You’re talking about the the Kyoto Protocol right
Yes, but the treaty has many names because they keep changing it and updating it (I think they try to confuse people on purpose). The last meeting was in Copenhagen in December 2009, and the next one starts in Novement 2010 in Cancun, Mexico. They have yet to reach a legally binding agreement, but that could change in Cancun.
“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.”
You were saying?
No one seems willing or able to answer my question. I’m asking if the minarchist position demands support for a minarchist world government? In my opinion it does. If I am wrong, how?
No one seems willing or able to answer my question. I’m asking if the minarchist position demands support for a minarchist world government? In my opinion it does. If I am wrong, how?
Yes, if you are a minarchist, then you must theoretically support minarchy at any scale. Above, I argued in support of a protectorate, and this demands support for a world protectorate. However, it is extremely unlikely that world minarchy would ever emerge. Also, it would be stupid for a minarchist to oppose national sovereignty, since it’s easier to reduce the size of government starting at a local level. Trends toward world government in real life are totalitarian in nature, so minarchists oppose them just like anarchists do.
In addition, you seem to be saying that since there is anarchy between nations, and minarchists oppose anarchy, they should be advocating the abolition of individual states in favor of a single world state. But “anarchy” between nations isn’t anarchy in any real sense. No one lives without a ruler - different people are just under the rule of different governments based on geography. It makes more sense for minarchists to argue for the reduction in size of each individual government.
“Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.” - No More Military Socialism by MNR
It is time now to bring the State into our discussion. The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self-defense.5 The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called “taxation”) is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money, and the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation, and radio and television.
Now, since the State arrogates to itself the monopoly of violence over a territorial area, so long as its depredations and extortions go unresisted, there is said to be “peace” in the area, since the only violence is one-way, directed by the State downward against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of “revolutions” in which people resist the use of State power against them. Both the quiet case of the State unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed “vertical violence”: violence of the State against its public or vice versa.
In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world; and so a state of “anarchy” exists between the several States. (It has always been a source of wonder, incidentally, to this writer how the same conservatives who denounce as lunatic any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of violence over a given territory and thus leaving private individuals without an overlord, should be equally insistent upon leaving States without an overlord to settle disputes between them. The former is always denounced as “crackpot anarchism”; the latter is hailed as preserving independence and “national sovereignty” from “world government.”) And so, except for revolutions, which occur only sporadically, the open violence and two-sided conflict in the world takes place between two or more States, that is, in what is called “international war” (or “horizontal violence”). - MNR
Again, states consist of geographical areas. Private individuals are not.
James: "And you can vote with your feel and move to a new nation, you can’t move to a new world, yet."
What does size of government have to do with “vote with your feet”? You can have a limited world government. Where are you going to go?
The reason for this is that this question is at best a terrible question, and at best a loaded one. There have been plenty of perfectly sound answers, yet you say no one has answered your question.
You are wrong because there is no theoretical necessity behind your question, there is no theoretical necessity behind the assertion that any support for a state leads to a necessary support for one world government. You are coming at this from the Rothbardian paradigm in which you think that you determine the optimal size of the government a priori, but for reasons above and many other reasons, like the empirical environment that the particular state is in, this is wrong.
Voting with your feet? If a burgler came to your house, took your stuff, and said “i’ll be back next year”, you can move to get away from him. This doesn’t change the fact that he stole from you. The proposal to leave your house also rejects your right to property… its thievery on all levels.
Skyler Collins: “@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?”
scineram: “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.”
But not in principle (nor is it logically consistent). And what the hell does that change? The borders of nation-states are a mythical line drawn in the sand.
Also state areas need not be fixed. Neither is a states existence guaranteed. They also “live” and “die”. The territory can grow & expand, or decrease. Political centralization and secession.
Economics of Political Centralization - http://mises.org/media/4015
“In Germany alone - 2nd half of 17th Century, after the 30 year war… ‘Germany’ consisted of sum 234 countries, 51 free cities, 1,500 independent nightly manors.”
scinceram: “Again, states consist of geographical areas. Private individuals are not.”
Wrong.
“The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area.” - MNR
“The state” is a group of individuals. Individuals also consist of geographical areas. Just smaller in scope. 
Conza -
The state as you describe has existed still does existt. Propenents of a limited government do not, however, support taxation of any kind. The only kind of “aggression” we support is the kind necessary to maintain that monopoly. So the kind of state we support is very different in that it does not gain its income by force.
World government is not being clamored for now by proponenets of limited government because of the impossibility of achieving it. The world would have to be covered in rational states before that could be happen, and then every state would have to go to the trouble of merging their beuracracies. Not fun.
“The state as you describe has existed still does existt.”[sic]
Not fixed. Which was the point.
“Propenents [sic]of a limited government do not, however, support taxation of any kind. The only kind of “aggression” we support is the kind necessary to maintain that monopoly. So the kind of state we support is very different in that it does not gain its income by force.”
I’d suggest you take a read of this:
In particular: - Libertarians, “Government,” and the State
And then drop the semantics.
I do think it’s worth noting that the Kyoto Protocol still requires ratification.
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?
I am not minarchist, but this part seems nonsensical to me. Why minarchist should want a world government? They want as less government as possible (as far as I know) and especially to limit its power, world government is the opposite of that. It’s impossible to govern large area (I am even not talking about whole Earth) with “small” government. And even minarchist should see that.
I don’t know, maybe I miss something, but it’s really non-sequitur.
Minarchists have a problem with anarchy between people, so for consistency, they must also have a problem with anarchy between states. This is why the OP says minarchy implies world government.
Minarchists have a problem with anarchy between people, so for consistency, they must also have a problem with anarchy between states. This is why the OP says minarchy implies world government.
But there is huge difference between “anarchy” between states and the type of anarchy advocated by anarcho-capitalists. Even though there is no worldwide arbiter for disputes between states, one state or the other will make a final decision. Every individual on the planet is under the jurisdiction of a coercive government, so how can there be anarchy in any real sense between states?
Not necessarily. Two states can disagree and then go to war. If one of them wins, you might call them the ‘final decision maker’. This is no different from interpersonal anarchy where the buff guy wins every time.
Isn’t it consistent for an individual to be a state? The Monarchy of Snowflake: Population 1?