My New Cato Institute Article Making the "Cosmopolitan Case Against World Government"

It is part of Cato's Defending Globalization series.

(NA)

Today the Cato Institute published my article, "A Cosmopolitan Case Against World Government." It is part of Cato's "Defending Globalization" series. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

The debate over world government and "global governance" typically pits cosmopolitan supporters of globalization against nationalist champions of state sovereignty. The latter fear world government because of the threat it poses to nationalism and the autonomy of nation-states. They also typically view free trade and international migration with great suspicion.

However, one need not be a nationalist to oppose world government. I am a cosmopolitan supporter of free trade and an advocate of a strong presumption in favor of open borders immigration. In addition, I am no fan of nationalism, which I consider to be one of the greatest evils of the modern world.

Yet I also take a dim view of world government and other similar proposals. These positions are not contradictory. Indeed, they are mutually reinforcing. Precisely because I see great value in free migration and the opportunity to "vote with your feet," I oppose the creation of a global state whose authority would be almost impossible to escape.

A world government would close off opportunities for foot voting. It would also undermine valuable interjurisdictional competition and exacerbate some key weaknesses of the democratic process. In the worst-case scenario, it could lead to the establishment of a global tyranny from which there may be no escape. Despite the claims of advocates, a world government is also probably not necessary to solve the world's major problems. Indeed, it might even exacerbate some of those dangers.

In addition to critiquing the idea of world government, the article explains why this issue is worth considering, despite the fact there is very little chance that anything like a world government will actually be established anytime soon.

The article is an expanded and updated version of a piece I wrote for the World Government Research Network site in 2017. I also have an extensive discussion of this issue in Chapter 8 of my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I've always said that a world with one government wouldn't lack for refugees, it would lack for refuge.

But if you put the world in a blender, by opening all the borders, how is this materially different? You can't retain local distinctiveness if you can't control entry; You can't foot vote your way into the chess club if the chess club can't exclude bridge players, who can then turn it into just another bridge club.

[Randal]

Why in the world would bridge players come to the chess club to play bridge?

Your paranoia knows no bounds!

[Michael P]

Maybe the chess club has nicer digs. Maybe it has nicer members. (One could go on.) Your failures of imagination say more about you than the metaphor.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Bridge club's membership are gamblers, they thought it was sensible to invest the entire club budget into hog futures, and now they're facing a big margin call. While the Chess club have been saving up for years so that the entire membership can attend an international chess tournament.

Thus the hostile takeover.

[Mike Hansberry]

Ever heard that nature abhors a vacuum?

It is wishful thinking that one day nations will dissolve but no world government will arise. Or maybe you were thinking of going tribal?

[apedad]

But who would create the world govt if nations dissolved?

[Aubrey LaVentana]

NGOs at the back of the room mutter, "hold my Scotch."

[M L]

“there is very little chance that anything like a world government will actually be established anytime soon.”

I guess it depends how you look at it. The US government generally seems comfortable with getting their military involved around the globe whenever desired, filling the whole world with lots of military bases, engaging in targeted killings and so on, all so as to impose their will. This bears at least some semblance to a world police type of entity.

Open borders policies, as to goods and people, disintegrate a key feature of the nation-state and engender a common market and common law, foreign entanglements and superseding international laws. All of this also begins to bear some semblance to a world government or multinational government.

[Mike Hansberry]

Well said, especially your second paragraph. Somehow I do not think Russia, China, and N. Korea will allow open border policies to disintegrate their nations. Presently, it is only the West that has drank that Kool-Aid.

[Sarcastr0]

You appear to be holding out some pretty awful countries as exemplars we should follow.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes, Sarcastr0, that's how smart people think. If a country does one thing that you don't like, then all things they do are bad.

Good one, genius.

[Drewski]

The US has 38 military bases. Compare to Canada's 27 or Russia's 21. We have the most but we aren't "filling the whole world." Most of them are domestic. Every large country engages in targeted killing. You've been too much time watching Russia Today.

[M L]

As of September 2022, there are 171,736 active-duty military troops across 178 countries, with the most in Japan (53,973), Germany (35,781), and South Korea (25,372). These three countries also have the most U.S. military bases – 120, 119, and 73, respectively.

There are around 750 U.S. military bases in at least 80 countries, though Al Jazeera says the number “may be even higher as not all data is published by the Pentagon.”

https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/us-sending-more-troops-middle-east-where-world-are-us-military-deployed

Infographic: US military presence around the world

The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive

[Martinned2]

Or we could just create an effective world government and reduce the need for people to flee to another country. But you do you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, something like a "United Nations". That should work.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I led off by pointing out, you don't reduce the NEED for people to flee by making sure there's nowhere to flee to.

Perhaps you're just building into "effective" the assumption that everything's peachy?

[Riva]

Effective? The CCP may be effective in managing its internal affairs. Is this the standard you want? Enjoy your servitude.

[Mike Hansberry]

World government is antithetical to "you-do-you." A future world government will say to the peoples of the former nation state of France, "do as I say" -because that is the nature of governments, they govern.

If some future world government is sold as world federalism, we should heed the example of the USA, in which the "federal" government today more often acts like a national government extending into areas once reserved to the individual state governments.

[Bob from Ohio]

Since 1945, the world has had a government. The United States of America. Some provinces are in rebellion from time to time, of course, but usually fall back into line in time.

Seems like a good idea to keep it, we see today what happens when our governing weakens.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“A world government would close off opportunities for foot voting.”

Others -- like some are in place in this country -- will remain.

A world government would realistically require a weaker confederation than the union of states in this country.

There will still be a broad ability to move around the world to go to countries of very different characters. There would be some loose overall governing authority, which would regulate things to help the world go more smoothly.

[M L]

I peeked at the globalization series.

From a quick skim, one piece titled "The Conservative Case for Globalization" seems to be a rehash of all the tired neocon talking points about "free trade."

The author express incredulity:

It is difficult to comprehend how one can proudly wave the Gadsden flag, proclaiming “Don’t Tread on Me,” and then seemingly turn around and remark, “But go ahead ‘swamp,’ take away my freedom and choose for me which products I’m allowed to buy.”

So, anyone who likes liberty isn't a big fan of taxes. But should they allow for any taxes? If the position is no taxes at all, does that amount to an anarchist position of abolishing government?

Like all of the tired talking points recited, it generally applies to any sort of taxes or government. So are we talking about limited government, or no government?

Any sort of sales/excise tax/tariff etc is a tax upon a transaction involving property. There are reasons that these types of taxes have a long and well-established history going back to the founding, compared to the abomination of income taxes which came later.

Surely this author realizes there are trade-offs to be made, but doesn't seem to mention it. Instead he implicitly embraces the income tax. It is even more difficult to comprehend how one can turn around and say "OK swamp, tax my income!"

[bernard11]

a rehash of all the tired neocon talking points about “free trade.”

You mean a restatement of well-established and solidly supported arguments in favor of free trade.

[Sarcastr0]

Free trade is not a neocons thing.

[M L]

If by "free trade" you mean an even playing field, sure, that's a good goal. Through bilateral agreements. But if domestic production is unequally penalized by some domestic tax or other domestic measure, or unequally taxed upon export to another country, or on the other hand foreign production is unequally subsidized, then the government might rationally counterbalance such things with corresponding duties. And the underlying point is that it's a trivial thing to explain why any form of taxation is bad; a more useful perspective would compare the different forms of taxation we face and consider which of those are worst (or if the position is to abolish all taxes, then make that case).

[Sarcastr0]

This is like the opposite of Ricardo and Smith.
You need to go back to 1817 and learn a bit about comparative advantage.

[M L]

Actually read a bit more of the article intro and it makes allowances for the numerous exceptions and considerations that Adam Smith outlined, so that's pretty good.
Don't pretend you're smart enough to discuss anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Numerous exceptions? Eh, there are a few.

Your examples are not in that set.

You are arguing that if you're bad at something for reasons of policy you should use tariffs.

That's not an exception, it's a broadside that flies directly in the face of comparative advantage.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Here is his argument:

"But if domestic production is unequally penalized by some domestic tax or other domestic measure, or unequally taxed upon export to another country, or on the other hand foreign production is unequally subsidized, then the government might rationally counterbalance such things with corresponding duties."

Here is how Gaslightr0, the Magnificent Liar, characterized it:

"You are arguing that if you’re bad at something for reasons of policy you should use tariffs."

Have you no shame? You clearly have no integrity.

[Sarcastr0]

“ if domestic production is unequally penalized” ie if you are bad at something

“ by some domestic tax or other domestic measure” ie for reasons of policy

“ or unequally taxed upon export to another country, or on the other hand foreign production is unequally subsidized” other reasons of policy on the other side

“ the government might rationally counterbalance such things with corresponding duties” you should use tariffs.

As with many trolls you are kinda dumb and got fooled by big words.

[M L]

My examples are in that set, actually.
And there's no contradiction between this and the idea of comparative advantage.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re saying if there is a comparative advantage due to domestic policy in either nation then tariffs are reasonable.

That’s a huge subset of comparative advantages. An exception that swallows the rule.

And an exception created with ipse dixit. You don’t back up why comparative advantage’s benefits would not apply, or what additional costs you believe are implicated.

It sure looks a lot like you don’t believe comparative advantage is a thing worth taking advantage of. That the quote about blocking up our harbors went over your head underscores that fact.

[M L]

I understand the rocks in the harbor comment perfectly. Apparently my response went over your head.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of comparative advantage. If another country has better access to a resource and can produce something more cheaply, in most cases it makes sense to buy from that country. An example of an exception would be if you thought it was necessary to have domestic production capacity for that product, then you may not want domestic production capacity to be totally destroyed. So the idea of comparative advantage is valid and and informs decisions.

The best examples of things yielding an advantage would be things like access to natural resources and labor supply.

However, what if the only reason the other country has a comparative advantage is because you decided you are going to shoot yourself in the foot? Such as by imposing heavy taxes domestically? You may want to reevaluate things and revisit the decision to shoot yourself in the foot on an ongoing basis.

Or, let’s say the reason the other country has a comparative advantage is because you decided to enact many regulations and price controls affecting labor, minimum wages, workplace safety, discrimination claims, environmental impacts, etc, all of which makes domestic costs immeasurably greater by orders of magnitude. Was that still a good decision, and if so, is it a good decision to allow our supply chain to operate free of those restrictions on foreign soil? Effectively creating a great incentive if not an outright mandate to offshore some things? Maybe yes, maybe no, it's a case by case basis. Suppose hypothetical country A outlawed slavery and country B did not; country A may not be content to simply keep using slave labor for their products as long as it’s happening somewhere else.

[Sarcastr0]

Comparative advantage is not just about resource access, it's also about workforce. Ad policy choices.
It's in general about specialization arrived at for any reason between trade partners.

I'm not a free trade maven - there are some clear national security-related sectors worth protecting. And theoretically keeping to some worldwide standards of labor rights and environmental care could be a justification, but we hardly do that anymore.

But as an economic growth device, tariffs are not a good tool compared to free trade.

[M L]

And income taxes are not a good tool compared to no income taxes. As an economic growth device.

[bernard11]

The classic reply is,

"If other nations have rocky coasts, should we block up our harbors?"

[M L]

1. Maybe, if the rocks only affect ships from the offending nations and can be removed at any time and will cause the other nations to remove their rocks.

2. Brilliant point though. While we're at it, should we hang millstones around citizens' necks and toss them in the harbor? That's the hefty income tax.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to have missed the point of the quote.

[David Nieporent]

From a quick skim, one piece titled “The Conservative Case for Globalization” seems to be a rehash of all the tired neocon talking points about “free trade.”

Free trade is of course an unalloyed good, but it doesn't have one damn thing to do with neoconservatism, so it's not clear what "neocon talking points" you might be talking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Neoconservatism hasn't been a thing in half a century. It was a historical movement of liberals who abandoned the left over not taking the threat of communism seriously enough, and became "new", "neo", conservatives.

You stopped getting new neoconservatives about the time the Berlin wall fell, maybe a bit earlier.

I don't know why people keep using the term today, when it's basically meaningless; They don't want to say "Jewish conservative"? (The most famous neo-cons happened to be Jewish on account of the USSR being antisemitic.)

[Sarcastr0]

It was a historical movement of liberals who abandoned the left over not taking the threat of communism seriously enough

Seems like you just want all bad politicians to be liberal. When Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney come down as liberals to you, perhaps you've got an instrumental and not useful definition going on.

It's not meaningless, it's just narrow in what it means; it's not a complete political philosophy.

But yes, I have seen it used as an antisemetic dog whistle.

[M L]

That's a bizarre viewpoint to me, I thought GWB and post 9/11 was peak neocon.

The term neocon gets used a lot, it generally refers to Republicans who are enthusiastic about foreign military interventions and open borders. With a side of domestic centralization/federal aggrandizement, big multilateral trade agreements and international institutions/bureaucracies. Often distinguished from paleocon.

[Sarcastr0]

Open borders are not part of the neocon brief. You seem to think if GWB did it it’s neoconservative. That’s wrong.

[M L]

Maybe not open borders but soft on illegal immigration etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Still not part of the neocon brief. Were are your sources?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism cites a number of dictionaries and book on the subject for the thesis that neoconservativism has to do with international affairs.

The only countervailing voice is Pat Buchannan who very much has agenda of his own.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

“The latter fear world government because of the threat it poses to nationalism and the autonomy of nation-states.”

The latter fear more intensely that a world government is able to distance itself even further, through more layers of bureaucracy, from the people who are governed. And further isolate itself from the consequences of its errors. See the EU.

Look at what is served for dinner at Davos, and compare it to what Davos encourages for the diet of the rest of the world.

I agree the world government must be viewed distinctly from globalism. However, the latter begets the former if allowed.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"A world government would . . . also undermine valuable interjurisdictional competition and exacerbate some key weaknesses of the democratic process."

You mean, like Federalism was supposed to work in the US? Compared to the British Empire?

[SRG2]

You realise that this is just part of the Jewish conspiracy to have a world government, right? We deny that we want a world government so people will stop thinking we want one, so we can go ahead. Note how we deliberately told MTG about our space lasers to discredit the idea that we do in fact have them. But of course I would only say this if it were not true. So it's not true. Which is what Ilya and me and the rest of the IZC want you to believe.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We?

I fucking knew it. As anti-White and anti-Christian as you are, and how much you try to undermine White families and healthy, normal culture it was obvious!