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!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: World Government
Message-ID: <28200209@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 22:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200209
Posted: Tue Oct 22 22:35:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:42:50 EDT
References: <1473@teddy.UUCP>
Lines: 60
Nf-ID: #R:teddy:-147300:inmet:28200209:000:2896
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 22 22:35:00 1985


[Larry Kolodney: lkk@teddy]

> I claim there IS a de facto world government.  Or rather, there are
> organizations which provide many of the same stability providing services.

Ah, but there is a tremendous leap in that figure of correction.
You say: there is a government, *or rather*, there is a community,
an organized society.

> 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.

Well, to provide a kind of government they would have to  coordi-
nate  their  policies.  And there is pretty little of that, espe-
cially with Russia. The others coordinate their  defense  against
Russia,  but  little  else  of  importance to them. Certainly not
enough to provide a strong basis for trade. Right now in Congress
all  the  talk  is of protectionism.  Well, what do the opponents
say ? GATT won't approve ? No, they say: other countries will re-
taliate. This is a typical anarchic situation.

> 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.)

No, I disagree with that. All these powers had influence, but not
governorship of the world. Their relations were usually such that
had one of them been in command some other would not even exist. So
there  was  no arbitrary power - but also no delegated power.  Do
you think, e.g., that the Potruguese *policed* the  Dutch  penetra-
tion of East Indies *and let them get away with it* ?
Yes, there was a time when Britain policed the sea lanes.
But she was the main user, by far: a typical libertarian
situation, a free rider problem solution.

But in any case, think: what is needed is just *one*  example  of
flourishing  economy, with lots of trade, but no central authori-
ty.  *You* would need to exclude *all*  of  them.  You exclude the
modern world, and I think you are wrong .

Well, consider the Western world before WWI (the non-Western world
was then considered of no account). Lots of trade (not as much as
now, but a lot); no international organizations  to speak of;
no dominant power or dominant block of powers.

Or consider 15th century Italy, the most prosperous, the  most
mercantile country of Europe, completely devoid of central polit-
ical authority (and that, indeed, was later  her  undoing,  but
for different reasons: defense, not trade, proved inadequate).

Or think of Phoenician and Greek colonies, flung all over
the Mediterranean, all dependent on trade for their prosperity,
but on no central power - until these powers came unasked.
It seems that for traders, historically, the question
as often was protection *from* authority as *by* authority.

		Jan Wasilewsky