- Ilya Somin at Cato Institute argues that supporting globalization and opposing world government are not contradictory positions because a world government could worsen voter ignorance, hinder foot voting, and potentially spiral into catastrophic authoritarianism.
- The article asserts that world government is unnecessary for solving global issues and could suppress beneficial diversity and competition between nations. Instead, voluntary cooperation among major powers can address international challenges effectively.
Overview:
This article was written by Ilya Somin at Cato Institute.
- Key insights provided include the assertion that cosmopolitan support for globalization can coexist with opposition to a global government and that world government could potentially lead to substantial negative outcomes including authoritarianism.
Key Quotes:
- "World government would be dangerous because people harmed by its policies could not 'vote with their feet' against it."
- “We don’t need world government to solve the world’s problems.”
What They Discuss:
- The debate over world government versus global governance, typically conflicted between cosmopolitan supporters and nationalist opponents.
- World government could undermine diversity and beneficial competition among nation-states, as illustrated by the proposed global minimum tax by the OECD.
- Political ignorance would be exacerbated under a global government, making it harder for voters to be well-informed about global policies.
- A world government could make it impossible for individuals to migrate away from oppressive regimes, eliminating opportunities for “foot voting.”
- Historical and hypothetical risks of world government turning into totalitarian regimes, potentially with catastrophic results.
What They Recommend:
- Address global problems through cooperation between a few major powers rather than establishing a world government.
- Utilize voluntary agreements and unilateral actions to solve international issues.
- Promote migration rights and reduce barriers to immigration without the global government framework.
- Stay cautious of empowering institutions of global governance that may pave the way to a world state.
Key Takeaways:
- Even proponents of globalization can reasonably oppose the concept of world government due to the potential risks it poses.
- Risks include loss of migration opportunities, stifling diversity and competition, exacerbating political ignorance, and potential for totalitarianism.
- Many global challenges can be addressed effectively through international cooperation without centralized world governance.
- Safeguarding against the dangers of world government requires critical analysis and careful measures to ensure local autonomy and effective global collaboration.
Disclaimer:
This is a brief overview of the article by Ilya Somin at Cato Institute. For complete insights, we recommend reading the full article.
Related
President Trump’s latest tariff plan is under fire from a conservative think tank, which says the math behind it is both flawed and misleading.
- Donald Trump focused on separating himself from his party's extreme policies and addressing key voter concerns like the economy and abortion.
The presidential debate accomplished more for Harris than it did for Trump
AEI experts explore the potential political impact of President Biden's support for Israel on his electoral prospects in Michigan, particularly among Muslim and Arab American voters.
The shift in Arab American support away from Biden in Michigan is important, but it is unlikely to be the sole deciding factor in Michigan's electoral outcome.
Will Support for Israel Cost Biden Michigan?
Cato Institute expert Robert A. Levy writes that U.S. SupremeCourt Chief Justice Roberts will be "concerned about political repercussions" if Trump is disqualified from running.
Levy also argues that liberal justices will likely lean toward allowing voting citizens to decide if Trump should be President.
Trump’s Disqualification: A Primer
