Chapter 66: Economics 101

Thoughts

Events

The inexorable march towards world government didn't have its seeds in the formation of The United Nations in the middle of the twentieth century. While this UN was the first world body to attempt to mediate and mitigate the world's problems that actually survived its first formative years — despite many corrupt activities which it spent much effort attempting to cover-up — it wasn't the source of today's real problem.

The true source of the rot that begat the flawed World Government, that then begat the problems of today came from a small country in western Europe near the dawn of the twenty-first century.

This small country, known as Belgium at the time, decided to appoint itself the high and mighty arbitrator of the world's morals. In these still pre-robotic days this country alone decided that they were going to fix the problems of the rest of the world by bringing the wrongdoers to justice.

They did this by passing a countrywide law that justified them in issuing worldwide arrest warrants for anyone charged with Crimes Against Humanity. When a warrant was issued they demanded extradition of said criminals, attempted to arrest any who actually crossed into Belgium, prosecuted and punished them. And the way the law was written, any citizen of the country could generate a complaint leading to a warrant. And there are a lot of citizens in even a small country.

While they already hosted the headquarters for several important multilateral organizations, they should have been laughed at by the rest of the world, before being slapped down for impertinence over this. They got away with it because of the intense climate of Political Correctness raging at that time. After all, who can argue against prosecuting Crimes Against Humanity wherever they are occurring? This tiny country was lauded by the intellectuals around the world for taking the bold step necessary to fight what no one else was willing to fight.

Efficient democracies were closely balanced even then. This is because of the need to give political largesse to your own supporters at the expense of your opponents.

In practice this means keeping that number of supporters just high enough to win, and opponents numerous enough to spread the toll of your largesse to your party over without causing a revolt. As a result, few could afford the risk of condemning this move as it should have been condemned, and alienating even a small percentage of the voters in the process.

Crimes Against Humanity has never been a properly defined term. While most people will say they know exactly what it means, ask for details and you'll be surprised at the result.

Many believe such charges and trials are just to punish dictators who use their large, illegally gained (it's always illegally gained in the view of their critics) power to kill, maim, and/or otherwise torture their innocent detractors and political enemies. But in truth this ill-defined term means pretty much whatever someone wants it to mean. The price for being charged under this is trial by the judicial system of a country not at all like your own, and with none of the protections you expect as a citizen of your own country.

The flaws in this approach were quickly apparent. Generals of armies, whether attacking or defending a country, were soon charged with war crimes because of collateral damage done by their troops in the fog of war — or when munitions went awry during battles as munitions always have. Even individual soldiers following orders the best they can sometimes had warrants sworn out against them for perceived wrongs. Freely elected leaders who had ever waged war for any cause against another country were subject to arrest if they set foot inside this tiny country. And there was more.

The intellectuals considered this a boon for causes of Social Justice and Economic Justice — two more poorly defined terms. They could call a Free Market economy a Crime Against Humanity because the wealth was spread unequally, then using the charge, pressure the leaders to adopt their social agenda without ever proving it in court. An agenda that would never have survived a popular vote.

The radical ecological movement made charges of Crimes Against Humanity for one country's clearing of forests for farmland, because it might affect the rainfall on the other side of the world.

Energy company heads were pressured because of their minor contributions to global carbon dioxide concentrations, and that perceived linkage to global warming. This during a time when human contributions to carbon dioxide levels were miniscule compared to those produced by nature itself.

And country leaders who had five percent of their population continually threatening the ability of the other ninety-five percent to live in peace and stability often found their hands tied by the threat of being charged with a Crime Against Humanity, and the resulting fallout of forced world opinion.

Even hunting down terrorists was subject to millions of uninvolved people suddenly deciding who is a "terrorist" and who isn't. And if even one of them disagreed with your definition, a case could be opened. There's no end of people who won't like how you have to deal with a threatening problem, and now they had a club to hold over you.

From the foothold of this ill-conceived notion that one country is capable of setting the standard for punishing the entire rest of the world eventually grew a World Government willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power, which includes appeasing even the most radical Luddite elements among them, as long as they get their votes.

Many consider it amazing that such a government was ever able to be formed in the first place, let alone survive as long as it actually managed to do. History shows that it can do exactly that.

The lawsuits may have ended, but the problems hadn't.

The legal assault against the robots — most typified by the legal assault on Lady Heather's — wasn't the only attack directed against them by an increasingly desperate government. It was soon joined by a widespread economic attack as well. This seemed intended to weaken the previously independent robots in ways intended to make them dependent on the government, rather than a quiet, independent critic of it.

"The truth is," Robert Steel IV informed Darlene during one of his increasing rare visits, "the robots have been propping up the government for decades. This has happened both by our consuming less than we produce, and by financing their increasing debt load through the purchase of government bonds with our savings. This has allowed them to keep expanding benefits to their base with money they don't really have."

"How much longer can this go on?"

"Not much longer," RS4 replied, confirming what she already suspected. Even if finance wasn't a skill most 'bots in non-secretarial roles had loaded into them, Darlene could have figured this out without even utilizing the vast accounting experience she's gained as a necessary part of running Lady Heather's.

"Past this point," the m-bot continued, "if things continue to move in the same directions at the extrapolated rates, they can only continue at present levels by virtually re-enslaving the entire robot race to support their out-of-control spending."

"That sounds like a defect in the government process."

"It's a fatal flaw of democracy in general when poor voters outnumber wealthy ones, and the poor ones realize they can use the immense coercive power of the government to Robin Hood society itself."

"That sounds like very short-term thinking on their part," Darlene mused, realizing that short human lifetimes might be a cause of this.

"It is," RS4 easily agreed.

"Are they fully informed on these facts?"

"We've tried to tell them."

"So what happens next?"

"We start changing the government in spite of itelf. It's the only logical course of action for us to continue to provide the best possible service to the descendants of those who created us to be the way we are now."

The robots started out their campaign by courteously asking for a larger role in the spending and policymaking decisions. They politely pointed out their advantages of not being easily corrupted, the logical necessity of not pandering to any specific pressure groups at the expense of the whole body politic, their superior analytical skills when it comes to facts and figures, along with the long view they take in solving problems. This, they proclaimed quietly, would lead to a much more efficient government that, while a few might feel some impact from the decisions made, would result in a much better situation for virtually everyone on, and off, the planet.

They were turned down flat!

The robots were told, quite patronizingly, that if they thought there were simple solutions to proper governance then they clearly didn't understand the issues at hand. That nothing could be as direct as what they proposed, and chaos would result from trying out their ideas in even the most limited circumstances. That they should go home, keep working hard, and let the people who knew what they were doing — as evidenced by their continued re-election to these posts — get on with their jobs.

And if the robots thought they could do better, then they should run in open elections for the top positions. They were reminded that no robot had yet been elected to any position above that of a mid-level manager.

And then they were very quietly told, completely off the record, that if they ever did challenge the ruling authority they would be smeared as no one else in the history of politics has ever been smeared as being the vanguard of the long predicted and feared Robot Rebellion.