turmoil and economic downturn in their country that persuaded Venezuelans to make the long journey.  

A U.S. embargo against the “authoritarian” regime of President Maduro prevents the country from using U.S. dollars in its trade. Like most countries, Venezuela depends on imports for vital supplies; no dollars meant no supplies. Venezuelan doctors have complained about severe shortages of medicine. In any case, the political turmoil from the U.S. blockade has led to the emigration of seven million Venezuelans.

In Haiti, the breakdown of the government led to severe lawlessness. Gangs took over the country. Thousands fled, many reaching the United States border. These are the people Trump claimed ate the pets of Ohio residents. In Texas, the flood of Haitians has created grave tensions among Mexican Americans, many of whom have families and friends in Mexico. Border crossings that used to take a matter of minutes can now take hours.

Immigration will be a central issue in the United States, no matter who wins the election. The arrival of Venezuelans who believe their nation was ruined by socialism means they will be a conservative force. If either Democrats or Republicans make a plausible case that a new policy is socialist, we can expect the Venezuelans in the United States to oppose it. Most likely these new immigrants, like the Cubans who fled Fidel Castro, will become stalwart Republicans. Democrats will no longer assume that immigrant voters are supporters.

The point of this article is that a world government, in all likelihood, would prevent these mass migrations. The collapse of the Haitian government would automatically lead the United Nations, assuming it had become the global sovereign, to send armed forces to restore order in Haiti and provide assistance to this beleaguered nation.

The complaints of the United States about Venezuela could then be adjudicated by a world court, which could use soldiers to enforce its decisions. In this way, world government prevents crises that force thousands, if not millions, of people to leave their homes searching for safety. For example, migrations, from North Africa especially, shattered German political coalitions and forced Angela Merkel, surely one of the great leaders of this century, to resign.

It is easy to understand that Americans would be skittish about giving up sovereignty and placing it in the hands of the United Nations, whose authority would increase drastically if it became the sovereign responsible for making the Earth’s people cooperate and stop crises from developing.

Crises in far away countries are causing political turmoil in the wealthy nations. A world government can moderate, perhaps even prevent, the turmoil that convinces families to leave their native land in the hopes of finding a better future.

This is hardly the only benefit of world government. Indeed, a chief objective is preventing wars that plague the world. But by forcing nations to justify their actions and consider the impacts on other countries there would be a substantial increase in world cooperation. One obvious benefit is international cooperation to deal with climate change and reclaim desert lands. As these arid regions acquire water, transported across national boundaries, they will help feed the world’s growing population.

We live in a global economy and the advent of new information technologies like computers means that one institution, the U.N., can keep track of the world’s problems and offer assistance.

Such assistance will not always be welcome. Israel recently banned U.N. relief workers from their nation. The United States’s 62-year blockade of Cuba was recently rejected by 187 nations in the General Assembly. Only the United States and Israel supported the continued isolation of Cuba, which has found itself so short of petroleum that there have been electrical blackouts.

A major reason for the U.S. blockade are the Cuban-American votes in Florida, which are hardly a majority but are sufficiently large to make candidates lose if they support reform of U.S. Cuban policy. World government removes this obstacle.

World government is no panacea. Undoubtedly, nations will have conflicts and political groups will demand governmental reforms. But what world government promises when these conflicts occur is that the nations or their dissident citizens resolve their arguments with lawyers, not bullets. This is surely such a great benefit that the United States and other nations in the world should consider giving up their sovereignty in favor of making the United Nations the chief government in the world.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Welcome to Freedom Democrats

This blog is about creating a new wing of Democrats, pointing the party in a new direction.

Freedom Democrats support people who party, be they drug users, sex workers, porn watchers, or porn performers. Regardless of their pleasures, everybody should be respected and have their voice heard. We are not alone. DecrimNY and other groups across the United States are working to decriminalize sex work. Freedom Democrats should have an obligation to listen and understand the proposals these specialized groups are making. They have not only the respect of Freedom Democrats, but, more significantly, they have worked on rules to help sex workers do their job with dignity. Working in a brothel is only justified if the sex worker preserves their right to stop work or reject a trick. A person’s right to autonomy over their own body means that they mustn’t be forced to accept every customer.

I believe Freedom Democrats support the right to decide if a person want to practice monogamy. Such arrangements should be made honestly and explicitly between couples. Life would be smoother if a person’s sexual escapades don’t become a source of pain and surprise to another partner. Again, like with sex work, people have understood this, and couples routinely work this out. This is not a radical idea to many Democrats and Republicans.

But life isn’t a free-for-all. The right to say no has received positive attention from the #MeToo movement. It’s one thing to ask; it’s quite another to pursue a person after they have said no. For Freedom Democrats to work well with others, they should be willing to quickly and easily accept refusals. At the same time, people who party, should have spaces where the sexually adventurous can meet, and it is not offensive for a person to make a pass or sneak into a corner for some private time.

None of these issues are new to the Democratic Party, but Freedom Democrats propose to organize by having weekly parties of persons who are comfortable around drugs and sexual activity. This special feature of a Freedom Democrats’ weekly parties holds out hopes that like-minded people can organize and become a new wing of the Democratic party.

At the same time, Freedom Democrats should oppose war because war is about the powerful imposing their will, even if it’s against the wishes of the loser; it is the opposite of freedom. International affairs exist in a state of anarchy; disagreements are all too often settled by violence.

Ending this violence has been the fond hope of thoughtful people for centuries. War is scattered all over the globe and causes sorrow on continent after continent. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963, “peace—based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions” should be the ambitious goal. Freedom Democrats, I believe, should make it a primary objective.

I believe they should seek to turn the United Nations into a world government. Any nation that has a grievance should be able to appear before the United Nations. Lawyers and diplomats should replace soldiers and weapons. As a world government, the decisions of the United Nations would be enforced. Nations would lose the dubious ability to reject a proposal because the powerful think they can impose their plan using violence and the assets that the richer have against poorer nations.

Freedom Democrats are just taking baby steps. It is our objective to have specialists devise plans for world government. The object is to get the discussion started. World government should be debated on college campuses. It should be the subject of scholarly study. There is no reason to expect that Freedom Democrats will start a world government, but there is a hope that Freedom Democrats will start the debate.

Posted on by Nathan Riley · 4 Comments

Making the U.N. Sovereign

In the last two articles, I have shared my enthusiasm for President John F. Kennedy’s goal of strengthening  “the United Nations,” as an “instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system—a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.”

President Kennedy wanted the U.N. to create “a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of Law.” That should be the objective of Freedom Democrats: “insuring the security of the large and small.”  The destruction of Ukraine after Russia’s attack and the gut-wrenching bloody clash between Israel and Palestine clearly demonstrate why the U.N. must protect “the large and small.”

Kennedy put his faith in the two world powers of 1963. He assumed cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States could bring peace and world disarmament.

His fear was that nuclear war would bring the end of humanity. Sixty-one years later, we believe it unlikely that atomic weapons will be used. My vision of world government goes far beyond disarmament.

In my opinion, it is likely that each nation will have armed forces, but the dominant power must be the United Nations. It should have a monopoly on atomic weapons and armed forces for enforcing its decisions. Bloody conflicts become unlikely; U.N. armed forces aren’t destroying a nation. They have a more practical objective: arrest the leaders who are fighting international decrees. Clearly, these leaders may have followers, and the U.N. armed forces, acting more like police than soldiers, must dissuade these supporters from turning to violence. Should a serious military challenge arise, the U.N. armed forces should be bolstered by calling on other nations for assistance. Just as the U.S. Constitution gives the central government the power to enhance its strength by calling on state militias.

Should a country file a complaint about another country, both nations must appear before a U.N. tribunal and make their case. It would be illegal and lead to possible intervention by the U.N. for a nation to ignore the complaint.

Minority groups, be they tribes or political parties, confronting genocide could also file complaints. Pol Pot’s mass murder of his political opponents in Cambodia should be within the U.N. jurisdiction.

In other words, the U.N. would be the Earth’s sovereign nation. Its mandate would be far larger than world peace. It would supervise the cooperation of nations confronting climate change; it would issue money and prevent countries from being unable to pay debts because the value of another country currency, like the dollar, soared, it would soften free trade’s impact on worker’s wages, and it would raise money for vital infrastructure projects. In an emergency, it would protect populations from famine. In short, the U.N. mission will be peace, “Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living,” in President Kennedy’s glowing words.

This change has historic examples: Italy in the 19th century turned its city states into one nation. At the end of the 18th century after the United States established the Constitution, the former colonies became a new nation under the authority of a central government capable of collecting taxes and organizing armed forces to protect every colony and prevent the colonies from going to war against each other.  In each case small bodies gave up their sovereignty so that a larger sovereign could improve life. A U.N. world government would yoke the separate nations into a common body that will, in President Kennedy’s glowing vision, “build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Fame and Privacy

Freedom Democrats start with the party every week; it’s fun to get together and just enjoy yourself. It also promises to become as famous as Lincoln’s Republican Party or Washington’s Patriots.

