As for Mises… Omnipotent Government contains a critique of world government, partly mentioned by parrotocracy.

IIRC Hayek believed in a world government of sorts.

Is this a joke?..

It seems that the case for Mises wanting a one-world ideology, call it Liberalism, is stronger than that for a one-world government. Mises saw types of order as functions of ideas. Therefore, a liberal world’s institutions would compliment Liberalism: a free-trade, secession-filled, tradition-challenging, anti-militarist and anti-collectivist idea. Liberalism shared by all seems collectivist, true, but it simultaneously has the most tolerance for otherwise diverse ideologies. Here is an analogy: It is the difference between humans collectively living on top of the earth yet having a universe of possibilities spread before it (shared liberal outlook); and humans being confined to living on the inside of the earth’s sphere and having only the finite option looking towards the core (nationalism, etatism, protectionism, militarism…).

In Human Action, Mises writes very negatively about some “world” organizations:
“It is futile to place confidence in treaties, conferences, and such bureaucratic outfits as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Plenipotentiaries, office clerks and experts make a poor show in fighting ideologies. The spirit of conquest cannot be smothered by red tape. What is needed is a radical change in ideologies and economic policies.”

In the Theory of Money and Credit, Mises continues his love of world centralization:
“Even the manifest futility of the International Monetary Fund does not deter authors from indulging in dreams about a world bank fertilizing mankind with floods of cheap credit.”

In add, Mises respects nations, but not Nationalism: “A nation that believes in itself and its future, a nation that means to stress the sure feeling that its members are bound to one another not merely by accident of birth but also by the common possession of a culture that is valuable above all to each of them, would necessarily be able to remain unperturbed when it saw individual persons shift to other nations.” (Nation, State, and Economy)

Again, it is ideology that leads to bad order, especially etatism. Mises writes in Omnipotent Government: “No international authority can preserve peace if economic wars continue. In our age of international division of labor, free trade is the prerequisite for any amicable arrangement between nations. And free trade is impossible in a world of etatism.”

Please, then, make the case for Mises’s alleged desire for a one-world government more thoroughly.

Obsessed much about Stephan

The thing is you couldn’t give a source for your claim on Mises. One shouldn’t say something if one hasn’t the way to prove it. Simply saying that there is some place where Mises says that, and that some other people sure knows where, weakens your argument. Besides, as anyone who reads your answer sees none of your references relate to Mises. Additionally, the central government Mises has in mind would be one which eliminates privileges and unfair institutions in the provinces. It is not a government that imposes uniformity but respects cultural and ethnic diversity. And most important of all, it isn’t a world government. Anyway if you find the source I would thank you if you share it.

I’m kicking myself for not linking to this critique of Ron Paul’s inconsistencies on federalism earlier. I think the point is arguable, and as a consequentialist libertarian I might be willing to compromise my decentralist instincts and embrace Mark Kleiman’s grand bargain.

If someone seriously believes domestic spendings is what’s draining our economy, then they’re surely living on Mars.
Foreign aid is less than one-percent of the budget. A lot of defense spending is at home, and I think that’s still less than half the federal budget. Social security and medicare/medicaid are the biggies.

I think it would be wonderful if Ron Paul became president, but I really don’t think he’ll win the primary. If you think otherwise, there is a lot of money to be made at site like intrade because they say the odds are heavily against him.

Where does Mises endorse world government? I would like a quote and the source. Because in all the things I have read from him, I never found anthing like that. In fact, he defended the right to secede.

That must have been either a monday morning article or a late night booze article.

One thing I also find troubling is that they have a few articles talking about how this or that candidate is good at not spending too much. Chris Edwards mentions that Ron Paul doesn’t talk much about cutting domestic spending. If someone seriously believes domestic spendings is what’s draining our economy, then they’re surely living on Mars.

