Why Not the UN?

 

While empires are obviously a good idea, why is it that the EU is failing, the UN is so ineffective at stopping wars, and the League of Nations a notorious failure? Shouldn’t they be even better at preserving peace than any Empire, because more inclusive and more voluntary; and aren’t they more democratic and equitable?

The obvious answer is that these bodies have no Royal Navy nor Roman Legion nor Mounted Police. They have no enforcement arm. 

But that is not the only problem. That said, I would be uncomfortable with the UN or EU having an enforcement arm. They lack moral authority. They are not genuinely democratic, so they lack the mandate of the people. The British or the Roman Empire at least had to answer to their own citizenry; those in power could not run amok. And they lack shared governing values or principles. Without this moral constitution, they become a pork-barrelling among vested interests, inevitably to the detriment of the common man.

To one day have one world government, we will probably first need to have one world religion. Whether or not it is referred to as a religion, that is what it would be: a shared set of values, of principles of government. Confucian values held the large Chinese Empire together. Christian values did well for the Romans, and then Christendom; the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, and to a large extent the British. Lockean liberal values, as enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence, has done well early for the Brits and in more recent years for the large American confederation. But the attempt to internationalize them has come upon adamant opposition from some quarters, notably the Marxist and the Muslim worlds.

Failing this emergence of one world religion, the next best option is empire; or a confederation of co-religionists.