# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  A Libertarian Case For Global Government?

## r3volution 3.0

As libertarians, we care about what the government does (e.g. how much it taxes, regulates, inflates, wars, etc). We care about how the government is structured (e.g. whether it is local or global) _only_ insofar as it affects what the government does. If local government would tend to behave in a more libertarian fashion (e.g. less taxing, regulating, inflating, warring, etc), then we as libertarians should prefer local government. If, on the other hand, it's global government that would tend to behave in a more libertarian fashion, then we as libertarians should prefer global government. So, which is it? Is local or global government more likely to behave in a libertarian fashion?  

That's the question to be answered in this thread. 

At this point, I'm not going to make an argument, I'm just going to lay out some pros and cons for each side. 

*Local Government, Pros*
-economic competition between states, which encourages liberal economic policy

*Local Government, Cons*
-war between states, and war is both bad in itself and a major driver of state growth

*Global Government, Pros*
-no war between states, since only one state

*Global Government, Cons*
-no economic competition between states, since only one state

These factors, and any others that may exist, would have to be weighed against one another, to find which system is best on balance. 

So I'll leave it there for now and await your comments.

----------


## otherone

Government should never be beyond the range of a .22 long rifle.

----------


## AZJoe

Because they have done such a wonderful job with limited power ruling their countries, their power over others should be expanded to near absolute, to rule the world.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Because they have done such a wonderful job with limited power ruling their countries, their power over others should be expanded to near absolute, to rule the world.


Does the existence of states other than the US limit the ability of the US to oppress its own citizens?

----------


## AZJoe

> Does the existence of states other than the US limit the ability of the US to oppress its own citizens?


Of course it does. In thousands of ways. Think about it. You are smart enough to come up with some reasons yourself first.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Of course it does. In thousands of ways. Think about it. You are smart enough to come up with some reasons yourself first.


I already came up with one, posted in the OP: competition for mobile labor/capital encouraging liberal economic policies. 

What others are there?

And, when you throw war on the other side of the scales, where does the balance lie? The effect of economic competition is hard to measure, but I'm inclined to say that it's prevented less state growth than war has caused. So, if those are the only factors, world government appears to come out on top.

----------


## thoughtomator

Not at all surprised to see one of the usual suspects advancing the cause of global tyranny right here under the pretense of being libertarian.

People who ought to have kept their mouths shut until their brain had enough information to make an actual informed opinion instead got to play lord-of-the-flies, and in the process managed to turn RPF from a widely influential site into one whose metrics resemble a clickbait spam site.

----------


## William Tell

> Does the existence of states other than  the US limit the ability of the US to oppress its own citizens?



Ask Ed Snowden.

----------


## Origanalist

There is no libertarian case for global government. This is the stuff of nightmares.

----------


## Dr.No.

There are benefits to stronger central governments. There are benefits to stronger local governments.

I'm very happy that the federal government broke the individual states when they tried to enforce segregation. I'm thrilled that civil rights, gay marriage, and now transgender rights are protected by all levels of government; the federal government shoved these ideas down the throats of the states, and to their own benefits...to everyone's benefit.

But I'm very unhappy with a federal government that tries to slam their drug laws down everyone's throats. Same with healthcare laws, or certain business regulations.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Ask Ed Snowden.


Yes, but for every Snowden there's a Lenin (expatriated to England to plot the bolshevik revolution). 

The ability of dissidents to flee a hostile regime helps the dissident's cause, but that cause is not necessarily pro-liberty.

----------


## Origanalist

> There are benefits to stronger central governments. There are benefits to stronger local governments.
> 
> I'm very happy that the federal government broke the individual states when they tried to enforce segregation. I'm thrilled that civil rights, gay marriage, and now transgender rights are protected by all levels of government; the federal government shoved these ideas down the throats of the states, and to their own benefits...to everyone's benefit.
> 
> But I'm very unhappy with a federal government that tries to slam their drug laws down everyone's throats. Same with healthcare laws, or certain business regulations.


My head hurts now.

----------


## William Tell

> Yes, but for every Snowden there's a Lenin (expatriated to England to plot the bolshevik revolution). 
> 
> The ability of dissidents to flee a hostile regime helps the dissident's cause, but that cause is not necessarily pro-liberty.


I guess centralizing all power so Lenin can take over the entire globe is more pro-liberty somehow?

Global government is the ultimate definition of putting all your eggs in one basket.

----------


## Origanalist

If we had global government there would be no war. Except of course against those vile evil doers that opposed it.

----------


## William Tell

> There are benefits to stronger central governments. There are benefits to stronger local governments.
> 
> I'm very happy that the federal government broke the individual states when they tried to enforce segregation. I'm thrilled that civil rights, gay marriage, and now transgender rights are protected by all levels of government; the federal government shoved these ideas down the throats of the states, and to their own benefits...to everyone's benefit.
> 
> But I'm very unhappy with a federal government that tries to slam their drug laws down everyone's throats. Same with healthcare laws, or certain business regulations.


rofl. big government is good as long as its working for what you like. Its good to see we have some normal Americans on the forums.

----------


## Origanalist

> rofl. big government is good as long as its working for what you like. Its good to see we have some normal Americans on the forums.


The dissonance, it burns.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Global government is the ultimate definition of putting all your eggs in one basket.


It  depends on the nature of the baskets, and your goal. Suppose we know  that global government will be less tyrannical on average over time than  the average national government over time. If the goal is the greatest  liberty for the greatest number of people, then we'd want a world state.  On the other hand, if the goal is to maximize the odds of there always  being _someplace_ that's relatively free, even if only a small  fraction of the world's population can live there and enjoy that  freedom, then we'd want many, independent states.

----------


## William Tell

> It  depends on the nature of the baskets, and your goal.


 No. It's one basket, by definition.




> Suppose we know  that global government will be less tyrannical on average over time than  the average national government over time.


 But we don't. In fact most of us know the opposite. Look at the EU.




> If the goal is the greatest  liberty for the greatest number of people, then we'd want a world state.


 You basically pulled the world peace card. Make Iron Man world emperor and we will all have peace and babes. But there isn't an Iron Man. And there will not be world peace, and if there is it will mean we are all totally neutered and enslaved beyond hope.




> On the other hand, if the goal is to maximize the odds of there always  being _someplace_ that's relatively free, even if only a small  fraction of the world's population can live there and enjoy that  freedom, then we'd want many, independent states.


Many eggs, many baskets.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Not at all surprised to see one of the usual suspects advancing the cause of global tyranny right here under the pretense of being libertarian.
> 
> People who ought to have kept their mouths shut until their brain had enough information to make an actual informed opinion instead got to play lord-of-the-flies, and in the process managed to turn RPF from a widely influential site into one whose metrics resemble a clickbait spam site.


Yeah the OP is absolutely not a libertarian. And there are about 10 members that if they left RPF wouldn't be any better than Hannity Forums or some other $#@!ball authoritarian site. 

At max there are like 10 actual libertarians left on RPF. The rest are bridge dwellers and authoritarians. That's your legacy Bryan.

----------


## Dr.No.

> rofl. big government is good as long as its working for what you like. Its good to see we have some normal Americans on the forums.


As long as big government is working to end segregation and unequal legal protection done by the states? Yeah, I am happy with that.

I could just as easily say that you are only happy with small government as long as it is working for what you like. As in, "thank goodness there isn't any police to stop me from robbing the weak!"

----------


## timosman

> If we had global government there would be no war. Except of course against those vile evil doers that opposed it.


You mean the terrorists?

----------


## timosman

> Yeah the OP is absolutely not a libertarian. And there are about 10 members that if they left RPF wouldn't be any better than Hannity Forums or some other $#@!ball authoritarian site. 
> 
> At max there are like 10 actual libertarians left on RPF. The rest are bridge dwellers and authoritarians. That's your legacy Bryan.


Ouch!

----------


## Danke

> As long as big government is working to end segregation and unequal legal protection done by the states? Yeah, I am happy with that.
> 
> I could just as easily say that you are only happy with small government as long as it is working for what you like. As in, "thank goodness there isn't any police to stop me from robbing the weak!"


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr.No. again.

----------


## tod evans

> There are benefits to stronger central governments. There are benefits to stronger local governments.
> 
> I'm very happy that the federal government broke the individual states when they tried to enforce segregation. I'm thrilled that civil rights, gay marriage, and now transgender rights are protected by all levels of government; the federal government shoved these ideas down the throats of the states, and to their own benefits...to everyone's benefit.
> 
> But I'm very unhappy with a federal government that tries to slam their drug laws down everyone's throats. Same with healthcare laws, or certain business regulations.




Quite the thinker aren't you?

----------


## otherone

> It  depends on the nature of the baskets, and your goal. Suppose we know  that global government will be less tyrannical on average over time than  the average national government over time. If the goal is the greatest  liberty for the greatest number of people, then we'd want a world state.


Liberty is not something handed out by government.

----------


## juleswin

> *Global Government, Pros
> -no war between states, since only one state*


Definitely not a pro, you still have lots of real wars fought within states(so called "civil" wars). In fact, I would argue that the breaking up of states leads to less wars than forcing all states to be under one union. So that leaves us with no pro and all cons.

----------


## CaptUSA

What kind of BS is this thread?!  What is happening in here?

I have critiqued Nationalism because of the incredible dangers, but that should NEVER be taken as a justification for globalism!  Holy shyt!  I'll make it simple for you:

When it comes to governance:
Globalism = Bad
Nationalism = Just as bad  (just faster)
Localism = Better
Individualism = Best

When it comes to trade, the exact opposite is true.

----------


## AZJoe

> Yes, but for every Snowden there's a Lenin (expatriated to England to plot the bolshevik revolution).


That is an argument against world government (aka world tyranny)

----------


## presence

the only possibility for a legitimate libertarian government is entrance into agreement with a peer via good faith contract

----------


## AZJoe

> As long as big government is working to end segregation and unequal legal protection done by the states? Yeah, I am happy with that.I could just as easily say that you are only happy with small government as long as it is working for what you like. As in, "thank goodness there isn't any police to stop me from robbing the weak!"


And so Dr. No argues to reject liberty and embrace oppression. Dr. No advocates in favor of Stalin and the Soviet Union, Mao and Red China, Genghis Khan, North Korea, and all the wonderful "governments" that fit No's requirement. After all, Dr. No's "wonderful" governments have only exterminated some hundreds of millions helpless defenseless lives of their own subjects without making any war. With the wonderful total dominance of world government why they could exterminate billions of their own peoples. How thoughtful of Dr. "Nutcase" No and P3rsection 3.0 to want to total world oppression for our own good.

----------


## presence

> As libertarians, we care about what the government does (e.g. how much if it taxes, regulates, inflates, wars, etc).


When I consider the legitimacy of a regime I have little interest in how much, so... ftfy

----------


## AZJoe

[A] single and consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth. -  Thomas Jefferson

The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. [Note: Dr. Rummel coined the term democide to refer to the many and regular genocides and mass murders committed by governments.]. . . .                  In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs.      - Professor R.J. Rummel (Prf of Political Science, Univ of Hawaii) Death by Government (Transaction Press 1994).

Putting the human cost of war and democide together, Power has killed over 203 million people in this century. … Even if all to be said about absolute Power was that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the young and the most capable … this would be enough. But much worse even without the excuse of combat, Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls—in fact, several times more of them. - R.J. Rummel

Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely.Democide is committed by absolute Power; its agency is government.      - R.J. Rummel

----------


## AZJoe

A key element in the genocide formula is powerful government. So what happens when there is world government?   [T]he united Nations should more accurately be dubbed the united government. Three has never been a worldwide vote of the people to ratify the U.N. charter. There has never been a world election to select representatives from each nation to the UN. Rather, the delegates to the UN are appointed by their respective governments. And who are these government?   55% of the worlds nations are not free countries.  Most of the free nations themselves labor under varying forms of democratic socialism (welfare statism).  Perhaps a better name for the UN is the union of Socialist and military Regimes: a collection of entities  ranging in degrees of evil from necessary to intolerable.             Not surprisingly, the UN member governments seek to preserve and enlarge their powers. To concentrate political power into the hands of national and then world governments     - Aaron Zelman and Richard Stevens, Death by "Gun Control" 2001

----------


## DamianTV

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AZJoe again.


Someone cover me?

----------


## Origanalist

> Someone cover me?


Ok.

----------


## CCTelander

> Someone cover me?



Covered.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What kind of BS is this thread?!  What is happening in here?
> 
> I have critiqued Nationalism because of the incredible dangers, but that should NEVER be taken as a justification for globalism!  Holy shyt!  I'll make it simple for you:
> 
> When it comes to governance:
> Globalism = Bad
> Nationalism = Just as bad  (just faster)
> Localism = Better
> Individualism = Best
> ...


Mm. Yeah, a case could be made for globalism if your economy is good and all of that happy hoopla. That's the beauty of genuine free trade and a healthy economy. But global government, no. 

Liberty = against Government over Man. To be clear, to be libertarian is to be _against_ Government over Man.

Anyway. Seems like just another dishonest thread by rev3 pimping kings.

Anarcho-Monarchism, I think it was. Sigh. So many isms...so little time.

----------


## The Gold Standard

I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.

----------


## CCTelander

> I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.



This^^^^ +rep

----------


## osan

> The dissonance, it burns.


You eeeeediot...  that made me squirt tea out me fookin' nose.

You owe me.  Big time.

----------


## osan

> I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.


Repworthy.  Pony up ye stingys.

Thread winner. 

/THREAD

----------


## CCTelander

> I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

@William Tell

You're missing my point, which is that the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" argument only works if you _presuppose_  that a world government would behave in a less libertarian fashion than  the average local government. But that is exactly the issue in  contention; i.e. you're begging the question. 




> Definitely not a pro, you still have lots of real wars fought within states(so called "civil" wars).


Yes, there would still be a risk of civil war, _as there is now in every local state_.  

What there would _not_ be is a risk of interstate war; hence the improvement over the status quo. 




> In fact, I would argue that the breaking up of states leads to less wars than forcing all states to be under one union.


Even if that were true, you'd have to show that the additional risk of civil war outweighed the total absence of interstate warfare.

You certainly haven't shown that. 




> Globalism = Bad


Globalism = good

...aren't bare assertions fun?




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> As libertarians, we care about what the government does (e.g. how much  if it taxes, regulates, inflates, wars, etc).
> 
> 
> When I consider  the legitimacy of a regime I have little interest in how much, so...  ftfy


It's unfortunate that so many anarcho-capitalists adopt this view. 

One can advocate for the abolition of the state without taking the delusional position that all states are equally bad.

A person who cannot (or will not) recognize that there's a difference between N. Korea and S. Korea cannot be taken seriously.

----------


## presence

> A person who cannot (or will not) recognize that there's a difference between N. Korea and S. Korea cannot be taken seriously.


I guess you're right... you can smoke pot in N. Korea.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Excerpts from an LvMI article criticizing world government, with my counterarguments:




> I, too, believe that war is a horrible waste of lives and property,  and in common with everyone else in the world, I hope that there can be  peaceful solutions to world and local problems. But, I am opposed to  world government. I am opposed to any world government, first, because I  believe that the _realities_ of international affairs would make  a mockery of any attempt to secure peace through a single superstate.  Secondly, I am opposed to world government for _idealistic reasons_.
> 
> Let  us consider these two objections separately. 
> 
> First, what are the  realities we face? The realities are the antagonistic and conflicting  national forces in the world today; and the various forms of government  which prevail throughout the world—from tribal societies to colossal,  monolithic, authoritarian states. Obviously, if we are to set up a world  government, we must find some common denominator which will permit all  forms of society to meet under one vast umbrella of law; for unless all  society submits to world "law," that portion of society which remains  outside must be considered "outlaw." The proponents of world  government generally recognize the difficulty of including all people  within the jurisdiction of a common government. As a general rule, they  state that each country shall have the exclusive right to make its own  laws governing its citizens, subject only to the supreme and superior  law of a world government.


Supposing that not all peoples can be put under the same law, the solution is simple: _don't_  put them under the same law. World government does not have to mean  uniform law throughout the world. Most existing states allow local  variations in law to accommodate local preferences; there's no reason a  world government couldn't do the same. 




> This brings me to my second major objection to any world government. To  build a world community upon the premise that a law against war will end  wars is to build upon a false premise, and my idealistic leanings rebel  against any such notion. A law has no meaning unless it can be  enforced, and if enforcement means war, then a law against war is worse  than a paradox, for it is a delusion.


This may be a valid  criticism of world federalism, in which a central government polices  semi-autonomous local governments, each with their own armies. But it's  irrelevant to a centralized world government, ruling directly over  individuals. The policing activities of such a centralized world  govenrment would be of the normal kind, like the policing activities of existing states.




> Worldwide competition between free men is the condition to be  encouraged, for it leads to a virile, strong society! This country, as  an example, owes its strength in no small measure to the free market  which our founding fathers provided for in our Constitution.


An  ironic example, since one of the few functions of the federal  government laid out by the Founders (Art. I, Sec. 9) was to prevent the  states from raising protectionist tariffs against one another, which  they would otherwise have been eager to do. In other words, the  existence of a single market in the US, free trade between the states,  is a result of the fact that the states are _not_ sovereign, but are subject to a common authority.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

For those who think world government & liberty so violently opposed that I must be insane for even entertaining the idea:




> But, for the liberal, the world does not end at the borders of the state. In his eyes, whatever significance national boundaries have is only incidental and subordinate. His political thinking encompasses the whole of mankind. The starting-point of his entire political philosophy is the conviction that the division of labor is international and not merely national. He realizes from the very first that it is not sufficient to establish peace with in each country, that it is much more important that all nations live at peace with one another. *The liberal therefore demands that the political organization of society be extended until it reaches its culmination in a world state* that unites all nations on an equal basis. For this reason he sees the law of each nation as subordinate to international law, and that is why he demands supranational tribunals and administrative authorities to assure peace among nations in the same way that the judicial and executive organs of each country are charged with the maintenance of peace within its own territory.


Guess who wrote that?

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

No, really, guess.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

*Ludwig von Mises* (_Liberalism_, Ch. 3 Sec. 10)

And Mises was not exceptional in this regard. World  government for the sake of peace has been a part of the liberal tradition for a very long time, going back beyond Mises to Kant in the 18th century, and even to the School of Salamanca, the great proto-Austrians of the late Middle Ages.

Reasonable liberals can disagree on the subject, but to dismiss it out of hand as inherently illiberal is an error.

----------


## osan

> As libertarians


You strike me as no libertarian.  But please, continue...



*



			
				Local Government, Pros
			
		

*


> -economic competition between states, which encourages liberal economic policy
> 
> *Local Government, Cons*
> -war between states, and war is both bad in itself and a major driver of state growth
> 
> *Global Government, Pros*
> -no war between states, since only one state
> 
> *Global Government, Cons*
> ...


All meaningless nonsense because you make static assertions with no apparent consideration for variability in human action that stems from any of a large number of possible causes.

That said, a theoretical case can surely be made for "world government", depending on how the term is defined and what the objectives are for having one. 

Global government can work "well" in theory, IFF the right conditions are satisfied and could be guaranteed not to vary with time, fashion, or other circumstance.

If a global government operated based upon the principles of proper human relations, were administered competently and honestly at all times and in all cases, then yes it could work as well as any govern_ment_ *might*.  That's the theory.  When was the last time you encountered a government immune to human failing?  What was that?  "Never", you say?  Case closed.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> All meaningless nonsense because you make static assertions with no apparent consideration for variability in human action that stems from any of a large number of possible causes.


If you mean that there are other factors affecting how world/local governments would behave than those I mentioned, well of course there are.

...and?

Merely pointing out that there are other factors doesn't refute what I've said.

To do that, you would need to specifically identify some of those other factors, & explain why they work against world government.

----------


## osan

> If you mean that there are other factors affecting how world/local governments would behave than those I mentioned, well of course there are.
> 
> ...and?
> 
> Merely pointing out that there are other factors doesn't refute what I've said.


Actually, that is all that needs to be established.  You have accepted the assertion, and therefore are proven in error because the factors of variance to which I allude perforce drive governance away from liberty, regardless of by how small a quantum.  Having done so and been accepted by a population, the door is then left wide open to any degree of deviance from the path of liberty.  To accept any such diversion that arbitrarily moves the line in the sand between what is allowed and that which is prohibited or compulsory, no matter how small and usually based on some nonsensical pretext of "need", the principle of moving that boundary for the reasons cited becomes established as precedent and nobody is thereafter likely to establish a basis for no further movement.




> To do that, you would need to specifically identify some of those other factors, & explain why they work against world government.


No, I do not at all.  I have demonstrated the underlying mechanism at work, which is sufficient.  That pig may be painted up with any of a thousand shades of lipstick.  There are endless examples available.

But just to shut you down once and for all, we may take the current income tax as one sample of same.  Income tax was enacted in 1913 with basically no justification of which I am aware.  Congress simply said "here you go.  Don't like, don't look." and that was that.  The American people kicked up no fuss because _it did not affect them_.  Most had no "income" - defined not as wages as mistakenly done today, but as dividends on investments back in that era.  Then with world war II came the "war tax", which was justified by Themme as necessary for the prosecution of combat against the Eville(tm) NAZIs.  Once again, the American people accepted this as just, and that opened the door wider for further usurpation of taxation powers because a pretext was offfered and swallowed.  The obvious example that time was for Themme to fail to rescind the "war tax" at the end of hostilities, as had been promised.  The justification came in the oblique form of the "red menace".  "We HAVE to have these funds or the commies will get us..."  Worked like a charm as the timid and shivering American meaner, teeth chattering in apprehension of a commie emerging from under his bed at night, happily accepted the new pretext, which was a wholly arbitrary imposition upon the property rights of men.

We could go one endlessly with examples.  NFA34, GCA68, the Hughes Amendment, the "assault weapons" ban... all arbitrary bull$#@! that should have earned those who voted for, enacted, and enforced them, necktie parties and firing squads.

But your assertions take none of this into account, the tacit assumptions being that these circumstances remain static once they are established.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

QED.

Now leave me alone.  I'm done with this bush-league nonsense.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> the factors of variance to which I allude perforce drive governance away from liberty, regardless of by how small a quantum.


You didn't even identify any factors, let alone show that they "drive governance away from liberty."




> I have demonstrated the underlying mechanism at work, which is sufficient.


What "mechanism" are you even talking about? 






> But just to shut you down once and for all, we may take the current income tax as one sample of same.  Income tax was enacted in 1913 with basically no justification of which I am aware.  Congress simply said "here you go.  Don't like, don't look." and that was that.  The American people kicked up no fuss because _it did not affect them_.  Most had no "income" - defined no as wages as mistakenly so today, but as dividends on investments back in that era.  Then with world war II came the "war tax", which was justified by Themme as necessary for the prosecution of combat against the Eville(tm) NAZIs.  Once again, the American people accepted this as just, and that opened the door wide for further usurpation of taxation powers.  The obvious one was for Themme to fail to rescind the "war tax" at the end of hostilities as had been promised.  The justification came in the oblique form of the "red menace".  "We HAVE to have these funds or the commies will get us..."  Worked like a charm as the timid and shivering American meaner, teeth chattering in apprehension of a commie emerging from under his bed at night, happily accepted the new pretext, which was a wholly arbitrary imposition upon the property rights of men.
> 
> We could go one endlessly with example.  NFA34, GCA68, the Hughes Amendment, the "assault weapons" ban... all arbitrary bull$#@! that should have earned those who voted for, enacted, and enforced them necktie parties and firing squads.


Your overarching point appears to be that governments find reasons to grow over time.

Okay...

....but what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

....how is that an argument in favor of local government over global government?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

LOL, @AZJoe just negged me, saying "failed to address Osan's points."

Okay Joe, so what was Osan's point that I failed to address?

----------


## Origanalist

> LOL, @AZJoe just negged me, saying "failed to address Osan's points."
> 
> Okay Joe, so what was Osan's point that I failed to address?


I don't blame him. At this point you seem bent on continuing to support your position after being shown to be wrong until everyone gets tired of showing to you and then you can say you were right.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> you seem bent on continuing to support your position after being shown to be wrong


How was I shown to be wrong? 

...you'll have to excuse me for not accepting your bare assertion. 

On another note, I'm amused that no one has acknowledged the Mises quote.

Has it sent you all into some kind of existential crisis?

----------


## erowe1

I think a mugger is a very small state. The difference between this micro-state and any larger state (ranging from a neighborhood gang up to a global government) is just a matter of size. There is no model of local or global statehood that eliminates all these other even more local states from continuing to exist and war with each other.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I think a mugger is a very small state. The difference between this micro-state and any larger state (ranging from a neighborhood gang up to a global government) is just a matter of size. There is no model of local or global statehood that eliminates all these other even more local states from continuing to exist and war with each other.


It's certainly true that a world state would not eliminate crime. 

But it's not supposed to; that's not the argument.

The argument is that a world state would eliminate interstate war.

Now, you might say that war and crime differ only by degree, and that's also true.

But differences of degree matter. A city being nuked and a person being stabbed by a mugger are both bad, but one is clearly worse.

----------


## William Tell

> @William Tell
> 
> You're missing my point, which is that the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" argument only works if you _presuppose_  that a world government would behave in a less libertarian fashion than  the average local government. But that is exactly the issue in  contention; i.e. you're begging the question.


That's not true at all. If a world government was equally as "libertarian" as our governments are now (which is to say hardly libertarian at all) you would still want decentralization so that there would be potential places of refuge.

You missed my point. By definition a world government is putting all your eggs in one basket. It's up to you to make the case that putting all our eggs in one basket, a basket influenced by China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea is a good thing.

