One World, One Nation

[Edmond Zedo]

I estimate that the civilized world is currently on a path toward political unification, as early as the late 21st century, but likely not until the mid-22nd.

Western Europe is my model for this, as its cycle of internal war beginning with the dawn of civilization there, continuing through multiple political structures, effectively halted following WWII. Since then, it has become steadily more unified (As shown by the EU and a universal currency). The threat of war between nations there is now insignificant.

The USA is more allied with Western Europe and the former USSR than not, politically, militarily, and culturally, and I perceive the remaining disparity to be slowly dissolving. As to the remaining world powers, a trend toward unification is not apparent. But considering my model, this is not fundamental.

Technology and increasing population have made the world smaller for all political and cultural purposes. Societies which were formerly unfamiliar are becoming more similar consistently, even though differences are still great.

I believe it likely that once the block of USA/Europe/Former USSR/Allies (UEFA) is as unified as the EU is today, the remaining large societies in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America will have no physical means of maintaining their status. The military and economic power of UEFA will be such that it controls global trade, and any resistance under it could be eliminated. This threat alone would likely be sufficient to slowly suppress the other civilizations into eventual assimilation, but if not, it could be forced. Along a parallel timeline, I expect religion to become an obscure practice, and this will aid the transition.

In the eventuality of one world alliance, and all cultures becoming more alike than different, the inception of one world government could occur easily (Just as I expect Western Europe to officially unite shortly). With only one nation on Earth, the need for a common defense literally ceases to exist. Corporations will no longer have the currently valid leverage of aiding their nation via global trade, and can be put-in-their-place. I believe the final political state to be one of near perfect libertarianism under an elected republic which has far less control over individuals than Western governments do today.

[Robespierre]

I will start with the last sentiment expressed in your essay. You propose that through the mystical process of unification of the various nation states, eventually, one world-spanning state will evolve. You also seem to think that such a government would be a libertarian like republic. I see absolutely no reason to agree with this. It might be nice, but a quick look at history suggests that it is unlikely. The progress of the nation-state has been towards greater and greater centralization. Centralization is the enemy of libertarianism, as it necessarily removes power from local holders, and centralizes in government boodies. Governments have continued the centralization process at an ever-expanding rate since the kings of europe started in on the absolute-monarchy tip.

Also, there is little reason to believe that a republican style representative democracy would evolve from a world-girding state. The trend in large democracies has been towards direct democracy, which is a fundamental enemy of libertarian ideals. Constitutions mean increasingly less to those charged with upholding them, specifically the SCOTUS and the congress.

And why choose western europe as your model for the likely future? Why not 14th century Islamic nations? The west no longer has a monopoly on high techonology and free wheeling capitalist economies. It might be more appropriate to view the future of the west as one of gradual decline in comparison with other rising cultures, specifically India and China. Either way, this sort of prognosticating seems out of place without some firm grounding in principle. Why do you think what you do?

Also, what is the place of corporation, and how would you propose putting one there?

[Edmond Zedo]

Ah, to be continued. I shall return in time. All I'll say now is that my more specific estimations are just that, what I see as most likely, and not by any means definite.

The place for corporations would be decided by the population, and likely their place would be history, at least for large companies. Socialization of business is a great deal more sensible if a nation has no outside economic competition.

[Robespierre]

Socialization of business is also horribly inefficient and has been tried before. Mercantilism did not do much for anyone other than those who were granted the state-created monopolies. Think of the British East India Company.

As far as corporations represent voluntary interactions between individuals, there is no reason for "the people" or any other group to interfer in their activities, and any intervention would in fact be criminal and counter-productive economically.

[Aryan]

One country!
But does that remove the differences ?

One language ?
One relgigion ?
One ...?

[nobarcode]

I'm thinking there will be an AU, as in the American Union, which would include Central/South America and Canada. We will share the same currency until another "terrorist" attack via anthrax on paper money which will then force the world's citizens to use "credit cards" instead of paper "reserve notes", all of which will be governed by The World Bank, etc., etc.

It used to be called the New World Order, but of course a more economically, hence acceptable term "Globalization" is used instead (in the United States at least). This has all been carefully engineered by The National Counsil of Foreign Affairs and others.....but I don't want to get into that.

http://www.cfr.org/index.php

[joft]

I mostly agree with Edmond.

I think that if things were allowed to continue as they were, more rifts would form. But as the current generation retires and subsequent generations are put in places of power, I think the divides will begin to close quickly. And I would attribute a LOT of it to the internet. Growing up in constant and instant communication with people all around the world makes the idea of war seem literally insane.

