The biggest divide between libertarians as I see it is between anarchists and minarchists. Must all aggression be opposed, or is some necessary to force everyone to pay for a "night watchman"? I personally oppose all aggression and believe defense and justice can be provide through voluntary social cooperation, how all of our other wants are provided, ie. through the free and unfettered market. I am a proponent of statelessness and the free society.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
I'm no minarchist (the idea that one can rationally know the optimal size of the government and then implement that plan is just another form of social engineering, and not of the Popperian piecemeal species either), but the reason that I do not advocate world government is that not only does a world government face the inability to centralized all the knowledge it needs to do its job efficiently, but it also does not provide a route to dissolving that government. With a small government, the worst-case scenario is that it needs to be overthrown, the larger the government the more likely massive institutional damage will be done as collateral damage.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
But with world government you have a lot more people you can enlist in the revolution! The increasing geography of government scales with increasing population :I
My question for minarchists, those who believe that a limited state is necessary for ensuring freedom for all, is why aren't you promoting world government?
Why would I?
There currently exists to a large degree anarchy between the nations of the world. Surely this should be abolished, and national sovereignty replaced with a world state ensuring freedom for all. In other words, to be consistent, minarchism must be extended to world minarchism, and minarchists who demand a limited national government, must also demand a limited world government.
Enourmus non sequitur.
I'm no minarchist or whatever, but I think all the talk about world government is misleading. It seems that there are practical issues with running a world government that would make such an entity more likely to be an advisory board rather than a supranational legal entity. Therefore, I totally support "world government" because I don't think it will fundamentally change the way national governments function.
@scineram, please explain. Is the minarchist argument not that we need a final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force? Why shouldn't this apply to the whole world? Indeed, the minarchist logic behind finality and monopoly demands that it does, does it not?
Is the minarchist argument not that we need a final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force? Why shouldn't this apply to the whole world?
Another reason why I would oppose world government is that "justice" is not an objective concept, but rather grounded in the cultural and philosophical beliefs of a culture. It governments desire to provide justice, then it follows that a state that encompasses too many cultures would impede this goal.
"Another reason why I would oppose world government is that "justice" is not an objective concept, but rather grounded in the cultural and philosophical beliefs of a culture. It governments desire to provide justice, then it follows that a state that encompasses too many cultures would impede this goal."
Exactly. I actually don't think a world legal system could even be done. Law varies so much from one culture to another, it seems ridiculous to imagine world courts, world trials, world constitutions or world legal precedent.
Arbitration between 200 countries scattered around the Earth and between 2000000 people living in one city are totally different in scope. Also countries are not individuals moving around and traveling but fixed areas.
Actually, if cultures were eventually de-based with involuntary statist multi-culturalism (i.e. importing of immigrants for democrat's voting blocs), it would be much easier to establish a "one world government". I'm not sure if the other reactionary statist parties would ever allow that, though, so in a sense I don't see that possibility very likely either.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
"it would be much easier to establish a "one world government".
Even if they establish a world legal advisory board, it won't have teeth. Same for any other policy board. They'll hand out their ideas of what they want to happen and the member governments will implement them as they see fit.
I am a minarchist.
I may be sympathetic to Anarcho-Capitalism, but I see some problems with it, I think it could work, but there would be some problems.
The reason that minarchist prefer smaller government, as opposed to larger government, is that individuals have more say in a smaller government. Also, it is harder to control a larger government. And you can vote with your feel and move to a new nation, you can't move to a new world, yet.
I admit I was vague in my question. World government may or may not have influence on local affairs. That is irrelevant, really. What I am asking is: should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations? Minarchism, at least as I understand it, would demand that anarchy be abolished wherever it is found. If there is anarchy between nations, then it should be abolished. To further argue that this world government should influence local affairs is really beyond what I'm asking.
What say ye?
Doesn't Hayek endorse some type of world government framework in the last chapter of The Road to Serfdom? (I realize this was written during WW2, fresh off the total failure of the world's states attempts to deal with Nazi Germany)
World government may or may not have influence on local affairs. That is irrelevant, really.
What I am asking is: should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations? Minarchism, at least as I understand it, would demand that anarchy be abolished wherever it is found. If there is anarchy between nations, then it should be abolished.
You are a security guard working for a private defense company. While patrolling the streets, you see someone getting mugged. Do you....
(a) stand politely to the side and ask the victim to present identification that proves he is a paying customer of your company?
or
(b) rescue the victim from the mugger, taking the chance that you are providing a service to someone who has not paid?