You already had to concede that Snowden did benefit due to our lack of a one world government. You tried to brush it off by saying that a world government would have stopped Trotsky somehow, the obvious problem with that is that if the Czar had controlled the world we would now be under the Soviet Union, unless there had been a worldwide war against Trotsky after his faction took power, in which case we would of course be rooting for decentralization as always.. There are many reasons why decentralization is seen as a good thing by liberty lovers. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is no reason to think a world government would be in anyway better for liberty. There are many ways that it would be worse.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Can I opt out?

----------


## erowe1

> It's certainly true that a world state would not eliminate crime. 
> 
> But it's not supposed to; that's not the argument.
> 
> The argument is that a world state would eliminate interstate war.
> 
> Now, you might say that war and crime differ only by degree, and that's also true.
> 
> But differences of degree matter. A city being nuked and a person being stabbed by a mugger are both bad, but one is clearly worse.


I don't think global government would stop cities from being nuked.

----------


## erowe1

> Can I opt out?



As long as you don't mind getting nuked.

----------


## William Tell

> Can I opt out?


 If you don't like the NWO, then leave it.

----------


## Origanalist

> How was I shown to be wrong? 
> 
> ...you'll have to excuse me for not accepting your bare assertion. 
> 
> On another note, I'm amused that no one has acknowledged the Mises quote.
> 
> Has it sent you all into some kind of existential crisis?


Meh, see post replied to. You're someone who simply will not acknowledge points that don't validate your position. Last time I entered a debate with you it ended up with you stating you were exiting the debate because right off the bat I didn't give the answer you wanted to hear. So you accused me of not taking it serious and said you were done.

As far as the Mises quote goes, that's all fine but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it or even think it's possible. Just how would one go about demanding all countries conform to this political organization become world state without force?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As long as you don't mind getting nuked.


Dang. It figures it'd be something like that.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That's not true at all. If a world government was *equally* as "libertarian" as our governments are now (which is to say hardly libertarian at all) you would still want decentralization so that there would be potential places of refuge.


That's true.

Let me rephrase. 

Your argument only works if you assume that world government would be less or equally libertarian as the average local government. 

But if world government were more libertarian, even slightly, you'd want world government.

This is, as I said, supposing that the goal is the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people.




> You missed my point. By definition a world government is putting all your eggs in one basket.


I appreciate that, and I'm saying that's not a bad thing if world government is likely to be more libertarian.

...as I believe it is, for reasons explained. 




> You already had to concede that Snowden did benefit due to our lack of a one world government. You tried to brush it off by saying that a world government would have stopped Trotsky somehow, the obvious problem with that is that if the Czar had controlled the world we would now be under the Soviet Union, unless there had been a worldwide war against Trotsky after his faction took power, in which case we would of course be rooting for decentralization as always.. There are many reasons why decentralization is seen as a good thing by liberty lovers. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


This is really just a variant of the basket argument, so see above.

Yes, Trotsky taking over a world state is worse than Trotsky taking over a local state.

...but, if it turns out that Trotsky is sufficiently less likely to take over a world state than a local state, a world state is still preferable. 

Again, the basket argument doesn't get us anywhere unless we presuppose what we're trying to prove. 




> There is no reason to think a world government would be in anyway better for liberty.


If world government reduced the incidence of aggression (by putting an end to interstate war), that would be an indisputable gain for liberty.

And world government would indisputably eliminate interstate war (by definition, as there can't be interstate war if there's only one state). 

So...?

The only counterpoint raised thus far is that world government would increase the risk of intrastate war.

...but that was just asserted, there was no argument for why that would be the case, and I don't see why it would.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Meh, see post replied to.


You didn't say anything in that post, other than asserting that I've already been proven wrong.

So...what else is there to say?

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. 

If you do, make a substantive point that warrants a reply.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> As long as you don't mind getting nuked.


Why would a world state be more likely to nuke its own taxpayers than a local state?

...supposing _any_ state would ever want to do this, which is already a bit of a stretch.

----------


## lilymc

Anyone who thinks it's even remotely possible to have a libertarian world government, in this day and age, has not been paying attention.

We _are_ heading toward world government (the new world order) but unfortunately it's going to be the exact opposite of libertarian.

But don't worry... one day there will be a completely different type of world government (the good kind). But that's another topic.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> As libertarians, we..


What's this we stuff? You're no libertarian. You've been pimping Monarchy since day 1. Which is, by default, anti-Individual. Ya disingenuous prick.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Wat's this we stuff? You're no libertarian.


Was Mises a libertarian?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Was Mises a libertarian?


$#@! Mises. I'm talking about _you_. Enough of these disingenuous threads. You're not fooling anyone. And don't include "we" with your bullsht. You're no libertarian. Ya weasel.

----------


## Origanalist

> You didn't say anything in that post, other than asserting that I've already been proven wrong.
> 
> So...what else is there to say?
> 
> If you don't want to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. 
> 
> If you do, make a substantive point that warrants a reply.


Lol, ok Nurse Rached.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> $#@! Misis.




Glad I hit that "view post" button, needed a laugh. 

Now back to ignoring you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Lol, ok Nurse Rached.


That dude gives me the heebie jeebies.

----------


## AZJoe

There is no government like no government.

----------


## erowe1

> Why would a world state be more likely to nuke its own taxpayers than a local state?


You offered two models for comparison, a world with many small states and no single global state, or a world with one single global state and no smaller states that aren't under it.

The former model allows for secession. The latter, by definition, does not. In order for it to exist, those who want to secede must not be allowed to.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Now back to ignoring you.


Good. I don't care whether you see my posts anyway. They aren't for you. I post them so everybody else knows you're a disingenuous weasel.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government - r3volution 3.0





That is all.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You offered two models for comparison, a world with many small states and no single global state, or a world with one single global state and no smaller states that aren't under it.
> 
> The former model allows for secession. The latter, by definition, does not. In order for it to exist, those who want to secede must not be allowed to.


Local states allow secession?

If Rhode Island tries to secede, the US govermment is going to sit idly by?

No, it's going to use force to prevent secession: as would a world state if faced with a secession movement.

I don't see the difference.

(I doubt either would use _nukes_, as that's fairly counterproductive, but the point for our purposes is that if one would, both would)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There is no government like no government.


Hey Joe, how about substantiating your claim that I ignored one of Osan's points?

Which point did I ignore?

----------


## AZJoe

Because what this world needs is a Global DEA, TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA, EPA, USDA, CDC, TSA, USDA, Global Police, Global SWAT, Global Civil Forfeiture, Global income tax, Global property tax, Global VAT tax, Global cigarette tax, Global consumption tax, Global alcohol tax, Global fuel tax, Global energy tax, Global carbon tax, Global Global Eminent Domain, Global control of money, global control of currency, Global control of trade, Global Central bank, Global war on drugs, Global gun control, Global control over education, global control over citizens, Global internet control, Global speech codes, Global banning of raw milk, Global licensing of everything, Global Prohibitions, Global reallocation of resources to crony interest on a global scale, Global safe spaces, Global prosecutors, Global police to enforce it all-protect and serve (the ruling elite), global bureaucracy having control over your life globally, ....

And just imagine how wonderful it would be to have rulers like Bush, Hitlary, Trump, Obama, Cheney, and the bureaucratic minions like the Kagans having all that power over the world. I am sure the more power they get the more wonderful they would be.Look at the type of people power has attracted through history - Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mugabe, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. But hey, having world power would only make the types of people attracted to power all that much more nicer and benevolent right. 
And the whistle-blowers like Snowden or political dissidents or refugees, would never be able to escape again. Wonderful!

Yeah, That's the ticket . That's the way to expand liberty, freedom, individuality, creativity, innovation, prosperity - consolidate all power in one centralized government with power over the entire world.  

Government moves ever in the direction to increase and consolidate ever more power and control over peoples lives. 
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

Global government = Totalitarianism. If you want to envision global government, just imaging as Orwell describes, "a boot stomping on  human face forever"

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Because what this world needs is a Global DEA, TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA, USDA, CDC, TSA, USDA, Global Police, Global SWAT, Global Civil Forfeiture, Global income tax, Global property tax, Global VAT tax, Global cigarette tax, Global consumption tax, Global alcohol tax, Global fuel tax, Global energy tax, Global carbon tax, Global Global Eminent Domain, Global control of money, global control of currency, global control of trade, global Central bank, Global war on drugs, Global banning of raw milk, Global licensing, Global Prohibitions, Global safe spaces, global bureaucracy having control over your life globally, ....


Scenario A: There are 150 sovereign states in the world, each of which has its own DEA, TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA, USDA, etc.

Scenario B: There is one world state which has a DEA, TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA, USDA, etc.

What's the difference?




> And just imagine how wonderful it would be to have rulers like Bush, Hitlary, Trump, Obama, Cheney, and the bureaucratic minions like the Kagans having all that power over the world.


Scenario A: There are 150 sovereign states in the world, each ruled by the likes of Bush, Hitlary, Trump, Obama, Cheney, etc. 

Scenario B: There is one world state, ruled by the likes of Bush, Hitlary, Trump, Obama, Cheney, etc.

What's the difference?




> I am sure the more power they get the more wonderful hey would be.


And here's the problem, you're conflating two sense of "power."

There's power in the sense of how many people a state rules, and then there's power in the sense of what the state does to the people it rules. 

A world state would rule more people, obviously, but there's no reason to think it would rule them more harshly.

...to the contrary, there's reason to think it would rule them less harshly, for reasons explained.

----------


## AZJoe

> A world state would rule more people, obviously, but there's no reason to think it would rule them more harshly.


Really? Prove it. Despite all human existence tending to support the axiom "that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" or better said "power kills and absolute power kills absolutely."

Even if it is the same. Look at the types of people power has attracted - Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mugabe, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Even if it is the same, you want that for the4 entire world? 

And by the way, you haven't refuted or even address anything in the prior post.

----------


## AZJoe

The greatest threats to human have not come from foreign governments but form their own. Many times more people have been killed, imprisoned, tortured, raped, abused, impoverished, starved, experimented upon, relocated, etc. by their own governments than have been by war. and yer P3rsecution 3.0 advocate the completely anti-libertarian position for more of this.

----------


## AZJoe

Repositing:

[A] single and consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth. - Thomas Jefferson

The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. [Note: Dr. Rummel coined the term democide to refer to the many and regular genocides and mass murders committed by governments.]. . . . In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs. - Professor R.J. Rummel (Prf of Political Science, Univ of Hawaii) Death by Government (Transaction Press 1994).

Putting the human cost of war and democide together, Power has killed over 203 million people in this century. … Even if all to be said about absolute Power was that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the young and the most capable … this would be enough. But much worse even without the excuse of combat, Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls—in fact, several times more of them. - R.J. Rummel

Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely.Democide is committed by absolute Power; its agency is government. - R.J. Rummel

A key element in the genocide formula is powerful government. So what happens when there is world government? … [T]he united Nations should more accurately be dubbed the united government. Three has never been a worldwide vote of the people to ratify the U.N. charter. There has never been a world election to select representatives from each nation to the UN. Rather, the delegates to the UN are appointed by their respective governments. And who are these government? … 55% of the world’s nations are not “free” countries. Most of the “free” nations themselves labor under varying forms of “democratic” socialism (welfare statism). Perhaps a better name for the UN is the union of Socialist and military Regimes: a collection of entities … ranging in degrees of evil from “necessary” to “intolerable.” Not surprisingly, the UN member governments seek to preserve and enlarge their powers. To concentrate political power into the hands of national and then world governments - Aaron Zelman and Richard Stevens, Death by "Gun Control" 2001

----------


## AZJoe

"The unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism did not begin in the 30s and 40s with the men usually associated with those names. Those horrors were simply the end result of *a long evolution of ideas leading to the consolidation of power in central government* in the name of social justice. It was decent but misguided Germans, who would have cringed at the thought of extermination and genocide, who built the Trojan Horse for Hitler to take over. ... But the scum that rises to the top has an agenda of command and control thats leading toward totalitarianism".  Walter Williams

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Really? Prove it.


As I've spent the entire thread explaining...

A world state would mean the end of interstate war and, apart from being evil in itself, war is a major driver of state growth.

If you disagree with this, make your counterargument. 




> And by the way, you haven't refuted or even address anything in the prior post.


What prior post? Your prior post?

How did I not address it? I quoted it and gave a lengthy response...?




> The greatest threats to human have not come from  foreign governments but form their own. Many times more people have been  killed, imprisoned, tortured, raped, abused, impoverished, starved,  experimented upon, relocated, etc. by their own governments than have  been by war. and yer P3rsecution 3.0 advocate the completely  anti-libertarian position for more of this.


And every one of those horrors was carried out by a local government. 

So tell me again why they're better than world government?

----------


## AZJoe

> As I've spent the entire thread explaining... A world state would mean the end of interstate war and, apart from being evil in itself, war is a major driver of state growth. If you disagree with this, make your counterargument.


Again R3 fails to address the issues comments again. That does not at all prove that a world government and world bureaucracy would less harsh and more free than a world with many diverse and varied states. 

Further, where does your world government get it authority to rule? 
If I have no authority to rule over my neighbor or rule over you, than collectively we have no authority to transfer to government either.

And if you want to end interstate war, how about no government?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Further, where does your world government get it authority to rule?


Thank You. I was wondering if anyone was going to ask that question. Doesn't seem to me that any consent of the governed exists in his model. And certainly no mechanism for "just powers." No means to bind the King down from his mishief

So much for The One. The Individual. You know? Stuff that "we libertarians" tend to consider important.

Rev3's model isn't based on anything moral. It lacks a moral foundation. It rejects the very notion that "all men are created equal." Equally endowed...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Again R3 fails to address the issues comments again.


What damn issues comments?!

You keep accusing me of ignoring things, without ever saying what it is I'm supposedly ignoring - despite repeated requests for you to do so. 

I'm starting to think this is just a dishonest debating tactic on your part. 




> That does not at all prove that a world government and world bureaucracy would less harsh and more free than a world with many diverse and varied states.


So that's an assertion that I'm wrong...

I'd like you to try to explain WHY I'm wrong: what specifically you disagree with. 

1. Do you disagree that a world state would mean the end of interstate war? If so, why?
2. Do you disagree that war causes state power to grow? If so, why?




> Further, where does your world government get it authority to rule?
> 
> If I have no authority to rule over my neighbor or rule over you, than collectively we have no authority to transfer to government either.


That's all well and good, but irrelevant to this thread.

This is not a state v. anarcho-capitalism thread.

This is a world state v. local state thread.

----------


## AZJoe

> What damn issues comments?!


Now you are intentionally being obtuse R3. Try reading the very next sentence where I spelled it out for you.
Here it is spelled out again for the third time:
That does not at all prove that a world government and world bureaucracy would less harsh and more free than a world with many diverse and varied states.

----------


## AZJoe

"That does not at all prove that a world government and world bureaucracy would less harsh and more free than a world with many diverse and varied states."




> So that's an assertion that I'm wrong...I'd like you to try to explain WHY I'm wrong: what specifically you disagree with. 
> 1. Do you disagree that a world state would mean the end of interstate war? If so, why? 2. Do you disagree that war causes state power to grow? If so, why?.


No, it is an assertion that you haven't proved what you you assert. Its your thesis that a world government would be as free and kind if not freer than a world of small diversified governments. It is your duty to prove your assertion.

BTW I have already given you several reasons why it is false, but you have again ignored them all.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by AZJoe
> ...


Again, that is a bare assertion, amounting to "you're wrong."

I am asking you WHY you think I'm wrong. 

What is your SPECIFIC objection to my argument?

----------


## AZJoe

The problems source is not the abuse of power, but rather the power to abuse.

Increasing and consolidating the power just magnifies the problem. 

You see all the cronyism and the reallocation of resources for specialist interests and corporate interest when the rules have only limited power to reallocate resources. 
How about the rulers and the power to reallocate or resources for crony interests on a global scale, many times larger than anything now. What kind of special interests cronyism, special favors, corporates lobbying and control will transpire then?

----------


## AZJoe

> Again, that is a bare assertion, amounting to "you're wrong."
> 
> I am asking you WHY you think I'm wrong. 
> 
> What is your SPECIFIC objection to my argument?


Again you have failed to provide any support for your thesis. you claim. It is incumbent upon you to prove your assertion.

[BTW: Again, I have already provided a litany or reasons spread through my prior message as to why you are incorrect, (on top of you providing no support whatsoever for your assertion). However again you continue to ignore them all. Go back and re-read the comments.]

----------


## AZJoe

Further, where does your world government get it authority to rule?
If I have no authority to rule over my neighbor or rule over you, than collectively we have no authority to transfer to government either.

This is directly relevant to the claim for world government. It is the core heart of the issue. Why are you afraid to address it?

----------


## AZJoe

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You see all the cronyism and the reallocation of resources for specialist interests and corporate interest when the rules have only limited power to reallocate resources. 
> 
> How about the rulers and the power to reallocate or resources for crony interests on a global scale, many times larger than anything now. What kind of special interests cronyism, special favors, corporates lobbying and control will transpire then?


Now you're getting it Joe!

That's an actual argument, rather than a bare assetion of "you're wrong."

As to this argument:

We already have cronyism et all throughout the world, don't we? 

Why would it be worse if it was orchestrated from one capital, instead of 196?

If I'm a taxpayer getting screwed for the benefit of some cronies, why does it matter if the cronies live nextdoor or in China?

----------


## AZJoe

The goal is not to expand government but to shrink it, cut it, make it smaller. The goal is to maximize liberty.

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violate the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.     - Barry Goldwater

----------


## Origanalist

> 1. Do you disagree that a world state would mean the end of interstate war? If so, why?


Well that's just silliness. It would no longer be called interstate war because the world state would not recognize any government but it's own having declared itself a monopoly on power. That in no way precludes another entity defying it's proclaimed monopoly and asserting it's statehood thus bringing interstate war even though they would simply be labeled terrorists and outlaws for defying the world state.

----------


## AZJoe

> Now you're getting it Joe!
> That's an actual argument, rather than a bare assetion of "you're wrong." As to this argument:
> We already have cronyism et all throughout the world, don't we? 
> Why would it be worse if it was orchestrated from one capital, instead of 196?
> If I'm a taxpayer getting screwed for the benefit of some cronies, why does it matter if the cronies live nextdoor or in China?


How about the rulers and the power to reallocate or resources for crony interests on a global scale, many times larger than anything now. What kind of special interests cronyism, special favors, corporates lobbying and control will transpire then?

You still have failed to support your thesis that a world government would be as free and kind if not freer than a world of small diversified governments. It is your duty to prove your assertion.
It is an unwilling admission that your thesis fails.

----------


## AZJoe

Government Control. We need more government control and less people control. 

Is is easier to control, restrain, influence or fight back against a smaller government where each person has a larger voice?

----------


## AZJoe

Do you think the world would have more diversity of choices such as education, health, lifestyle with a diverse and varied assortment of small states, or do you think there would be more choices in education for instance with one giant global government overseeing all education through the world? 
And why?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well that's just silliness. It would no longer be called interstate war because the world state would not recognize any government but it's own having declared itself a monopoly on power. That in no way precludes another entity defying it's proclaimed monopoly and asserting it's statehood thus bringing interstate war even though they would simply be labeled terrorists and outlaws for defying the world state.


The question is whether or not the total level of violence (from intra- and inter-state wars) would be lower in a world state. 

What you seem to be saying is that all the wars (intra- and inter-state) that would occur in international anarchy would _still_ occur in a world state, it's just that those which we would have called inter-state wars in international anarchy will now be called intra-state wars; but, terminology aside, the total level of violence will be the same. 

Is that right?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Joe, whatever this interaction we're having is, it's not a debate. 

I'm going to call it a day.

----------


## Origanalist

International anarchy? What is this? As far as your question goes, I have no way of proving one way or another whether the levels of violence would go down other that using history as a guide. And neither do you. No government ever grew to a scale anywhere near reaching anything like what you are proposing without extreme levels of violence.

And violence would most certainly be used to enforce it, and yes, there would always be challenges to it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> International anarchy? What is this?


States standing in anarchic relations with one another (as opposed to global government): i.e. what exists now.




> As far as your question goes, I have no way of proving one way or another whether the levels of violence would go down other that using history as a guide. And neither do you. No government ever grew to a scale anywhere near reaching anything like what you are proposing without extreme levels of violence.
> 
> And violence would most certainly be used to enforce it, and yes, there would always be challenges to it.


I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position before I go about trying to refute it.

Is you position as I described in my last post?

----------


## Origanalist

> _States standing in anarchic relations with one another (as opposed to global government): i.e. what exists now._
> 
> So you're understanding of anarchy is constant violent conflict? This is not my perception, without the state to constantly initiate violence people would gravitate towards beneficial interactions.
> 
> 
> 
> _I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position before I go about trying to refute it.
> 
> 
> ...


//

----------


## Origanalist

We already have our own federal government to look at as a case study, this whole proposition is patently absurd.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What you seem to be saying is that all the wars (intra- and  inter-state) that would occur in international anarchy would _still_  occur in a world state, it's just that those which we would have called  inter-state wars in international anarchy will now be called  intra-state wars; but, terminology aside, the total level of violence  will be the same. 
> 
> Is that right?


Well, whether that's Originalists position or not (he doesn't seem to know...), it's an objection that needs answering, so:

Let's consider the Franco-Prussian War, as an example of an inter-state war that occurred in international anarchy. 

Would this same war have occurred if there had been a centralized world state? 

...I don't see how. 

First,  it's not clear that the French and the Prussians would have had any  cause to fight had they not each had their own states - the source of  conflict was the mutually exclusive territorial ambitions of two sets of  rulers, not any particular hostility between the two peoples. 

Second,  with what would they have fought? Certainly not with the massive armies  with which the Franco-Prussian War was actually fought. If there had  been a centralized world state, there would of course have been no  French and Prussian states with their respective standing armies.  There'd have just been two groups of disorganized, largely unarmed  civilians. They would have had to create military forces from scratch.  And why would the world state let them do this? If the people of Rhode  Island and Connecticut all of the sudden developed a hatred for one  another, and starting organizing themselves into military forces,  wouldn't the US government intervene? 

In short, two peoples  under the same state cannot possibly fight a war at the same level as  states fight wars, even supposing they have an incentive to do so, which they frequently would not. So, no, contrary to what Originalist was apparently claiming, the elimination of interstate war through world government is not a semantic game; it's not you'll have the same wars, just relabeled as civil wars. You'll actually have fewer wars.




> We already have our own federal government to  look at as a case study, this whole proposition is patently  absurd.


What does that case study tell you?

----------


## Origanalist

> Well, whether that's Originalists position or not (he doesn't seem to know...), it's an objection that needs answering, so:
> 
> Let's consider the Franco-Prussian War, as an example of an inter-state war that occurred in international anarchy. 
> 
> Would this same war have occurred if there had been a centralized world state? 
> 
> ...I don't see how. 
> 
> First,  it's not clear that the French and the Prussians would have had any  cause to fight had they not each had their own states - the source of  conflict was the mutually exclusive territorial ambitions of two sets of  rulers, not any particular hostility between the two peoples. 
> ...


Oh go $#@! yourself. Every time you don't like a response you come up with some condescending bull$#@!. And then you rattle off some nonsense as fact when it is nothing but speculation. You have nothing to base your theory on other than biased speculation. And we have actual history that points to you being completely off the mark.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Oh go $#@! yourself. Every time you don't like a response you come up with some condescending bull$#@!. And then you rattle off some nonsense as fact when it is nothing but speculation. You have nothing to base your theory on other than biased speculation. And we have actual history that points to you being completely off the mark.


What a compelling argument

I especially like how you didn't address or even attempt to refute anything I said.

----------


## Origanalist

> What a compelling argument
> 
> I especially like how you didn't address or even attempt to refute anything I said.


You have no argument at all. I grow weary of your bull$#@!. Calling for a world government and trying to couch it in what you think are clever terms just exposes you for the complete statist that you are. You're attempts to discredit me are pathetic.

----------


## Origanalist

Vote Gary Johnson!!!

LOLOL

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You have no argument at all


oh

----------


## Dr.No.

> The goal is not to expand government but to shrink it, cut it, make it smaller. The goal is toe maximize liberty.


This is a cute line, but what does it actually mean? I don't want to completely maximize liberty. I don't want to enable your freedom to kill others, defraud others, enslave others, etc. I don't want to enable your freedom to affect my life, or the lives of others.

Conceive, instead, that the goal is build a society where prosperity is maximized. In that equation, liberty has some value. So does safety. The tradeoff amongst all those things is an interesting discussion to have.

----------


## William Tell

> The question is whether or not the total level of violence (from intra- and inter-state wars) would be lower in a world state.


No that's not the question. If your definition of personal liberty is the levels of certain kinds of violence. Then hurry up and take the next logical step and start another thread: "The libertarian case for gun control".

----------


## bunklocoempire

Force is force. Humans are involved.

Humans are CRAP on their  track record of using government (aggression for good).

How are you going to change human nature to safely utilize world aggression for good?

Tolkien had something to say about man and mankind using power for good, since the topic is fantasy -if we're talking a force for good instead of evil.

----------


## osan

> You have no argument at all. I grow weary of your bull$#@!. Calling for a world government and trying to couch it in what you think are clever terms just exposes you for the complete statist that you are. You're attempts to discredit me are pathetic.


You're arguing with an obvious troll... or fool.  Time wasted.  I gave this one rope and, sure enough, hung itself.  I'm done.  I would recommend the same with all - this thread is run its course more than a full cycle.

----------


## erowe1

> Local states allow secession?


They might not in practice. But the possibility isn't ruled out from the start by the very nature of that model, as it is by your other global government model.

Another way to word the question of the OP is: Should the very possibility of secession be totally done away with, and with it any care at all for the consent of the governed?

To answer your question in favor of global government is to answer the latter question in the affirmative.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You're arguing with an obvious troll... or fool.


