lkk@teddy.UUCP (10/21/85)
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. 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. 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. 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.) 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. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/22/85)
>/* 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!
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/23/85)
[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
lkk@teddy.UUCP (10/24/85)
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. > >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. These organizations weren't founded for nothing, but as a response to a percieved problem. >>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. >>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. 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. > >>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." > >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? -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/26/85)
In article <28200189@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >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? More government = more trade does not imply that no government = no trade. World trade is significantly suboptimal because of all the protectionist things various nations do. It would be even worse if the dominant power of the post-world war II world had not vigorously persued free trade policies. (In the early 1950's, the U.S. economy was about half of the world economy.) The world would be much better off if a good world government could be established. That is a large if. Social experimentation is DANGEROUS. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/27/85)
>/* 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.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/29/85)
I don't think we have a wordl government. There are a number of different bodies (nations, corporations, churches, other things), none of which exerts anything resembling sovereignty over the whole globe. What we have is not a whole lot unlike anarchy, taking that word in the negative sense. The state of the world is, I would suggest, fairly representative of what happens when there is removal of central authority. It simply propagates backwards to smaller units, which in agreggate have the same potential for destruction and misery that a central authority had. Indeed, in many cases chaos is guaranteed, when the smaller sovreigns cannot coordinate, communicate,and develop cross purposes. What's the difference between a hundred security guards working for 50 people and a hundred man police force? More chaos, and little else. Charley Wingate
lkk@teddy.UUCP (10/30/85)
In article <28200226@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >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. > Bingo! There is no world government, there are "the powers that be." Since the world political situation is anarcho-libertarian, we have a perfect example of what we might expect. A few strong nations divide the world up into spheres of influence, most other nations are at their mercy. There are to independent issues: What is needed for an economy to work. What makes for a good society. My thesis is that an economy requires some level of coercion and planning. If the government doesn't do it, a strongman or gang or corporation will. I prefer the government, at least I have some say about it. My thesis about a good society is that one which has a benevolent government is preferable to one without (for large scale societies.) THis is because some organization must fill the position of economic controller. Please note, there is nothing essentially good about "government" The government of Guatamala bears as much resemblance to that of the U.S. as the U.S. bears to libertaria. What is important is the resulting relations of power, economic, military, etc. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller