U.s.e.! U.s.e.! U.s.e.!

[Andalublue]

I don't see it. All I could see is a beefing up of democratic, EU-wide institutions. More power to the parliament, less power to the commission. Greater subsidiarity, which seems to have become a forgotten concept, and economically? ...No effing idea how that needs to go. I'd like to see a weakening of the nation state and much greater regional and local autonomy under a very, very much slimmed down central authority dealing with defence, economic planning and coordination and foreign relations. Get rid of the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries policies. I'd also like to see an EU-wide immigration policy which does not place all the burden on the entry-point states and I'd like to see the Schengen agreement adopted EU-wide.

To me the goal should be the demise of the nation state across Europe. That little institution has been the cause of 80% of the continent's problems for a good few hundred years. It is no longer fit for purpose, so let's do something different.

 

[Canell]

Hardly. The moral imperative is to work towards a free, unified world government founded on libertarian principles. Anything less is unforgivably foolish.

Imho, it should be more like a constitution (more like 10 sentences, not 10 or 100 pages) and a court to enforce it. "Do not to others what you do not want others do unto you" would be a good start. In other world, rule of the law instead of rule of some individuals.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

There is the idea of "subsidiarity": "Leave as many decisions as possible to the lowest level of government". The more you can decide locally, the more should be decided locally. What cannot be decided locally, should be decided nationally. And only the few things that can really be better decided federally should be decided by the federal government.

I think it would be best if a "USE" government only decided about military/defense and economy. Nothing else.

Guy already said it, using the economy, a federal government can justify anything.
Just take a look at the gross abuse of the commerce clause by our feds.

Personally, I like the EU as a confederation.
There is so much uniqueness represented by each EU nation, to me, federating the EU would be a tragedy.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Hardly. The moral imperative is to work towards a free, unified world government founded on libertarian principles. Anything less is unforgivably foolish.

So the answer to a free, unified, libertarian world government is the answer to all the world's woes? You sound like a pre-Victorian Utopian Socialist

 

[Guy Incognito]

Guy already said it, using the economy, a federal government can justify anything.
Just take a look at the gross abuse of the commerce clause by our feds.

Personally, I like the EU as a confederation.
There is so much uniqueness represented by each EU nation, to me, federating the EU would be a tragedy.

That is just sentimentalism, though. At this point they must hang together or they will surely hang separately.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Guy already said it, using the economy, a federal government can justify anything.
Just take a look at the gross abuse of the commerce clause by our feds.

Personally, I like the EU as a confederation.
There is so much uniqueness represented by each EU nation, to me, federating the EU would be a tragedy.

Agreed. If anybody studies European history, they will know that each nation, and even each region has a long unique history and that such a history still affects Europe today. A confederation would be perfect. Bringing about harmony between the nations while not extinguishing their uniqueness in culture, history, and such.

 

[Guy Incognito]

So the answer to a free, unified, libertarian world government is the answer to all the world's woes? You sound like a pre-Victorian Utopian Socialist

That's a fairly astute observation. I am a Georgist.

I also happen to be right. It is adorably naive but ultimately dangerous to think you can put the skies on globalization. The one world government is inevitable, it can either be perfectly unfree or perfectly free. It is up to good people with strong libertarian principles to take the lead in globalization, or else the authoritarians will be unopposed.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That is just sentimentalism, though. At this point they must hang together or they will surely hang separately.

I'm not a fan of combining more governments.
For one, it just concentrates power and it limits the ability of citizens to escape, to what they think are better nations to live in.

If I had it my way, I'd break apart the U.S. into 4 of more smaller countries.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Agreed. If anybody studies European history, they will know that each nation, and even each region has a long unique history and that such a history still affects Europe today. A confederation would be perfect. Bringing about harmony between the nations while not extinguishing their uniqueness in culture, history, and such.

You should write poetry that is such a beautiful idea. But poetry does not make for good politics.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

That's a fairly astute observation. I am a Georgist.

I also happen to be right. It is adorably naive but ultimately dangerous to think you can put the skies on globalization. The one world government is inevitable, it can either be perfectly unfree or perfectly free. It is up to good people with strong libertarian principles to take the lead in globalization, or else the authoritarians will be unopposed.

You're a Georgist? The raiser of the single tax on rents?
He had a remarkable life yes and his idea was somewhat valid during his time, but was too idealistic.

A one world government already exists, is called the UN, and is basically powerless. A libertarian government is even more unlikely. Libertarianism is so far mostly practiced in the US and the UN, and no such movement exists in Asia, Africa, or pretty much rest of the world.

 

[Canell]

The one world government is inevitable, it can either be perfectly unfree or perfectly free. It is up to good people with strong libertarian principles to take the lead in globalization, or else the authoritarians will be unopposed.

Yeah, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, everybody knows that.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I'm not a fan of combining more governments.
For one, it just concentrates power and it limits the ability of citizens to escape, to what they think are better nations to live in.

If I had it my way, I'd break apart the U.S. into 4 of more smaller countries.

