Nationalism or world government??

Miscellaneous General
21

Clayton: Rule of thumb: Bigger is worse

Unless you want to kick someone’s ass then bigger is better.

generally speaking the bigger the army the more likely it will succeed. Duh.

Which army do you think will win the battle

A. little army

B. big army

C. no army

d. french army

Sadly, the anarchist fixation on decentralization of power tends to make them more vulnerable to getting their asses kicked by larger statist armies.

Hey, maybe thats one of the reasons why there are no anarchist societies in a world dominated by large statist societies.

22

What if globalism is the more-or-less inevitable endgame phase of nationalism? The argument might be made that eventually one centre of power is going to dominate all the rest, leading to world/imperial/regional government, which will then eventually collapse under its own weight and directionless momentum to return once more to a more decentralised setup… rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. Not with water, of course.

Nationalism is the silly idea that you have more in common with your master than with another master’s slaves across the way.

23

World government is effectively useless, since there is no competition or separation of powers.

It is an impossibility. Except as a token of ‘solidarity’ among states, such as an organization where they all claim to or pretend to agree on matters.

It is an effect of the fact of anarchism that smaller states must figure out ways to avoid warfare and inter-state conflicts to do with trade and laws, and so forth. It is not an ideology beyond that. But it is an impossibility, since states figure out that there is no equality among member states… and not worth the time/money of many members.

All forms of states will form bodies beyond the state like world government, because each state is so heavily dependent on other states in a global economy. And they must figure out ways to have this relationship without war. And since their only known methodology is statism, and not voluntarism, it is effectively a macrocosm of all of the states. IT is either this or imperialism and war. Either way, there is no effective autonomy. In this way, nationalism is also impossible. Nationalism or tribalism would only be possible if there was a way to undo agriculture and a lot of technological crap we take for granted, but has pushed for dependence thousands (or millions) of times beyond the Dunbar number or some rational number for healthy human relationships… the same for ‘states rights’. (which is also an arbitrary fiction, that has nothing to do with relationships).

Only when people realize the world government doesn’t work, will people realize that anarchism is a fact. That cannot be avoided. When it fails to deliver rights or promises, since there is no incentive for such a monopoly, then people will see the uselessness of greater governments. When they see this fact, they will quickly move back to smaller states until they get to the individual level.

So world government is a necessary step to anarchist society. Nationalism will only lead to delusion and avoidance of the facts of anarchism. Nationalism is itself a delusion of autonomy, as well as a delusion by ‘nationalists’ of some collective ownership of property (which doesn’t exist, but which is useful for hatred and war purposes). This will appease the people who think it is the greatest state of affairs possible. Perhaps because they think their military will save them from anarchism.

24

What if world changes so drastically in following years, that constitution will become insufficient? What if constitution will be interpretended so widely in different places that it loses it meaning? What if some people don’t want to follow this constitution?

Defence budgets are just an excuse to raise taxes and their own power. If monopoly don’t have a threat from other monopolies of aggression, it will easily invent new ones. Inner threats, asteroids, there is so much where to choose!

Have you read even the basic texts about anarcho-capitalism? Mises.org is full off articles etc. written about problems you descripted.

25

A theory that contradicts experience is useless.

Clayton -

26

This is only because States do not pay the costs of their armies. If production of security services was not funded on tax revenues, it would be subject to profit and loss like any other industry and, therefore, bigger would not always be better for the same reasons that more employees is not always better.

Clayton -

27

I don’t think nationalism and world government are necessarily in opposition. If you look at europe, the state didn’t go away after the EU came into being. Empires rely on regionalism to administer rules while important matters are controlled by the “soviet” so to speak- such as currency and the military. To this end decentralized power enables the world government to assume control over the network of police and so on without having to fire a shot or having to disrupt the chain of command already in place.*

After WW2, the apparatus of statesmen and militarism created by the war (it’s important to note that this apparatus was a product of nationalism) didn’t want to go away during peace time but found new outlets through the U.N. and internationalist ideologies. Charlotte Iserbyt is one writer that highlights how the seemingly adverse views actually reinforce the other and is based on an intellectual error. http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt13.htm

The true opposing ideology of world governance/nationalism is in recognizing the primacy of the individual.

It’s no accident that one of the arguments made by internationalists to appease small-gov types is that it will decentralize power. But again, it matters not when any matters of importance (currency/military/pulpit of the international stage for ideological control) remains in the hands of the central government which is all they really care about.. In fact, the internationalists recognize that it’s much better to let the local governments deal with minor details. Businesses have long understood horizontal management to be more efficient. Printing money and oppressing people on the other hand is more effective vertically.

*This point is made in The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Watch the KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov on youtube. I think at one point he mentions that The Art of War is practically the hand book for subversion for the KGB and naturally it’s understood by the power elite as well.

28

surprised you guys are confused about; who this world government is, what form, etc. etc… it is getting closer every day, world bank, world, court, UN’s hundred’s of agencies etc.

I don’t see how anyone who favors liberty would chose a more massive taxing and controlling entity that would remove your freedom of exit - over 200 choices.

29

James: What if globalism is the more-or-less inevitable endgame phase of nationalism?

it aint going to happen James, human society is too diverse to be formed into a single government. and it is too difficult to form a territorial monopoly on a land area as vast as Earth.

Nationalism is a neat system for protecting your neck of the woods from other nationalist groups. also you gotta have a centralized army with a centralized command or your going to be defeated in detail.

also people dont fight or defend the rights of someone that they dont have an affinity for. nationalism is a powerful force for unity and centralization that is necessary in fights for survival.

and how many times in history have anarchist armies come to the rescue of some mistreated and beleaguered underdog ? so it is natural that folks dont want or care to be aligned with a pacific ideology that is isolationist or that wont use force unless someone directly attacks them.

I mean who would you rather sign a mutual defense pact with a non-violent dude or a reliable ass kicker?

30

Non-anarchist armies get defeated all the time. /thread.

31

More arguments from ignorance, I see! I thought you were brushing up on your logic. Oh well. There are none so blind…

Let me as you here as well: what do you think constitutes, or can constitute, a “nation”?

Can you explain what you mean by “affinity” and “unity”? Otherwise, this almost sounds like what Hitler believed in - the struggle of each race/nation for survival and ultimately supremacy over the earth.

Your statement needs logical support - which your question doesn’t provide.

This seems like a false dilemma to me. Tell me, do you ever distinguish between aggressive and purely defensive “reliable ass kickers”?

32

Why? Wouldn’t they have said that about present-day Russia or the United States two centuries ago? Or of the British or French colonial empires before the age of sail? Global governance has technocratic aspects. One of the things that enables it is technological and industrial progress, just as our contemporary understanding of ‘national’ government is enabled by technology.

With instantaneous communication and 24-hour military projection capability virtually anywhere on the planet being entirely possible, there is no reason why a globe-spanning government could not be established for logistical reasons today. It is being established slowly but surely. So maybe it won’t have complete de facto control over its empire at all times, but no imperial government ever does. If it claims the whole world and has at least most of it, I reckon its a world government.

Distance is irrelevant today, the real factor is the number of people, and yeah… The globalists are not happy with the number of people alive today. They want to do something about it, actually.

Really, then why did the Soviet Union and United States, and God knows how many empires before them, all get their asses handed to them by a bunch of goatherds with rifles in Afghanistan? Wasn’t the American revolutionary army a rag-tag, but skilled, bunch of militia up against the world’s most fearsome imperial power?