If you choose (b), isn't this exactly what a policeman does who works for the "state?"
In a similar case, if you were a fireman working for a private fire department, would you only put out the fires of your paying customers, and let the others burn to death or have their homes destroyed?
I am not an anarchist, because I believe there must always be organized defense, and that this defense will always act like a state, even if we call it "private." According to your definition, I am a minarchist because I do believe that "a limited state is necessary for ensuring freedom for all." Yet, I do not call myself a minarchist, because this term implies a coercive government. I believe that the state should be voluntarily associated, and that it should be limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. This type of state can be called a protectorate. While a protectorate would not have a monopoly on law and defense, I believe that if it were set up correctly, most people would decide to join the protectorate.
An important function of a protectorate would be to establish a standing army, navy, etc. for defense against invasion by coercive governments. Under anarchy, it would impossible to defend against an orgainized invasion unless everyone volunteered to fight. This might happen, but it makes more sense to have an army already established rather than wait for people to volunteer after the invasion has occurred. If anarchy were established, it's territory could be easily taken over by a powerful invading army and freedom would be lost. While a protectorate is not perfect, it is a better model than anarchy and would provide more freedom for a longer time.
I am a bitter opponent of any trend toward world government and totalitarianism. A world protectorate could work, but it makes much more sense to establish a protectorate first in a single sovereign nation.
"should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations?"
I'm not sure whether there should be, I am saying that it would be hard to do.
"should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations?" I'm not sure whether there should be, I am saying that it would be hard to do.
Well, that's what the UN is trying to become. I agree, it is difficult to set up such a "final arbiter," but they have come a long way. For example, the UN is close to being able to enforce a binding carbon emissions reduction agreement. This would give them power over the affairs of sovereign nations.
"For example, the UN is close to being able to enforce a binding carbon emissions reduction agreement."
You're talking about the the Kyoto Protocol right?
In my opinion, if the current nation-state cannot rationally plan a welfare state or even hope to control or calculate the world economy, I see no hope for a world government. I think that any apparatus produced to try to dispense justice would run into a variety of different problems(Culture, existing traditions, different attitudes) that it would be nearly impossible to be uniform or to deal with every problem necessary. If we are going to see international cooperation, I think it is best to see it done by cooperation through the market system which promotes peace and free trade.
"Man thinks not only for the sake of thinking, but also in order to act."-Ludwig von Mises
You're talking about the the Kyoto Protocol right
Yes, but the treaty has many names because they keep changing it and updating it (I think they try to confuse people on purpose). The last meeting was in Copenhagen in December 2009, and the next one starts in Novement 2010 in Cancun, Mexico. They have yet to reach a legally binding agreement, but that could change in Cancun.
Skyler Collins: I admit I was vague in my question. World government may or may not have influence on local affairs. That is irrelevant, really. What I am asking is: should there be final arbiter with a monopoly on the use of force to settle disputes between nations? Minarchism, at least as I understand it, would demand that anarchy be abolished wherever it is found. If there is anarchy between nations, then it should be abolished. To further argue that this world government should influence local affairs is really beyond what I'm asking. What say ye?
"I may be sympathetic to Anarcho-Capitalism, but I see some problems with it, I think it could work, but there would be some problems."
You were saying?
No one seems willing or able to answer my question. I'm asking if the minarchist position demands support for a minarchist world government? In my opinion it does. If I am wrong, how?
Yes, if you are a minarchist, then you must theoretically support minarchy at any scale. Above, I argued in support of a protectorate, and this demands support for a world protectorate. However, it is extremely unlikely that world minarchy would ever emerge. Also, it would be stupid for a minarchist to oppose national sovereignty, since it's easier to reduce the size of government starting at a local level. Trends toward world government in real life are totalitarian in nature, so minarchists oppose them just like anarchists do.
In addition, you seem to be saying that since there is anarchy between nations, and minarchists oppose anarchy, they should be advocating the abolition of individual states in favor of a single world state. But "anarchy" between nations isn't anarchy in any real sense. No one lives without a ruler - different people are just under the rule of different governments based on geography. It makes more sense for minarchists to argue for the reduction in size of each individual government.
"Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist." - No More Military Socialism by MNR
It is time now to bring the State into our discussion. The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self-defense.5 The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called "taxation") is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money, and the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation, and radio and television. Now, since the State arrogates to itself the monopoly of violence over a territorial area, so long as its depredations and extortions go unresisted, there is said to be "peace" in the area, since the only violence is one-way, directed by the State downward against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of "revolutions" in which people resist the use of State power against them. Both the quiet case of the State unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed "vertical violence": violence of the State against its public or vice versa. In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world; and so a state of "anarchy" exists between the several States. (It has always been a source of wonder, incidentally, to this writer how the same conservatives who denounce as lunatic any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of violence over a given territory and thus leaving private individuals without an overlord, should be equally insistent upon leaving States without an overlord to settle disputes between them. The former is always denounced as "crackpot anarchism"; the latter is hailed as preserving independence and "national sovereignty" from "world government.") And so, except for revolutions, which occur only sporadically, the open violence and two-sided conflict in the world takes place between two or more States, that is, in what is called "international war" (or "horizontal violence"). - MNR
Again, states consist of geographical areas. Private individuals are not.
James: "And you can vote with your feel and move to a new nation, you can't move to a new world, yet."
What does size of government have to do with "vote with your feet"? You can have a limited world government. Where are you going to go?
No one seems willing or able to answer my question. I'm asking if the minarchist position demands support for a minarchist world government?
In my opinion it does. If I am wrong, how?
You are wrong because there is no theoretical necessity behind your question, there is no theoretical necessity behind the assertion that any support for a state leads to a necessary support for one world government. You are coming at this from the Rothbardian paradigm in which you think that you determine the optimal size of the government a priori, but for reasons above and many other reasons, like the empirical environment that the particular state is in, this is wrong.
Voting with your feet? If a burgler came to your house, took your stuff, and said "i'll be back next year", you can move to get away from him. This doesn't change the fact that he stole from you. The proposal to leave your house also rejects your right to property... its thievery on all levels.
scineram: "Arbitration between 200 countries scattered around the Earth and between 2000000 people living in one city are totally different in scope. Also countries are not individuals moving around and traveling but fixed areas."
But not in principle (nor is it logically consistent). And what the hell does that change? The borders of nation-states are a mythical line drawn in the sand.
Also state areas need not be fixed. Neither is a states existence guaranteed. They also "live" and "die". The territory can grow & expand, or decrease. Political centralization and secession.
Economics of Political Centralization - http://mises.org/media/4015
"In Germany alone - 2nd half of 17th Century, after the 30 year war... 'Germany' consisted of sum 234 countries, 51 free cities, 1,500 independent nightly manors."
Wrong.
"The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area." - MNR
"The state" is a group of individuals. Individuals also consist of geographical areas. Just smaller in scope. ;)
Conza -
The state as you describe has existed still does existt. Propenents of a limited government do not, however, support taxation of any kind. The only kind of "aggression" we support is the kind necessary to maintain that monopoly. So the kind of state we support is very different in that it does not gain its income by force.
World government is not being clamored for now by proponenets of limited government because of the impossibility of achieving it. The world would have to be covered in rational states before that could be happen, and then every state would have to go to the trouble of merging their beuracracies. Not fun.
Not fixed. Which was the point.
"Propenents [sic]of a limited government do not, however, support taxation of any kind. The only kind of "aggression" we support is the kind necessary to maintain that monopoly. So the kind of state we support is very different in that it does not gain its income by force."
I'd suggest you take a read of this:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/03/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-libertarians-hate-it/
In particular: - Libertarians, “Government,” and the State
And then drop the semantics. ;)
I do think it's worth noting that the Kyoto Protocol still requires ratification.
I am not minarchist, but this part seems nonsensical to me. Why minarchist should want a world government? They want as less government as possible (as far as I know) and especially to limit its power, world government is the opposite of that. It's impossible to govern large area (I am even not talking about whole Earth) with "small" government. And even minarchist should see that.
I don't know, maybe I miss something, but it's really non-sequitur.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Minarchists have a problem with anarchy between people, so for consistency, they must also have a problem with anarchy between states. This is why the OP says minarchy implies world government.
But there is huge difference between "anarchy" between states and the type of anarchy advocated by anarcho-capitalists. Even though there is no worldwide arbiter for disputes between states, one state or the other will make a final decision. Every individual on the planet is under the jurisdiction of a coercive government, so how can there be anarchy in any real sense between states?
LeeO:Even though there is no worldwide arbiter for disputes between states, one state or the other will make a final decision.
Isn't it consistent for an individual to be a state? The Monarchy of Snowflake: Population 1?