Local tyranny is no less tyranny than centralized tyranny. If there is someplace to escape to it implies that par of the world is free and part is unfree. That is not what we should aspire towards. Moreover, unification of the world governments is already here, it is now simply a question of harmonizing them over the next generation. I suppose you could have pockets of freedom interspersed with tyrannies, but that is not stable and will ultimately be overwhelmed as the authoritarian appropriate the tide of globalization. Right now globalization is still up for grabs, and if libertarians quit clinging to an idealized past and get on board, we can make the globalized future our own.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Local tyranny is no less tyranny than centralized tyranny. If there is someplace to escape to it implies that par of the world is free and part is unfree. That is not what we should aspire towards. Moreover, unification of the world governments is already here, it is now simply a question of harmonizing them over the next generation. I suppose you could have pockets of freedom interspersed with tyrannies, but that is not stable and will ultimately be overwhelmed as the authoritarian appropriate the tide of globalization. Right now globalization is still up for grabs, and if libertarians quit clinging to an idealized past and get on board, we can make the globalized future our own.

Aspirations are nice, but reality takes a big bite out of it.
Even in today's age of nearly free, in your home, information, so many people choose to remain ignorant.

At this time, in our society, I do not think people would move towards a super national libertarian government.
Maybe in a couple thousand years.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You're a Georgist? The raiser of the single tax on rents?
He had a remarkable life yes and his idea was somewhat valid during his time, but was too idealistic.

A one world government already exists, is called the UN, and is basically powerless. A libertarian government is even more unlikely. Libertarianism is so far mostly practiced in the US and the UN, and no such movement exists in Asia, Africa, or pretty much rest of the world.

Unimproved land value tax, technically, which promotes perfect market efficiency and jibes with Lockean proletarian theory. It is the perfect solution to the biggest libertarian shortcomings. I look askance at any libertarian who is not a Georgist, because they are missing a critical piece of the puzzle.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Aspirations are nice, but reality takes a big bite out of it.
Even in today's age of nearly free, in your home, information, so many people choose to remain ignorant.

At this time, in our society, I do not think people would move towards a super national libertarian government.
Maybe in a couple thousand years.

Aspirations are not what I am talking about. I am talking about burying your head in the sand and letting authoritarians steamroll us, as you are effectively advocating, or getting on board with the inevitability of globalization. You cannot stop globalization, you can only guide it or ignore it. It's a no brainer.

 

[Canell]

You cannot stop globalization, you can only guide it or ignore it.

We cannot but mother Earth can, if you know what I mean. But that's another not very cheerful topic. :ssst:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Aspirations are not what I am talking about. I am talking about burying your head in the sand and letting authoritarians steamroll us, as you are effectively advocating, or getting on board with the inevitability of globalization. You cannot stop globalization, you can only guide it or ignore it. It's a no brainer.

While I'd admire your energy, I just think that people aren't ready.
Way to many are stuck in other beliefs, that aren't likely to change.

It sucks, but I'm more of an incremental libertarian.
If nothing else, the rapid advancement in technology will neuter authoritarianism.

 

[jamesrage]

United States of Europe seems inevitable. So when do you think it's going to happen?

I don't see it happening.They have no common language,there are still plenty of Europeans who still respect their national sovereignty,there is the current economic crises, and I do not think wealthier nations want to be picking up the tap for poor nations.

 

[Guy Incognito]

If nothing else, the rapid advancement in technology will neuter authoritarianism.

Interesting! Why do you say that? I find myself reaching the opposite conclusion.

 

[Ikari]

United States of Europe seems inevitable. So when do you think it's going to happen?

I don't think it's feasible. Too many cultures, too many languages, too many various economies. Hell it can't even really support one currency, how the hell would it support one true government?

 

[Guy Incognito]

I don't think it's feasible. Too many cultures, too many languages, too many various economies. Hell it can't even really support one currency, how the hell would it support one true government?

But look, one world government is what we already have. It's just that the one world government is a hydra. Every gover many is interrelated economically and legally. The movement is toward ever more globalization. Denial of this fact just plays into the hands of the authoritarians.

Edit: sorry Ikari, I didn't look which post you were replying to. I think with respect to a USE, and the cultural issue, it is not insurmountable. The USA has many disparate cultures and we do just fine. As for the languages, everybody in Europe speaks English.

 

[German guy]

I don't think it's feasible. Too many cultures, too many languages, too many various economies. Hell it can't even really support one currency, how the hell would it support one true government?

Some say it can't really support one currency just because it doesn't support one true government.

 

[Ikari]

Some say it can't really support one currency just because it doesn't support one true government.

Yeah, I'm sure there are some that say that. They're likely wrong because it's the various cultures and histories and demographics and pride and a multitude of other things which will keep Europe fractured for the foreseeable future. Perhaps given enough time it will start to become more feasible.

 

[Ben K.]

But for the languages, everybody in Europe speaks English.

!?

Not even everybody in the UK speaks English.

 

[Ben K.]

To the topic, I'd only be content with such a situation if the French became marginalised. I think an Anglo German axis would be far more promising at the forefront of such a Union that respects state rights.

However, this ain't gonna happen.