I also don't think a world-wide government would be centralized much. It just doesn't make a lot of sense logistically; I think it would be a lot more like smaller localized government working in cooperation with all the other areas. Almost to an extent that it wouldn't really be accurate to call it a "one world government," but more like a world-wide coalition.

[jetboots]

Edmond, I tend to think pretty much the opposite of what you are saying.

At this point any kind of unification would end up being more like a Roman Empire than anything because of the first world's dependancy on their slaves (the third world). Somehow I dont see that happening cause there are too mnay crazy things to control if we are talkin about billions of people. It would end up being a military conquest, which is not the way to go these days with nuclear weapons in the picture.

I see evolution of the far future of the world to everything breaking up into micostates. The more we evolve, I think the more it is easy to see that there are differences that can never work within the same system.

Perhaps in a few hundred years every city of the world will have a certain part of town that "belongs" to a certain mindset/culture/country. These "countries" will be the corporations of the day.

Basically I think there will be unification, but not by the gathering of minds and creating one system, but rather unification by the acceptance of differences and creating a big system with a life of its own by the governing of little systems.

Hopefully in the process of whatever happens, the environement won't be screwed the point of no return, I think in many ways that is the more important issue.

[Edmond Zedo]

As far as corporations represent voluntary interactions between individuals, there is no reason for "the people" or any other group to interfer in their activities, and any intervention would in fact be criminal and counter-productive economically.
You seem to be irreversibly focused on ideals. If a government is not in place to suppress corporations, corporations will become de facto governments, and will at least figuratively enslave the majority of the world. The result is indistinguishable from political totalitarianism. As things are in the current world, I believe ruthless corporations have a place, because success is good for the country itself. In the case of a united Earth, that value is decidedly less than what is the common definition of justice.

I view Feudalism in the Middle Ages to be equivalent to Corporate Rule. Kings and nobles owned the land, as Company CEOs and presidents own business. Peasants, owning nothing, chose either subservience and probable survival, or death, as workers in this "voluntary" system would generally be doomed to exactly the same thing. Whatever equality is present at the onset of such a system would be quickly skewed beyond any sort of justice, just as it was in the past.

[Robespierre]

You seem to be irreversibly focused on ideals.

Guilty, as charged.


If a government is not in place to suppress corporations, corporations will become de facto governments, and will at least figuratively enslave the majority of the world. The result is indistinguishable from political totalitarianism. As things are in the current world, I believe ruthless corporations have a place, because success is good for the country itself. In the case of a united Earth, that value is decidedly less than what is the common definition of justice.

I find it ultimately humorous that your solution to the "possible" tyranny of corporate feudalism(something I don't see as plausible), is the very real dictatorship of the masses and their handlers.

Then we encounter the oft cited but never defined "good of the country". Are you the final arbiter of what is good and bad for the entire nation? How about a majority of the people who live in it? It is, in fact, impossible to talk about the "good of the country" as it is not a moral actor, meaning it is a group of individuals, with no will of its own, no subjective valuations of its own, and therefor, can be no such thing as the "public good" or "good of the country".


I view Feudalism in the Middle Ages to be equivalent to Corporate Rule. Kings and nobles owned the land, as Company CEOs and presidents own business. Peasants, owning nothing, chose either subservience and probable survival, or death, as workers in this "voluntary" system would generally be doomed to exactly the same thing. Whatever equality is present at the onset of such a system would be quickly skewed beyond any sort of justice, just as it was in the past.

You suppose that modern corporations would somehow be able to steal control of land from all those who control it now, and proceed to treat them as destitute tennants? I see no reason at all to believe that corporations would be able to pull off this amazing take-over. The feudal governments of the middle ages were the result of government, plain and simple. The king was said to own all land, as most kings were said to be decended from Adam, who was granted use of all the earth by god. This justification was used to place control over large areas of land in the hands of the king. He, in turn, granted duchy's, baronies, counties, etc to his family and friends. The feudal lords did not own the land they controlled in any just way, just as no government can justly own property. Therefor, the domination of the serfs of europe was a vilolent aggression against the locals, and certainly not the result of respect for property rights.

The vast system of centralization that you propose is taking place, and if I understand you correctly "should" take place, would result in the ultimate slavery of the entire human race, either to the majority rule, to the global congress, or the emperor of the world. I agree that there is a centralization taking place, but I don't believe that it will ultimately succeed. Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been strong and steady voices in america and other nations calling for ultimate centralization. They are the voices that spoke and convinced one of the worst presidents in history, Woodrow Wilson, to scheme the US into the first World War. Since then, the US has been gradually expanding its control over the world. As a result, the liberty of those who live within the borders of the US has been substantially reduced, in order that the masters in washington may pursue their international ambitions.

