I was thinking about this today. Would it be easier to bring about a stateless society if there were a one-world government opposed to the state legislatures/etc. of today’s time?
The way I see it, the fewer people put in control, the less micromanaging there is of the economy/society. Of course everything would be considered the black market, but would it be easier to get away with things? This is just a concept I was thinking about today. I’m not promoting the idea.
This reminds me of tax competition: how nations compete for residents by offering lower taxes. As long as immigration is legal, nations have an incentive not to be too abusive lest their residents leave. There is an exception when nations try to standardize their tax codes so citizens get victimized no matter what nation they reside in. My point is a one-world government would not have to compete with another state leaving its residents without alternatives.
That is true. I’ve been thinking about that, also. No matter whether someone says the United States is the country with the most freedom in the world, “with the most freedom” means nothing unless you’re comparing to another country. Kind of like I’m poor compared to Bill Gates, but I’m not really poor in the sense of wealth.
Wouldn’t it be easier to evade taxes in a one-world government?
One-world government is a pipe-dream. Look at the Ancient Near East. The turnover rate of empires was astounding. One day, a king could be the vassal of the Assyrians and the next day a vassal of the Persians. The problem is that, while there are natural elites of rent-seeking and war (royalty, nobility, business/government-bureaucracy leaders), at the top echelons they are all very nearly matched. Feudal Europe is a good microscope into what happens once a rough equilibrium emerges between the natural elites of rent-seeking and war. Is Ben Bernanke really so much smarter than Jean-Claude Trichet? I doubt it. Is the Queen of England really so much more enlightened or ambitious than the King of the Saudis or the leading figures in China? I doubt it. The trouble with an empire is only one person gets to be emperor. Do you really think that kind of decision gets made without the daggers coming out?
Given that it’s a pipe-dream, and I’m sure the elites must realize this, I have asked myself what might be the true purpose of all the New World Order talk coming out of the CFR and elsewhere? I suspect that it may be a way to channel the ambitions of the ambitious-but-less-titular. Take a look at Hillary Clinton or Al Gore or any of the really obviously power-hungry political types. Giving them a “New World Order” to build is a good way to keep them busy, channel their ambitions into something poinltess and leave the governing to those entitled to govern, you know, Old World types. It’s just a hypothesis.
Clayton -
Are you saying a one-world government would be too busy to deal with small-time crooks? That, in trying to manage 5 billion people, it wouldn’t have the time or interest to deal with individual instances of defiance or crime? I don’t buy that. The Soviet Union was large. The United States is large. And simply assuming away a large bureaucracy and system of regional government makes the whole exercise silly. A one-world state dedicated to defending only life and property, and staunchly opposed to redistribution and legislating morality, might be pretty nice, but it’s never going to exist.
Let’s stick with decentralization.
I lol’d. You know this community too well.
“Would it be easier to bring about a stateless society if there were a one-world government opposed to the state legislatures/etc. of today’s time?”
I don’t think so. Kind of reminds me of the communists hope of withering away of the state… after they’ve given it more power. It would be far harder to argue for decentralization - when you in fact have, the greatest centralization of political power ever in the history of the world in command. Things don’t look good - for a verrrrrry long time. That is - if they are able to get their control grids in, as they are in fact - doing and have done.
“The way I see it, the fewer people put in control, the less micromanaging there is of the economy/society.”
Fewer people in control (as a ratio to the rest of the population), but they have far more control.
“One-world government is a pipe-dream.”
I don’t think so. It’s been the goal of the power hungry since, well… before Alexander the Great?
“Look at the Ancient Near East. The turnover rate of empires was astounding.”
Is this not the appeal to tradition fallacy? Nor were they democracies or “public offices” who elected “representatives” who are temporary caretakers.
“The trouble with an empire is only one person gets to be emperor. Do you really think that kind of decision gets made without the daggers coming out?”
We’re talking about a one-world government. The parasitical political class don’t have ties to their nation or anything like that, the whole - “no way the US is gonna side with China” completely misses the point & reality. The political class - seek greater wealth and power for themselves, what better way to get that - than have less parasites and more suckers / slaves?
That’s why you get no qualms from political leaders who run small countries like in the EU, giving up soviergnty and “their power” to “others”. They merely then get jobs in the EU orgs with more money, power, presitge and wealth… all the things they wanted in the first place, as goals for taking office. Sure there is political manoeuvring, backstabbing etc. but that takes place within the system. Whenever the game gets in danger of collapsing, they put their differences aside to make sure it doesn’t.
“Given that it’s a pipe-dream”
The Drive for a World Central Bank by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
“Before I will explain why there is a drive to a world bank. I will have to discuss briefly another question, “Why is there a drive toward world government?” Because the drive toward a world bank, can best be understood as an intermediate step, in an underlying drive to world government.”
Yeah, you really haven’t made a case for it being a pipe dream at all.
“and I’m sure the elites must realize this”
I’m sure they’re realising it is harder to implement than they probably thought, given the nature of the net and growing awareness… but they’re near the end game.
“I have asked myself what might be the true purpose of all the New World Order talk coming out of the CFR and elsewhere?”
So you think there is a conspiracy behind the conspiracy? I think it’s fairly clear what their goal is and they’ve stated it elsewhere.