A modern state military is designed for two things… To defeat enemy state militaries, and to maintain order within the strict paradigm of a centralised state economy - their own, of course, and potentially others. Societies which are not heavily centralised culturally, politically and economically are not easy to conquer and hold in narrow militaristic terms, because there is not one entity to defeat. No de facto capital to march into. No ministries to dictate from that anyone will listen to. No government from which to extract a meaningful surrender. There aren’t that many central economic nodes to capture. People don’t use government money. There isn’t the same sort of centralised infrastructure to commandeer.

There are many, many ways to exploit the “us vs them” instinct. Nationalism is just one of them… Race or religion are others, which are sometimes used in combination with nationalism. It’s an aspect of what’s called ‘social engineering’. Contrary to popular belief, it is wielded as a sociological weapon from above - it doesn’t just happen. People just have to think that it does in order for it to work.

But it’s a ridiculous con-game, whether its religion or nationalism or racism or whatever. The sheer numbers of people involved is ridiculous. There are over three hundred million people in the United States. Over a billion in China or India. Tens of millions in the average country. It is physically impossible for these individuals to have real, direct relationships with each other - only indirect economic ones, which they have with people all over the globe in any case. There is no real “affinity” between them. It is just an idea in their head; the people they supposedly have an affinity for might as well be fictional.

How big was the average Homo sapiens tribal group for which the “us vs. them” instinct was naturally selected? How many people do you interact with directly every day? How many people do you interact with directly in your entire life?

You think a world government is impossible, but more people living in one country today than were alive on the planet a century ago is fine?

Which one did Stalin sign a non-aggression pact with again? Not that one.

33

Diversity is a surmountable obstacle. Today’s nations are all agglomerations of many ethnically, culturally and lingually distinct groups. The insurmountable obstacle is the impossibility of a voluntary cartel - and the impossibility of constructing an involuntary cartel. We currently have a multiplicity of power centers in the world, each one vying for ever-greater territorial and economic control. The process of political aggregation has worked up to this point because the nation-builders have tied together the disparate political units into involuntary cartels. That’s what a nation is, it’s a cartel of smaller states bound together by what is essentially a blood pact. Break the pact, you die (or, at least, get your district invaded and you get deposed… look at Hussein and now Gaddhafi).

As you reduce the number of people at the top to a smaller and smaller number, however, the benefits of signing up for a political union diminish versus the benefits of maintaining political autonomy. Let’s say the globalists succeed in their plans to reduce the world down to just five regional political super-unions. What conceivable benefit could a would-be imperialist offer the leaders of the five super-unions to submit themselves to a single global government?? There is no benefit. So-called global empires such as Rome, Britain or even the US empire have never truly been global… there has always been the hinterlands beyond the empire’s borders and without hinterlands there can be no compelling reason to collapse the highest levels of political power into submission under a single ruler.

I think that the push for world government is the damn silliest idea ever proposed with a straight face. The would-be imperialists are serious as a heart attack (or, should I say, as serious as innumerable dead innocents) but their ambitions are in conflict with praxeological law, that is, they are attempting to do what is simply impossible. The breakdown of the 2009 Copenhagen summit is a perfect example of what I’m talking about - someone (an insider) defected and torpedoed the summit with the “hacked” CRU emails. The same thing is happening with the economic crisis… it was supposed to be the catalyst event for ushering in a global currency but this has fallen flat on its face, too. I think that China is somehow playing a (passive) role in this by giving the defectors an “escape hatch” to move their wealth out of the way of the crisis for the duration. I believe this is why China is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom.

Of course, the would-be imperialists never quit so they’re just going to regroup, pick up the pieces and try again but this is their third or fourth attempt just since 1914 - depending on how you count - so things aren’t working out the way they’re supposed to.

Clayton -

34

And the cost of using military force to maintain political autonomy is lowered too?

There is only ever one choice in politics. Join us or die.

That’s a morbid thought.

35

James: With instantaneous communication and 24-hour military projection capability virtually anywhere on the planet being entirely possible, there is no reason why a globe-spanning government could not be established for logistical reasons today.

