The evils of war, and of poverty, totalitarianism and a host of other social maladies, are but the suppurations of a festering economic system, and that the drive toward war is in almost direct proportion to the sickness of the economy. FULL ARTICLE by David Targ
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10672/peace-through-world-government/
Peace through World Government?
Previous post: A Truly Austrian Treatise
Next post: Right for the Wrong Reasons?
{ 14 comments }
Several Comments:
1. The absence of force is COMMERCE. Peace is a positive effect of commerce. Two individuals engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction on mutually agreeable terms are not likely to kill one another. This holds for large groups as well, the USA and China are not likely to blow up one another in a nuclear holocaust with their current trading relationship.
2. World government base upon state sovereignty will not stand. The whole premise of a sovereign state is wrong. Individuals are sovereign. The state is simply a group of criminals imposing its will on individuals.
3. A world wide executive will have no other means than violence to keep the citizens of the world in line. That means that there will be privileged classes of people committing unspeakable acts of violence on the citizenry.
David, I have another argument you could use.
Humans do not know what is the best way to organize a society. They have to learn this through observation and deduction.
When different states based on different constitutions compete, one learns what is better and what is worse. You can see some aspects of this process within the USA — states introduce legislation which is then copied by other states if successful.
Without this evolutionary mechanism, humans are unable to test different forms or organization. So the world with a global government would go blind.
Jan wrote: “Humans do not know what is the best way to organize a society.”
Maybe the problem stems precisely because humans try to organize society instead of letting it organize itself.
“Is world government truly an alternative to war?”
NO, a world government is a constant, perpetual and total war against the people.
This would be the most dangerous thing mankind could do.
This government would have unlimited power and “legitimacy” and heretics like “traitors” would all be eliminated.
Imagine a worldocide.
“As a general rule, they state that each country shall have the exclusive right to make its own laws governing its citizens, subject only to the supreme and superior law of a world government.”
And State Governments can’t make laws that violate their Federal Laws. Is that necessarily different. Estimates of the population of Ancient Rome are in the region some 40 – 65 million people, hence a Roman dictator had less power than most modern nation-states. Not to mention, ancient rulers of city-states couldn’t imagine a nation-state made up of cities.
“If a stranger robs me and I call the police, they may have to break the peace in order to restore my property. I don’t call the police if I am willing to let the stranger keep my property in peace.”
Uh oh! It looks as though the author has found a non-contradiction to the way a world police force can theoretically attack an aggressive nation. The World Police enforces ‘world justice’ moreso than ‘world peace’. Then again international criminals would hate a world police as they couldn’t evade one nation’s police force by entering another country.
What’s incredible is the logic of Objectivism is one-world government–all this fussing about the “need” for a “final” decision; etc. Some of them even admit it (see Rand, Objectivism, and One-World Government).
If we truly champion human sovereignty over state sovereignty, then we must ask “who has the right to determine what constitures the law?”.
If interaction in society is dictated by the imposition of laws, rather than the expression of morals and ethics of the individual, this society is at war with iself irrespective of the name that society gives to itself, since the one that makes the law imposes upon the others.
In truth, there is no need for any “law creating structure”, only a respect for the autonomy of others and a will to be just, and this implies no compulsory taxes (which is nothing else but the harness on the beast of burden).
If all are free, then no one is anyone else’s beast of burden (slave).
What would such a society look like, The following is one suggestion
The ANSWER (total running time under 15 minutes)
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Rvl6yjTkU
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZfWTc_KfZ0
and I would add that there is no logical reason why another council should not be incorporated that represents atheists and agnostics.
Freedom, and autonomy of the individual is not dependent upon the source of ones moral code, only that a code exists and that it respects the right of everyman to live his own life by his own standard, as long as in so doing, one does not violate the rights of anyone else.
Courts should not serve the purpose of interpreting the law, but rather a place where conflicts can be resolved in a just and equitable manner.
We can have peace in our time, but only after we have eliminated the potential of any man to make a law which he can impose upon another.
For this to happen requires people who are willing to make it happen. And this requires a new political platform from which to undo the mess that we now have, since the kind of change that is envisaged cannot take place within the current structures (which is serving an objective totally contrary to the one envisaged here).
