Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: World Government
Message-ID: <28200226@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 01:07:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200226
Posted: Sun Oct 27 01:07:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 08:02:27 EST
References: <1473@teddy.UUCP>
Lines: 138
Nf-ID: #R:teddy:-147300:inmet:28200226:000:7026
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Oct 27 01:07:00 1985


>/* Written  1:54 pm  Oct 24, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */
>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.
>
Tsk!  Squirming!  The issue is TRADE.  The more you concede that 
the current super-national situation resembles libertaria, the more
you concede that world-trade implies successful trade in libertaria.

>>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.

The IMF would hardly need to funnel the money through third-world countries
to "subsidize" 1st world countries -- look up the word subsidize.
I, by the way, will be looking into GATT (I'd never heard of it).

>These organizations weren't founded for nothing, but as a response to a
>percieved problem.

So?  Prohibition was ALSO a response to a perceived problm.

>>>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.

You might, and then again you might not.   The interesting thing is that
in the hypothesis you state, the REST of the world would be unlikely to
step in and stop Britain -- only the folks that are allies with the US 
(and the US itself) would do so (assuming for a moment that anything
of the kind would happen).

This is pretty much what one might expect in anarcho-libertaria.
Does anarcho-libertaria have a government?  Perhaps by Larry Kolodney's
definition, which would seem to include any group strong enough to 
use force to protect its interests.

>>>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.

More later on this (maybe), but didn't the Greek city-states trade a
lot?  How about Rome and Egypt?

>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.

I suspect they require stability (or at least prefer it) but there's
no reason that a government needs to be the source of that stability.
As I understand it, a great deal of art came out of medieval Ireland,
and some very good ships came out of ancient Iceland.  Neither had
governments of the sort liable to provide "stability" as a service.
While it would be hard to find post-industrial-revolution production
centers located out of government territories, I suspect that quite a
few exist in spite of governments: in particular, the market for
illegal drugs involves the production and distribution of heroin.
This happens IN SPITE OF governments, not because of the "stability"
provided by their beneficence.

>>>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."

Larry, I could cite quite a few examples of unpunished moves that resulted
in bad investment climates, but I suspect you'd counter by saying (rightly)
that investment climate isn't the ONLY thing the Mysterious Plutocrats
look at before passing "judgement" in "world court".  In fact, though,
I'm unable to see the degree to which your "world government" is 
like a "government" in the sense I took you to mean government.

>>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?
>

I would if I believed the expected payoff was positive; so would you, I 
hope.  This latest spasm of yours, though, implies (if it is to have
any relation to the discussion about trade and world government) that
I need a government to be sure the contract was adhered to.  There are
a number of ways (without government) to be reasonably sure of 
compliance. (Reasonably sure is all you get with governments, by the
way).  To name a few: require posting of bond, require submission to
arbitration, allow payment only on delivery (using sight drafts),
insure his compliance with Lloyd's.