More like a stalking horse  kind of deal. He's trying to sell anarcho-monarchy from behind the cloak of libertarianism. And he isn't very clever about it. All you really have to do is look at his threads. It's right there in plain sight.

Most people here (I'd like to think so anyway) are well-read enough to see what he's doing. The common passer-by, not so much. Then again, he may be relying on the idea that some around here aren't so astute, too.

I kind of get to chuckling whenever he says "we libertarians..." He's not one. In fact, he's patently the opposite. It's not so hard to see. Anyone with a few bucks worth of public library receipts can see.

King-granted rights (Government-over-Man) are, of course, the antithesis to the concept of Individual Liberty (Man-over-Government.)

----------


## timosman

> Well that's just silliness. It would no longer be called interstate war because the world state would not recognize any government but it's own having declared itself a monopoly on power. That in no way precludes another entity defying it's proclaimed monopoly and asserting it's statehood thus bringing interstate war even though they would simply be labeled terrorists and outlaws for defying the world state.

----------


## Origanalist

> 


Loved the movie and the series.

----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by Some Silly Person
> 
> 1. Do you disagree that a world state would mean the end of interstate war? If so, why?
> 
> 
> Well that's just silliness. It would no longer be called interstate war because the world state would not recognize any government but it's own having declared itself a monopoly on power. That in no way precludes another entity defying it's proclaimed monopoly and asserting it's statehood thus bringing interstate war even though they would simply be labeled terrorists and outlaws for defying the world state.


Exactly.  It would become *internecine* war.  I guess dying that way is somehow less objectionable than the other way in the mind of Silly Persons.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> They might not in practice. But the possibility isn't ruled out from the start by the very nature of that model, as it is by your other global government model.
> 
> Another way to word the question of the OP is: Should the very possibility of secession be totally done away with, and with it any care at all for the consent of the governed?
> 
> To answer your question in favor of global government is to answer the latter question in the affirmative.


I don't understand why a global state would "rule out the possibility" of secession, while a local state (e.g. the United States) wouldn't.

The one and only time the US government faced a serious threat of secession, they butchered 500,000 people to prevent it. 

I expect a world state would react similarly; not better, not worse, similarly.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No that's not the question. If your definition of personal liberty is the levels of certain kinds of violence. Then hurry up and take the next logical step and start another thread: "The libertarian case for gun control".


A. No libertarian can possibly deny that less aggression is better. 



B. To justify gun control, you'd have to show that the aggression involved in enforcing it is outweighed by the (alleged) drop in aggression resulting from it, which you can't, because in fact it wouldn't decrease the incidence of aggression at all: to the contrary.

----------


## donnay

> [A] single and consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth. -  Thomas Jefferson
> 
> The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. [Note: Dr. Rummel coined the term democide to refer to the many and regular genocides and mass murders committed by governments.]. . . .                  In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs.      - Professor R.J. Rummel (Prf of Political Science, Univ of Hawaii) Death by Government (Transaction Press 1994).
> 
> Putting the human cost of war and democide together, Power has killed over 203 million people in this century.  Even if all to be said about absolute Power was that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the young and the most capable  this would be enough. But much worse even without the excuse of combat, Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controlsin fact, several times more of them. - R.J. Rummel
> 
> Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely.Democide is committed by absolute Power; its agency is government.      - R.J. Rummel


Bravo!  I am out of rep!  Damn.

----------


## thoughtomator

@Bryan so this is what you allowed the complete demolition of RPF's community and reputation to protect

I previously thought I could not be more disappointed, but I guess I was wrong.

----------


## Bryan

> @Bryan so this is what you allowed the complete demolition of RPF's community and reputation to protect
> 
> I previously thought I could not be more disappointed, but I guess I was wrong.


The Think Tank section is an open educational forum, different people have different backgrounds, life experiences and perspective that lead to different thought patterns. Some people also want to explore new ideas and get others view on them -- this can lead to a positive social exchange and the sharing of wisdom. With wisdom we can each strengthen our thought process of what we see as good and right. Some people will be wrong some times, the staff doesn't try to suppress everything seen as outside of a correct line of thought. As a staff, we try to do the best we can, mistakes are made, more resources would help, but it's how things are. 

Thanks.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> As long as big government is working to end segregation and unequal legal protection done by the states? Yeah, I am happy with that.
> 
> I could just as easily say that you are only happy with small government as long as it is working for what you like. As in, "thank goodness there isn't any police to stop me from robbing the weak!"


No.

We were never intended to have a one-size-fits-all.  We were largely to govern ourselves, but the government we were to have was to be as close to us as possible.  So that we could throw them out whenever they stepped outside of their boundaries.  The further government is from you, the less control you have over it.

But, our founders warned us that we had to stay knowledgeable and involved, in order to keep the republic that they established.  They also stated that this form of government would only work with a moral people.  Something we have little of anymore.

If you haven't yet watched Brexit: the Movie, I highly recommend it.  It's on youtube.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Think Tank section is an open educational forum, different people have different backgrounds, life experiences and perspective that lead to different thought patterns. Some people also want to explore new ideas and get others view on them -- this can lead to a positive social exchange and the sharing of wisdom. With wisdom we can each strengthen our thought process of what we see as good and right. Some people will be wrong some times, the staff doesn't try to suppress everything seen as outside of a correct line of thought. As a staff, we try to do the best we can, mistakes are made, more resources would help, but it's how things are. 
> 
> Thanks.


Bryan, how does pitching world government further the site's Mission?  It seems to me that it is in direct violation of it.

----------


## Dr.No.

> No.
> 
> We were never intended to have a one-size-fits-all.  We were largely to govern ourselves, but the government we were to have was to be as close to us as possible.  So that we could throw them out whenever they stepped outside of their boundaries.  The further government is from you, the less control you have over it.
> 
> But, our founders warned us that we had to stay knowledgeable and involved, in order to keep the republic that they established.  They also stated that this form of government would only work with a moral people.  Something we have little of anymore.
> 
> If you haven't yet watched Brexit: the Movie, I highly recommend it.  It's on youtube.


Just because the founders intended something, and just because the founders warned about something, doesn't make that true, right, or efficient. One could argue that the 14th amendment was made to specifically enlarge the powers of the federal government.

I'm not sure if having control of government is so good, if you are using that control to abuse and harm others. It doesn't help the case for limited, local government that in our history, states have generally argued for the right to do horrible, terrible, immoral things.

I would also argue that in an absolute sense, the American people are more moral than they ever have been...or at least, we are overall getting better and better.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> @Bryan so this is what you allowed the complete demolition of RPF's community and reputation to protect
> 
> I previously thought I could not be more disappointed, but I guess I was wrong.


As explained in the OP, libertarianism is concerned with the government's behavior (how much it aggresses), not it's form (e.g. whether it is global or local, centralized or decentralized, democratic or non-democratic, etc). The form of government matters to a libertarian only insofar as it affects how government behaves. Libertarians can disagree on which form of government (e.g. world government or local government) is most likely to behave in a most libertarian fashion (i.e. aggress the least). Hence, there's nothing remotely unlibertarian about this thread. Even if I'm incorrect about the libertarian tendencies of world government, that just makes me wrong, not unlibertarian.

You can't see this because you yourself are no libertarian. You don't care about liberty nearly as much as you do nationalism (assuming you care about liberty at all). If RPF is a libertarian forum (which it must be, unless it's badly named), it is you and the other Trumpskite nationalists that are out of place, not someone like myself putting forth the age-old, Mises-endorsed classical liberal/libertarian argument for world government. I find it hilarious and infuriating that you people, you soft NAZIs, who've invaded and nearly destroyed this forum over the last year, complain about a dilution of libertarian principle here.

----------


## William Tell

> Scenario A: There are 150 sovereign states in the world, each of which has its own DEA, TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA, USDA, etc.
> 
> Scenario B: There is one world state which has a DEA, TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA, USDA, etc.
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Scenario A: There are 150 sovereign states in the world, each ruled by the likes of Bush, Hitlary, Trump, Obama, Cheney, etc. 
> ...


Well, those are false options. Because as things stand, if you want to do almost any particular thing with your freedom, whether good or bad. There is some country or region within a country out there that either :

A: has no law on the books outlawing said item. 

or

B: does not have the power to enforce/won't bother to come after you.

If you want to use certain drugs you go to Colorado, or someplace in Holland, or Portugal or whatever. If you want to not get executed for smoking pot, you *flee* Malaysia, Singapore, and the other places that execute you for that stuff. 

Now, I personally don't use drugs, at all. I'm against the drug war, but I'm not going to choose where I live based on that, because it doesn't really affect me. If I had cancer though you bet I'd want the option of getting out of Malaysia, and into Colorado or wherever.

When you start standardizing everything globally we are all in deep trouble. And you might say we already are now, but we are going to all be in the same type of trouble. We can argue hypothetically about what exactly that would be, but in the end you don't even know.

----------


## otherone

> As explained in the OP, libertarianism is concerned with the government's behavior (how much it aggresses), not it's form (e.g. whether it is global or local, centralized or decentralized, democratic or non-democratic, etc).


Your premise is flawed. Libertarianism is concerned with government's nature, not it's behavior.  your approach to "liberty" is top-down...in that freedom is dispensed from authority.  You argue for well-managed livestock.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Libertarianism is concerned with government's nature, not it's behavior.


I don't know what you mean.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well, those are false options. Because as  things stand, if you want to do almost any particular thing with your  freedom, whether good or bad. There is some country or region within a  country out there that either :
> 
> A: has no law on the books outlawing said item. 
> 
> or
> 
> B: does not have the power to enforce/won't bother to come after you.
> 
> If you want to use certain drugs you go to Colorado, or someplace in  Holland, or Portugal or whatever. If you want to not get executed for  smoking pot, you *flee* Malaysia, Singapore, and the other places that execute you for that stuff. 
> ...


As I said earlier, if your goal is to ensure that there will always  be some relatively free place to escape to, yes, international anarchy  is best.

I guess that's your goal, but it's not mine. 

My goal is the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people (and for that global government is best).

Let me put it this way:

Suppose a person's freedom is ranked from level 0 (least free) to level 10 (most free)

Option A. 100 people at level 5

Option B. 50 people at level 5, 40 people at level 2, and 10 people at level 9 (so that the average person is at level 4.2). 

If the goal is the greatest liberty for the greatest number, then A is preferable.

----------


## William Tell

> As I said earlier, if your goal is to ensure that there will always  be some relatively free place to escape to, yes, international anarchy  is best.
> 
> I guess that's your goal, but it's not mine.


No, it's not about anarchy. We don't have anarchy now. my goal is to be as free as possible, especially with regard to personal issues I care about. I also want as many of my neighbors as possible to be free. It would be cool if the people in North Korea etc were free, but I can't impact that.




> My goal is the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people (and for that global government is best).


 Just random all around freedom? We don't know wth a world government would choose to regulate so I don't see how you can make blanket statements about how it would be better. It is reasonable to assume, given other nations gun laws, that a world government would totally eliminate our gun freedoms in America. I can't think of anything that would make that a reasonable sacrifice from a liberty perspective. 

Drug policy is something I couldn't predict, would a world government go with Malasia's policy, or some European nations?





> Let me put it this way:
> 
> Suppose a person's freedom is ranked from level 0 (least free) to level 10 (most free)
> 
> Option A. 100 people at level 5
> 
> Option B. 50 people at level 5, 40 people at level 2, and 10 people at level 9 (so that the average person is at level 4.2). 
> 
> If the goal is the greatest liberty for the greatest number, then A is preferable.


You can't accurately gauge freedom that way, since it's different for everyone. What you are doing is trying to collectively rate everyone's freedom worldwide, while totally ignoring your personal freedom, and mine, and every other individual in the world. By reducing mankind to general statistics that you are pulling out of a hat.

If you are a millionaire, then the tax rates in your bracket are a freedom you are worried about. If you have cancer, than you suddenly rate free market healthcare options as a 10, and might not even care about other freedoms because your life is at stake.

If you don't have kids, you might not even think about education freedoms at all. If you are a pacifist due to some religious grounds, you might not care about gun freedom at all, but you would feel very strongly against conscription.

I might have a 1 or a 9 on my freedom ranking, but to you it might be a 3, or a 5 or whatever. If I cared about certain things more I could very likely move, and be happier.

With the countries we have in this world now, we have very provable advantages. With a world government we would have some obvious glaring awful things coming down the pike, and you have a bunch of hypotheticals that you can't back up.

----------


## William Tell

The real kicker though, is most people in the world don't even care about freedom. As things stand now, most of us  who do care can to a certain extent pursue the kind of lives we want to live. With a world government all bets are off, and we are all in the same boat.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You can't accurately gauge freedom that way, since it's different for everyone.


We can't say whether one person is freer than another, or one population freer than another?

Alright, then you can't say that people would be less free under a world government, can you?

No more than I can say they would be more free?

But that's nonsense.

Freedom cannot be literally quantified, but it's certainly possible to make interpersonal comparisons.

----------


## otherone

> I don't know what you mean.