Fortunately, when the original international governing body was proposed, there still existed enough classical liberal statesmen to sink it, at least US involvement. However, during the continuing progressive revolution of the early 20th century, most of those statesmen were replaced by those willing to support prohibition of alchohol, federal control of the banking system, and all manner of new restrictions and outright confiscations.

So when the chickens of central banking came home to roost in 1929, the progressives quickly picked up the torches and led the mob to the house of liberty and individualism, where they proceeded to burn it to cinders. First, the very progressive Hoover set about installing wage and price controls, to whip deflation. Of course, prices were horribly over-valued due to the tinkering of the central bank, so the attempted prevention of a price correction resulted in massive economic dispare. The actual depression did not set in until late 1930 and early '31.

Then the local banks started failing. No one seemed to think that this could possibly be a result of their massive fraud, that is, loaning out money they did not possess. No, it was labeled as greed and fear. This is what FDR was bellowing about when he belched out his "nothing to fear" line. With the election of FDR, who's policies were nearly identical to Hoover's, only larger in size and power, the country started to be taught to accept the notions of national socialism. The nation is greater than the individual, and there is a government, lead by one man, that can divine this nation's true calling, and steer it thusly, all he needs is your support. FDR proceeded to spend like never before, all manner of make-work projects were created.

In 1933, FDR even created a board that essentially cartelized the entire american industrial system. It set up boards for each major industry, upon which were seated the leaders of those industries. These boards were charged with controling prices and regulating production practices. Eventually, this disgusting product of FDR's national socialism was struck down by the supreme court in 1935, when one of the cases generated by these foolish laws made it that far on appeal. A man was charged with the crime of under-pricing a quart of milk. The milk board had decided that the price should be no less than $.09 per quart, and this man dared to charge $.08 per quart.

From this point on, the public has seemed to accept the premise that too much individual liberty for some people, is a bad thing, especially if those people own a business. Of course, no is ever afraid of their own liberty, and will typically support their own freedom at great costs. But from this point on, the liberty of those who seemed to be "winning life's lottery" was and is under great assault.

Disgusting as it was, the national socialism of FDR was nothing compared to the socialism of Hitler, Stalin, or the various democratic-socialists, who sprung up later in western europe.

I see the route that our country is on, as highly destructive. Private property rights mean less and less. We are urged to consider the good of the nation above our own personal good. Guns and any other means of self defense are ridiculed and increasingly restricted(though on a slower pace as of late, due to republicans pretending that they care about individual liberty). The end result of these policies and of the massive centralization is the absolute slavery of the entire human race to those who wield the government hammer. The only bulwark against it is individual liberty. And not the individual liberty offered by the left, the liberty to rob your neighbor and force him to say he likes it. The liberty to act, within the bounds of one's own property, in any way, so long as one's actions do not violate the right of any other to do the same.

[Dman]

^ wow, that was quite the rant! How do you REALLY feel?

I don’t think there will ever be unification. For some reason it is in our nature to need a common enemy in order to find reason to unify. You could also say it is in our nature to FIND a common enemy, for any particular reason. It is much easier to do this than to unify for the sake of unifying. It would take an enemy from beyond our world to unify our entire planet successfully, and even then it would be a stretch.

[Robespierre]

^ wow, that was quite the rant! How do you REALLY feel?

I don’t think there will ever be unification. For some reason it is in our nature to need a common enemy in order to find reason to unify. You could also say it is in our nature to FIND a common enemy, for any particular reason. It is much easier to do this than to unify for the sake of unifying. It would take an enemy from beyond our world to unify our entire planet successfully, and even then it would be a stretch.

You mean something like an asteroid?

[Dman]

You mean something like an asteroid?

Brilliant.

[Robespierre]

Brilliant.

So what do you think about globe-spanning governments? In the asteroid thread, you seem to be sympathetic to the likely-to-be-used scare tactics and power grabs a real asteroid threat would suggest. Do you see those things as negatives or positives?

[Dman]

So what do you think about globe-spanning governments? In the asteroid thread, you seem to be sympathetic to the likely-to-be-used scare tactics and power grabs a real asteroid threat would suggest. Do you see those things as negatives or positives?

I think a globe-spanning govt, such as any govs that exist today, would be virtually impossible anytime in our lifetimes. But for sake of argument, say it could happen, I believe would certainly spell doom. Waaay too much power.

Not sure how I came off as sympathetic to scare-tactics & power grabs, more like I was acknowledging that it was the likeliest scenario. I despise that type of activity.

