Mises on World Government

[r3volution 3.0]

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

Discuss

 

[PierzStyx]

Pages 148-149 of this pdf of the book. Just for reference.

Edit: Ugh. Posted the wrong link. This should be the right one for the pdf

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Liberalism In the Classical Tradition_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

 

[PierzStyx]

True free market liberalism, in the more classical sense and not the present day sense, does lead to less faith in nations and less of a belief in national division. If all men are equal with the same natural rights then it doesn't matter where you're from or where you're going for that matter. Americans have no more or less rights than Iranians. Nationalism is a regressive , illiberal (in the classical sense) ideology from the stance of liberty.

Now, whether that leads to a global nation where we dissolve national boundaries because they're irrelevant or we go the opposite route and shrink government into practical nonexistence as you see in libertarianism is, I suppose, a matter of debate. I know I favor the latter over the former if only because I have less faith in humanity than von Mises apparently does.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Thanks for the link Pierz

True free market liberalism, in the more classical sense and not the present day sense, does lead to less faith in nations and less of a belief in national division. If all men are equal with the same natural rights then it doesn't matter where you're from or where you're going for that matter. Americans have no more or less rights than Iranians. Nationalism is a regressive , illiberal (in the classical sense) ideology from the stance of liberty.

Indeed

Now, whether that leads to a global nation where we dissolve national boundaries because they're irrelevant or we go the opposite route and shrink government into practical nonexistence as you see in libertarianism is, I suppose, a matter of debate.

Yes, it's debatable - no definitive answers here. This problem is not solvable by praxeology alone.

We (liberals) all agree that the best of all worlds would be a stateless one, with universal respect for property rights, on a global scale.

The question is: what is the form of social organization which allows us to most nearly approximate that ideal?

Anarcho-capitalists have their answer. For we minarchists (realists, I would say), it's more complicated. First, there's the question of what form of government (on whatever scale) is most conducive to liberalism. Then there's the question of the scale: modern nation-states, hyperfederalism ala Moldbug's patchwork, world government? The obvious advantage of world government, per Mises, is the elimination of war. But there are disadvantages; (a) any centralized world government would face tremendous diseconomies of scale, and (b) there would be an absence of interstate economic competition, which removes one incentive for liberal economic policy. However, both problems are potentially ameliorated, if not eliminated, by a proprietary (for profit, as a business) world state - which, if rational, would volunarily decentralize, "franchise," governance to local authorities, to overcome diseconomies of scale, and allow for internal economic competition between those local political units - i.e. such a policy would increase the tax revenues of the for-profit central government in the long-run.

I know I favor the latter over the former if only because I have less faith in humanity than von Mises apparently does.

I don't think it's a matter of faith in the goodness of humankind, as I have essentially none, and take the opposite position.

In fact, my preference for world government (provided it is proprietary) is rooted entirely is my faith in the greediness of humankind.

That's the only human trait that can be relied upon, century in, century out.

It's why the market economy works; it's why proprietary government would work.

 

[Indy Vidual]

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by consent or conquest.” –James Paul Warburg [son of Paul Warburg, the author of the Federal Reserve Act] February 7, 1950

Libertarians and Globalists both want international borders to disappear, but for much different reasons.

 

[PierzStyx]

Thanks for the link Pierz



Indeed



Yes, it's debatable - no definitive answers here. This problem is not solvable by praxeology alone.

We (liberals) all agree that the best of all worlds would be a stateless one, with universal respect for property rights, on a global scale.

The question is: what is the form of social organization which allows us to most nearly approximate that ideal?

Anarcho-capitalists have their answer. For we minarchists (realists, I would say), it's more complicated.


I don't think it's a matter of faith in the goodness of humankind, as I have essentially none, and take the opposite position.

In fact, my preference for world government (provided it is proprietary) is rooted entirely is my faith in the greediness of humankind.

That's the only human trait that can be relied upon, century in, century out.

It's why the market economy works; it's why proprietary government would work.

I'm not convinced that we can call minarchy the realist solution though. Any sort of state is asking for abuse. No matter how well you construct your minimalist state its very presence incentivizes the centralization of power and over time how much power the centralized government controls will only increase. Especially in a world state. The key issue in the USA came down to size. As long as the republic was relatively small it was possible to keep the government small. But as population and land increased, so did the government, almost out of necessity as a small government cannot direct a large nation with a large population. As a result the minarchist republic of the Founders was dead within a lifetime. How long would that same process take in a world state, even a minarchist one? Not long I would wager.

Which is why I think von Mises has faith in humanity. He believes that classical liberalism once adopted by the masses would then be maintained by the masses as a counter to potential government power growth. But I don't see that happening. In a world state the ideas of Neo-Keynesianism probably sound even more seductive.

I do find the idea of a for-profit government interesting. But that doesn't sound like minarchy to me. After all, I assume that this for-profit business would have competitors, people you could go to when you find the product of your current government to be subpar. In which case we are no longer talking about minarchy. We are at least talking about the polystate and at most talking about anarcho-capilatism with each form of government basically form a type of political corporation I could buy stock n and own shares of.

 

[Ron Paul in 2008]

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by consent or conquest.” –James Paul Warburg [son of Paul Warburg, the author of the Federal Reserve Act] February 7, 1950

Libertarians and Globalists both want international borders to disappear, but for much different reasons.

Do you believe that if we let non-Europeans control white countries that they will treat us as well as we treat them once they are in control?

 

[Danke]

Do you believe that if we let non-Europeans control white countries that they will treat us as well as we treat them once they are in control?

 

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Jews are a major problem, but not the sole problem. There are so many evil white male elites involved in the push to destroy the white race too. It does a disservice to ignore that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not convinced that we can call minarchy the realist solution though. Any sort of state is asking for abuse. No matter how well you construct your minimalist state its very presence incentivizes the centralization of power and over time how much power the centralized government controls will only increase. Especially in a world state. The key issue in the USA came down to size. As long as the republic was relatively small it was possible to keep the government small. But as population and land increased, so did the government, almost out of necessity as a small government cannot direct a large nation with a large population. As a result the minarchist republic of the Founders was dead within a lifetime. How long would that same process take in a world state, even a minarchist one? Not long I would wager.

I'd disagree with that explanation. A state governing 10 million will naturally be larger in absolute terms than a state governing 100,000 (more police, for instance, if both states maintain the same police to population ratio), but it need not be larger in the sense that it takes on additional functions; e.g. I don't see why a growing population suddenly incentivizes a state to implement price controls or subsidize industry. It's pretty clear to me that the US and other European states grew in response to political pressures arising from within democracy, pressures which were previously absent (or at least much less important). I see very few examples of governments growing due to the politicians desire for larger government as an end in itself; in almost all case, politicians have grown government as a means to the end of winning (re)election.

Which is why I think von Mises has faith in humanity. He believes that classical liberalism once adopted by the masses would then be maintained by the masses as a counter to potential government power growth. But I don't see that happening. In a world state the ideas of Neo-Keynesianism probably sound even more seductive.

That's true. Mises was a democrat, as were most of the 19th century classical liberals - a bad marriage going back to Locke.

I do find the idea of a for-profit government interesting. But that doesn't sound like minarchy to me. After all, I assume that this for-profit business would have competitors, people you could go to when you find the product of your current government to be subpar. In which case we are no longer talking about minarchy. We are at least talking about the polystate and at most talking about anarcho-capilatism with each form of government basically form a type of political corporation I could buy stock n and own shares of.

That would be ideal, but bear with me and suppose for the moment that it's impossible: that there can't be market competition in governance, that there must be a state. If that's so, then the only variable we can tinker with is the internal organization of the state. Is the state going to be run like private property or like a commune? If we want to maximize the incentives for liberal behavior, the former is preferable, wouldn't you agree?

 

[PierzStyx]

I'd disagree with that explanation. A state governing 10 million will naturally be larger in absolute terms than a state governing 100,000 (more police, for instance, if both states maintain the same police to population ratio), but it need not be larger in the sense that it takes on additional functions; e.g. I don't see why a growing population suddenly incentivizes a state to implement price controls or subsidize industry. It's pretty clear to me that the US and other European states grew in response to political pressures arising from within democracy, pressures which were previously absent (or at least much less important). I see very few examples of governments growing due to the politicians desire for larger government as an end in itself; in almost all case, politicians have grown government as a means to the end of winning (re)election.



That's true. Mises was a democrat, as were most of the 19th century classical liberals - a bad marriage going back to Locke.



That would be ideal, but bear with me and suppose for the moment that it's impossible: that there can't be market competition in governance, that there must be a state. If that's so, then the only variable we can tinker with is the internal organization of the state. Is the state going to be run like private property or like a commune? If we want to maximize the incentives for liberal behavior, the former is preferable, wouldn't you agree?