Freedom Democrats fight for two great principles: the right to make up your own mind and live your own life and the transformation of the United Nations into world government. An invitation is extended to people who party, their friends, and people seeking world peace. It also offers a home to all sexes, people who watch porn, people who make it. Do drugs? So what.

Freedom Democrats want drug users to have safe, effective drugs made to the same standards as the drugs you get from your pharmacist. It’s crazy to force drug users to depend on criminals for their supply. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are tightly regulated for public safety. Drug users deserve the same protection: a public health step that will reduce but not end overdose deaths.

World government is considered ambitious, usually bringing smiles closer to pity than fun. The nearly universal reaction is “It ain’t gonna happen.” Fight this pessimism; remember President John F. Kennedy’s admonition about world peace: “Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable.”

Obviously, Freedom Democrats will not start a new world government; we will only persuade our government when many others join us. And don’t forget we have little influence over nations like China, Russia, and India that must agree. World government is a huge project, but the reward is immense. Resources are wasted, lives ended, and infrastructure destroyed [by war 9-17] . We must do something. In my view, Freedom Democrats should insert the possibility of world government into the public dialogue, just as the abolitionists made slavery a political issue in the years leading up to the Civil War. Freedom Democrats can end the silence; that’s a task within the means of a new wing of the Democratic Party.

What we are proposing is a coalition of people from the streets and of persons whose gender or sex life is queer joining with the professors and brainiacs pushing for world government. We are talking about pride and possibility. People from the street at these parties will chat with graduate students and veterans who oppose war. Straitlaced will mix with sketchy. This is a political movement, and it includes people with governmental experience and large numbers of people who VOTE; it doesn’t mean we win, but it does mean we can put it on the agenda.

The people who create a world government will be humanity’s greatest benefactors. That is why weekly parties and enjoying the company of strangers should have a political impact and change the conversation about war and peace. By working together, this coalition will bring pride. Sex workers and professors will respect each other. This social cohesion enhances pride and brings new voices into governmental decisions.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

How Can We End the Atrocities in Gaza?

Wars aren’t civilized. Limbs are lost. People bury their loved ones. Hate becomes a virtue that will save a country. Torture and violence become normalized. An unethical transformation turns the bad into good. In the Israeli war with Palestine rape is defended and torture practiced.

The horrors of the Holocaust and the ties that exist between Jews and other groups in this country guarantee that the United States will be a passionate friend of Israel. So it is no surprise that the bombing of children, the destruction of hospitals, and the deaths of 40,000 Palestinians make Americans uncomfortable but unwilling to damn the Israelis.

Yet the sad truth is that the horrors of the October 7th massacre of Jews has become an excuse for allowing Israel to commit crimes that are larger than the misdeeds of Hamas. This is not surprising; Israel has a free hand to revenge these deaths. If we allowed women to punish rapists, families to revenge the murder of loved ones, or property owners to punish thieves our criminal justice system would be equally harsh.

Those Americans protesting the horrors imposed on the Palestinians are labeled rioters and Antisemites for objecting to the atrocities in Gaza. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States should be diffusing the war. Instead it has chosen sides. This nation should be building bridges to peace. We are allowing Israel, the victim of the October 7th massacre, to become the judge and jury in its own cause.

The Palestinians, we are told, want to destroy Israel. Whether this is true or an exaggeration, history clearly shows that Israel is more likely to destroy Palestine and push it into the sea. Palestinians are not the destroyers of Israel but the victims of Israel’s superior strength.

For this reason, the United States should have avoided choosing sides and sought a humanitarian resolution that would provide ways to peacably resolve differences.

It is likely that before peacable solutions become routine the nations of the world must impose fixed boundaries that will stop the constant expansion of Israel into territory that once was occupied by Palestinians.

The present system allowing Israel to control the punishment for Palestinian resistance almost guarantees that any resolution will expand Israel and diminish Palestine. In other words, giving Israel the authority to punish its opposition will assure that any settlement is temporary until the next outbreak of violence.

It is unwise for the United States to declare Israel the good guys and Palestine the aggressor. The two parties must have an independent judge with the authority to impose a settlement that leaves both parties unsatisfied but holds out the promise of stopping the recurring violence.