[Robespierre]

Not sure how I came off as sympathetic to scare-tactics & power grabs, more like I was acknowledging that it was the likeliest scenario. I despise that type of activity.

My bad then. You do make a lot of points, oft-times without speaking on your personal opinion of those points.

[Dman]

My bad then. You do make a lot of points, oft-times without speaking on your personal opinion of those points.

I apologize for those whom it drives insane, but oft-times I do not have a personal opinion formulated on those points. Thus the reason I make a lot of points - seeking others' opinions so that I may gather information to form my own. And often times the stronger the other person's opinion, the more I feel obliged to test them for soundness.

Ahhh, maybe that's why I don't have many friends!

[Edmond Zedo]

Then we encounter the oft cited but never defined "good of the country". Are you the final arbiter of what is good and bad for the entire nation? How about a majority of the people who live in it? It is, in fact, impossible to talk about the "good of the country" as it is not a moral actor, meaning it is a group of individuals, with no will of its own, no subjective valuations of its own, and therefor, can be no such thing as the "public good" or "good of the country".
Rule of Law i.e. US Constitution...Imperfect; Better than Anarchy


You suppose that modern corporations would somehow be able to steal control of land from all those who control it now, and proceed to treat them as destitute tennants? I see no reason at all to believe that corporations would be able to pull off this amazing take-over.
Yes. What's going to stop them? Corporations in general have no morals, and as to method of implementation? Money.


The vast system of centralization that you propose is taking place, and if I understand you correctly "should" take place, would result in the ultimate slavery of the entire human race, either to the majority rule, to the global congress, or the emperor of the world.
One world nation could theoretically be run exactly like any one state today, but on a larger scale. Potential variations abound.


Fortunately, when the original international governing body was proposed, there still existed enough classical liberal statesmen to sink it, at least US involvement. However, during the continuing progressive revolution of the early 20th century, most of those statesmen were replaced by those willing to support prohibition of alchohol, federal control of the banking system, and all manner of new restrictions and outright confiscations.
Individual liberty would not have a definite relation to this change in status. I do think it's likely, as I said, that once international competition is nil, the individual will become more important than the state. This is a guess.


So when the chickens of central banking came home to roost in 1929, the progressives quickly picked up the torches and led the mob to the house of liberty and individualism, where they proceeded to burn it to cinders. First, the very progressive Hoover set about installing wage and price controls, to whip deflation. Of course, prices were horribly over-valued due to the tinkering of the central bank, so the attempted prevention of a price correction resulted in massive economic dispare. The actual depression did not set in until late 1930 and early '31.

Then the local banks started failing. No one seemed to think that this could possibly be a result of their massive fraud, that is, loaning out money they did not possess. No, it was labeled as greed and fear. This is what FDR was bellowing about when he belched out his "nothing to fear" line. With the election of FDR, who's policies were nearly identical to Hoover's, only larger in size and power, the country started to be taught to accept the notions of national socialism. The nation is greater than the individual, and there is a government, lead by one man, that can divine this nation's true calling, and steer it thusly, all he needs is your support. FDR proceeded to spend like never before, all manner of make-work projects were created.

In 1933, FDR even created a board that essentially cartelized the entire american industrial system. It set up boards for each major industry, upon which were seated the leaders of those industries. These boards were charged with controling prices and regulating production practices. Eventually, this disgusting product of FDR's national socialism was struck down by the supreme court in 1935, when one of the cases generated by these foolish laws made it that far on appeal. A man was charged with the crime of under-pricing a quart of milk. The milk board had decided that the price should be no less than $.09 per quart, and this man dared to charge $.08 per quart.

From this point on, the public has seemed to accept the premise that too much individual liberty for some people, is a bad thing, especially if those people own a business. Of course, no is ever afraid of their own liberty, and will typically support their own freedom at great costs. But from this point on, the liberty of those who seemed to be "winning life's lottery" was and is under great assault.

Disgusting as it was, the national socialism of FDR was nothing compared to the socialism of Hitler, Stalin, or the various democratic-socialists, who sprung up later in western europe.
I think all this is irrelevant (But FDR and his successors helped the US to become a superpower, and I for one am grateful.) It has little to do with the terminal state of world politics, because the goals are entirely different.


Guns and any other means of self defense are ridiculed and increasingly restricted(though on a slower pace as of late, due to republicans pretending that they care about individual liberty).
We're better off than ten years ago, and indeed thanks to Republicans. It's my firm belief that GWB (among others) is philosophically pro-gun in the extreme, but actually softens his stance publicly to gain moderate votes.


