Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!lkk From: lkk@teddy.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: World Government Message-ID: <1496@teddy.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 13:54:21 EST Article-I.D.: teddy.1496 Posted: Thu Oct 24 13:54:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 02:47:48 EST References: <1473@teddy.UUCP> <28200189@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass. Lines: 106 In article <28200189@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >That's right Larry, just as there would, in an >anarcho-libertarian society be no government, but many organizations which >provide many of the same stability providing services (police, courts). Right now, world government is a plutochracy. The courts and police are controlled by them that gots. That is how it would be in libertaria as well. > >By the way, Larry, the issue is TRADE. RICH countries are the ones with >lots to trade, so how are they threatened with Bankruptcy if they don't >join the IMF? > Well, for one thing, IMF serves to create third-world markets, which help subsidize 1st world economies. By GATT is actually much more important for first world countries for guaranteeing relatively free trade, thus avoiding the problems which occurred in the early 30's with tariff wars and embargoes, which lead to worldwide depression. These organizations weren't founded for nothing, but as a response to a percieved problem. >>There are a few countries in the world (most notably the USA and the USSR), >>which are so much more powerful than all the others that they are in effect the >>plutocracy of the world. > >Ho-hum. So why is it that Britain has free elections? Why are they still >in Ireland even though we've asked them out? And so on..... the point is, >Larry, that we're hardly in a position to "lock 'em up", if they don't do >what we want. We certainly weren't in Vietnam, and we certainly weren't >when OPEC started rumbling. > The same reason why you are able to criticize the US govt. I never said the world govt. was totalitarian. If Britain were to nationalize all U.S. assets in the U.K. without compensation, then you might get a different response. Ref: Chile, Dominican Republic. >>In prior times, France, Britain and Portugal served in these capacities as >>world governor. Prior to that, there was very little in the way of >>international trade (although there was quite a bit of powerful countries >>taking advantage of smaller ones.) > >Are you *SERIOUS*? I suppose "prior to prior times" might be a *LONG* time >ago, but you're just being silly if you want to deny trade between nations >in any historical time when it made economic sense (when, for example >transportation was not a problem). Suppose you put a date on your >"prior to prior times" notion. > OK, what sort of international trade was there in Europe prior to the renaissance? Practically none as far as I know. But I must admit I overstated my case. TRADE does not require a government, only people willing to exchange things. But there's more to an economy besides trade, namely PRODUCTION. I would argue that PRODUCTION (and investment) requires the stability provided by government. > >>Now I'm not saying that the current world economic order is good. Just that >>it only exists because there are de facto governing authorities which allow it >>to exist. > >Whistling in the dark, Larry...... How is it that France carried out >atmospheric nuke testing for so long? How is it that Tito didn't toe >the Soviet line as closely as others did? Like I said, world government is fairly loose, and nations have a much wider scope of behaviors that they can get away with than governments. The primary rule is, "Don't do things which make for a bad investment climate." > >If you say: "These are examples of things where a libertarian society would >FAIL by virtue of having competing and conflicting court systems", then I >point out to you that the issue is whether trade can occur without government >making it possible, and the more such "failures", the less trade there >should be (by the Kolodney hypothesis, an impotent "world" government >should mean no world trade). Who, by the way, could Norfolk Island >get an injunction from to keep Australia from annexing it? > >A world government! Pfui! Would you sign a contract with a foreign national if you had no way of insuring that it was adhered to? -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller