The limits of globalism
As revealed by the coronavirus
“Switzerland’s government banned all private and public events from midnight local time on Monday for more than a month, according to a statement from the Swiss Federal Council.”
“Sudan has closed its borders, sealing of all sea ports, land crossings and airports, Mohamed Al-Faki Suleiman, spokesperson for Sudan’s Transitional Sovereign Council, said in a press statement.”
“French President Emmanuel Macron said the country’s borders will be closed to contain the coronavirus outbreak starting at noon local on Tuesday.”
“Russia will bar entry to foreigners with some exceptions starting Wednesday, the Russian government said in a statement Monday.”
“Israel is preparing to open four hotels across the country as quarantines sites for confirmed cases of coronavirus…”
“Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the country will deny entry to people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents.”
“Portugal and Spain have agreed to suspend all air and rail travel between the two countries.”
“Macedonia about to close its borders including the Skopje airport….”
And the news continues.
Borders, it seems, are back in style. The individual nation-state, too, is back. You have to get to mid-March before you really see the European Union, for instance, mentioned in the headlines of the day. Consider this from the March 16 edition of the Wall Street Journal: “The European Union escalated its battle against the new coronavirus by unveiling a plan to ban nonessential travel into most of the bloc, but EU-wide efforts face dwindling support among members more focused on national welfare.”
For all of its vaunted talk about “ever-closer union,” and “pooled” or “shared sovereignty,” the EU as an institution and would-be government faces individual nation-state members concerned with…the welfare of their individual nation-states.
What does this point to? Limits, for one.
Indeed, we need limits in our lives; limits in the way we conduct ourselves as individuals or societies, or limits in the way we govern ourselves.
Limits are part and parcel of life. We see this in our biological selves for instance: there are limits as to how fast a man or woman can run, how long a person can hold his or her breath, how long we can live, etc. These limits exist in our biological selves for good reasons.
There are good reasons why there must be limits in other areas of our lives as individuals and as societies. There must be limits and boundaries to what we say and do, both as individuals and as governments, who are, after all, elected by the people. Without limits and boundaries there is chaos. Think of it like this: you might enjoy watching or even playing basketball. Within the game, there are boundaries to the court, there are rules to be obeyed, and there are referees to enforce those boundaries and rules. Within those boundaries and rules the players are absolutely free to do whatever they can, using their skills, talents and the strategies of the coaches to win the game. But what if there were no boundaries or rules? What if there were no limits? What if the players were “free” to do whatever they wanted? Would the game be any fun to play or watch? Of course not. Chaos would rule. There would be no point in playing or watching the game.
Gregory Collins, a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Political Science at Yale University, writes about the issue of limits in the thinking of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), considered to be one of the most important Enlightenment figures in “The Imaginative Conservative.” Collins writes that “Order is inextricably linked with limits…Not only do limits on individual action occupy a role in Locke’s moral philosophy, but limits on institutional action exert even a larger role in preserving ordered liberty in Locke’s political philosophy. Indeed, students of Western political thought are familiar with his lucid descriptions of political institutions — such as the rule of law, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers — that emerge as the clearest political expressions of limited and self-restrained government. And so, in reading Locke’s Second Treatise, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that limits are the essence of the Lockean conception of government. Government’s legitimacy is limited by the consent of the governed.”
“The consent of the governed.” How often have we heard that phrase invoked by the elites proffering democracy only for them to go back and trample all over it. Macedonians know this well, and from very recent history. Changing a country’s name and identity should really have broad consensus, “the consent of the governed.” And yet here we are today with much of the world calling Macedonia something Macedonians never agreed to.
Maybe the global government, or global governance crowd, has met its match. Yes of course governments, scientific institutions, scientists and others should — and are — working together to defeat this virus. That is right and proper. But those utopians — both the benign and malignant versions who dream of and work toward a global world governed by….them, well maybe that is not meant to be and this crisis we tribal humans are now going through shows us the limits of what should be, with the nation-state, and a proper understanding of the consent of the governed, being the very best model for mankind.