This is how you build empires. You make the local political leadership an offer they cannot refuse: join or die. If you look back over the past millenium - starting a few centuries after the dissipation of the Roman Empire and during the ascension of the Ottoman Empire, you see a continuous process of political aggregation, especially in Europe. Citadels became fiefdoms which became duchies which became kingdoms which were merged together to form larger kingdoms and eventually “empires” and then nation-states and then supra-sovereign unions and so on down to today. A thousand years ago, there were thousands of (sovereign) political units and a global population of a few hundred million people. Today, there are just 200 sovereign political units in a world of 6 billion, the number of political units per capita is tiny, 200 / 6x10^9 = 3.3x10^-8. A reasonable person might conclude that the logical terminus of this process is world government but I think that is a mistake because what is actually happening is that the less fit among the ranks of the rent-seeking/war-making class are getting selected out, leaving only the most cunning, ambitious and unpresupposing people in power in each sovereign political unit. Each consolidation only ups the ante and increases the level of competition for control of the remaining political units.
The benefits of sovereignty (deciding your own legal disputes, among other things) are immense and once you “join” another political unit, you have to give that up in exchange for some one-time buyout. The discounted future value of being able to decide your own legal disputes is certainly greater than any buyout you can be offered by the empire-builders.
I don’t doubt that the elites are seriously attempting to build a world empire. I just think it’s a pipe-dream and I think the smarter ones must have realized this by now. J. Paul Warburg (son of the Paul Warburg) said, “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent” (according to Wiki, this was spoken in 1950 in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations). And I think the League of Nations and United Nations are the attempts of whatever shadowy empire-building organization is behind them and people like Warburg to do just that. But let’s imagine that the League of Nations was the purpose of WWI, that is, that WWI was fomented by a secret organization bent on world domination so it could establish the League of Nations and rule the world. It failed. Starting from our initial idea, this could explain why there was a WWII, which gave birth to the UN. While the UN has been less of a failure in creating a de facto world government, it’s really just turned into the hand-puppet of the United States. In other words, if some secret organization bent on world domination at any price has been fomenting global wars in order to justify establishing a world government (with itself at the helm), they’re doing a shitty job and they’ve failed not once but twice. The unipolar world order that has emerged is no different than your textbook historical imperialism. The United States spends more on its war machine than I think the top 10 or 20 other nations combined. This is the behavior of a unipolar imperialist, not a “global government”. The problem with imperialism is that you have to either be smarter or better organized than the other guys or you have to have some kind of bullet-proof moral legitimacy or popular appeal to the masses. The United States government sure as hell isn’t popular with people outside the US and it certainly has no moral currency whatsoever. And I don’t think our leadership is so much smarter or better organized than anybody else. The US empire is doomed (thank God).
Clayton -
I wasn’t talking about anarchy in terms in decentralizing the government. I’m talking about it in terms of how we could get the most people to consider the government illegitimate and passively turn away, not really caring about what it says anymore. I feel like it’s harder to convince people that the government isn’t worth it when it’s decentralized a lot and only offering a few services (i.e. military, roads, etc.) because they’ll say, “Well, it’s not that bad right now.” I feel like there’s a constant back-and-forth endless cycle between small government and big government. The world government would be so large that people would feel more likely to rebel and leave its grasp without micromanagement of smaller governments.
It seems to me that Anarchy is more likely to come by a government getting bigger and bigger until it finally explodes. I don’t recall from history an episode of anarchy that came by deregulating.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not promoting any idea here either.
I don’t see any necessary connection between the territorial size of a nation and the extent to which society is micromanaged. Hong Kong is less micromanaged than the US and it is easier to get away with things (i.e. there are fewer regulations). A one-world government could micromanage or the economy or take a more hands-off approach, in theory. If anything, the correlation may be that larger territorial governments tend also to be larger in scope and extent.
Answering your first question though is rather more interesting. We certainly shouldn’t advocate a one-world government. We should be passionate decentralists, arguing for secession wherever and whenever it has a chance of occuring, and radical decentralists, advocating secession right down to the level of the individual.
But paradoxically, it may be easier to bring about a stateless society if there were a one-world government, because it may increase anti-statist sentiment and fuel the flames of secession movements. In response to the creation of a one-world government, nationalist sentiment is aroused, but the same arguments for nationalism rather than internationalism apply to sub-national levels right down to the individual. It is a short step from nationalism to individualism.
This is already happening as a response to the EU. Here in the UK, most people are opposed to “being ruled from Brussels”; they would vote to leave the EU if they were given a chance, and don’t want a world government. I ask “should the people in Scotland, many of whom are opposed to “being ruled from London”, be allowed to secede?” They cannot say anything but yes, because the principle of the argument is a slap in the face. Most people already believe in the principle of secession; they just need a little help seeing that it applies to counties, towns, communities, and ultimately individuals as well as nations.
I think a stateless society will emerge in this way - by taking the principle of secession to the limit - rather than by scaling back the scope of government until there is nothing left of it. So from this perspective, yes, it may be easier to bring about a stateless society if there were a one-world government.
Another thing is that the problems of economic calculation become greater when there are fewer and larger nations. This will seriously inhibit prosperity and growth, and just like the economic crisis has stirred anti-Fed sentiment, ever greater and more conspicuous failures of government will stir more anti-government sentiment. A one-world government may add further fuel the liberty movement.
Have you read/listened to Hoppe? See Revolution by Means of Secession, or listen to Strategy: Secession, Privatization, and the Prospects of Liberty.