World Government United Earth

[Divair]

But the EU does have authority, as does the US Federal Government. The UN isn't federal. It has almost no authority beyond telling nations they've been a bad boy.

You are getting confused between the Human Rights Council and so forth, its the administrative bodies that you have to look at.

None of the UN bodies has any real authority (at least not on the level of a federal or centralist government)

[New Rogernomics]

Good ol' authoritarianism.

Why couldn't a world government be libertarian?

Why couldn't every person have the same political, economic or social ideas? Individualism itself is against 'libertarianism'; meaning, in order for libertarianism to be implemented you would have to allow many different systems; a libertarian could not disallow a group of people building a separate nation-state on their own private property.

[Gigaverse]

Good ol' authoritarianism.

Why couldn't a world government be libertarian?

Many examples of a world gov't had been given a hint of authoritarianism, no matter how much Utopian it is. Even my own project's nation had turned out to become one, slightly authoritarian incarnation of a nation. It's still socially libertarian, yes, but otherwise, no, I don't think so.

And thus... I won't really like the world gov't, ye.

[Divair]

Why couldn't a world government be libertarian?

Many examples of a world gov't had been given a hint of authoritarianism, no matter how much Utopian it is. Even my own project's nation had turned out to become one, slightly authoritarian incarnation of a nation. It's still socially libertarian, yes, but otherwise, no, I don't think so.

And thus... I won't really like the world gov't, ye.

Such as?

[Divair]

Why couldn't a world government be libertarian?

Why couldn't every person have the same political, economic or social ideas? Individualism itself is against 'libertarianism'; meaning, in order for libertarianism to be implemented you would have to allow many different systems; a libertarian could not disallow a group of people building a separate nation-state on their own private property.

I think you're confusing the ideology of libertarianism (i.e. Gary Johnson and his followers, or Ron Paul and his cult) and the aspect of libertarianism (as in, allowing individuals to make choices about their own lives. i.e. drug legalization). A world government could pull off both, but the second is far easier.

[New Rogernomics]

You are getting confused between the Human Rights Council and so forth, its the administrative bodies that you have to look at.

None of the UN bodies has any real authority (at least not on the level of a federal or centralist government)

The World Bank and IMF have real and major authority as far as world economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sp ... ed_Nations

[Genivaria]

You can't compare the UN to a world government.

Yes you can, the UN is based on the principle of nations under a single centralized body trying to work together and failing. This is contrary to World Federalist movements.

Wait, wait, wait...WHAT!? Since when has the UN had anywhere NEAR enough power to be considered Centralized?
Its not even a Confederacy, it has NO POWER. NONE. So no, you can't compare it to an actual world government.

[Divair]

None of the UN bodies has any real authority (at least not on the level of a federal or centralist government)

The World Bank and IMF have real and major authority as far as world economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sp ... ed_Nations

Because they've been given permission to use authority by the members of that certain organization. The UN, as a whole, does not have power on the level of a federal or centralist government.

[New Rogernomics]

Why couldn't every person have the same political, economic or social ideas? Individualism itself is against 'libertarianism'; meaning, in order for libertarianism to be implemented you would have to allow many different systems; a libertarian could not disallow a group of people building a separate nation-state on their own private property.

I think you're confusing the ideology of libertarianism (i.e. Gary Johnson and his followers, or Ron Paul and his cult) and the aspect of libertarianism (as in, allowing individuals to make choices about their own lives. i.e. drug legalization). A world government could pull off both, but the second is far easier.

There are two varieties of libertarianism i.e. left and right; both conflict.

[Genivaria]

The World Bank and IMF have real and major authority as far as world economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sp ... ed_Nations

Because they've been given permission to use authority by the members of that certain organization. The UN, as a whole, does not have power on the level of a federal or centralist government.

Or even a Confederal one.

[Gigaverse]

Many examples of a world gov't had been given a hint of authoritarianism, no matter how much Utopian it is. Even my own project's nation had turned out to become one, slightly authoritarian incarnation of a nation. It's still socially libertarian, yes, but otherwise, no, I don't think so.

And thus... I won't really like the world gov't, ye.

Such as?

Oh, you and your silly "such as's"...

[New Rogernomics]

The World Bank and IMF have real and major authority as far as world economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sp ... ed_Nations

Because they've been given permission to use authority by the members of that certain organization. The UN, as a whole, does not have power on the level of a federal or centralist government.

Well duh, it a taste of things to come. Under a federal or central government its powers would be expanded, as it is now the World Bank and IMF are good examples of what a world government would hold; and a lot of countries don't agree with the World Bank or IMF. Under a world government such authorities wouldn't just be optional, but totally obligatory.

[Divair]

I think you're confusing the ideology of libertarianism (i.e. Gary Johnson and his followers, or Ron Paul and his cult) and the aspect of libertarianism (as in, allowing individuals to make choices about their own lives. i.e. drug legalization). A world government could pull off both, but the second is far easier.

There are two varieties of libertarianism i.e. left and right; both conflict.

Sure. And that's why we have different political parties in parliaments and Congress. It wouldn't be any different under a world government.

[Genivaria]

Such as?

Oh, you and your silly "such as's"...

Exactly how does a work of fiction have any influence on this?

[Divair]

Because they've been given permission to use authority by the members of that certain organization. The UN, as a whole, does not have power on the level of a federal or centralist government.

Well duh, it a taste of things to come. Under a federal or central government its powers would be expanded, as it is now the World Bank and IMF are good examples of what a world government would hold; and a lot of countries don't agree with the World Bank or IMF. Under a world government such authorities wouldn't just be optional, but totally obligatory.