The end result of these policies and of the massive centralization is the absolute slavery of the entire human race to those who wield the government hammer. The only bulwark against it is individual liberty. And not the individual liberty offered by the left, the liberty to rob your neighbor and force him to say he likes it. The liberty to act, within the bounds of one's own property, in any way, so long as one's actions do not violate the right of any other to do the same.
In a pre-industrial society, true anarchism has a place. We don't live in that society. In your ideal, resources could "legally" be controlled entirely by one corporation, just as a King. It could happen as easily as a monopoly could without government restriction. And there is no recourse but violent rebellion. Once again, given a political world government, we don't know how totalitarian it would be, but I lean toward believing it would be less so than most are currently.

[Edmond Zedo]

If you imagine how noble, just, smart, and brave the Founding Fathers of the US were, to create the first basically free society out of thin air, perhaps you can believe it could happen again. They were motivated by conscience so much more than greed or lust for power.

I don't have a reference handy, but I believe Jefferson once said something like "A bloody revolution is good every couple of hundred years." (Correct me if I'm mistaken). This implies that he knew disparity would come with time, and it has. More by economics than politics.

Our government, at least, is composed of those who care deeply for individual liberty, justice, and equality, as well as those who don't.

[Robespierre]

Rule of Law i.e. US Constitution...Imperfect; Better than Anarchy

Anarchy is not mutually exclusive with Rule of Law. Constitutional government is a farce. It may last for some time under the perfect conditions, but eventually all constitutional governments will erode the liberties of the individual to aggrandize the power of the government, as all who interpret the constitution happen to be members of the very same government.


Yes. What's going to stop them? Corporations in general have no morals, and as to method of implementation? Money.

Money what?


One world nation could theoretically be run exactly like any one state today, but on a larger scale. Potential variations abound.

It could be run in any number of ways, but eventually, it must result in the centralization of power, as all large governments do. There are no exceptions.


Individual liberty would not have a definite relation to this change in status. I do think it's likely, as I said, that once international competition is nil, the individual will become more important than the state. This is a guess.

Borders are merely footnotes to competition. Do you think that the entire economy and social structure would suddenly change due to the lack of borders? In what way would competition ever be "nil"? Would all businesses be grabbed by One World Nation? How could an individual, under your statist system, ever be more important that the state? Your very base for this whole system is the concept that the state is more important than the individual, that individual rights are contingent upon approval of the state.


I think all this is irrelevant

I figured you would. I simply present you with some revisionist history for your own benefit. People, whether the know it or not, base their ideas of the future and what is possible on their understanding of history. The understanding of history that is prevalent among the masses is horrible inaccurate and serves the interests of the state.


(But FDR and his successors helped the US to become a superpower, and I for one am grateful.)

To what end? What have we gained by being a superpower? $7 Trillion in debt? Millions of americans dead? For what? America was well on the way to becoming an economic super-power before the progressives grabbed hold of the helm and steered us into international politics. FDR did nothing for this country but loot it for his own political gain. He is one of the most shameful figures in american history, right behind Abraham Lincoln.


It has little to do with the terminal state of world politics, because the goals are entirely different.

The goals are identical: naked power grab.


We're better off than ten years ago, and indeed thanks to Republicans.

We are better off than 10 years ago despite republicans. Politics can never improve a standard of living (unless there be a removal or lessening of politics).


It's my firm belief that GWB (among others) is philosophically pro-gun in the extreme, but actually softens his stance publicly to gain moderate votes.

He may well be, but his legacy of massive centralization of power, removal of the right to be secure in one's property from unreasonable search and siezure, will ultimately harm gun-owners and individual liberty in the long run. While he may agree with you on some points, his followers may not, and they will not hesitate to use the infrastructure he has put in place to persecute gun owners and anyone else.


In a pre-industrial society, true anarchism has a place.

In any society, individual liberty has its place as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Technology does not change human nature or the praxeological laws of human action.


We don't live in that society. In your ideal, resources could "legally" be controlled entirely by one corporation, just as a King.

Again, the cure is worse than the disease. "Could" be controlled. However, in free markets, monopolies simply do not exist. Yet to protect against these feared monopolies, we must be subjected to the absolute and ever-present monopoly of fedgov.


It could happen as easily as a monopoly could without government restriction.

And how could that happen?


And there is no recourse but violent rebellion. Once again, given a political world government, we don't know how totalitarian it would be, but I lean toward believing it would be less so than most are currently.

Why would you lean toward believing it would be less totalitarian? What reason do you have to believe that a world spanning government, with no other country for the ultimately disenfranchised to flee to, would be anything but tyrannical?

[Robespierre]

If you imagine how noble, just, smart, and brave the Founding Fathers of the US were, to create the first basically free society out of thin air, perhaps you can believe it could happen again. They were motivated by conscience so much more than greed or lust for power.

