The State not being able to calculate also applies to the control of the territory via the armed forces and laws. To paraphrase Jim Rogers, although Russia technical governs all of Russia, in reality, it only controls Moscow and St. Petersburg. And I understand the point about there not being somewhere else to go to with one world government, but although we may have a one world government, it doesn’t necessarily mean that people will pay any attention or abide to it or actually be controlled by it forever. Ultimately, and contrary to the Alex Jones of the world, the rulers of the world are human, and humans make mistakes. I see one world government coming (if it’s not here yet), but it will eventually collapse.
Btw, LS and Conza, what are ya’ll’s facebook’s? I just got one and am adding people.
I don’t have any social networking stuff setup except I have an account at Bureaucrash I never use. You will always be able to contact me @ Mises.org, as long as they will have me, and I can draw breath.
I think Konkin, Rothbard, all of these guys are loaded with great ideas that presume the state is a static target.
It isn’t. They are really moving quickly and aggressively.
The most success came when Ron Paul ran, and then we pushed him harder and deeper than he intended to go.
I’m so disappointed that there is so little Austrian entrepreneurship. I listened to Gil Gillory’s latest interview, and he’s weighing his options because he’s not a risk taker. Which is fine. Why haven’t other libertarians stepped up with seed money/financing to get his PDA project off the ground? It’s going to fail before it succeeds and the longer folks wait to bring it into existence, the less time there is to capitalize on an environment that will tolerate the learning process.
There is little to no difference between a ‘one world government’ and the crap we have now, except with one, foreign trade would be easier, immigration would be a breeze, passports would be useless, purchasing foreign land would be oh so simple…Large scale war spending is difficult if you don’t have another nation-state to attack. I might actually prefer a one world government over the system we have now. Of course, there would/will always be alternatives, so I choose neither involuntary governments, and instead opt for a voluntary system.
Also… I doubt Orwells book was intended to portray an actual society literally, but rather mimic the present day society. In essence, he was talking about what is already here.
The one world government talk has got me laughing. Honestly, who the hell cares? The states size doesn’t matter one bit. It may even be beneficial! Perhaps then people wouldn’t be able to say, “Well if you don’t love America, why don’t you just move?”.
Large scale war spending is difficult if you don’t have another nation-state to attack.
Big involuntary government is not inherently better than small involuntary government. Size really doesn’t matter! [:P]
your mistake is thinking that “large scale war spending” occupies a special place in the scheme of things. Large scale wars will be replaced with dozens of smaller wars and new ways will be engineered to make the proles fearful and cough up the products of their labor. This has already happened, hence the war on terror and environmentalism. Its always about control, the means are incidental.
and small involuntary government is better than large involuntary government. small involuntary government doesn’t have the manpower to enforce its edicts. small government can’t wage wars all over the world. small government can’t infringe on trade as easily etc.
And yet that’s your perspective of what’s happening… how ironic when it swings back to it’s your opinion, meaning, this is you. For you offer no context but slander how convenient for you, tacoface, the one that hides.
A one world government isn’t about the world being on the same side. They will always find enemies and fulfill a need to be legitimate. Governments are only legitimate if they are needed. If we are living together without enemies and fear to push an us versus them, a, Elite versus the rest of the population, a, State leaders (one world government leaders) versus the rest of us, they must offer something special or else why would people need them. So they will continue to have to offer something worthwhile and special that they can provide that nobody else can provide or else they have no legitimacy and no need to be here - but they want power, control, and want to hold such positions and be here. So what will they offer? Historically it’s been protection. The State offers a protection value that nobody else can offer. They offer the priests/intellectuals that promise a better world. Now a days that promise is in the form of a better economy and technology that will provide so much for the world. It’s all the State’s promises of being able to handle health issues that nobody else can. It’s all these empty lies of promises they offer to make themselves look special and needed. But they aren’t and that’s the point. A one world government isn’t about peace and coming together. It’s about these people that think they can offer the world values that can’t be found amongst us ordinary folks. They are to be like gods and make promises that are god-like. Look at them wheel their economic measures like they are gods offering something the world can’t refuse as they go to world economic summits saying they are solving all the world’s problems when they aren’t - which is also the point. They aren’t solving anything. They are riding upon the backs of the free market the real life of this world, the ordinary creative people in wholesome honest relationships, getting by and offering the world real values. And the State leaders say they solved the problems, when they never have anything to do with solving the problems only making the problems. We don’t need them, but people don’t realize that in mass and the world leaders will continue to find and deploy ways to make themselves illusionary necessary. They actually believe they are making the world. They think their actions are actually making what is good. They can’t make good by producing nothing - you can’t make nothing and say you made something. It’s impossible. That’s why Greenspan was called the maestro, people actually thought, and he thought, he was coordinating the whole market with the wave of his hands - what bullshit!
