Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: World Government
Message-ID: <28200189@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 11:02:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200189
Posted: Tue Oct 22 11:02:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:42:27 EDT
References: <1473@teddy.UUCP>
Lines: 77
Nf-ID: #R:teddy:-147300:inmet:28200189:000:3994
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Oct 22 11:02:00 1985


>/* Written  3:23 pm  Oct 21, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "World Government" ---------- */
>Someone flamed me a while back for my claim that non-trivial economies couldn't
>exist without government.  I was then told that there was a world economy, but
>no world government, so there.  Since that message arrived on a busy day, I
>didn't have a chance to respond.  Here goes.
>
>
>I claim there IS a de facto world government.  Or rather, there are
>organizations which provide many of the same stability providing services.

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).

>There are a number of treaties and international organizations that provide
>stabliizing and controlling influences on world commerce.  These include GATT,
>the World Bank, and the International monetary fund.  While you might point out
>that these are all "voluntary" organizations, we once again see a case where
>lack of explicit coercion is not the same as voluntary.   Poor countries have a
>choice, join or go bankrupt.

Oh, I don't know about that.  Some of them could finally give up on 
silly economic policies (such as prosecuting hoarders, or nationalizing
industries).  Of course, countries with bad luck must appeal for help,
just as people with bad luck do.  No coercion there.

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?

>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.  The actions of the President of the United States
>have a tremendous effect on virtually everyone in the world.  The economic and
>military might of the US and USSR have tremendous influence in maintaining
>foreign markets for those nations, insuring that contracts are respected, and
>the like.

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.  

>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.

By the way,  the trade between Japan and China, was that regulated by the
French, the Portuguese, or the British?

>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?  

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!