DiLorenzo is right that their support of federalism in some cases conflicts with their endorsement of many of Pilon and Bolick’s theories. I regard “libertarian centralists” as mistaken but still libertarians in a way that I do not consider liberventionists. I think that Walter Block has said it is fine for a libertarian to support a state being prevented from violating rights by the federal government. Mises supported world-government and hoped it would end infringement of rights by smaller polities. I still praise Mises for the good things he said.

DiLorenzo is wrong that Ron Paul has not generated enthusiasm at Cato. It just takes a few seconds to do a quick search of their blog and find that there are frequent references to him, all positive. Their posts discussing the neocon smears against him and saying “good riddance to bad rubbish” with regard to pro-war phony libertarians. I just did a google search of cato.org for “fred thompson” and “ron paul”. The former got 209 results and the latter 725. I suppose for the latter you can find articles critical of his position on free-trade agreements, vouchers, immigration and Congress negotiating the price of medicine, but I’ll bet they’re outnumbered more than 3-to-1 by pages praising him. The first result for the former search called Thompson’s speech a “diatribe” that “set a record for the amount of sloppy thinking”. Michael Tanner, who has been lambasted around here for positive things he said about Thompson, said relative to Paul “Fred Thompson talks a good game, but his record suggests he is closer to McCain-lite”. Note that I wouldn’t consider it awful for anyone to speak highly of McCain’s opposition to torture when every GOP candidate other than Paul was competing in a Jack Bauer impersonation contest.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8701

Here’s a quote from the article posted on the Cato
website written by Chris Edwards who has been a member of Cato since 2001:

“I’m pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring.”

Also check out this great quote by Chris Edwards,

“What about presidential candidate Ron Paul? Paul is certainly a strong believer in the 10th Amendment, but he has been mainly occupied by the war in Iraq and hasn’t focused his campaign on cutting domestic spending.”

…..really? That’s so descriptive of Ron Paul.

You got your tongue caught TGGP. You’re the one that’s not following what’s going on while so fervently accusing others.

What’s your excuse on this one. Sure he says that he’s pleased with Thompson but it’s on the Cato website which doesn’t mean Cato supports it and he works for Cato but….uh…uh….

I wanted to argue with you on how any institute should be judged but hey if gotta be called out as someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about then it has to be done.

You said: “I don’t know of anyone at Cato rooting for Thompson.” Well now you do

That pretty much sums it up TGGP. Thanks

If the Mises Institute hired Karl Marx resurrected tomorrow, would it change your opinion of the institute at all?
Marx frequently criticized the state, and envisioned that it would wither away after the dicttorship of the proletariat. I would have no problem with LvMI employing him to spread his message insofar as it meshed with their own.

They didn’t magically just get the job did they?
Brink got his job long before he endorsed the Iraq war, and they declined to fire him because his work for them met their standards.

there’s a pro-war guy next to you rooting for Thompson!
I don’t know of anyone at Cato rooting for Thompson. Brink declared that he would vote for a Democrat this time, and his reason was that they were the party opposed to the Iraq war. Now that he’s changed his mind, do you still hate Cato?

I can’t understand why the Mises Institute promotes ideas such as natural rights in the first place, since von Mises argued that “natural rights” themselves are metaphysical nonsense
Rothbard founded the institute and it would be more sensible to have named it after him, but I guess it would have seemed tacky to be running an institution named after yourself unless you’re really a big deal.

So if I see an institute that is supposed to espouse liberty going off course, I’m not supposed to criticize it?
Cato still espouses liberty, the organization might be said to have gone off course on some issues like Canadian drug importation, but on the whole I’d say they stuck to their ideals pretty well.

I love liberty most and would love to see CATO get back on track.
What would that require? Firing Brink even though he’s already admitted that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake?

ArrowDebreu, to put it bluntly, is an ignoramus.
What mistaken things has he said that indicates he is an ignoramous?

I hope that if the Mises Institute ever started hiring people who supported Fred Thompson openly that someone from CATO would criticize the Mises Institute and expose the erroneous direction this behavior is headed to.
Who from Cato supports Fred Thompson? And I would hope that it would be the Thompson supporter who was criticized rather than his/her employer.