Yes, and many of them were absolutely opposed to creating the federal constitution. They realized that it would ultimately result in corruption and tyranny, and they were absolutely right.


I don't have a reference handy, but I believe Jefferson once said something like "A bloody revolution is good every couple of hundred years." (Correct me if I'm mistaken). This implies that he knew disparity would come with time, and it has. More by economics than politics.

Yeah, it was every 10 or 20 years. Economic disparity? What are you referring to? The shrinking gap between rich and poor? The ability of the masses to punish those who succeed by taxing or regulating them out of existence?


Our government, at least, is composed of those who care deeply for individual liberty, justice, and equality, as well as those who don't.

I can think of one person in our fedgov that gives a shit about real individual liberty, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Aside from him, the rest of them are rotten, whether they intend to be or not, they are.

[Edmond Zedo]

Yes, and many of them were absolutely opposed to creating the federal constitution. They realized that it would ultimately result in corruption and tyranny, and they were absolutely right.
"I'm agreeing with you. But it's a decision we should have all made together." I can't believe you don't think non-interference will also result in corruption and tyranny. If government doesn't exist, it soon will. There will forever be too many in line to take the potential reigns.


Economic disparity? What are you referring to? The shrinking gap between rich and poor? The ability of the masses to punish those who succeed by taxing or regulating them out of existence?
Fast forward 100 years from the inception of anarchy...Do you not see huge conglomerates controlling individuals everyday lives, at least to the extent government does today? And what justice applies to those then born super-rich, and those literally born to a great chance of starvation?

[Robespierre]

"I'm agreeing with you. But it's a decision we should have all made together." I can't believe you don't think non-interference will also result in corruption and tyranny. If government doesn't exist, it soon will. There will forever be too many in line to take the potential reigns.

There will always be corruption and tyranny, and there will probably always be some mafia in some corner of the globe calling themselves a government. I seek for the best possible conditions, and while they may never be fully reached, it is always good to attempt to move society in that direction, as far as possible.


Fast forward 100 years from the inception of anarchy...Do you not see huge conglomerates controlling individuals everyday lives, at least to the extent government does today? And what justice applies to those then born super-rich, and those literally born to a great chance of starvation?

No, I see nothing at all like that in the future of a voluntary society. You have bought into the socialist view of the end result of free trade and individual liberty. There is no reason to believe that, without help from governments, any sort of massively powerful corporations will even survive. In a completely free market, I think competition would be tight enough to keep most companies fairly specialized.

[Edmond Zedo]

Money what?
Money is power. You know that.


It could be run in any number of ways, but eventually, it must result in the centralization of power, as all large governments do. There are no exceptions.
Centralization of power is what we're discussing.


Borders are merely footnotes to competition. Do you think that the entire economy and social structure would suddenly change due to the lack of borders? In what way would competition ever be "nil"? Would all businesses be grabbed by One World Nation? How could an individual, under your statist system, ever be more important that the state? Your very base for this whole system is the concept that the state is more important than the individual, that individual rights are contingent upon approval of the state.
My point is that competition has a purpose now, for the good of our society. That purpose, while it may still have merit, would not, in most decent minds, be important enough to subject the populace to corporate whim.


To what end? What have we gained by being a superpower? $7 Trillion in debt? Millions of americans dead? For what? America was well on the way to becoming an economic super-power before the progressives grabbed hold of the helm and steered us into international politics.

The answer to this is purely subjective. I simply see US supremacy as more good than bad, and equally (not more) as important as immediate civil liberty, because a culture must continue to thrive if it is to even exist. I fully admit I probably wouldn't if I were Asian, Arab, or Ancient Incan.



In any society, individual liberty has its place as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Technology does not change human nature or the praxeological laws of human action.
Political perfection is impossible with current human psychology. Perhaps by the time globalization could materialize, technology will have advanced our minds sufficiently in one way or another.


Again, the cure is worse than the disease. "Could" be controlled. However, in free markets, monopolies simply do not exist. Yet to protect against these feared monopolies, we must be subjected to the absolute and ever-present monopoly of fedgov.
International monopolies do exist (i.e. DeBeers with diamonds), and there is simply no way short of physical destruction around them, namely for potential competitors.

It's as I said, removing government is like removing a cup of water from the bottom of a bathtub while the faucet is running. It would be quickly replaced, if only lacking the name "government." I pondered the scenario, and aside from real economic competition resulting in monopolies and control-over-lives, corporations would probably have police forces that could just seize property and kill without consequence. That would make it easy.


