Stalin More Popular Than Putin in Russia These Days

[r3volution 3.0]

That can't be accomplished and even if it could global government would be much more oppressive.

The modern states themselves emerged from a gaggle of smaller states, and those from a gaggle of yet smaller states, and so on.

There's no reason to suppose that this process can't or won't continue.

 

[Swordsmyth]

LOL

That's R3v alright.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The modern states themselves emerged from a gaggle of smaller states, and those from a gaggle of yet smaller states, and so on.

There's no reason to suppose that this process can't or won't continue.

Yes there is, there is such a thing as equilibrium, states break down into smaller states for many different reasons.

And even if you created your global state it would have to have a standing army and fight many insurgency wars to keep its grip on the world.

 

[timosman]

The modern states themselves emerged from a gaggle of smaller states, and those from a gaggle of yet smaller states, and so on.

There's no reason to suppose that this process can't or won't continue.

How about the fact the surface area of planet Earth, unlike your intelligence, is limited?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And even if you created your global state it would have to have a standing army and fight many insurgency wars to keep its grip on the world.

Modern states don't generally have this problem, despite having emerged from the union (usually involuntary) of many antagonistic smaller states.

Time solves the problem; people stop caring about old, more local loyalties.

...are you expecting the South to rise again?

I'm not.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Modern states don't generally have this problem, despite having emerged from the union (usually involuntary) of many antagonistic smaller states.

Time solves the problem; people stop caring about old, more local loyalties.

Tell that to the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
In historical terms it takes place rather frequently and the bigger and more centralized the realm the more likely it is to succumb to the forces that cause it.

...are you expecting the South to rise again?

I'm not.

It will unless the political/cultural differences in the US are settled by a civil war so bloody that one side or the other is nearly wiped out.
The US can't go on much longer (in historical terms) as one nation.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Tell that to the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
In historical terms it takes place rather frequently and the bigger and more centralized the realm the more likely it is to succumb to the forces that cause it.

The newer the union, the more fragile; the older, the more durable. Yugoslavia, for example, only existed for a couple decades before it dissolved. The USSR (most of which was previously the Russian Empire), only existed for a a short time (decades to a few centuries, depending on area) before dissolving. Contrast this with any of the constituent parts of those collapsed states. E.G. Russia proper is quite stable; it's not going to be dissolving into Muscovy, Novgorod, etc.

The centralizing process in geopolitics isn't linear (more like two steps forward, one step back), but it's clearly present. A look through an historical atlas makes this plain. What does this mean? It means both that world government is likely and, eventually, would be stable (i.e. not break up in civil war, etc), and that final, stable state would then be advantageous (no inter-state war, and no civil war).

Despite you looking at me like I'm a talking dog for saying I favor world government, it's perfectly natural for people who (a) hate war, and (b) have no time for nationalism, to look forward to such a development. Mises was of the same view, as have been many other liberals over the last several centuries. This is a part of the liberal tradition which has been forgotten (or intentionally buried by persons who benefit from war and nationalism), not a new one.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The newer the union, the more fragile; the older, the more durable. Yugoslavia, for example, only existed for a couple decades before it dissolved. The USSR (most of which was previously the Russian Empire), only existed for a a short time (decades to a few centuries, depending on area) before dissolving. Contrast this with any of the constituent parts of those collapsed states. E.G. Russia proper is quite stable; it's not going to be dissolving into Muscovy, Novgorod, etc.

The centralizing process in geopolitics isn't linear (more like two steps forward, one step back), but it's clearly present. A look through an historical atlas makes this plain. What does this mean? It means both that world government is likely and, eventually, would be stable (i.e. not break up in civil war, etc), and that final, stable state would then be advantageous (no inter-state war, and no civil war).

Despite you looking at me like I'm a talking dog for saying I favor world government, it's perfectly natural for people who (a) hate war, and (b) have no time for nationalism, to look forward to such a development. Mises was of the same view, as have been many other liberals over the last several centuries. This is a part of the liberal tradition which has been forgotten (or intentionally buried by persons who benefit from war and nationalism), not a new one.

The world is seeking the equilibrium point and so far that has tended to result in larger states but it will not do so forever.

And if a global government ever was achieved it would become tyrannical beyond belief because it would have no competition.
It would also eventually divide because factions within it would attempt to seize control of it and would be able to break off pieces easier than take the whole thing at once.

The Roman empire is a good example of how things would go.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And if a global government ever was achieved it would become tyrannical beyond belief because it would have no competition.

Competition is bad comrade. Choice is bad. Thus all dissent must be silenced. Stalin knew this, but he thought too small. Trotsky knew you had to eliminate competition globally.

 

[dannno]

LOL

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The world is seeking the equilibrium point and so far that has tended to result in larger states but it will not do so forever.

And if a global government ever was achieved it would become tyrannical beyond belief because it would have no competition.
It would also eventually divide because factions within it would attempt to seize control of it and would be able to break off pieces easier than take the whole thing at once.

The Roman empire is a good example of how things would go.

I see your bet and raise you the imminent shocking and awing of Tehran.

...destroy an ancient civilization, kill a couple million people, o well, the GOP will get reelected.