I guess essentially the USA can force its will against anyone anywhere so in a way you are correct. however, if the USA got to uppity then Europe Japan, most of south america and most free asian nations would seek to balance US power along with russia, china and other dictatorships. right now they are happy living under pax americana.

more importantly though is that nothing would prevent a private military corportation PMC from doing the same thing.

James: Really, then why did the Soviet Union and United States, and God knows how many empires before them, all get their asses handed to them by a bunch of goatherds with rifles in Afghanistan?

Actually I think you got that backward. it is not exactly an ideal situation and indicative of a great system to have had enemy troops in your country for decades. Being decentralized may make it harder to conquer you but it doesnt do anything about preventing hostile armies from bivovac in your major cities. that kinda sucks. I’ll take centralization anyday.

James: Societies which are not heavily centralised culturally, politically and economically are not easy to conquer and hold in narrow militaristic terms, because there is not one entity to defeat. No de facto capital to march into. No ministries to dictate from that anyone will listen to. No government from which to extract a meaningful surrender. There aren’t that many central economic nodes to capture. People don’t use government money. There isn’t the same sort of centralised infrastructure to commandeer.

again I think your missing the point. you are claiming that a return to the 18th century and jettison every comfort of modern society for decentralization as being a ‘good thing’ doesnt make much sense. I mean isnt it better to have a centralized armed force and go kicking in other people’s doors for plunder then to have that occur to you ?

no dude, decentralized societies may be less vulnerable to total capitulation, but they regularly get their asses kicked by invading troops. not many folks have invaded the USA in the last 100 or so years.

James: But it’s a ridiculous con-game, whether its religion or nationalism or racism or whatever.

how about adding anarchism to that group. it is just another ism that is used to gain power. in this case, anarchism is really just a convenient precursor to dictatorship since it removes the shackles of limited, decentralized, transparent, and balanced power imposed on government by classical liberals in the form of constitutional republicanism and a federalist kicker if your talking about the USA.

It works pretty good, not many liberal democracies are at risk of dictatorship, although statist have found a back door to power in the form of economic plunder using regulatory and tax policy. however we know the scheme and we are currently developing strategies to reverse that trend within our current govt system.

it works, no great but I think the next decade will show that liberal democracy is amenable to positive change without revolutions and carnage and uncertainty.

not so much with anarchy.

James: You think a world government is impossible, but more people living in one country today than were alive on the planet a century ago is fine?

I dont think it is possible given the diversity and the difficulty and costs and controversy of projecting power globally. the USA catches alot of heat for turning out a dictator that murdered over half million of his own people and started two unprovoked wars. so any single group that tries to obtain power by physical force will undoubtedly face alot of opposition.

James: Which one did Stalin sign a non-aggression pact with again? Not that one.

you mean germany right ?

hey the dude screwed up, but everyone knew that germany was going to attack russia expect stalin. you cant base a policy dynamic on the miscalculation on one dude. no matter, my assertion stands. nobody wants to align with a group of non-violent pacifists that wont come to your aid no matter how great the genocide and human rights violations. and anarchists dont do rescue of maligned nations. which means that enemies can pick them off one at a time in detail.

I mean where is the financial profit in coming to the aid of a beleagured nation ? a PMC that wasted shareholder wealth for noble reasons unrelated to profit would see their CEO fired in short order.

36

Daniel Muffinburg: Non-anarchist armies get defeated all the time. /thread.

they generally get their asses kicked by non-anarchist armies. and if anarchist armies are so effective and munificent direct me to their great capital cities so I can see the glory of the anarchist dogma.

right.

37

When did I say they were effective and munificient?

No evidence?

/thread

38

Muffinburg: When did I say (anarchist armies) were effective and munifcient?

No evidence?

/ thread

You didnt. but then what was your point with this statement:

Muffingburg: Non-anarchist armies get defeated all the time. /thread.

non-anarchist armies get defeated, Duh. Of course, they get defeated mostly by other non-anarchist armies otherwise they are raising havoc in a nation of rag-tag anarchist armies.