Government without universal consent is tyranny, regardless of what privileges it allows it's people.
One is either sovereign or subject...there is no middle ground.   You may argue that one state may be "better" than another because it's people enjoy a better quality of life, or can read whatever they wish, but the fact remains that if it has the authority to allow something, then it has authority to forbid it.  Freedom is sovereignty of the individual.  The purpose of government is to protect that sovereignty.   A government that "dispenses" freedom is no more libertarian than an authoritarian one.

----------


## William Tell

> We can't say whether one person is freer than another, or one population freer than another?


 No, you can't arbitrarily say people in all of the over 100 current countries would be more free under a world government, because every country has different levels of liberty on different issues.




> Alright, then you can't say that people would be less free under a world government, can you?


 Yes you can. a world government with any drug laws and enforcement would automatically make some people less free. Since there are places where you can currently exercise that freedom without being bothered. Same with gun laws and on down the line.

Now, if your NWO would not have any drug laws, great, but you still have to go down the line to other issues. As someone who enjoys certain liberties rare in other countries, like the right to self defense, I have no doubt a world government would leave me personally less free.





> Freedom cannot be literally quantified, but it's certainly possible to make interpersonal comparisons.


 So, how would I be more free under world government? As things stand now, If I want to do pretty much anything I can either do it, or move to where I can do it. What would I be suddenly be able to do worldwide that I cant now?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Government without universal consent is tyranny, regardless of what privileges it allows it's people. One is either sovereign or subject...there is no middle ground.


If that's your position, so be it.

It's certainly not mine.

If I can choose between N. Korea and S. Korea, I'm choosing S. Korea.

This thread is addressed to people who think similarly.

----------


## William Tell

> If I can choose between N. Korea and S. Korea, I'm choosing S. Korea.
> 
> This thread is addressed to people who think similarly.


That makes sense. So, on a scale of North Korea to South Korea, or any other countries of your choosing, where would this hypothetical world government fall?

----------


## otherone

> If that's your position, so be it.
> 
> It's certainly not mine.
> 
> _ If I can choose_ between a little aggression and a lot of aggression, I'm going to choose a little aggression. 
> 
> This thread is addressed to people who think similarly.


Ironic.  If you believe you should have a choice, then you agree with me.  Those who suffer aggression don't quantify it.  In other words, you assume that _you_ will not suffer it in a "beneficent" state.

----------


## otherone

> That makes sense. So, on a scale of North Korea to South Korea, or any other countries of your choosing, where would this hypothetical world government fall?


His hypothetical scenario posits that if the whole world was S Korea, it would be "more libertarian" than if some states were authoritarian.

----------


## William Tell

> His hypothetical scenario posits that if the whole world was N Korea, it would be "more libertarian" than if some states were authoritarian.


Well, one can't just leave North Korea, so there's one similarity with a global government.

----------


## otherone

> Well, one can't just leave North Korea, so there's one similarity with a global government.


My bad, I meant S Korea.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Will,

I fully appreciate what you're saying about different liberties being valued differently by different people, and how this makes talk of a population's "average liberty"  problematic (it's analogous to the problem with interpersonal utility comparisons in economics), but this is a problem outside the scope of this thread, which I'm not interested in debating right now. But if you want to accept, for the sake of argument, that it's sensible to talk of "average liberty," I'll be happy to continue to explain why people would on average enjoy more liberty under a world government than they do under local governments.

----------


## William Tell

> Will,
> 
> I fully appreciate what you're saying about different liberties being valued differently by different people, and how this makes talk of a population's "average liberty"  problematic (it's analogous to the problem with interpersonal utility comparisons in economics), but this is a problem outside the scope of this thread, which I'm not interested in debating right now.


 OK, but it's one of the main reasons people here disagree with you. Most people don't care about, or even think about most liberty issues. Most liberty lovers however, bitch about their current rulers, and go about life or move to somewhere they will be happier. I don't intend to give up my right to self defense in exchange for girls in the mid-east being allowed to wear bikinis.




> But if you want to accept, for the sake of argument, that it's sensible to talk of "average liberty," I'll be happy to continue to explain why people would on average enjoy more liberty under a world government than they do under local governments.


 Well, I will try to leave the regional liberty issue to the side for now. I think I have made my case.

Can you explain specifically what kind of practical liberty, we in America would likely have under a hypothetical world government?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That makes sense. So, on a scale of North Korea to South Korea, or any other countries of your choosing, where would this hypothetical world government fall?


It's impossible to give an absolute value. 

We can only give a relative value. 

i.e. the average person would be _more free_ under world government than in a world of many independent states

...the reason, already explained at length, being the absence of interstate war.




> Can you explain specifically what kind of  practical liberty, we in America would likely have under a hypothetical  world government?


Suppose everything were exactly the same, except the DoD didn't exist.

----------


## William Tell

> Suppose everything were exactly the same, except the DoD didn't exist.


And a worldwide DoD with countless employess does exist I suppose? 

Also, you really think we would still have our gun rights?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And a worldwide DoD with countless employess does exist I suppose?


For what purpose? To fight the aliens?




> Also, you really think we would still have our gun rights?


Supposing  the world government is democratic*, how would its policies compare to  the policies of the local governments that it replaces?

_*as  you might imagine from reading my other threads, I don't want it to be  democratic, no government should be, but that's another subject, and we  can first consider a democratic world government, to compare with a  world of (mostly) democratic states_

Its foreign policy would be better (in that it wouldn't have one). 

What of its domestic policies?

It depends on global voter demographics.

Consider two scenarios:

----SCENARIO I----

Pre World Government
-there  are two countries, one with 60% of the world's population at freedom  level 4, and the other with 40% of the world's population at freedom  level 6
-thus the average freedom level worldwide is 4.8
-if  democratic world government came into being, all the people in each  country would vote for the freedom level they previously enjoyed

World Government
-voting is by simple majority, so the 60% wanting level 4 outvote the 40% wanting level 6
-thus the average worldwide drops from level 4.8 to level 4.0

----SCENARIO II-----

Pre World Government
-there are two countries, one with 60% of the world's population at  freedom level 6, and the other with 40% of the world's population at  freedom level 4
-thus the average freedom level worldwide is 5.2
-if democratic world  government came into being, all the people in each country would vote  for the freedom level they previously enjoyed

World Government
-voting is by simple majority, so the 60% wanting level 6 outvote the 40% wanting level 4
-thus the average worldwide rises from level 5.2 to level 6.0*

THE POINT BEING* that it's inconclusive. 

World govermment might make domestic policy worse, or it might make it better: depends on the particulars in the circumstances.   

On the other hand, it would indisputably make foreign policy better (by abolishing it), in all circumstances.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's impossible to give an absolute value. 
> 
> We can only give a relative value. 
> 
> i.e. the average person would be _more free_ under world government than in a world of many independent states
> 
> ...the reason, already explained at length, being the absence of interstate war.
> 
> Suppose everything were exactly the same, except the DoD didn't exist.


People around the world want to live under different sets of principles.  We will never all agree, nor should we have to.  Furthermore, a world government wouldn't be attempting to come up with something that would work for everyone.  Instead, you would have handed even more power to a global elite that doesn't give one rat's ass about your or anyone else's liberty.

You're right, there may be no war.  Because there would no longer be a reason for the elite to overthrow governments to get what they want.  You would have already handed it to them on a silver platter.  A global government also would increase the difficulty of its subjects to remove themselves from this world communism piece of idiotic crap.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> People around the world want to live under different sets of principles.


Too bad, they should all be forced to live under libertarian principles. 

i.e. they should be forcibly prevented from aggressing.

Believing that it what it means to be a libertarian.

Libertarians are not for "everyone gets to live by his own principles" if those principles allow aggression. 

Gen. Napier said it best: "[_To Hindu priests complaining to him about the  prohibition of the Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive  on their husbands' funeral pyres_] Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom;  prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn  women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My  carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned  when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."




> Furthermore, a world government wouldn't be attempting to come  up with something that would work for everyone.  Instead, you would have  handed even more power to a global elite that doesn't give one rat's  ass about your or anyone else's liberty.


All else being equal, a democratic world government would behave the  same as a democratic local government (scale doesn't matter), except  that it wouldn't fight wars, which would obviously be an improvement.  The goal really should be a _non-democratic_ world government,  however, as it would behave vastly better than local democratic  government in terms of domestic policy, in addition to fighting no wars.  Non-democratic states have very little incentive to do anything  unlibertarian other than fight wars; eliminate the incentive to fight  wars by making that government global and you have about as near to  perfection as possible on this planet. I won't rehash the reasons for  the superiority of non-democratic government right now, as that's been  explained repeatedly elsewhere.

----------


## nobody's_hero

And where would you run to when the whole world sucks?

I would have used that as a 'pro' for the local government more than any other issue. 

If you don't like your local government, you can leave. Can't do that in a world government.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And where would you run to when the whole world sucks?
> 
> I would have used that as a 'pro' for the local government more than any other issue. 
> 
> If you don't like your local government, you can leave. Can't do that in a world government.


If the ability to flee were a solution to the problem of tyranny, the USSR, Maoist China, et al would have emptied out shortly after being created. But of course they didn't, because most people can't flee their home countries. As I said earlier, if you just want to ensure that there's a safehaven somewhere, to which *some* people might be able to flee, international anarchy is what you want. But if your interested in maximizing liberty for the world's population as a whole (the vast majority of whom can't flee to your safehaven), global government is better.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> What kind of BS is this thread?!  What is happening in here?
> 
> I have critiqued Nationalism because of the incredible dangers, but that should NEVER be taken as a justification for globalism!  Holy shyt!  I'll make it simple for you:
> 
> When it comes to governance:
> Globalism = Bad
> Nationalism = Just as bad  (just faster)
> Localism = Better
> Individualism = Best
> ...


+rep

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

How would we determine the leaders of the world government?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> How would we determine the leaders of the world government?


We wouldn't. 

Absolute hereditary monarchy

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> We wouldn't. 
> 
> Absolute hereditary monarchy


Can I be the monarch?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Can I be the monarch?


Sure

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Sure


How do I get people to accept me as king of the world?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> How do I get people to accept me as king of the world?


That's the tough part...

But this is a theoretical exercise.

We're considering a hypothetical political order; we need not be concerned with practical strategies for bringing it about.

So, supposing you were already the generally recognized _rex universalis_, what would you do?

Well, you, being a libertarian would do very good things, of course. 

But it's unrealistic to assume that the king will always just happen to be a libertarian.

So let's suppose you aren't a libertarian at all; let's suppose you're just greedy. 

What then will you do?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> But it's unrealistic to assume that the king will always just happen to be a libertarian.
> 
> So let's suppose you aren't a libertarian at all; let's suppose you're just greedy. 
> 
> What then will you do?


And that's why I don't think it would be a good idea.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And that's why I don't think it would be a good idea.


What do you think a purely greedy king would do?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> What do you think a purely greedy king would do?


We only need to look at examples from history. People with absolute power have killed hundreds of millions of people.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We only need to look at examples from history. People with absolute power have killed hundreds of millions of people.


In a libertarian society, private property owners would have the right to destroy their property, just for kicks.

...which, if many of them did this, would set us all back to the stone age. 

Why don't we worry about this happening?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> In a libertarian society, private property owners would have the right to destroy their property, just for kicks, setting us all back to the stone age.
> 
> Why don't we worry about this happening?


Well, for some reason people with absolute political power run countries have set their countries back decades or centuries.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well, for some reason people with absolute political power run countries have set their countries back decades or centuries.


I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question:

Why do we trust private property owners not to destroy their property?

Is their some reason, some motive, _maybe rhymes with shmofit_, which inclines them against such behavior?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question:
> 
> Why do we trust private property owners not to destroy their property?
> 
> Is their some reason, some motive, _maybe rhymes with shmofit_, which inclines them against such behavior?


Profit, I know.

But why are the only good places to live (Primarily the Anglosphere, Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan) the same places where Monarchies either on't exist or are powerless?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Profit, I know.
> 
> But why are the only good places to live (Primarily the Anglosphere, Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan) the same places where Monarchies either on't exist or are powerless?


Monarchy exists virtually nowhere these days. 

The third world is governed by highly unstable democratic governments (or recently established, highly unstable dictatorships).

The democratic West is declining into bolshevik oblivion (need I remind you of the state of the US Presidential election?).

The most progress in the last few decades has been in states like China, Dubai, Singapore - all non-democratic.

(Lee Kuan Yew was effectively king of Singapore)

Anyway, back to our Socratic dialogue:

If the monarch is greedy, having the profit motive, what will he do?

If his income (tax revenue) is a fraction of national economic output, will he try to increase or decrease national economic output?

If he wants to increase national economic output, and he understands economics, will he pursue socialism or laissez faire?

