I am not a fan of the United Nations. Let me explain a little. When I was a teenager, lying in the grass with my friend Jack on a warm summer evening, a favorite game was to wonder on how we could make the world better, IF we were the benevolent dictators of the world. From the optimistic naivete of youth we were convinced we would solve all the problems.
Fast forward 40 years. Now that I have a little experience of the real world, I recognize that even benevolent dictators are dangerous to individual freedom. Because they don't think the same as I do and I want to make choices they probably would not make.
That is the problem with the UN. It thinks it is that benevolent dictator. Trouble is, its ideas of what is best for the world as a whole or for the individual is rarely the same as the choices those individuals would make. Indeed, their version of "best for the world" is a far, far distance from what most people think is best.
Why is this? It is because the UN is an association of governments. Not of individuals. And the majority of those governments are not any way close to being benevolent or even democratic. Governments want what is best for them, and rarely what is best for their citizens.
So we come to the Food Police. This latest UN effort is to develop guidelines for food production, processing and consumption that would be equal worldwide. Sounds good, right? Well, what if it means rules that outlaw foods you like? What if it includes taxes on foods like soda pop, white rice, Twinkies, and salty bacon that are intended to price those items out of reach of most people? Except the rich, of course. The UN is discussing such rules this week in New York. And you can't do much about it because your government is probably one of teh ones that supports this concept.
Wasn't there once a guy named George Orwell? Back in 1984, I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment