The thought of a single world government makes my skin crawl.

Leftists, on the other hand, would gladly crawl over broken glass if doing so would hasten the day that all people on Earth are ruled by a single beauraucratic entity.

When I see the UN flag, I reflexively look around for surveilance cameras which would be an indespensable tool for those bent on ruling the whole world.

When leftists see the UN flag, they reflexively kneel down and reverently pay hommage to the symbol of their hopes and dreams.

Why do rightists respond negatively to the idea of a centralized global government?

Why do leftists love the idea of a global central command?

Rightism is the belief that the individual human is the most important entity type in the universe. In a rightist's ideal world, all people would be internally governed making police organizations, justice systems, prison systems and legislative bodies irrelevant. The fundamental idea is that if people were truly self-governed, they would not be inclined to do harm to other people and they would not be inclined to do harm to themselves. Given that the human race is not fully self-governing, governmental institutions are a necessary evil that must be endured to help mitigate the human unwillingness (or inability) to be self-governing.

To a rightist, the fact that external government is necessary is a tragedy and not a point of rapturous celebration.

The fact that resources have to be expended to control unruly and destructive people is a tragic waste especially when humans could be engaged in far more thrilling enterprises than mundane government work such as criminal investigation.

Rightist understand that external governing must be done but they well understand that governing must be minimized as much as is humanly possible. To this end, a rightist works to encourage his/her peers to be self-governed because this helps to ensure that more external government is not needed.
Rightists try to bring the sphere of government as close to the individual human as possible. Most ideally, a person governs his own behaviour and makes sure that he/she is not acting in a destructive way. Failing this, a rightist would look to a person’s family as the next closest sphere of government to try control the destructive behaviour.

A rightist, upon seeing a person failing to govern himself, would feel it natural to go to the person's parents or siblings to ask them to reign in the destructive behaviour of their kin.

A rightist prefers that cops are left out if the problem can be handled at the family level.

If the family fails to govern their own, the rightist would then go the next level up: the immediate community.

At each step, the rightist wants the lowest level of government handling matters. This applies to issues of sustenance as well as behaviour. A rightist prefers that each individual be able to care for himself. Failing that, the immediate family is seen to be next line of defence against hunger. If the family fails, the next line is the immediate community.

This instinctive preference of the low levels of government is what makes rightists suspicious of a global government. The existence of a global government would pull governance away from individuals and towards higher spheres of government.

On the other hand, leftists slobber over the idea of being pompously ruled from a glorious central command post.

To them, the ideal human condition is that of having been properly tamed and cared for by the benevolent, wise and good intentioned elite.

You have proably observed that leftists gain status by demonstrating how benevolent, wise and good intentioned they are because these traits fit into the world order of total human governance they envision.

At leftist festivals, all people who wish to be seen as elite governors of others wear little pink, yellow, red, blue ribbons to show their caring credentials to the leftist world.

In the leftist’s world, a symbolic demonstration of one’s deep concern for issues affecting the soiled masses elevates the social position of the person because it positions them as having a quasi-authority over the masses affected by the array of afflictions the ribbons represent.

The leftist never sees the low levels of government as valuable. They work from the top down. If there is a child having a problem, they don’t instinctively go to the parents of the child (unless they intend to incriminate them). They go straight to the U.N. If the U.N is unable to point it’s blunt blurry gaze at the child, the leftist goes to the next level down: the federal government. If the Federal government’s attentions cannot be gained, they go to the Supreme court, then the state government then the municipality and finally, when they cannot gain the attention of the community, they alert the parents that the child lost his lunch to the playground bullies.

Another illustration of leftist moronisity regarding world government is their distaste for international trade (think G8 protests). Ironically, they are globalists but they do not tolerate global trade in the same way that they embrace global courts and global taxation. Why?...because global trade represents free economic activities practiced by people making their own choices outside the control of the leftist power gluttons. World courts and other world government institutions represent the taming and control of the human spirit by the elite liberal minds.

The Leftist's nasty trait of hysterical self-importance is what makes them yearn for the highest level of human government possible….a single gargantuan government that sprawls over the whole Earth knowing everyone’s business (except what two consenting males do behind closed doors) perfectly fits their bill for laying their claws into everyone's business.

Leftists see this monstrosity of a government as the final vehicle with which to dump their benevolent good intentions on the whole world without the objections of people who would rather just take care of themselves.

When ordinary people take care of themselves, it refutes the leftist’s idea that everyone survives on the blessed words and thoughts of the elites.

Canada has had relationship problems with the U.S since 2000.

Why?

Because the Prime Minister of Canada was unable to control his tongue during the American campaign, he stated that he preferred that Al Gore won the race. Of course, George Bush won and was not cuddly with the Canadian government from the start.

Things could have thawed from that point but the Canadian ruling party kept emitting signals of enmity with the U.S.

Various high-level government functionaries called the U.S president a ‘moron' and another was heard saying that she "hated those bastards".

During the run up to the Iraq war, Canada threw her lot in with 'Old Europe' and resisted the American's intentions of toppling Saddam's regime.

The current leftist Canadian government has been very liberal with their criticism of the Bush administration and the results are going to come home to roost very soon.

In 2001, the U.S placed a heavy import tariff on softwood lumber coming from Canada.

The U.S is planning the exclusion of Canada from it's military contracting

The U.S has closed it's border to Canadian beef products with no intention of opening it anytime soon.

Many U.S businesses are reconsidering doing business with Canadian vendors.

The lesson being learned here is that kicking dirt in a friend or neighbours face will have consequences.

The effects of these consequences could be severe. Serious agricultural collapses are looming as well as shocks to the Canadian economy as sectors of the market close down.

It is never a easy thing when a commodity producer has nowhere to take it's commodities.

The blind zombozoid of a Canadian Prime Minister stumbles around completely oblivious to the consequences of causing bad blood to develop with the Americans.

His retirement is coming up soon and once his corpse-like spectre is gone, Canada will have an opportunity to renew it's vows of good faith and friendship with the U.S.

Hopefully this will happen in time to prevent heavy damage to the Canadian economy.

Students in Iran continue a roiling campaign against the Mullocracy in their country.

The U.S (along with the coalition of the willing) must continue exerting pressure on the regime as the students push from the other side.

I finally got around to watching the Ed Harris movie, "Pollock".

The show was an absolutely fascinating telling of the search for individual expression during a time when individualism was ubiquitously being dumped onto the art market.