One World Government?

[nimble]

If there is only one form of moral government, wouldn't that logically imply that there should only be one government which abides by that moral law? So why are Objectivists satisfied with multiple world governments? Shouldn't we fight for one minimal state government?

[Inspector]

If there is only one form of moral government, wouldn't that logically imply that there should only be one government which abides by that moral law? So why are Objectivists satisfied with multiple world governments? Shouldn't we fight for one minimal state government?

First things first. Such a state must be established before it can be spread.

[Capitalism Forever]

If there is only one form of moral government, wouldn't that logically imply that there should only be one government which abides by that moral law?

Nope.

[Inspector]

Oh yeah, and no not necessarily. Two objective governments would have no reason to seek each others' removal or integration.

[Hal]

It's not a bad idea in theory. Most of the arguments against anarchy scale up to the national level; a world government functioning as an ultimate arbiter between countries would serve the same purpose as the state which arbitates between individuals. Obviously the UN is a terrible attempt at world government, and has probably turned quite a lot of people against the idea altogether, but one that was based on more proper principles would be less objectionable.

[Free Capitalist]

If there is only one form of moral government

There isn't. There are actually infinitely many forms of moral governments, as many as man can imagine. They all will be similar in that they protect individual rights, but can otherwise be different in every way imaginable.

[Patrick N.]

There isn't. There are actually infinitely many forms of moral governments, as many as man can imagine. They all will be similar in that they protect individual rights, but can otherwise be different in every way imaginable.

This is interesting. Could you provide some examples?

[nimble]

There isn't. There are actually infinitely many forms of moral governments, as many as man can imagine. They all will be similar in that they protect individual rights, but can otherwise be different in every way imaginable.

Do all men under a particular government have to consent to the government in your idea of other moral governments?

[Free Capitalist]

American form of government is just one variant.

What if a man comes along of absolutely incredible and extraordinary political ability? Should something like the electoral system and term office limits stand in his way? Why shouldn't he take reign of the government by himself, with consent of citizens, for as long as he feels necessary, and the citizens are satisfied with his governorship? This was done often in Greece.

What if we think one man is too drastic, so we pick 12 most wise citizens to rule the country, and they run the country all together, and we replace them regularly through elections but otherwise let them do what they want? One man is too much power concentrated in too few hands, and we don't want power to be too diffuse to be effective. Let's abolish all this Congress and President stuff, and simply pick a Council of Wise Men every now so often, and let that constitute our government? This too was done often in Greece.

What if we don't want 12 men to rule our country because they will form an aristocracy and create undesirable influence upon the country's elections and future choices of electors? What if we simply want every man and woman to rule directly and vote directly for every law. If a group of Oists is stranded on an island, do you really think they should elect a President and a Congress? A direct voting democracy seems there to be the most logical choice. This was also done very often in Greece.

There were over 1,000 city-states in Ancient Greece and they've tried nearly every combination of government that man can think of. They provide a lot of empirical evidence about how governments work, which work, which don't, etc. Many of them could be adapted to protect individual rights, but they would all still be drastically different from one another in every other aspect.

[Walker]

Interesting idea FC.

After I read your original post, I immediately thought of the more modern example of America's congress vs. Britain's parliamentary system.

As long as the different forms are properly limited in their powers and refrain from violating individual rights, the proper choice of government simply comes down to choosing the governmental form that is most effective in protecting individual rights in the given context.

If our colleges weren't overflowing with socialists/fascists/communists/neo-cons (soon), I'd expect this to be something that would be discussed in the realm of political science.

This idea will definitely come in handy next time I meet a libertarian who tries to convince me that Ayn Rand was an anarchist because the Valley didn't have a highly formalized government in place.

[Free Capitalist]

After I read your original post, I immediately thought of the more modern example of America's congress vs. Britain's parliamentary system.

Yep that works, but I went for something more drastic. A one man government can secure rights just as well as any other, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a constitutional monarchy, or something like an electoral constitutional dictatorship where you elect only a President and he has no blocks set upon him by the Supreme Court or by the Congress. And you elect men like this once in a while, or keep the same man in office if you like him.

If our colleges weren't overflowing with socialists/fascists/communists/neo-cons (soon), I'd expect this to be something that would be discussed in the realm of political science.

At one point, it was.

[Yes]

American form of government is just one variant.

What if a man comes along of absolutely incredible and extraordinary political ability?

So he would be capable of ruling, as in a despot?

Should something like the electoral system and term office limits stand in his way?

Such systems help safeguard against giving one man too much power over another.

Why shouldn't he take reign of the government by himself, with consent of citizens, for as long as he feels necessary, and the citizens are satisfied with his governorship?

Because that amounts to mob rule. And giving one entity power over another.

This was done often in Greece.

Ancient Greece was the essence of collectivist mob rule.

What if we think one man is too drastic, so we pick 12 most wise citizens to rule the country, and they run the country all together, and we replace them regularly through elections but otherwise let them do what they want? One man is too much power concentrated in too few hands, and we don't want power to be too diffuse to be effective. Let's abolish all this Congress and President stuff, and simply pick a Council of Wise Men every now so often, and let that constitute our government? This too was done often in Greece.

What if we don't want 12 men to rule our country because they will form an aristocracy and create undesirable influence upon the country's elections and future choices of electors? What if we simply want every man and woman to rule directly and vote directly for every law. If a group of Oists is stranded on an island, do you really think they should elect a President and a Congress? A direct voting democracy seems there to be the most logical choice. This was also done very often in Greece.

There were over 1,000 city-states in Ancient Greece and they've tried nearly every combination of government that man can think of. They provide a lot of empirical evidence about how governments work, which work, which don't, etc. Many of them could be adapted to protect individual rights, but they would all still be drastically different from one another in every other aspect.

What is missing from your discussion is the issue of law. Government needs a set of standards to run under, and each administrator of government must be sworn to adhere by such standards. When men assume thenselves to be above the law, such standards break down, and what happens is government rules individuals by force, rather than government protecting the rights of individuals.

[nimble]

I dont see how you can advocate allowing more than one government to operate in the world. If you concede that as long as men are consenting to a government then they can fraction off and create their own, what line can possibly be drawn to stop men from continuing to fraction off until each government consisted of one individual? I think thats ludicrous to allow such a thing.

[Free Capitalist]

Yes, there's so much I disagree with in your post that I don't know where to begin.

[...]So he would be capable of ruling, as in a despot?

[...] Because that amounts to mob rule.

The three kinds of governments are all capable of securing individual rights. There's nothing intrinsic in the American governmental system that allows it, and only it, to protect rights. A one man rule, under a constitution and a set of objective laws, can secure it just as well. A group of Objectivists on a desert island operating as a direct democracy can establish a society of rights just as well.

All of your arguments are not of the variety that "these governments are immoral", but of the variety that "these governments are not very stable". That's a wholly different issue. It is true that some governments are better than others at maintaining government in crises and such, and it is only here that the American system shines as one of the best - it is simply one of the most stable governments ever devised, that's all.

So my original point still stands, that there are infinitely many possible kinds of moral governments.

Ancient Greece was the essence of collectivist mob rule.

Care to back that up? Have you ever read any of Aristotle's political writings?

---

nimble, with all due respect, the question is not how many governments on Earth you personally can tolerate. This isn't a virtual reality where the rest of the world should be adjusted to how you personally feel about things. There will be as many governments in the world as there will be separate free associations of rational men. If a guy thinks he can escape criminal prosecution by murdering his neighbor and then declaring autonomy and self government, then he simply says that the army should go after him, instead of the police. He will still be apprehended, regardless of what he says or does.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

I dont see how you can advocate allowing more than one government to operate in the world.

What is wrong with having more than one Capitalist government in the world?

If you concede that as long as men are consenting to a government then they can fraction off and create their own, what line can possibly be drawn to stop men from continuing to fraction off until each government consisted of one individual? I think thats ludicrous to allow such a thing.

What reason would people under a Capitalist government have to fraction off? It seems like a very arbitrary claim…

[nimble]

What is wrong with having more than one Capitalist government in the world?

I think you draw a few conclusions that cannot be drawn. Truthfully, the only thing wrong with multiple governments is that it creates a competition for the use of retaliatory force. When there is a competition in the market for law and legislation, then that amounts to anarchy.

What reason would people under a Capitalist government have to fraction off?  It seems like a very arbitrary claim…

Mutual agreement between people does not always entail capitalism. In fact, I know many people who arent capitalists. Does a government have a right to enforce a belief on someone they dont want? NO!!! So those who are not capitalists may fraction off from the capitalist government. Im not advocating socialism, but I am definitely advocating that no man man initiate the use of force to coerce a socialist into participating in a capitalist government. And if you allow one to fraction off, then you cannot logically draw a line.

[Thoyd Loki]

If there is only one form of moral government, wouldn't that logically imply that there should only be one government which abides by that moral law? So why are Objectivists satisfied with multiple world governments? Shouldn't we fight for one minimal state government?

You mean; one neck, for one leash?

[nimble]

You mean; one neck, for one leash?

Are you insinuating there should be as many leashes as there are necks?

[GoodOrigamiMan]

I think you draw a few conclusions that cannot be drawn. Truthfully, the only thing wrong with multiple governments is that it creates a competition for the use of retaliatory force. When there is a competition in the market for law and legislation, then that amounts to anarchy.

Frankly I don’t know what you mean here… Perhaps your could provide a hypothetical example of how two Capitalist governments would compete for the use of retaliatory force and end up in anarchy.