And how could that happen?
See above.


Why would you lean toward believing it would be less totalitarian? What reason do you have to believe that a world spanning government, with no other country for the ultimately disenfranchised to flee to, would be anything but tyrannical?
It could be tyrannical, or it could be libertarian. To a degree, it's a roll of the dice for us in the present. One counter to tyranny would be justified worldwide revolt.

[Shai Gar]

one world, no nations.

and yes, lets force people into an alliance because they have no means of defending themselves. didnt fly with iraq wont fly with us

and there is no need for a world government, infact no american should ever try to impose this, actually noone on earth should but americans are the ones who tend to want to

[Robespierre]

Money is power. You know that.

Money is power? A truism? There has got to be a more compelling argument against individual liberty than a cliche.


Centralization of power is what we're discussing.

And the problems centralization has previously caused and is likely to cause in the future, yes.


My point is that competition has a purpose now, for the good of our society.

You can see it in whatever light you please, but the individuals actually involved in the competition don't see it that way. MOST of the competition people get involved in during their day to day lives is that competition between those in "our" society. Is that competition without purpose?


That purpose, while it may still have merit, would not, in most decent minds, be important enough to subject the populace to corporate whim.

Subject the populace to corporate whim? The ONLY method of doing that right now, is through government. Corporations, on their own, have no ability to force people to do anything, nor do they owe society anything. If walmart decides to sell only products made in China, that is their business, and not yours or anyone elses. They cannot force people to come into their stores and make purchases from them.

What do you suppose will replace competition? Would you institute a command economy? Even then, competition will always exist, just not on a free level, it will be political competition between the various state-interests.


The answer to this is purely subjective. I simply see US supremacy as more good than bad, and equally (not more) as important as immediate civil liberty, because a culture must continue to thrive if it is to even exist. I fully admit I probably wouldn't if I were Asian, Arab, or Ancient Incan.

I agree that the valuations of US policy decisions are subjective. All I can do is suggest that your stated goals are either logically inconsistent, or suggest that the means which you approve of attaining the goals will not ultimately result in the accomplishment of said goals.

How would you define the culture which you wish to protect? What exactly is it, and why does it need help?


Political perfection is impossible with current human psychology. Perhaps by the time globalization could materialize, technology will have advanced our minds sufficiently in one way or another.

Political perfection is impossible, not because of human flaws, but because of fundamental logical inconsistencies in the idea of politics.

There are two fundamental ways to sustain one's life. Economic means, which includes simply producing what you need on your own, trading something you have for something you need, or any other voluntary interactions. Then there are the political means, which include theft, murder, invasion, gangsterism, etc. There is no way to perfect the methods of politics and not increase the amount of theft, murder, invasion, gangsterism, etc.

On top of this, the usual methods of politics, which include such logical dead-ends as "public property", will always result in conflicts with no clear morally superiour solution. By claiming that property can be owned in common by all people, an immediate conflict arrises, how can all people USE this property? Of course they cannot. Who has the right to make changes to the property? Who decides what? There is no moral answer to these questions because the concept of public property is logically unsound.

As it turns out, the property does not actually belong to the public, but to the government, the agents of which use it for their own personal gain, always and without exception.


International monopolies do exist (i.e. DeBeers with diamonds), and there is simply no way short of physical destruction around them, namely for potential competitors.

So if the government of South Africa didn't exist, DeBeers and Co would still have a monopoly?


It's as I said, removing government is like removing a cup of water from the bottom of a bathtub while the faucet is running. It would be quickly replaced, if only lacking the name "government." I pondered the scenario, and aside from real economic competition resulting in monopolies and control-over-lives, corporations would probably have police forces that could just seize property and kill without consequence. That would make it easy.

You mean like governments do now? Again, you present me with a possible bad in the future, as justification for a certain bad in the here and now.


It could be tyrannical, or it could be libertarian. To a degree, it's a roll of the dice for us in the present. One counter to tyranny would be justified worldwide revolt.

Why even bother? Why not simply go in the more moral direction to begin with, and lessen tyranny, rather that going to all the trouble of unifying the nation-states of the world and allowing that government to grow incredibly strong?

[Dman]

Off-topic, but I'm curious how a society void of government would handle a natural monopoly, like utilities. Would there be one thousand different power lines on a power pole, one for each owner of an energy source going to each customer, or would there be one owner, charging whatever price desired (a monopoly)?

[Robespierre]

Off-topic, but I'm curious how a society void of government would handle a natural monopoly, like utilities.

There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. utilities are monopolized by government, it is crime to supply electricity to residential users unless you are the approved local monopoly.