I don't mean to try and make it sound like the responsibility of politician's alone as an explanation for the growth of the state in terms of centralized power. But as population expands, so does government reach. The very presence of a large police force is an invitation to abuse policing power in the same manner that the presence of a large military is an invitation to use it. Indeed, at a certain size there are no distinguishable difference between the police and the military, which suggests to me that in the end you would just have one worldwide military occupying the entire world in the service of a centralized power in a world state.When you add to that the ways which democracy favors the expansion of the state, the more votes you can buy the easier it is to be re-elected, I don't see how any democratic state doesn't end up in a centralized semi-socialist state. All of it tends towards oligarchy.

Why should I suppose something that isn't impossible should be impossible?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't mean to try and make it sound like the responsibility of politician's alone as an explanation for the growth of the state in terms of centralized power. But as population expands, so does government reach. The very presence of a large police force is an invitation to abuse policing power in the same manner that the presence of a large military is an invitation to use it.

Large in what sense? Absolute number or per capita?

Country A: 1 million people, 1000 cops

Country B: 10 million people, 10,000 cops

I don't see why B would be more likely to be oppressive just because the absolute number of cops is higher.

A state with more cops per capita may be more inclined to abuse, but then I don't see why a world state would have more cops per capita.

Indeed, at a certain size there are no distinguishable difference between the police and the military, which suggests to me that in the end you would just have one worldwide military occupying the entire world in the service of a centralized power in a world state.

Yes, in a world state, there would be no meaningful distinction between police and military, but why is that a problem?

I mean, it's not that the police would be militarized, it's that the military would be policeified, right?

When you add to that the ways which democracy favors the expansion of the state, the more votes you can buy the easier it is to be re-elected, I don't see how any democratic state doesn't end up in a centralized semi-socialist state. All of it tends towards oligarchy.

Indeed, that's exactly why proprietary government should replace democracy.

Why should I suppose something that isn't impossible should be impossible?

You mean anarcho-capitalism? Well, it is impossible. I know you don't agree. We could debate that if you like.

But I was hoping to focus on other issues in this thread, which requires you humoring me and agreeing arguendo that ancapism is off the table.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

a bump and a [MENTION=33507]PierzStyx[/MENTION]

 

[AuH20]

Do you believe that if we let non-Europeans control white countries that they will treat us as well as we treat them once they are in control?

Doubtful. To be honest, I don't even think they could maintain the inherited infrastructure in the long run.

 

[Origanalist]

Doubtful. To be honest, I don't even think they could maintain the inherited infrastructure in the long run.

Really? Which non-Europeans are you referring to in that statement? All of them in general or some in particular?

 

[AuH20]

Really? Which non-Europeans are you referring to in that statement? All of them in general or some in particular?

Some in particular. Those of the inbred variety from sandy locales. Marrying your first cousins and producing offspring has drawbacks down the generational line.

https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-6-17

Consanguineous marriages have been practiced since the early existence of modern humans. Until now consanguinity is widely practiced in several global communities with variable rates depending on religion, culture, and geography. Arab populations have a long tradition of consanguinity due to socio-cultural factors. Many Arab countries display some of the highest rates of consanguineous marriages in the world, and specifically first cousin marriages which may reach 25-30% of all marriages. In some countries like Qatar, Yemen, and UAE, consanguinity rates are increasing in the current generation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Can I opt out of this one world government? I'd like to start my own and offer my own arbitration and defense services.

 

[Origanalist]

Can I opt out of this one world government? I'd like to start my own and offer my own arbitration and defense services.

I am opting out, and I'm not asking for permission.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I am opting out, and I'm not asking for permission.

Well, if that's the case, and we can opt out, then the government is no longer the exclusive geographical power. We've just went full anarchy since we're competing with them and because of that, nobody has exclusive power over the geographical area known as the globe anymore. Our new defense and arbitration services companies are now on equal footing with the organization formerly known as global government. Now the minarchists are reduced to a mere private membership organization that collects voluntary dues from its voluntary members for services rendered. The state has been abolished because me and you opted out and voided the government's exclusive geographical power, O. Welcome to anarchy. lololol. We did it. Of course, they might send their government goons (police, military, whatever ya want to call em) with guns because of the nature of our little enterprise. After all, government really doesn't want any competition. But...we got goons, too. We were competing with them. Remember? Ha!

Now being anarchists in our little social communities, we just have to watch out for the socialists because they're gonna try to come take our wealth and property at gunpoint in order to fund their socialist program so....hm...what to do, what to do...you watch the front door and I watch the back? Hookers and blow? What.

 

[Natural Citizen]

World government. lolol. The only way that would even be remotely possible is if the basis of the philosophy were that of the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God as its primary foundation for moral code. As far as I can tell, though, most people touting a one world government are Godless tyrants.