At a minimum, Israel must stop policing the border between Palestine and Israel. A neutral third party must have this responsibility. Israeli troops must stay on their side of the border and stop face-to-face patrolling of the Palestinians.

The current scenario for imposing governance by neutral parties calls for funding from Saudi Arabia. In return they would expect to increase their military power, perhaps acquiring atomic bombs.  A controversial proposal guaranteed to create international unease and which may be rejected by the region and the world.

It would be unsurprising but horrifying if the world powers do not reach an agreement that separates Israel and Palestine. The current system permits Israel and its superior military force to be deeply involved in Palestinian affairs. It’s a system where Palestinian objections will flare up; conceding that Israel is the dominant power allows it to constantly expand and turns Palestine into a colony without a stable government.

Under the present system of independent nations, it is hard to envision nations that will assume the responsibility for imposing restrictions that curb Israeli expansion and police violent Palestinian protests. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, famously called for the “universal rule of law” enforced by all the nations of the world. Through world government, we can create world peace. This system is desperately needed in Gaza.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Through the Looking Glass

June is China Month in Washington D.C.

The G7—once the most prestigious group of nations in the globe, now reduced to an alliance of the U.S. and its allies—met in Italy and issued a communique at the end of its meeting. China didn’t attend, but it was mentioned 28 times.

In a front page New York Times story, clearly at the behest of U.S. diplomatic sources, China is described as a “malign force.” Among its numerous sins, said U.S. officials, is helping Russia build weapons to fight Ukraine and a possible threat to withhold the exotic minerals used in batteries and microchips. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has written two articles about reducing tension between Washington and Beijing.

The U.S. and China navies come dangerously close to each other in the South China Sea. Gone are the days when Apple proudly announced new sales figures from China for its products. Now the U.S. issues stern warnings trying to limit China’s alliance with Russia.

If we had a looking glass that could peer into the future, war between these superpowers is conceivable. China is protecting its borders. Its soldiers and weapons are close at hand. The U.S. is at the other side of the world and depending on its collection of bases in the Pacific for supplies to fight a war. Nonetheless the U.S. confidently assures us it can master the Chinese, who already forced U.S. troops back seventy years ago in Korea.

It is all too conceivable that war could flare up between the world’s two superpowers. This is high risk politics, and the U.S. acts like it is prepared to confront this worst-of-all possible outcomes.

The push for world government is one possible way to prevent these two atomic powers from coming to blows. If we turned the United Nations into the World Government we would have a better chance of resolving these tensions without the death and destruction of war.

Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine beats the Russians their nation is a shadow of its former self. Cities, farmlands, and power plants would have to be rebuilt. The millions of people who fled will need strong reassurances to return and are more likely to prefer the peace and prosperity in their new homes. Restoring Ukraine will take decades.

In Gaza, the destruction is even graver, and there is the strong possibility that Israel has no intention of letting the Palestinians return to their homes. Death, destruction, and possible starvation are the realities that govern Palestine. Furious at the October 7th massacre by Hamas, Israel believes that its weapons can destroy Palestinian militancy. There is widespread skepticism that this final solution will be achieved by the Israeli Defense Forces.

We should remember that the problem isn’t a Hamas massacre or an Israeli blockade of humanitarian aid. The problem isn’t separating the good guys from the bad guys by the evil deeds they commit; the problem is war. Using weapons to settle disputes will always bring war crimes. Only if we find an alternate way to resolve disputes can we stop these horrific crimes.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, coming out of the World War II victory, clearly hoped the United Nations would prevent wars from starting. He did not envision subordinating nations to an international peacekeeping force. As we approach the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the need for a world-governing body like the United Nations to control national governments persists. What was a step too far for Roosevelt can happen if Americans unite into a political party supporting this drastic solution.

World government, I believe, is one reason to support Freedom Democrats and to ally ourselves with the fight for the rights of sex workers, drug users, and people who party. We can create new possibilities and move the United States, and hopefully the world, in a peaceful and prosperous direction.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley · 1 Comment

Strategy

Abraham Lincoln, at 33 and on his way to becoming a leader of the Whig Party in Illinois offered this caution to a local temperance society about helping people give up drink. His advice was simple: offer friendship. If you don’t do this but choose “to dictate to his judgment… or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself…you shall be no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise.” Be gentle, caring, and friendly was Lincoln’s advice.