A monopoly is the government grant to one firm to be the sole legal provider of a good or service. Something which requires the existance of a government.



Would there be one thousand different power lines on a power pole, one for each owner of an energy source going to each customer, or would there be one owner, charging whatever price desired (a monopoly)?

Well, if there were one owner, he would have the right to charge whatever price he wanted. Here's were the tricky part comes in. No one is forced to pay his prices. If he rises the prices too high, another supplier will enter the market and undercut his prices.

I can't say exactly how electricity supply would be handled, aside from saying it would NOT be a monopoly.

[Edmond Zedo]

We're not arguing facts, and I've said all I need, so unless something is added I adjourn.

[booyalab]

We're not arguing facts, and I've said all I need, so unless something is added I adjourn.

And we REALLY REALLY want your input so I assure you something will be added soon.

[Robespierre]

We're not arguing facts, and I've said all I need, so unless something is added I adjourn.

This discussion is not ultimately about facts, but interpretation and the a priori assumptions that lay at the centre of all philosophies.

[Robespierre]

And we REALLY REALLY want your input so I assure you something will be added soon.

Don't go turning this into one of those "funny" threads. We don't need any of that in here, nothing but the sober truth.

[Edmond Zedo]

And we REALLY REALLY want your input so I assure you something will be added soon.
Anything you say, Sugar Pie.

[Edmond Zedo]

This discussion is not ultimately about facts, but interpretation and the a priori assumptions that lay at the centre of all philosophies.
Well, some facts were involved iirc, but since we just disagree idealogically, we don't need to argue anymore. I've made my points.

[songbird36]

You two are Beethoven's 5th.

suggest you bridge the geographic gulf on bikes and stolen Aston Martins, and sweep each other away punting down the Niagara falls on a balsa raft..

[Edmond Zedo]

You two are Beethoven's 5th.
But the Ninth!

[Dman]

There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. utilities are monopolized by government, it is crime to supply electricity to residential users unless you are the approved local monopoly.

A monopoly is the government grant to one firm to be the sole legal provider of a good or service. Something which requires the existance of a government.




Well, if there were one owner, he would have the right to charge whatever price he wanted. Here's were the tricky part comes in. No one is forced to pay his prices. If he rises the prices too high, another supplier will enter the market and undercut his prices.

Ummm....isn't that the definition of a monopoly? One owner that will charge a price corresponding to the point where marginal revenue = marginal cost? True, no one would be forced to pay those prices, but if that owner was the sole owner of a power generating source, they would either pay his price or do without electricity. If another supplier entered the market, it would have to provide its own infrastructure to supply the electricity. Thus the reason I said would we expect to have thousands of power lines, one for each competitor. Sounds inefficient and chaotic.


I can't say exactly how electricity supply would be handled, aside from saying it would NOT be a monopoly.

My thoughts are that you can't envision how it would be supplied because it would have to be a monopoly.

[Dman]

There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. utilities are monopolized by government, it is crime to supply electricity to residential users unless you are the approved local monopoly.

A monopoly is the government grant to one firm to be the sole legal provider of a good or service. Something which requires the existance of a government.

No, I don't believe that's correct. A monopoly can certainly exist without a government's doing. Aside from utilities, imagine the very realistic concept of a company that has proprietary knowledge in a technology that proves to be very popular and highly demanded. Since no one else knows how to create the product or even a close substitute, the company becomes the sole provider of that product, no competition, no substitutions. Would that not be a monopoly?

[Edmond Zedo]

No, I don't believe that's correct. A monopoly can certainly exist without a government's doing. Aside from utilities, imagine the very realistic concept of a company that has proprietary knowledge in a technology that proves to be very popular and highly demanded. Since no one else knows how to create the product or even a close substitute, the company becomes the sole provider of that product, no competition, no substitutions. Would that not be a monopoly?
Well actually, since there is no law and order anymore, and no copyright protection, a competitor could send an ops team in to murder most of the companys people and steal the technology.

[Dman]

Ahh, perhaps I've found a chink in the armor of the Anarchist movement...?

[Dman]

Bah, ole Rob must have gone back to school for the semester. I should have brought up monopolies earlier, I knew he couldn't provide a decent argument on that one. Any other anarchists care to take a stab at it?

[mgb]

Bah, ole Rob must have gone back to school for the semester. I should have brought up monopolies earlier, I knew he couldn't provide a decent argument on that one. Any other anarchists care to take a stab at it?

Who knew you could win an argument by attrition?

[Dman]

Who knew you could win an argument by attrition?

Yeah, kind of anticlimactic.

How about when someone ignores the points they can't defend and concentrates on arguing the ones they can? Politician's style.