I see individual governments working to increase their size and power, but that’s hardly new. What are you seeing in terms of a real push for one world government? I’m not saying that it won’t happen, because I think it will, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Also, I guarantee that if/when the push is made, one of the main talking points will be to eliminate the ‘anarchy’ of inter-government relations.
Domestic policies being created and implemented openly on the global stage. This is very new. Perhaps less than 20 years old. And instead of happening once every couple years, it is now being done several times a year.
Even during wartime, the West was never so united.
The size of the government does not matter. The amount it intervenes matters. I see a lot of people support the local states rule over them, but they refuse to accept the federal governments rule (I’m from TX). This is what I am referencing by big (the federal government), and small (state and local governments). I like how you try and sneak in the word size in next to amount, as though I was referencing how intrusive it is, when from context it is obvious I am refering to the land mass it claims.
Another interesting viewpoint I have, being from ‘the south’. Many laws were passed at local levels which forced segregattion among blacks and whites (among many much more heinous others). In this viewpoint, the local government was much more intrusive than the federal government. (small was indeed worse than the big)
I just said it was more difficult, and it is. Look at the public support for the current war. When people realize that the majority of people from the world are all the same, and not some irrational mindless murderers, then the tactics of these wars falter heavily. Problem is, people are influenced by bs media pretty easily.
All I am saying is discussing the difference between large and small governments blankets the true debate- involuntary vs voluntary.
That is the true debate “involuntary vs. voluntary”, but we will not be perceived as all the same for the world government leaders need to be special. What do they offer? Persistence against the same rehashed lies of class warfare, industrialized versus non-industrialized, Security Council elite countries versus those that don’t hold such positions, terrorism, etc… Unless we’re thinking some really sci-fi high tech stuff to keep everybody thinking we are the same pure and simply diversity will always be here. And unless we are all controlled and enslaved we are not going to be doing the same things. The world government will simply be, under an involuntary situation, the peace-maker, the economic planner, the education maker, etc, etc… They will force their agendas on us and that is impossible. Diversity is good and natural. Individuals are unique. So they can’t stop that unless they force slavery upon us. Now if you mean voluntary as in free market all governments are gone type of situation then that’s a totally difference situation. A one world government doesn’t mean we all of a sudden think we are the same. Life is way more complex and diverse than that. And the world government will need to push something special that they can offer to provide legitimacy. And right now Nation-State governments don’t even produce anything, not even ideas that are unique, other than those agenda’s that mold the existing societal developments from the free market according to their whims.
Don’t involuntary governments (and I say involuntary government may seem like a contradiction in terms to all of us, but it makes a great distinction in the minds of the average Joe) do this already? The difference between the actual size (land mass occupied) makes almost no difference!
Yes governments are coordinating their efforts to do this in sequence. What I mean when I say they come out to do this what a peace-maker needs is a war. An economic planner needs an economy that is suffering to do their great planning and saving upon. An education maker needs minds to manipulate. Therefore a world government doesn’t force people to see each other as one. Actually the opposite must be true by a world government to exist. It needs to provide legitimacy for their self-professed specialness manipulating as many people in the world as possible to make them think the world government is the true need and savior for their hardships. No, governments don’t provide this. And if people see each other as being the same, as humans, that is self-generated and eventually a choice. My parents can tell me anything, but eventually life itself will have to match the ideas. And governments aren’t matching up to their self-professed propaganda. Actually governments look like liars and showboats that don’t do anything but take all the credit.
How is that a contradiction? All governments are necessarily involuntary in some aspect or another, otherwise they would cease to be a government. At the very least, they hold a coercive monopoly on the ability to use force.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say though.