----------


## AZJoe

> We wouldn't. 
> 
> Absolute hereditary monarchy


Your dreams have come true. You need worry no longer. I'll be your king R3volution 3.0.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Monarchy exists virtually nowhere these days. 
> 
> The third world is governed by highly unstable democratic governments (or recently established, highly unstable dictatorships).
> 
> The democratic West is declining into bolshevik oblivion (need I remind you of the state of the US Presidential election?).
> 
> The most progress in the last few decades has been in states like China, Dubai, Singapore - all non-democratic.
> 
> (Lee Kuan Yew was effectively king of Singapore)
> ...


I've heard you make this argument before.  But why is it then, that capitalism developed first in Britain and the United States and not Tsarist Russia?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Your dreams have come true. You need worry no longer. I'll be your king R3volution 3.0.


We presently have a sede vacante situation vis a vis the world throne.

So, to the strongest...

Have at it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But why is it then, that capitalism developed first in Britain and the United States and not Tsarist Russia?


Did it? When did the 'European Miracle' begin? In the 18th century?

Where did free market economics first develop?

Who was A.R.J. Turgot, and what kind of state did he serve?

Who were the School of Salamanca?

Was the English School, beginning with Smith, an advance or a regression?

Were the Jacobins liberals?

----------


## AZJoe

> So, to the strongest....Have at it.


So rule by force and aggression, not by consent. So R3volution 3.0 has just conceded he has no "libertarian" case for his global government. 
(With this R3 he also conceded that global government not only is no guarantee for peace but intrinsically requires warfare and aggression)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So rule by force and aggression, not by consent. So R3volution 3.0 has just conceded he has no "libertarian" case for his global government. 
> (With this R3 he also conceded that global government not only is no guarantee for peace but intrinsically requires warfare and aggression)


Your consent is not required to forcibly prevent you from aggressing, which would be the sole legitimate purpose of the state.

(any state, local or global)

...do I need to repost the wisdom of General Napier?

----------


## AZJoe

> We wouldn't. [select world government] Absolute hereditary monarchy*.*





> We presently have a sede vacante situation vis a vis the world throne. So, to the strongest...*.*





> Your consent is not required to forcibly prevent you from aggressing, which would be the sole legitimate purpose of the state*.*


So now R3 has just made a libertarian case against world government, and in favor of anarchy and voluntarism. 
Again conceding R3 has no "libertarian" case for global government.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So now R3 has just made a libertarian case against world government, and in favor of anarchy and voluntarism.


No, I just defined minarchism. 

The goal is for the state to do nothing other than protect property rights, or prevent aggression, which is the same thing.

----------


## AZJoe

> No, I just defined minarchism. 
> 
> The goal is for the state to do nothing other than protect property rights, or prevent aggression, which is the same thing.


Minarchy would be the opposite [short of anarchy] of global monarchy. Again R3 has made another libertarian case against his global government, conceding he has no "libertarian" case for global government.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Did it? When did the 'European Miracle' begin? In the 18th century?
> 
> Where did free market economics first develop?
> 
> Who was A.R.J. Turgot, and what kind of state did he serve?
> 
> Who were the School of Salamanca?
> 
> Was the English School, beginning with Smith, an advance or a regression?
> ...


Britain was the first to really implement capitalism.  It was the middle class, not the old aristocracy, that was the driving force behind capitalism.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I don't know what you mean.


We've been trying to tell you that for years already.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> If the ability to flee were a solution to the problem of tyranny, the USSR, Maoist China, et al would have emptied out shortly after being created. But of course they didn't, because most people can't flee their home countries. As I said earlier, if you just want to ensure that there's a safehaven somewhere, to which *some* people might be able to flee, international anarchy is what you want. But if your interested in maximizing liberty for the world's population as a whole (the vast majority of whom can't flee to your safehaven), global government is better.


Most people don't realize they're living under tyranny until they witness an alternative. 

In a tyrannical world government, what other examples would you look to? There wouldn't be any. 

Take the saying, "the grass is always greener on the other side", but what if there is no 'other side.' Just a wall without windows and you've lived your entire life under tyranny, and don't_ know_ anything else. There has to exist an alternative or you will simply live in ignorance.

North Korean denizens don't stay in North Korea because they enjoy a diet of rice rations and being malnourished, they stay in North Korea because (A) they aren't allowed to leave and/or (B) they don't know any better. But, as harsh as it sounds, I would rather there be an isolated country called North Korea where life sucks for a few million people, than a world-wide entity ruled in the same manner as North Korea where EVERYONE is phucked.

You seem willing to risk erecting a world government on the belief that anarchy would somehow flourish, but any scientist will tell you that if something doesn't work with a small test sample (national or local government), then it sure as hell won't work on a larger scale (world government). I just don't see any feasible pathway that leads you to larger government that somehow magically jumps to the individual beyond that. The larger and broader-reaching a government becomes, the less important the individual becomes.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> North Korean denizens don't stay in North Korea because they enjoy a diet of rice rations and being malnourished, they stay in North Korea because (A) they aren't allowed to leave and/or (B) they don't know any better. But, as harsh as it sounds, I would rather there be an isolated country called North Korea where life sucks for a few million people, than a world-wide entity ruled in the same manner as North Korea where EVERYONE is phucked.


That would run against your own argument, wouldn't it? 

Also, there's a third reason: it costs a lot to leave your home country, in terms of money, and time, and effort, and general unpleasantness. 




> You seem willing to risk erecting a world government on the belief that anarchy would somehow flourish, but any scientist will tell you that if something doesn't work with a small test sample (national or local government), then it sure as hell won't work on a larger scale (world government). I just don't see any feasible pathway that leads you to larger government that somehow magically jumps to the individual beyond that. The larger and broader-reaching a government becomes, the less important the individual becomes.


...not talking about anarchy, just relatively liberal government (as compared to the average local government).

----------


## AZJoe

*This is World Government: 
All the worst evils of government magnified geometrically to unstoppable levels. Tyranny, oppression, mass murder, death.*


  


*When you point at people today and tell them government would never do them any harm, let's make an all powerful global government. I point at all those that perished at the hands of their own government. Go tell it to them.*  
   


*Welcome to R3volution 3.0's Gulag Archipelgo.
*

 


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...21#post6334121

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Britain was the first to really implement capitalism.  It was the middle class, not the old aristocracy, that was the driving force behind capitalism.


I guess you're thinking of the 19th century Whigs, the Manchester School, repealing the corn laws, etc?

But the fact is that monarchs on the Continent were pursuing liberalization long before that. 

To quote myself from another thread:




> Medieval  kings were not absolute monarchs like Louis. They were quite  weak,  sharing power with a variety of interest groups (e.g. the  nobility).  Kings had to placate these interest groups in order to rule,  just as  elected politicians have to placate interest groups to win  reelection.  Guilds, serfdom, and many of the other illiberal economic  policies of  the medieval period should be understood in these terms: as  privileges  extracted from weak kings by various interest groups.  Later, as kings  eliminated the power of the nobility et al,  centralizing power in their  own hands, they began dismantling these  privileges. Guilds in the  Habsburg empire were gutted by the Emperor  Joseph II in the 18th  century, serfdom in Russia was abolished by Tsar  Alexander II in the  19th century, etc, etc. Google "enlightened  despotism" or "enlightened  absolutism" for many more examples. The  movement toward economic  liberalization began under absolutism. That  movement was slowed and  ultimately reversed by the advent of democracy.


The idea that the middle classes, via democratic participation, abolished feudalism does not match historical reality. The self-interest of kings abolished feudalism. By the time democracy came around, feudalism was already dead or dying. What democracy did was open the door to socialism. It's very sad thing; just as kings were dispatching the old interest group (the nobles) and abolishing their privileges (serfdom), a new interest group (the masses) was empowered, and kings were compelled to grant them new and even more destructive privileges (welfare schemes).

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> *This is World Government...*


No, that's local government; every one of those atrocities was committed by a local government. 

So...

...not sure how that's supposed to help your case.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I guess you're thinking of the 19th century Whigs, the Manchester School, repealing the corn laws, etc?
> 
> But the fact is that monarchs on the Continent were pursuing liberalization long before that.


There were elements of capitalism in human history going back thousands of years. But it wasn't really until the 19th century that capitalism became a dominant economic system in Western Europe.  And it was Britain that became rich off of capitalism.  The Spanish and French practiced Mercantilism.  There were severe restrictions on trade in their colonies in Latin America.  This was something that angered the inhabitants of New Spain.




> To quote myself from another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the middle classes, via democratic participation, abolished feudalism does not match historical reality. The self-interest of kings abolished feudalism. By the time democracy came around, feudalism was already dead or dying. What democracy did was open the door to socialism. It's very sad thing; just as kings were dispatching the old interest group (the nobles) and abolishing their privileges (serfdom), a new interest group (the masses) was empowered, and kings were compelled to grant them new and even more destructive privileges (welfare schemes).


Why was it that in the 19th century capitalism flourished in the less monarchist nations of the world (UK, US, France, etc.) more so than in monarchist eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia?

The only authoritarian country that became wealthy during that time was Germany, but Germany is also where socialism first developed.

In Russia feudalism was only abolished in the middle of the century.  China was held back by inept hereditary rulers.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There were elements of capitalism in human  history going back thousands of years. But it wasn't really until the  19th century that capitalism became a dominant economic system in  Western Europe.


As you say, it's a continuum, but I'd place the rise of capitalism (same thing as the end of feudalism) in the 18th century.

And  this occurred in monarchical France, Austria, etc as well as  "democratic" Britain (Britain wasn't really democratic until the late  19th century). 




> The Spanish and French practiced Mercantilism. There were severe  restrictions on trade in their colonies in Latin America.  This was  something that angered the inhabitants of New Spain.


That describes perfectly British policy toward their American colonies. 

Britain,  France, Spain, et al all practiced mercantilism at one point, and were  all in the process of liberalizing well before the rise of democracy. 




> Why was it that in the 19th century capitalism flourished in the  less monarchist nations of the world (UK, US, France, etc.) more so than  in monarchist eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia? 
> 
> The  only authoritarian country that became wealthy during that time was  Germany, but Germany is also where socialism first developed.


As  for Germany, it had a parliament elected by universal manhood suffrage  after 1871 (the first country in the world to do this). So it's no  surprise that the modern welfare state was born there. Bismark had to  give the socialist parliamentarians their welfare to get their votes for  other purposes, just as one would predict based on the model I've been  laying out. 

As for Austria and Russia, in both cases, you'll  find that the emperors generally favored liberalization, but were  stymied by various interest groups, including the aristocracy (trying to  preserve what remained of their feudal privileges) and democratically  elected parliaments (trying to extract new socialistic privileges). It  was most definitely not a situation where the masses were crying out for  liberalization which the monarchs refused to grant; just the opposite. 




> In Russia feudalism was only abolished in the middle of the century


And that was done unilaterally by the Tsar, not by middle class voting.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> As you say, it's a continuum, but I'd place the rise of capitalism (same thing as the end of feudalism) in the 18th century.
> 
> And  this occurred in monarchical France, Austria, etc as well as  "democratic" Britain (Britain wasn't really democratic until the late  19th century).
> 
> That describes perfectly British policy toward their American colonies. 
> 
> Britain,  France, Spain, et al all practiced mercantilism at one point, and were  all in the process of liberalizing well before the rise of democracy.
> 
> As  for Germany, it had a parliament elected by universal manhood suffrage  after 1871 (the first country in the world to do this). So it's no  surprise that the modern welfare state was born there. Bismark had to  give the socialist parliamentarians their welfare to get their votes for  other purposes, just as one would predict based on the model I've been  laying out. 
> ...


But why has history shown that its mostly the Republics that embrace capitalism (US, Western Europe, South Korea, etc.) while Communists always rule like absolute monarchs?  With a few exceptions, 20th century dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) have basically been monarchs themselves.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But why has history shown that its mostly the Republics that embrace capitalism


History doesn't show that at all. 

History shows indisputably that the state has grown by leaps and bounds since the advent of democracy.





> With a few exceptions, 20th century dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) have basically been monarchs themselves.


For monarchy to result in relatively liberal economic policy, two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the monarch must be secure (i.e. he must really have absolute power [or close to it], not just on paper) and, (2) the monarch must be materially self-interested (as opposed to being driven by other, ideological motives). Those dictators of the last century that you cite didn't pursue liberal policies because they weren't secure and/or were ideological socialists (not materially self-interested).

Most monarchs throughout history, however, were materially self-interested, and fairly secure in their power. Hence the states they governed were practically Rothbardian in comparison with our modern, democratic Leviathans, as the chart above indicates.

----------


## otherone

> History doesn't show that at all. 
> 
> History shows indisputably that the state has grown by leaps and bounds since the advent of democracy.


The state has grown because it has replaced God in the minds of the people.  Here's your seminal event:



When Napoleon crowned himself, he replaced the old "divine right" order with the preeminence of "man".

----------


## Jesse James

I'm up for worldwide voluntaryism, but otherwise, meh.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The state has grown because it has replaced God in the minds of the people.  Here's your seminal event:
> 
> 
> 
> When Napoleon crowned himself, he replaced the old "divine right" order with the preeminence of "man".


No, history is driven by more concrete factors, like elected politicians having no choice but to appease the free$#@! demanding voters.

...whereas kings simply ignored them.

----------


## otherone

> No, history is driven by more concrete factors, like elected politicians having no choice but to appease the free$#@! demanding voters.
> 
> ...whereas kings simply ignored them.


"kings" existed because the people believed that God gave them "right" to rule.  It's the foundation of the monarchal system. The DOI was a bold statement disclaiming this...that God gave the people the "right" to rule themselves.  How will your global "sovereign" have legitimacy with so many disparate religions and ideologies?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> "kings" existed because the people believed that God gave them "right" to rule.  It's the foundation of the monarchal system. The DOI was a bold statement disclaiming this...that God gave the people the "right" to rule themselves.  How will your global "sovereign" have legitimacy with so many disparate religions and ideologies?


As I said, states ultimately rely on force. But force is expensive, and if the state can acquire perceived legitimacy, that makes it is easier to rule. Most of this is accomplished simply by the state existing for a while, a couple generations; "legitimate" usually boils down to "has existed for a long time." Good governance goes a long way as well; people are much less likely to revolt when enjoying peace and prosperity. Beyond that, states can actively propagandize, trying to indoctrinate the people in some kind of legitimating ideology: like the divine right of kings, though there are any number of other possible ideologies. One option for a monarchy would be the truth, which is that society is better off under monarchy.

----------


## otherone

> As I said, states ultimately rely on force. But force is expensive, and if the state can acquire perceived legitimacy, that makes it is easier to rule. Most of this is accomplished simply by the state existing for a while, a couple generations; "legitimate" usually boils down to "has existed for a long time." Good governance goes a long way as well; people are much less likely to revolt when enjoying peace and prosperity. Beyond that, states can actively propagandize, trying to indoctrinate the people in some kind of legitimating ideology: like the divine right of kings, though there are any number of other possible ideologies. One option for a monarchy would be the truth, which is that society is better off under monarchy.


Your monarchal state would have to manufacture a need for itself that fits all cultures, and doesn't include an internal and external threat.  Good luck.  It's like justifying an MRAP in Mayberry.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Your monarchal state would have to manufacture a need for itself that fits all cultures, and doesn't include an internal and external threat.  Good luck.  It's like justifying an MRAP in Mayberry.


You're looking at this through a 19th/20th century lense: overestimating the importance of public opinion. 

As explained in the post you're quoting, a state doesn't need a legitimating ideology at all. 

Force alone is sufficient. Throw in inertia and material prosperity, and you're set. 

But, supposing a world monarchy would want to promote an ideology, there are any number of options. 

"This is justified, because it keeps the peace."

"This is justified, because it's responsible for our prosperity."

"This is justified, because God/Allah/Lord Vishnu/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever wills it."

(_note that one and the same monarch can be perceived as vice-regent for different gods, as, e.g., were Roman Emperors_). 

...etc

There's no reason why it should be harder to develop a legitimizing ideology for world monarchy than for any other type of state.

----------


## timosman

> You're looking at this through a 19th/20th century lense: overestimating the importance of public opinion. 
> 
> As explained in the post you're quoting, a state doesn't need a legitimating ideology at all. 
> 
> Force alone is sufficient. Throw in inertia and material prosperity, and you're set. 
> 
> But, supposing a world monarchy would want to promote an ideology, there are any number of options. 
> 
> "This is justified, because it keeps the peace."
> ...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

^^^No counterargument then? Nothing intelligent to say?

----------


## Jerry C

Global government requires a considerable concentration of power that even if it starts with good intentions will inevitably lead to corruption and tyranny. Nation states have had many disastrous wars over the years, but have at least some semblance of a balance of power even if the nation state itself in many cases also wields too much power. It is no coincidence that increased globalism has made the consequences of wars much more devastating with World War I, World War II and the various proxy wars during the Cold War have shown.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It is no coincidence that increased globalism has made the consequences of wars much more devastating with World War I, World War II and the various proxy wars during the Cold War have shown.


I'm don't follow. 

The world wars, and Cold War, were fought by local states.

What does globalism have to do with it?

----------


## Jerry C

> What does globalism have to do with it?


What globalism has to do with it is entangling alliances, entangling alliances which globalism encourages lead to already serious issues getting magnified leading to much larger scale and bloodier wars than would otherwise have happened. Entangling alliances of course aren't anything new as Rome had a fair number of them as well with various germanic tribes they enlisted as mercenaries later turned on them, but the sheer scale of these sorts of conflicts is that much greater now. Each side in both World War II and the Cold War were looking to control the course of the world and not just their nations and neighbors.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What globalism has to do with it is entangling alliances, entangling alliances which globalism encourages lead to already serious issues getting magnified leading to much larger scale and bloodier wars than would otherwise have happened. Entangling alliances of course aren't anything new as Rome had a fair number of them as well with various germanic tribes they enlisted as mercenaries later turned on them, but the sheer scale of these sorts of conflicts is that much greater now. Each side in both World War II and the Cold War were looking to control the course of the world and not just their nations and neighbors.


That's fine, but it's not an argument against global government.

What you're describing is a feature of interstate anarchy.

----------


## Origanalist

In order for global government to be implemented the whole planet would have to agree to it which is never going to happen, or a extraordinary amount of bloodshed will have to occur to impose it. Which is, I think, what the one worlders have in mind. No amount of bloodshed is too much for them to achieve their  goal.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Can I opt out?


Move to Somalia Mars.




> How do I get people to accept me as king of the world?


Well, first you need third-class steerage passage on a doomed trans-Atlantic ocean liner ...

----------


## jmdrake

> Does the existence of states other than the US limit the ability of the US to oppress its own citizens?


Yes.  Because if things get too oppressive in the U.S. you can always go to Canada or some other country.  Slaves routinely did that prior to the U.S. civil war escaping to Canada, Florida (to live among the Seminoles) and Mexico.  During the Vietnam draft, some young American men went to Canada.  If there is one world government and you don't like it, then where do you go?  Mars?

----------


## jmdrake

The only way a global government would work is if it was run by an all powerful, all loving, completely perfect entity, i.e. God Almighty.  The prophet Daniel prophesied how the feet of iron and clay would attempt to cleave together to make a global government but it never could come to pass.  Finally the "stone cut out of the mountain without human hands" (Jesus Christ) would come and crush all governments to powder and create an everlasting government that would fill the entire earth.  Everything else is just a pipe dream.

You think there would be no war under a man made global government and yet your screen name has the word "revolution" embedded in it?  Who would rise to the top of any global government?  People like Ron Paul or people like Trump/Clinton/Putin/Whoever is running China right now?




> As libertarians, we care about what the government does (e.g. how much it taxes, regulates, inflates, wars, etc). We care about how the government is structured (e.g. whether it is local or global) _only_ insofar as it affects what the government does. If local government would tend to behave in a more libertarian fashion (e.g. less taxing, regulating, inflating, warring, etc), then we as libertarians should prefer local government. If, on the other hand, it's global government that would tend to behave in a more libertarian fashion, then we as libertarians should prefer global government. So, which is it? Is local or global government more likely to behave in a libertarian fashion?  
> 
> That's the question to be answered in this thread. 
> 
> At this point, I'm not going to make an argument, I'm just going to lay out some pros and cons for each side. 
> 
> *Local Government, Pros*
> -economic competition between states, which encourages liberal economic policy
> 
> ...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The only way a global government would work is if it was run by an all powerful, all loving, completely perfect entity, i.e. God Almighty.


Or, a purely greedy king, with a modicum of economic understanding, who would therefore pursue laissez faire out of _self-interest_. 




> Who would rise to the top of any global government?


The biological heir of the king, who would - in all probability - also be greedy...

...and therefore, given a modicum of economic understanding, rule liberally.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes.  Because if things get too oppressive in the U.S. you can always go to Canada or some other country.  Slaves routinely did that prior to the U.S. civil war escaping to Canada, Florida (to live among the Seminoles) and Mexico.  During the Vietnam draft, some young American men went to Canada.  If there is one world government and you don't like it, then where do you go?  Mars?


That must be why the US government doesn't become more oppressive every year.

...wait.

----------


## jmdrake

> Or, a purely greedy king, with a modicum of economic understanding, who would therefore pursue laissez faire out of _self-interest_.


That purely greeding king would eventually be deposed by other greedy kings.  Plus it's not like this hasn't already been tried before.  Caligula?  Nero?





> The biological heir of the king, who would - in all probability - also be greedy...


Again, it's already been tried.  Never worked.  And eventually such kingdoms always break down into civil war.  Greedy princes also have greedy siblings.




> ...and therefore, given a modicum of economic understanding, rule liberally.


That's never been the case throughout human history.





> That must be why the US government doesn't become more oppressive every year.
> 
> ...wait.


The U.S. government is currently becoming more oppressive precisely because greedy people are trying to become world king.  But if you really feel this why, why aren't you supporting Donald Trump?  He is a greedy megalomaniac with more than a modicum of economic understanding.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

Is there any principled difference between advocating for a federal government and a global government?

----------


## thoughtomator

> Is there any principled difference between advocating for a federal government and a global government?


Yes. You can leave the jurisdiction of a federal government.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Yes. You can leave the jurisdiction of a federal government.


You can leave the jurisdiction of a global government too.

eta:  Matters of complexity are not matters of principles.

----------


## LibertyClick

> As libertarians, we care about what the government does (e.g. how much it taxes, regulates, inflates, wars, etc). We care about how the government is structured (e.g. whether it is local or global) _only_ insofar as it affects what the government does. If local government would tend to behave in a more libertarian fashion (e.g. less taxing, regulating, inflating, warring, etc), then we as libertarians should prefer local government. If, on the other hand, it's global government that would tend to behave in a more libertarian fashion, then we as libertarians should prefer global government. So, which is it? Is local or global government more likely to behave in a libertarian fashion?  
> 
> That's the question to be answered in this thread. 
> 
> At this point, I'm not going to make an argument, I'm just going to lay out some pros and cons for each side. 
> 
> *Local Government, Pros*
> -economic competition between states, which encourages liberal economic policy
> 
> ...


Utilitarianism is not logically sound.  Any attempted measure of pros and cons will be incomplete.  Analysis and weighting of importance is prone to hubris.

Global government amplifies the problems of representation.  If one believes in the freedom to pursue one's interests that do not harm others, anything other than individual liberty is prone to systemic failure.  The larger the group of people one set of rules applies, the less freedom there will be.

----------


## thoughtomator

> You can leave the jurisdiction of a global government too.
> 
> eta:  Matters of complexity are not matters of principles.


I can't figure out if I should recommend that you guys start taking LSD or stop taking it. I'm leaning towards "start" because people who have taken it couldn't possibly be so obtuse as to find no practical difference between leaving a country and leaving a planet.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Is there any principled difference between advocating for a federal government and a global government?


No.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I can't figure out if I should recommend that you guys start taking LSD or stop taking it. I'm leaning towards "start" because people who have taken it couldn't possibly be so obtuse as to find no practical difference between leaving a country and leaving a planet.


They both rely on the principle 'if you don't like how we are violating your rights you can leave'.

----------


## thoughtomator

> They both rely on the principle 'if you don't like how we are violating your rights you can leave'.


And how exactly would you go about leaving the jurisdiction of a global government?

----------


## AuH20

> And how exactly would you go about leaving the jurisdiction of a global government?


Strongly worded petitions.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> And how exactly would you go about leaving the jurisdiction of a global government?


A rocket to outerspace?  It could be just as challenging for some to leave a country as it is for others to leave the earth.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Strongly worded petitions.


and tweets.

----------


## thoughtomator

> A rocket to outerspace?  It could be just as challenging for some to leave a country as it is for others to leave the earth.


I guess things can look that way when you're playing yet another paladin in Dungeons & Liberty.

For people living in and thinking about the actual physical world we all inhabit, the difference is night and day.

Reminds me of the old saying: _"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is."_

If in practice, your philosophy requires it to be just as difficult to physically leave the planet as it does to physically cross a national border, that's a glaring failure of the real-world test which any philosophy must ultimately pass, or fail.

Let's not be ambiguous: if your philosophy cannot be effectively applied in the real world, it is a literal fantasy.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I guess things can look that way when you're playing yet another paladin in Dungeons & Liberty.
> 
> For people living in and thinking about the actual physical world we all inhabit, the difference is night and day.
> 
> Reminds me of the old saying: _"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is."_
> 
> If in practice, your philosophy requires it to be just as difficult to physically leave the planet as it does to physically cross a national border, that's a glaring failure of the real-world test which any philosophy must ultimately pass, or fail.
> 
> Let's not be ambiguous: if your philosophy cannot be effectively applied in the real world, it is a literal fantasy.


Not sure what you're going on about.  But to be clear, I think a global government would be worse than a federal government, because, in practice, it would be even harder to escape (for me).  They both come from the same place though, a place I think r3v highlighted in this thread, 'a desire for maximum liberty for the most amount of people'.  But I fall in the camp that would like more decentralization, providing more opportunity for there to be _a_ state that respects individual liberty.

----------

