I know nationalism or world government are not the only choices. my belief is that, though not good, Nationalism gets a bad rap from libertarians and that it may be the only think standing in the way of a world state.though some have said that if american'ts see double digit inflation they will sell their currency and country to the first promise to ease their pain.
do we need nationalsim to decentralize power??
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
Nationalism - a one world govt just means fewer ways to escape.
Centinel,
I see your point - my question was poorly worded- ofcourse we don't "need" nationalism to decentralize. But I stand by my belief that it is not 100% bad as many on this site suggest. Of course the way it has been used in the US for some time now is the worst kind. for freedom to live the possibility of exit must exist. I see more and more harmonization of the world and it is worrysome.
This is an interesting question because while nationalism seems to be decentralization, it could be the concentration of authority figures into a given area yet with world government it would seem that the power is centralized into one institution but yet it covers such a wide geographical territory that it could be considered decentralized.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Although nationalism is superior to world government, I consider the ideas involved with nationalism more aggregeous and utterly vulgar than just about any other, so I would have a hard time choosing between them
Yes, as would I. If we had a world government or a nationalist government, it wouldn't be better, it would just change in my mind.
Nationalism all the way. Better to have a bunch of little states than one big one.
I'm a huge supporter of state secession as a step in the right direction before the state is ended.
NH Secession
Rule of thumb: Bigger is worse
I see many of you are equating "nationalism" with "many small states". This doesn't seem completely accurate - to me, nationalism is a collectivist ideology, a danger to freedom in its own right.
It wouldn't be so bad if the "many small states" considered each other equal and interacted peacefully with one another, but nationalism, with all its attending prejudices, implies that each small state has a desire to upend its neighbor in whatever way possible - through militarism, protectionism, etc. In such an environment, even peace-seeking states have no choice but to "play the game"; create trade barriers, increase military spending, etc. out of pure fear. IMO this is not conducive to the creation of free societies within the small states.
It seems to me that world government at least eliminates those problems, though it may well create new ones. 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.
a small-state world government
ROFL.
This is a bit like an honest politician or a compassionate mugger.
Clayton -
ROFL. This is a bit like an honest politician or a compassionate mugger.
Are you saying it's unrealistic? That's a bit rich, coming from (I presume) an anarcho-capitalist.
Although nationalism is superior to world government, I consider the ideas involved with nationalism more aggregeous and utterly vulgar than just about any other, so I would have a hard time choosing between them.
It wouldn't be so bad if the "many small states" considered each other equal and interacted peacefully with one another, but nationalism, with all its attending prejudices, implies that each small state has a desire to upend its neighbor in whatever way possible - through militarism, protectionism, etc.
ROFL. This is a bit like an honest politician or a compassionate mugger. Are you saying it's unrealistic? That's a bit rich, coming from (I presume) an anarcho-capitalist.
No, it's an oxymoron like our "limited" Federal government with its enumerated powers. What a joke!
Are these prejudices of nationalism, or prejudices about nationalism?
Like I said - nationalism is a collectivist ideology. As far as I'm concerned, it is as contrary to a free society as socialism. Not to say that it couldn't find expression in a free society - much like socialism could find expression in the form of cooperative socialist settlements founded by like-minded people.
I must say I don't really understand your argument. If you find that current state-level governments are preferable to the federal government, then assume that the putative "world government" is organized along the same lines as state governments. We're talking about theory - there is no need to assume that our hypothetical world government will take a certain form, or that it will make the legislative situation more complex or whatever.
Who leads this world government? Democracy or dictator? How does it decide how much its leaders have power? How does it create laws which tell who much power these leaders have? I hope you understand that all leaders of monopolies of agression have great incentives to increase their own power by pure self-interest. If this world-government can increase its own leaders power, it will face the same fate as USA and other countries.
Who leads this world government? Democracy or dictator? How does it decide how much its leaders have power? How does it create laws which tell who much power these leaders have?
There are no leaders. There is a set of constitutional laws protecting life and property, drawn up by a junta selected by the Mises Institute. There is a small police corps designed to enforce these laws, but it is largely unnecessary because most citizens own arms and large properties are protected by private security firms.
I don't know man, my Complete Plan for World Government isn't finished yet.
I hope you understand that all leaders of monopolies of agression have great incentives to increase their own power by pure self-interest.
And when there are *many* monopolies of aggression the incentive is even greater, as even peaceful-minded leaders must devote resources towards their "defense" budget out of fear.
I understand this argument, but it is a criticism that essentially every libertarian project is vulnerable to - ie, what will the balance of military power be? For anarcho-capitalism it is usually phrased as "what if one or several security firms decide to use armed force to establish a dictatorship?"
A true world government is, in any case. far less realistic and untested than even anarcho-primitivism (which has been the mode of production for the vast majority of human history), and I doubt that, barring the removal of a huge chunk of Earth's population (be it via war, famine, disease, or cosmic exodus), it will ever happen. There's simply far too much warring interests and cultural differences to ever let it happen on anything other than a UN-like level (and most of the big and small countries ignore the UN when it's convenient for them anyway).
nationalism is one of the strongest expressions of social interaction. it has been used to positive effect throughout history in the competition to acquire scarce resources. of course anarchists dont like this since nationalists have many times used this centralization of power to take resources by force from less nationalistic, less organized, and more vulnerable peoples. hey, nationalism happens.
hey, nationalism happens.
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.
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.
There are no leaders. There is a set of constitutional laws protecting life and property, drawn up by a junta selected by the Mises Institute.
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.
We're talking about theory - there is no need to assume that our hypothetical world government will take a certain form, or that it will make the legislative situation more complex or whatever.
A theory that contradicts experience is useless.
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.
generally speaking the bigger the army the more likely it will succeed. Duh.
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.
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.
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.
Non-anarchist armies get defeated all the time. /thread.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Centinel: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.
More arguments from ignorance, I see! I thought you were brushing up on your logic. Oh well. There are none so blind...
Centinel: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.
Let me as you here as well: what do you think constitutes, or can constitute, a "nation"?
Centinel: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.
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.
Centinel: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.
Your statement needs logical support - which your question doesn't provide.
Centinel:I mean who would you rather sign a mutual defense pact with a non-violent dude or a reliable ass kicker?
This seems like a false dilemma to me. Tell me, do you ever distinguish between aggressive and purely defensive "reliable ass kickers"?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I mean who would you rather sign a mutual defense pact with a non-violent dude or a reliable ass kicker?
Which one did Stalin sign a non-aggression pact with again? Not that one.
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.
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.
And the cost of using military force to maintain political autonomy is lowered too?
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 only ever one choice in politics. Join us or die.
That's a morbid thought.
When did I say they were effective and munificient?
No evidence?
/thread