Freedom Democrats are trying to start a movement by cultivating friendship. The key organizing tool is weekly parties. In my opinion, it should be an opportunity for sex workers, persons who are not highly educated, and those who want to reform government to dance, talk, and become friends.

United in their belief that freedom includes the right to take the currently illegal drugs, trade sex for money, watch and make porn, these people can unite in a common cause. One main hope is that these parties can bring the college professor together with the high school dropout. To be a success, black, brown, and white people must be welcomed and have fun.

The objective is to become players in the Democratic Party, and from this base, to have an impact on government.

Everybody goes to parties and has good times. The key to success is that everybody feels welcome at these weekly events. No special skills are required to throw a party, but since Freedom Democrats are political, the hosts should establish ties with lawyers. It can be expected that while we are enjoying ourselves other people will badmouth us and some will call the cops.

In this way, from the very beginning, the host will establish ties with people knowledgeable about the law. A major objective of Freedom Democrats is to get activists and people with little interest in politics to become acquainted. In this way, Freedom Democrats can grow until they have an impact.

People who party should become friends with coat-and-tie people.

For years, congress has talked endlessly about making marijuana legal, but in the end fear of change has limited progress to baby steps. The same hesitation slows progress among state and local officials. Freedom Democrats are numerous, and the strategy is to create unity so that politicians take notice.

By throwing parties we develop local bases in communities all over the state.

In my opinion, Freedom Democrats should push for new attitudes. Drug users should be able to go to their doctors without interference from government agencies like the DEA. Some people want to give up their habit; others want to be left alone. It is a private matter between the doctor and the drug user. Drug users, like everyone else, should get substances prepared by doctors and scientists that minimize side-effects.

Currently, drug users must buy their drugs from underground suppliers without any of the safeguards that a person has when they take a prescription to a drugstore. Overdose deaths rocketed higher after politicians made the disastrous mistake of telling Oxycontin users that they could no longer get pharmaceutical drugs. It made no more sense than telling overweight people they can no longer buy food. The chance of an Oxycontin user overdosing is limited, while illegal drugs are killing thousands every month. The Oxycontin users should have had the right to go to their doctor and develop a course of treatment. It is obnoxious and stupid for government to simply tell people, “Stop,” denounce the drug, and then expect people to give it up. Some do, but many don’t and buy their drugs from dealers. Government, in its stupidity, created a large market for criminals. Some Freedom Democrats can make it clear that this stupid policy subsidized criminals.

In recent months, wars in Palestine and Ukraine have added to the list of armed conflicts that are a constant feature of this century. Since the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the United States’ Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt have recognized that the best way to hinder war is to start a world government that controls national states.

For this reason, I proposed that the United Nations become such a world government. It is a change that is familiar to American history. The Confederation of 13 colonies that beat the British couldn’t last. The Confederacy was too weak to collect taxes, make it easy to do business between states. Thus, in 1787, after the peace treaty was signed with Great Britain, a group of patriots drafted the Constitution, and the Confederation became history.

I propose that similar agreements be drafted that would control Israel, Russia, China, the United States, and all the other countries in the world. If a dispute develops, these nations would hire lawyers, not troops. I have no idea if this proposal would prove popular in the United States or with Freedom Democrats, but it is a major reason why I want the Freedom Democrats to get organized.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

FDR’s Four Freedoms

It’s June and time to step back and ask what are the Freedom Democrats trying to do? The plan is that Freedom Democrats throw weekly parties to give people the opportunity to meet, become friends, and help people confront the difficulties of life. By throwing a party it doesn’t matter what people believe, just that they like to have a good time together.

This is what I propose to get the Freedom Democrats started.

  1. End illegal drug hysteria. Some people do drugs that are currently banned. It shouldn’t surprise or shock us. Drug users aren’t criminals, any more than gay men are child molesters or blacks are robbers. Drug users include Miles Davis and Billie Holiday, two users whose genius have brought beauty and goodness to the world. Other drug users are bankers, plumbers and schoolteachers whose jobs are endangered if their private habits become public. Many are unhappy and use drugs to ease depression. They all should have the right to medical care without supervision by the Drug Enforcement Agency or the criminal justice system.  A drug user should have the same access to doctors as everyone else. If that includes prescriptions for opium-based medications that is a private decision between the doctor and the patient. There should be no need for drug users to buy drugs in the illegal market.
  2. Society, which currently forces people to buy drugs illegally, should provide 24hr safer use sites allowing users to take their drugs within the sight of people who know how to stop accidental overdoses. Safe drug facilities are in place all over the world and recognize that people have always used drugs and that their lives should be protected is a fundamental belief of the Freedom Democrats.
  3. Freedom Democrats want its members to demand world peace by turning the United Nations into a world government, compelling nations to obey international laws.
  4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt rallied public support against the dictator in World War II by calling for world government. His fourth freedom—freedom from fear—called for “a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.” His other freedoms—freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from want—added up to a program that Roosevelt believed would receive world-wide support. This program became a foundation for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly.
  5. Undoubtedly, the U.N. as world government should give equal importance to the dangers from climate change. That is one new task that wasn’t on the agenda in 1941. Supporting the rights of women and the LGBTQ+ community are equally important and deserve the support of world government.

