World Government?

[Bono]

Shame on you!
This is size-fits-all taken to its extreme form.

Let me tell you, outside of liberal la-la land, what would happen if we implemented a world government tomorow:
A coalition of indian and chinese would come into power, who would "find" that the weestern world has too much money and they themselves too little. They would start a massive redistribution campaign to destroy wealth in the developed world and prop themselves up.
Is this what you want? Seriously, there once was a time when decentralization was a liberal ideal. Where has that gone to?

[Bono]

Well look at what we have now. More and more nations getting nuclear weapons. How are we going to stop WWIII? Or do you think that it is inevitable?

This is an argument?
Anyways, it could easily be solved if each one of the countries trying to get nuclear weapons were broken up into 1,000+ small city states.
But even aside from that, I don't see any reason why swift action--and less talk shop like what the UN does, which would be only aplified by a global government--cannot stop it.
Besides, one thing is having nuclear weapons, and another completely different thing is using them.
Besides, your side doesn't seem to have many proble,ms with countries having nuclear weapons, since it was them that were praising the Soviet Union in the 70s.

You also haven't adressed anything I said.

[Bono]

The point is that I don't think the current geo-political environment would exist - if such a thing were considered desirable enough to enter into.

It would be only in the aftermath of something HUGE.

Yes, you'd need a kind of man that doesn't exist, ie, the "New Marxist Man".

[Bono]

Bono,
Do you think war is inevitable?

When did I say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you really want me to answer this? Fine, I will.

By abolishing all governments in the face of the earth. War is nothing more than something governments do to increase their power. hayek espounds upon this in Road to Serfdom. Abolish governments, and you can do with war, since for market entities that don't have a tax base, war is not profitable or desirable.

[Bono]

Bono,
So, in other words, you don't think the Libertarian party goes far enough?

I thought everyone knew I didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why not, but traffic lights are far from essential anyways. As for common currency, the market tends to gold as a currency unit. I don't see why this would be any different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be private defense associations, and people would also protect themselves. Anyways, this is the situation now, because the police doesn't have any obligation to protect hte people, just to find and detain the criminals.

[Bono]

By abolishing all governments in the face of the earth. War is nothing more than something governments do to increase their power. hayek espounds upon this in Road to Serfdom. Abolish governments, and you can do with war, since for market entities that don't have a tax base, war is not profitable or desirable.

Oh come on Bono I can show you examples of how that is completely wrong. Let's take your greatest example of a anarchist country, Somalia. Even before these Islamic Courts came to power and began to fight their way into control there were warlords who constantly fought with each other to gain power and control over territory. While it is possible that in a completely government-less society there would not be war, although I think then you'd just have people murdering each other instead, a government-less society can never happen. When there is a vacuum of power, as there was in Somalia or in Afghanistan, those who can organize and protect themselves assert themselves as rulers. Within a few years within this power vacuum you get the power being taken up by warlords and new entities that were not apparent when the government collapsed. So a true anarchy isn't really possible in any sense since the power vacuum created by not having a government is filled by any number of new warlords, communes, organizations, and governmental entities.

Anarchy does not mean--at least in the sense that I apply it, though anarcho-socialists would disagree with me--the absense of authority, or even the absense of government. It simply means the absense of a state. Anarcho-capitalists don't propose chaos, they propose sponteneous order.
As for the ICU, I'm waiting to see what comes of them. One of their leaders expressed some very libertarian ideas, believe it or not.

[Bono]

As a former student of political economy if I never have to read ANYTHING by Hayek, Friedman or Marx again I will be a deleriously happy man.

Your professors considered Marx to be serious economics?

[Bono]

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

[Bono]

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

In a few years, those protections would mean as much as the tenth amendment means now:0.
Anyways, this still fails to account for subsidiarity. As I said, and you have no answered that, I thought decentralization, that is, each community deciding at the lowest level possible what is best for her, was a liberal value. Apparently I'm wrong.


Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.

[Bono]

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

In a few years, those protections would mean as much as the tenth amendment means now:0.
Anyways, this still fails to account for subsidiarity. As I said, and you have no answered that, I thought decentralization, that is, each community deciding at the lowest level possible what is best for her, was a liberal value. Apparently I'm wrong.


Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.

I think in some ways decentralization is a good idea. In some liberal churches, you have congregational polity whereas in the Catholic Church you do not... And the Catholic Church is hardly liberal.

The southern baptist convention is completely decentralized.
Anyways, that's totally irrelevant, because private organizations like churches have the right to organize in any way they want.

[Bono]

I never knew governments to have any rights.

[Bono]

I never knew governments to have any rights.

Don't governments have the ability to organize in any way which they want?

Obviously no. FOr instance, states in the united states can't be a monarchy.

[Bono]

This is a red herring anyways.
What we were talkig about was if it was desirable for governments to be centralized or decentralized. What private organizations do is irrelevant because membership in them is voluntary--completely unlike governments.

[Bono]

But under my model nations would have the ability to withdraw.

Then it wouldn't be a one world government.

[Bono]

Also, technically, membership in free nations is voluntary in the sense that a person has the freedom to leave and become a citizen of some other nation.

That's not free. Free would be if the person could leave the jurisdiction of the state thereof and mantain her place of residence.