Demanding world government

Economics Political Theory
1

The biggest divide between libertarians as I see it is between anarchists and minarchists. Must all aggression be opposed, or is some necessary to force everyone to pay for a “night watchman”? I personally oppose all aggression and believe defense and justice can be provide through voluntary social cooperation, how all of our other wants are provided, ie. through the free and unfettered market. I am a proponent of statelessness and the free society.

My question for minarchists, those who believe that a limited state is necessary for ensuring freedom for all, is why aren’t you promoting world government? There currently exists to a large degree anarchy between the nations of the world. Surely this should be abolished, and national sovereignty replaced with a world state ensuring freedom for all. In other words, to be consistent, minarchism must be extended to world minarchism, and minarchists who demand a limited national government, must also demand a limited world government.

Where’s the love that minarchists should have for world government?

Skyler.

I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.
2

I’m no minarchist (the idea that one can rationally know the optimal size of the government and then implement that plan is just another form of social engineering, and not of the Popperian piecemeal species either), but the reason that I do not advocate world government is that not only does a world government face the inability to centralized all the knowledge it needs to do its job efficiently, but it also does not provide a route to dissolving that government. With a small government, the worst-case scenario is that it needs to be overthrown, the larger the government the more likely massive institutional damage will be done as collateral damage.

3

But with world government you have a lot more people you can enlist in the revolution! The increasing geography of government scales with increasing population :I

4

Why would I?

Enourmus non sequitur.

5

I’m no minarchist or whatever, but I think all the talk about world government is misleading. It seems that there are practical issues with running a world government that would make such an entity more likely to be an advisory board rather than a supranational legal entity. Therefore, I totally support “world government” because I don’t think it will fundamentally change the way national governments function.

6

@scineram, please explain. Is the minarchist argument not that we need a final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force? Why shouldn’t this apply to the whole world? Indeed, the minarchist logic behind finality and monopoly demands that it does, does it not?

7

Why should this apply to the whole world?

Another reason why I would oppose world government is that “justice” is not an objective concept, but rather grounded in the cultural and philosophical beliefs of a culture. It governments desire to provide justice, then it follows that a state that encompasses too many cultures would impede this goal.

8

“Another reason why I would oppose world government is that “justice” is not an objective concept, but rather grounded in the cultural and philosophical beliefs of a culture. It governments desire to provide justice, then it follows that a state that encompasses too many cultures would impede this goal.”

Exactly. I actually don’t think a world legal system could even be done. Law varies so much from one culture to another, it seems ridiculous to imagine world courts, world trials, world constitutions or world legal precedent.

9

Arbitration between 200 countries scattered around the Earth and between 2000000 people living in one city are totally different in scope. Also countries are not individuals moving around and traveling but fixed areas.

10

Actually, if cultures were eventually de-based with involuntary statist multi-culturalism (i.e. importing of immigrants for democrat’s voting blocs), it would be much easier to establish a “one world government”.

I’m not sure if the other reactionary statist parties would ever allow that, though, so in a sense I don’t see that possibility very likely either.

11

"it would be much easier to establish a “one world government”.

Even if they establish a world legal advisory board, it won’t have teeth. Same for any other policy board. They’ll hand out their ideas of what they want to happen and the member governments will implement them as they see fit.

12

I am a minarchist.

I may be sympathetic to Anarcho-Capitalism, but I see some problems with it, I think it could work, but there would be some problems.

The reason that minarchist prefer smaller government, as opposed to larger government, is that individuals have more say in a smaller government. Also, it is harder to control a larger government. And you can vote with your feel and move to a new nation, you can’t move to a new world, yet.

13

I admit I was vague in my question. World government may or may not have influence on local affairs. That is irrelevant, really. What I am asking is: should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations? Minarchism, at least as I understand it, would demand that anarchy be abolished wherever it is found. If there is anarchy between nations, then it should be abolished. To further argue that this world government should influence local affairs is really beyond what I’m asking.

What say ye?

14

Doesn’t Hayek endorse some type of world government framework in the last chapter of The Road to Serfdom? (I realize this was written during WW2, fresh off the total failure of the world’s states attempts to deal with Nazi Germany)

15

How is that irrelevant?

This is the problem with both anarchism and minarchism: both try to determine the optimal size of the government by the power of reason alone, and tend to think of society as tabula rasa for their plans rather than working with what has already emerged from history through piecemeal reform.

16

You are a security guard working for a private defense company. While patrolling the streets, you see someone getting mugged. Do you…

(a) stand politely to the side and ask the victim to present identification that proves he is a paying customer of your company?

or

(b) rescue the victim from the mugger, taking the chance that you are providing a service to someone who has not paid?

If you choose (b), isn’t this exactly what a policeman does who works for the “state?”

In a similar case, if you were a fireman working for a private fire department, would you only put out the fires of your paying customers, and let the others burn to death or have their homes destroyed?

I am not an anarchist, because I believe there must always be organized defense, and that this defense will always act like a state, even if we call it “private.” According to your definition, I am a minarchist because I do believe that “a limited state is necessary for ensuring freedom for all.” Yet, I do not call myself a minarchist, because this term implies a coercive government. I believe that the state should be voluntarily associated, and that it should be limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. This type of state can be called a protectorate. While a protectorate would not have a monopoly on law and defense, I believe that if it were set up correctly, most people would decide to join the protectorate.

An important function of a protectorate would be to establish a standing army, navy, etc. for defense against invasion by coercive governments. Under anarchy, it would impossible to defend against an orgainized invasion unless everyone volunteered to fight. This might happen, but it makes more sense to have an army already established rather than wait for people to volunteer after the invasion has occurred. If anarchy were established, it’s territory could be easily taken over by a powerful invading army and freedom would be lost. While a protectorate is not perfect, it is a better model than anarchy and would provide more freedom for a longer time.

I am a bitter opponent of any trend toward world government and totalitarianism. A world protectorate could work, but it makes much more sense to establish a protectorate first in a single sovereign nation.

17

“should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations?”

I’m not sure whether there should be, I am saying that it would be hard to do.

18

“should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations?”

I’m not sure whether there should be, I am saying that it would be hard to do.

Well, that’s what the UN is trying to become. I agree, it is difficult to set up such a “final arbiter,” but they have come a long way. For example, the UN is close to being able to enforce a binding carbon emissions reduction agreement. This would give them power over the affairs of sovereign nations.

19

“For example, the UN is close to being able to enforce a binding carbon emissions reduction agreement.”

You’re talking about the the Kyoto Protocol right?

20

In my opinion, if the current nation-state cannot rationally plan a welfare state or even hope to control or calculate the world economy, I see no hope for a world government. I think that any apparatus produced to try to dispense justice would run into a variety of different problems(Culture, existing traditions, different attitudes) that it would be nearly impossible to be uniform or to deal with every problem necessary. If we are going to see international cooperation, I think it is best to see it done by cooperation through the market system which promotes peace and free trade.