Mutual agreement between people does not always entail capitalism. In fact, I know many people who arent capitalists.  Does a government have a right to enforce a belief on someone they dont want? NO!!! So those who are not capitalists may fraction off from the capitalist government. Im not advocating socialism, but I am definitely advocating that no man man initiate the use of force to coerce a socialist into participating in a capitalist government. And if you allow one to fraction off, then you cannot logically draw a line.

At what point does Capitalism force people to believe something they don’t want to? So how do you coerce socialists to participate in a Capitalist government? Are you implying that since they are socialists they should be allowed to violate individual rights?

Before I was thinking of a Capitalist faction splitting off from a Capitalist government… but you are implying a socialist faction splitting off from a Capitalist government – which is really pathetic. If you feel sorry for the poor socialists forced to live in America (or god forbid a real Capitalist country)… why?

[nimble]

Frankly I don’t know what you mean here…  Perhaps your could provide a hypothetical example of how two Capitalist governments would compete for the use of retaliatory force and end up in anarchy.

At what point does Capitalism force people to believe something they don’t want to?  So how do you coerce socialists to participate in a Capitalist government?  Are you implying that since they are socialists they should be allowed to violate individual rights?

Before I was thinking of a Capitalist faction splitting off from a Capitalist government… but you are implying a socialist faction splitting off from a Capitalist government – which is really pathetic.  If you feel sorry for the poor socialists forced to live in America (or god forbid a real Capitalist country)… why? 

Here is an example of two governments fighting over the use of retaliatory force. There is a case in Germany that is issuing a subpoena out for Donald Rumsfeld, for war crimes. However, do you think the US government is going to submit to the law of a foreign nation? Effectively, Donald Rumsfeld becomes immune from rule of law.

And I dont care what a socialists reasons are for leaving, but if he wants to not participate in the class creating capitalist country, then he and his friends may choose a different form of government. Same would apply to a christian area that wanted christian law. Same would apply to an anarchist that wanted no state. They, in theory, have the right to create the form of government they choose, so long as all under their govt or lack of govt, agree to the terms of the institution.

[Patrick N.]

Here is an example of two governments fighting over the use of retaliatory force. There is a case in Germany that is issuing a subpoena out for Donald Rumsfeld, for war crimes. However, do you think the US government is going to submit to the law of a foreign nation? Effectively, Donald Rumsfeld becomes immune from rule of law.

And I dont care what a socialists reasons are for leaving, but if he wants to not participate in the class creating capitalist country, then he and his friends may choose a different form of government. Same would apply to a christian area that wanted christian law. Same would apply to an anarchist that wanted no state. They, in theory, have the right to create the form of government they choose, so long as all under their govt or lack of govt, agree to the terms of the institution.

Please explain specifically what "not participate in the class creating capitalist country" means.

What do you mean by "class creating?"

[nimble]

Please explain specifically what "not participate in the class creating capitalist country" means.

What do you mean by "class creating?"

Have you ever read Marx? He believes capitalism and any system of heirarchy creates class divisions which are bad for society. Im pretty sure socialists believe that capitalism creates classes. They may not want to participate.

And truthfully, I could care less about their reasons. They could not want to participate because capitalism starts with a "c", but its not my place to force anything on another.

[Patrick N.]

Have you ever read Marx? He believes capitalism and any system of heirarchy creates class divisions which are bad for society. Im pretty sure socialists believe that capitalism creates classes. They may not want to participate.

And truthfully, I could care less about their reasons. They could not want to participate because capitalism starts with a "c", but its not my place to force anything on another.

Yes, I have had the displeasure of reading Marx.

So you yourself do not think capitalism creates "classes," you were just giving an example of reasons a socialist would have for rejecting capitalism?

[GoodOrigamiMan]

Here is an example of two governments fighting over the use of retaliatory force. There is a case in Germany that is issuing a subpoena out for Donald Rumsfeld, for war crimes. However, do you think the US government is going to submit to the law of a foreign nation? Effectively, Donald Rumsfeld becomes immune from rule of law.

I said, “two Capitalist governments” which is why your example will have to be hypothetical. If you want to use Donald Rumsfeld as a concrete example to illustrate a principle that would be relevant to my question go ahead (but good luck). No context dropping please.

And I dont care what a socialists reasons are for leaving, but if he wants to not participate in the class creating capitalist country, then he and his friends may choose a different form of government. Same would apply to a christian area that wanted christian law. Same would apply to an anarchist that wanted no state. They, in theory, have the right to create the form of government they choose, so long as all under their govt or lack of govt, agree to the terms of the institution.

Whose theory says they have the right to create any form of government they choose? Who has a right to create a government that violates the rights of thousands of individuals? Your position would make sense if you think rights are some collectivist creation… are you familiar with the Objectivist position on rights?

[Yes]

Yes, there's so much I disagree with in your post that I don't know where to begin.......Care to back that up? Have you ever read any of Aristotle's political writings?

Utter nonsense.

That's because you completely disregard the concept of government by law, not of man, clearly explained in virtually every capitalist site on the Internet.

The concept of Government of Law is clearly explained here