Do you have a point other than to agree with me that anarchist armies are not effective and statist armies sometimes get defeated (I mean seriously at least one has to lose in every war).

Maybe you just wanted to restate something that was obvious, otherwise if you have a more broad point your trying to defend, what is it ?

39

Nico: I personally believe that a small-state world government is the best alternative to an anarcho-capitalist society. A world with many non-national “small states” may also be an interesting concept to consider.

I missed your post whilst feeding some less thoughtful posts. I am more focused now. What you are stating is acutally happening. the world in becoming dominated by more liberal democracies that are extremely peaceful with each other. They are also autonomous from other liberal democracies in many ways except one primary service, defense.

there is a lot of cooperation and integration of production in defense among liberal democracies particularily between europe, japan, and the USA

what we currently have is a kinda federal system of liberal democracies that is very peaceful, stable, and economically productive compared to past global dynamics.

The US is kinda big and bungling in foreign affairs, but I doubt that they would be dangerous if there were no dictatorships around to attack. the USA is pretty passive and friendly to likeminded democracies in europe japan, and many modern asian nations.

I guess my point is that what you envision is already happening.

nice post.

40

Walden:I don’t think nationalism and world government are necessarily in opposition. If you look at europe, the state didn’t go away after the EU came into being.

That is an interesting and accurate point. but the reality is that the EU is going down as Friedman predicted. We can see the problem of free riders in the form of Greece, portugal, and italy. the germans are going to get tired of bailing out profilgate welfare spending nations and eventually go their own way.

Walden: After WW2, the apparatus of statesmen and militarism created by the war (it’s important to note that this apparatus was a product of nationalism) didn’t want to go away during peace time but found new outlets through the U.N. and internationalist ideologies.

war is a function of statism. in all cases one of the adversaries was a statist (more accurately an autocratic nation). there has never been a war between modern day liberal democracies (Folks slave holding oligarchic confederacy is NOT a liberal democracy, neither is slave holding ancient greece). of course, never say never, but it is likely that if the world becomes dominated by liberal democracies that wars are going to be very rare.

but your right that the UN (which is dominate by little dictatorships) is fomenting war and providing cover for genocide

walden: The true opposing ideology of world governance/nationalism is in recognizing the primacy of the individual.

I dont disagree with this statement. but i think that having nationalism helps prevent global governance. and nationalism aint bad if it is in the form of a group of people that share the vision that individual rights and individual responsibility is key to the good life.

Walden: It’s no accident that one of the arguments made by internationalists to appease small-gov types is that it will decentralize power. But again, it matters not when any matters of importance (currency/military/pulpit of the international stage for ideological control) remains in the hands of the central government which is all they really care about

Then are you saying that all we need to do is privatize the medium of exchange and all will be well ? that government will have less power and then you dont care about nationalism? if that is your argument, then it looks okay. and I agree with you. take power out of the hands of government or a central authority, but we can still have nationalism to prevent integration of power in the hands of a single global government.

I mean regional nationalism can be a strong force for both promoting private money and pushing back against global government.

Walden: To this end decentralized power enables the world government to assume control over the network of police and so on without having to fire a shot or having to disrupt the chain of command already in place.

the problem is that physical force has to be local or geographic or territorial to be effective. it is one thing to say you control a group of serbian, uzbek, zulu, or french-canadian police and really be able to get them to shoot one of their own people.

I mean what are the odds of a group of American boys in Brooklyn shooting their fellow Yankees fans in a riot because some Russian clown in Brussels tells them too ?

hell I wouldnt. and I bet most Americans would turn the gun on the global officer in charge like any red blooded American and go have a beer with the rioters.

nationalism is a good defense against global govt. we just need to instill some appreciation of individual rights and responsibility with that nationalist sentiment.