I think there´s a question that´s begging to be made here. Targ speaks of conflicts that are between states, but, what about conflicts that are within a state (civil wars)? After all, governments are by definition a monopoly on the use of force, so parallel or simultaneous occupation of two groups who call themselves “government” is indeed an impossibility within the same geographical boundries. What would “World” government espouse as the correct action? A somewhat similiar situation is happening in Honduras, which in a sense, could be said is a case of competing goverments. I´m from Costa Rica, so I view this whole situation with worry, anguish and anger. Many questions arise. Much meddling from the “international community”. Are boycotts, non recognition of a “de facto” goverment, or migratory restrictions justified? Is there legal justifications to their actions? Why? What are international organizations and foreign goverments actually defending? What are they worried about? Are they just following some sort of protocol? Why? The main point being: Will these countries and organizations continue to impose their value-judgements, through different means, on the people that they´re supposed to be defending and who´s only fault has been to live where they do, and to try work and live out their lives? The obvious: First of all, some sort of world goverment is already in place, where democratic values (made and put into place by all who call themselves “democrats”, mainly politicians who, along with other self-interests are protecting their status quo) is what´s being protected, not individual liberties. Second, at this point, all these countries, with perfect mob mentallity, look upon bigger states who can actually function as the “bully” (mainly the US, whom they hate but need, and Hitler-Stalin want-to-be´s like Chaves who are at the ready) to defuse the trouble-makers and make the world “safe for democracy”. Governments were created to protect people´s property, not to defend states, goverment or utopian ideals. “Democracy” should not be what it´s about…liberties should be. More commerce, more division of labor, and more individuality is what´s needed. All this talk of “countries as individuaIs” is annoying and unproductive. You want people to settle their differences? Leave them be. I even heard a local politician say that what was really important was the defense of democracy, and the establishment of an international legal precedent. It seem´s to me there just trying to cover their backs.
Hey Stephan, check this shit out:
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/09/what-does-the-price-system-communicate/comments/page/2/
Aside from cultural differences, how about the fact that we just need some good old fashioned competition between political ideologies to keep governments honest as well as competitive (relatively speaking, as governments go). A one world government wouldn’t give citizens much choice if they wanted to expatriate to somewhere else.
In a way, however, we are already there. The supranational financial oligarchy that controls the monetary systems of most countries has more power than the UN ever dreamed of having.
In case you are completely stupid, we have world government and we have had it since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The World Government is the United States Government, which has been orchestrating the rise and fall of puppet governments around the globe. (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, for example.)
So stop wondering what life would be like if we had world government. The answer is on the evening news.
Classical Liberalism Protection
Thursday, September 17, 2009
World Government Is Not What You Think It Is!
It is a strange reflection of reality – world government. Those who have the narrow definition of government that has been dumped on them through indoctrination cannot envision government simply as a cooperative and voluntary expression that reflects the will of the people. This natural process of mutual human endeavor simply serves as the best means of attaining the ends (an ever-advancing civilization) and this ‘government’ is maximized in an intellectual and moral environment of classical liberalism. Since humans encompass the Earth the potential and the social reality is this pure and true world government free from the ego-driven interventionists.
With an incorrect definition of government as the starting point (as is the case in this Dark Age of economics) then, of course, world government is vile, oppressive, and destructive of the human spirit.
the randians are served…
http://bit.ly/5av5
@Bruce Koerber “It is a strange reflection of reality – world government. Those who have the narrow definition of government that has been dumped on them through indoctrination cannot envision government simply as a cooperative and voluntary expression that reflects the will of the people. This natural process of mutual human endeavor simply serves as the best means of attaining the ends (an ever-advancing civilization) and this ‘government’ is maximized in an intellectual and moral environment of classical liberalism. Since humans encompass the Earth the potential and the social reality is this pure and true world government free from the ego-driven interventionists.”
Since the “global village” is reality now, does this mean that Rand’s “arbiter of last resort” would have to be World Government? If in a faraway future, civilizations from different planets started to have commerce with us here on Earth, would it neccesarily spawn some sort of Federation a la Star Trek? Would there ever be an end to this progression?
to l.b.b.o.t.p.l.:
it’s a bit like giving someone a chart of soybeans, and then expecting him to immediately be able to profitably speculate on the information contained therein.
whether fundamental or technical analysis is the chosen method, it’s the individual’s interpretative skill which will determine whether prices can be employed profitably or not.
Comments on this entry are closed.