We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Commentator “rosignol” provides the knockout blow to those who want the whole world run one way, on the mistaken assumption it is always going to be their way:
With multiple governments, people have the possibility of moving to whatever nation suits them (with, admittedly, varying degrees of effort/risk).
With one government, if you object to how things are being run, your non-violent options are just about limited to “leave the planet entirely”.
I’d add that with one world government your violent options are going to be be limited, too. Governmental violence will always be quantatively greater than any you can muster.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Oh it is so true!
(sits down to work on laptop in 25 C sun).
Strange, if you mention one world government you suddenly hear the phrase “conspiracy theorist” which is akin to stating that one believes the earth is flat. Ergo one is branded a s a loony. Nice way to keep people from thinking about it or talking about for fear of ridicule
Governmental violence will always be quantatively greater than any you can muster.
So Governments can do some things right!
And as David Friedman wrote,
Edward,
Only if you think might is right.
gravid,
What’s really curious is that it is regarded as loony to insist that there is already a plan for one world government, but wholly sane, and in many circles laudable, to demand there should be.
You could say there already is one world government, as everywhere in the world is covered by some government or other and they all agree on 99% of the restrictions they impose on their subjects. Sure there are a few cracks in the authoritarian structure, but that would also be the case in a formally unitary world government. Individuals can only survive and live a reasonable life by being small furry mammals living in the cracks and keeping a sharp lookout lest the great clumsy dinosaurs step on us.
Indeed Guy, the notion of a global empire leaves me numb. A “unified” europe is bad enough…
A scarily large number of people subscribe to the Kantian ideal of the world government – and said world government is the most sophisticated manifestation of political evolution.
Yikes.
I wouldn’t say that Kant saw world government as an ideal, just as an inevitability.
IIRC, he referred to a world government as a “soulless tyranny.”
There cannot be, nor should there be, any unified world government while the prevailing tribal identities dominate people’s internal self-categorization.
The accumulated heritage of centuries of differentiation by culture, tribe, language, religion, race, and nationality, cannot be overcome.
Furthermore, the disastrous prevailing model of all-intrusive state, whether for repressive or paternalistic motives, would make any transnational government a Frankenstein’s monster of grafted bits and pieces of dead statist theory and decaying collectivist ideology.
One need only inspect the grotesque construction of the moribund EU constitution, with its thousands of convoluted clauses, to see that any attempt to construct a planet-wide entity would be utter folly.
There may come a time in the future when enough of these philosophical and ethical problems have been resolved that some type of loose confederation would be possible, mostly for the convenience of standardized “weights and measures” types of issues.
Given a growing international culture, of which this and other blogs are a good example, based on private and informal association, as well as the continuing expansion of international commercial activity, there may simply be no need for any over-arching state mechanism.
Speaking for myself, as a radical individualist and someone totally devoted to the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, any surrender of soveriegnty is unthinkable.
The enormous task of reforming the current US superstate, and re-establishing a genuinely limited republic shorn of the cancerous growth which occurred during the ascendency of statist theory over the last century, is enough to occupy several generations.
It would be irrational, indeed, delusional, to try to sort out the unholy mess that any so-called world government would certainly degenerate into, before that most important task is finished and securely protected by philosophical and legal supports.
“There cannot be, nor should there be, any unified world government while the prevailing tribal identities dominate people’s internal self-categorization.”
There should not be one world government, full stop.
Even were the planet’s population to share the same ‘tribal identity’, a single world government would still be a bad idea because of the mismatch between (a) scope of authority and range of powers, and (b) mankind’s universal, unlimited capacity for idiocy and blundering.
What mike said. (Thank you, mike.)
Any state dominated by tribal identity is one I want to be able to flee. Perhaps that’s why I’m less and less happy in a Britain dominated by the tabloid tribe, but have no idea of anywhere more tolerant and thus better to go.
Mike,
I would agree with the unequivocal position if it were not for the future possibility of:
one, an actual global threat, i.e., asteroid, epidemic, nuclear exchange, etc., which would submerge a lot of this superficial difference in a realization of shared humanity in danger; (and no, I do not consider the suspect predictions about global warming to be such a threat)
and two, the less cataclysmic possibility that humans might reach out to colonize various other planetary bodies and moons, in which case the political entities on this planet would have to be somewhat more substantial than some postage stamp with its own flag and anthem.
A few hundred years ago, it would have been considered utterly outlandish to have predicted what has been accomplished in that time. I don’t want to underestimate the potential of human creativity if it can be freed from repression and violence.
“…but have no idea of anywhere more tolerant and thus better to go.”
Well I guess it depends what you want to do and so on – do your research! I left Britain for Taiwan last year – Verity is living in Mexico it seems and PdH occassionally mentions leaving for New Hampshire, so although these places no doubt have their faults, they represent a better choice for us than Britain.
“an actual global threat, i.e., asteroid, epidemic, nuclear exchange, etc.”
In which case cannot the demand for efficiency be served well by cooperation between governments and privately owned organisations rather than the establishment of a single government?
“and two, the less cataclysmic possibility that humans might reach out to colonize various other planetary bodies and moons, in which case the political entities on this planet would have to be somewhat more substantial than some postage stamp with its own flag and anthem.”
I do beg forgiveness of my ignorance, but why exactly?
I don’t see much point in beating this to death. It’s not any ignorance on your part, just a differing vision of what might be.
I guess I have a hard time believing that Sierra Leone and Lichtenstein are going to have votes in the Galactic Council.
Even Communist China saw the value in Hong Kong. It was a safety value, a place for people to go who would othewise just be trouble for them – a bit like Europe is now for ME Tyrannies…
If it is going to be one, it will be the Chinese running it, and that, the Indians will never allow.
America could lose the USD as a global currency and then it will be a busted flush, possibly forced to retreat behind its borders. If China could engineer this without too much impact on its own economy it will then have a freer hand to absorb Taiwan, bludgeon Japan and enforce its view of the South China Sea. Better still, ‘help out’ the US temporarily during the difficulties and once the US is hooked, do what it needs to do, then drop them or whatever.
Political meteorology aside, China’s economic dominance together with incompetence from Chen Sui-abian means that China is already well positioned to eventually force the absorption of Taiwan. Taiwan is not part of China yet, but I wish the Taiwanese would not have ridiculously long delays every time they want to buy military equipment from the USA.
Political meteorology aside, China’s economic dominance together with incompetence from Chen Sui-abian means that China is already well positioned to eventually force the absorption of Taiwan. Taiwan is not part of China yet, but I wish the Taiwanese would not have ridiculously long delays every time they want to buy military equipment from the USA.
Sorry – my wireless connection got disrupted I hadn’t realised.