Aye, but joining a world government would be optional. No one is advocating forcing the entire globe into an alliance.

[Divair]

Such as?

Oh, you and your silly "such as's"...

And 1984 proves government is ebil and out to get us, right?

[Genivaria]

Because they've been given permission to use authority by the members of that certain organization. The UN, as a whole, does not have power on the level of a federal or centralist government.

Well duh, it a taste of things to come. Under a federal or central government its powers would be expanded, as it is now the World Bank and IMF are good examples of what a world government would hold; and a lot of countries don't agree with the World Bank or IMF. Under a world government such authorities wouldn't just be optional, but totally obligatory.

Lemme guess, your one of those New World Order conspiracy types?

[New Rogernomics]

There are two varieties of libertarianism i.e. left and right; both conflict.

Sure. And that's why we have different political parties in parliaments and Congress. It wouldn't be any different under a world government.

Well too few people are libertarians, there are far more pseudo-communists, democratic socialists and state capitalists; quite simply libertarianism isn't a political force on par with them. Both are quite different:

Most left-libertarians in this sense are anarchists, and frequently claim to reject the concept of self-ownership, at least when it is understood to underwrite capitalism,[10] along with private ownership of the means of production and absentee ownership of private property, in favor of alternative rights of possession and stewardship which are understood as protecting personal autonomy while rejecting putative rights which they see as permitting the economic elite to control the lives of others. They support rights to personal property and the rights of occupancy over one’s dwelling, but reject commercial propertarianism and some do not consider the re-appropriation of such wealth to be an act of theft but rather an act of liberation (see individual reclamation). Many reject arrangements that allow for hierarchy, kyriarchy, or begrudgingly consensual subordination. Similarly, some reject the non-aggression principle to the extent that it is used by right-libertarians to treat assaults on private property as assaults on individual liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

[New Rogernomics]

Well duh, it a taste of things to come. Under a federal or central government its powers would be expanded, as it is now the World Bank and IMF are good examples of what a world government would hold; and a lot of countries don't agree with the World Bank or IMF. Under a world government such authorities wouldn't just be optional, but totally obligatory.

Lemme guess, your one of those New World Order conspiracy types?

Let me guess, you are jumping to conclusions. If you actually read my posts, which you never did. I said I supported Federalism.

[Divair]

Sure. And that's why we have different political parties in parliaments and Congress. It wouldn't be any different under a world government.

Well too few people are libertarians, there are far more pseudo-communists, democratic socialists and state capitalists; quite simply libertarianism isn't a political force on par with them. Both are quite different:

Most left-libertarians in this sense are anarchists, and frequently claim to reject the concept of self-ownership, at least when it is understood to underwrite capitalism,[10] along with private ownership of the means of production and absentee ownership of private property, in favor of alternative rights of possession and stewardship which are understood as protecting personal autonomy while rejecting putative rights which they see as permitting the economic elite to control the lives of others. They support rights to personal property and the rights of occupancy over one’s dwelling, but reject commercial propertarianism and some do not consider the re-appropriation of such wealth to be an act of theft but rather an act of liberation (see individual reclamation). Many reject arrangements that allow for hierarchy, kyriarchy, or begrudgingly consensual subordination. Similarly, some reject the non-aggression principle to the extent that it is used by right-libertarians to treat assaults on private property as assaults on individual liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

I think you're confusing the ideology of libertarianism (i.e. Gary Johnson) with the aspect of libertarianism. I'm talking about the aspect of libertarianism

[New Rogernomics]

Well duh, it a taste of things to come. Under a federal or central government its powers would be expanded, as it is now the World Bank and IMF are good examples of what a world government would hold; and a lot of countries don't agree with the World Bank or IMF. Under a world government such authorities wouldn't just be optional, but totally obligatory.

Aye, but joining a world government would be optional. No one is advocating forcing the entire globe into an alliance.

Depends, in the beginning it would be; but at some point it becomes impossible to be separate i.e. the central government monopolizes the global system.

[Divair]

Aye, but joining a world government would be optional. No one is advocating forcing the entire globe into an alliance.

Depends, in the beginning it would be; but at some point it becomes impossible to be separate i.e. the central government monopolizes the global system.

Possibly, but if enough countries voluntarily joined the system, it wouldn't be insane to assume it is good enough to be a world government. Not to mention it would be built by the people, so it would be shaped depending on the globe's needs and desires.

[New Rogernomics]

Well too few people are libertarians, there are far more pseudo-communists, democratic socialists and state capitalists; quite simply libertarianism isn't a political force on par with them. Both are quite different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

I think you're confusing the ideology of libertarianism (i.e. Gary Johnson) with the aspect of libertarianism. I'm talking about the aspect of libertarianism

Which is? Classical liberalism is more in line with providing individual rights than libertarianism which is confined to particular economic theories on free markets.

[Divair]

I think you're confusing the ideology of libertarianism (i.e. Gary Johnson) with the aspect of libertarianism. I'm talking about the aspect of libertarianism

Which is? Classical liberalism is more in line with providing individual rights than libertarianism which is confined to particular economic theories on free markets.

Think of the political compass. Authoritarian individuals or countries tend to restrict personal freedoms, whereas libertarian individuals or countries tend to leave people's lives alone.

[New Rogernomics]

Depends, in the beginning it would be; but at some point it becomes impossible to be separate i.e. the central government monopolizes the global system.

Possibly, but if enough countries voluntarily joined the system, it wouldn't be insane to assume it is good enough to be a world government. Not to mention it would be built by the people, so it would be shaped depending on the globe's needs and desires.

Not necessarily, more like built by particular economists, banks and corporations; central authorities can be dogmatic and ignorant of criticism.