Developing the foundations of international human rights law was a major task of the U.N. in its early days in 1946 and 1947. The preamble to the universal declaration of human rights includes FDR’s Four Freedoms.

The world is not governed by human rights laws. War in Ukraine and Palestine are particularly egregious examples of violations of basic human right to be free of fear. Undoubtedly women in Iran and a sizable part of the population in Afghanistan have seen their human rights stymied.

Prisoners, drug users, and homeless persons in the United States have valid claims that their rights are violated.

The idea behind the Freedom Democrats is that supporting the rights of sex workers, porn watchers, and drug users would prove popular. The people who party become a new group advancing U.S. democracy, just as gays and lesbians did.

People who didn’t do well in school and idealists who want to change the world would find common ground by joining the Freedom Democrats. So far, this idea is a tiny infant. That is where we stand in June 2024.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Create a World Government in the 21st Century

Turning the United Nations into a world government is a daunting task.

It’s as big a job as the one held by representatives of the 13 original states shortly after the end of the American Revolution. Chaired by George Washington, they wrote the U.S. Constitution and laid the groundwork for the Bill of Rights.

Already, the United States was dividing into free and slave states, and the primary concern of the founders of the Constitution was to create united states with a central government that could tax and wage war. The confederation that governed the 13 states during the Revolution did not have these powers, leading to constant pleas by George Washington for money, guns, and food.

The United Nations currently depends on contributions by individual states. If the United Nations was the world government, it would control the flow of funds. It would no longer depend on the voluntary contributions of the members. It would have the power to create its own budget. Obviously, existing nations would harbor great doubts about giving the United Nations this kind of power. It’s up to the public to say ending wars is more important than preserving existing national states. The United States won’t disappear. Russia and China won’t disappear. The power of these governments would be hemmed in by international law enforced by the United Nations.

The United States is the biggest contributor to the United Nations, and it should come as no surprise that it expects to influence the U.N.’s decisions.

The budget of the United Nations, if it was the world government, would be huge. For example, it would need soldiers to enforce international agreements and money to pay for emergencies all over the globe.

For example, with a world government the border between Palestine and Israel would be policed by U.N., not by Israel. These forces could be volunteers from the U.S., China, India, and other nations who stop being soldiers for a nation and swear to take their orders from the United Nations. If as expected a large number of U.N. soldiers would come from the United States, this would protect United States security.

The details must be worked out by experts from all over the world. Creating a world government would be the work of thousands from all the countries in the world.

There are elements in the current world structure that resemble world government. The International Criminal Court accepts complaints from one country about the behavior of another. Its activities are in the news. South Africa has complained that Israel and Hamas have violated international law in Gaza. Judges for the court in May of 2024 were weighing the evidence.

This is a good thing, but it is not world government. Were the United Nations to be the world government, Israel couldn’t attack Palestine, and Hamas would be hunted down as criminals.

World government means outlawing war. Nations would be required to take their complaints to the world government for adjudication. Before bullets are fired, the problems between nations would be resolved by decisions of the world government. In this light, the International Criminal Court is a disappointment. It asserts its jurisdiction after the fighting started.

To be successful, world government must assert its authority before blood is shed. In other words, don’t call out the troops, call the lawyers. It’s a system that is remarkably successful in the United States. World government must have the authority to stop groups from going to war.

This will be a massive undertaking. In this age of computers and the internet, the technology clearly exists for keeping track of the thousands of international disputes that exist all over the world. What doesn’t exist is an institution whose primary task is to resolve these disputes.

Such a government must also provide food and medical care after disasters.

Experts undoubtedly have many ideas about ways to create such an institution. It is certainly beyond my skill, but what I can do is ask my fellow citizens to get involved in asking the experts to speak up. Let’s make the 21st century, the century of world government.