" In what universe would you want the Chinese, Americans, Russians, or even French to share authority over you?"
They already do, of course. Heard of the WTO?
Anyway, I'm not proposing we submit all authority to the UN. One country One vote doesn't work, IMO. But One Trade Bloc One Vote is far more palatable.
The arguments you make against global police are generalisable to local police, too. Yes, corruption is a danger. With good governance this is manageable.
"What experience with supranationals supports that theory?"
The WTO, which has, as far as I can see, been a smashing success.
I don't really understand the rest of your points. "Isolationism" has not been practised by the USA for a century.
I would be a lot more persuaded by your points about an evil supranational if we didn't see so much evil perpetrated by mere nations all around us. You might fear the USA's wings being clipped, but everyone elses' would be as well. And a global body with real power and moral mandate could do real good. For example, it could have stopped Darfur. And, being disinterested in China's exports, it could constrain their misadventures in Tibet and Africa too.
Think "WTO with morals". Does that really sound so bad?
The fact that something exists doesn't make it desirable.
> The arguments you make against global police are generalisable to local police, too.
Yup, but the scope of local police is limited, which limits the problems that bad ones can cause.
> Yes, corruption is a danger. With good governance this is manageable.
You don't get to assume unobtanium. Good governance decreases with organization size.
> The WTO, which has, as far as I can see, been a smashing success.
Tell that to the folks whose economies are crippled by agricultural subsidies by the EU and the US.
> "Isolationism" has not been practised by the USA for a century.
So? We don't have the supranationals that you favor, yet that's no obstacle to you proposing them, so how is the lack of isolationism today an obstacle?
> I would be a lot more persuaded by your points about an evil supranational if we didn't see so much evil perpetrated by mere nations all around us.
How does getting a bunch of evil together in the same room produce good?
The existence of a problem does not imply that there's a solution, let alone a solution of a given form.
> Think "WTO with morals". Does that really sound so bad?
Since I don't think that the WTO has especially good morals, it's unclear why I should think that it's good.
And, WTO pretty close to the best of the bunch. (The folks who allocate radio spectrum are arguably better.) The vast majority of supranationals are a disaster.
Yes, there's a chance that a new supranational would be good, but the odds are that it won't be.
"The fact that something exists doesn't make it desirable."
But you haven't pointed out any reason why it's not desirable. And in the case of, say, the WTO, there are measurable improvements in trade and international cooperation arguing in its favour.
"Yup, but the scope of local police is limited, which limits the problems that bad ones can cause."
I meant per-country local actually, so for the USA that would be the FBI. Are you against that? Plenty of examples of national/federal law enforcement, they seem to work OK. And needless to say there are international associations as well - Interpol, for one. Have you noticed any of them spinning headlong into tyrranny?
"You don't get to assume unobtanium. Good governance decreases with organization size."
Your argument here is expanding in scope, seemingly against all government. By the same principle you'd be against Federal government in the US - indeed, even State govt. Where do you stop? And why hold this view at all? Large governments have their flaws, but it's hard to see a viable alternative.
"Tell that to the folks whose economies are crippled by agricultural subsidies by the EU and the US."
Because there's no-one big enough to stand up to them? Greater international cooperation would hopefully act against this kind of thing. And I agree, it is an outrage.
Your arguments are confused. In one you're saying that supranational influence over countries is a bad thing. And then you come up with that point, in which it would obviously be a good thing if a supranational body had the power to force the US and the EU to abolish an unjust subsidy.
"So? We don't have the supranationals that you favor, yet that's no obstacle to you proposing them, so how is the lack of isolationism today an obstacle?"
I don't understand. It's not an obstacle. You were holding up isolationism as something good, and I was pointing out it has been on the decline for a century, with few bad effects and many good ones.
"How does getting a bunch of evil together in the same room produce good?"
Look, I don't know what you're thinking of. My suggestion was that you'd have the major trade blocs sitting around a table, and empowered to authorise, or not, wars. Trade blocs are not "evil", they have interests, and those interests would hopefully advise against starting wars unless they were really well justified.
It would produce "good" in the same way that getting a bunch of evil people together to make the laws they all have to live by would produce "good". Even a society of murderers doesn't want to make murder legal, since they all have to live in it!
"I don't think that the WTO has especially good morals"
Morals was probably the wrong word. I meant, with a mandate beyond trade. Specifically, to authorise wars, interventions, etc, and with the power to back it up, unlike the UN. I guess I kind of think that's a moral thing but the word doesn't seem to fit all that well - can't think of an alternative for now.
"The vast majority of supranationals are a disaster."
What are you talking about? No they're not. You can question the IMF's methods but they're hardly a "disaster". Nor the world bank, ICC, EU, Mercosur, etc etc. And there's a lot of international law - law of the sea, the WTO rules, hell the Geneva convention.
Where's this "vast majority" which is a "disaster"?
The UN hasn't exactly gone as well as it could have, but even so most of its own "disaster" has been in opportunities lost, not misguided actions taken.
"Yes, there's a chance that a new supranational would be good, but the odds are that it won't be."
And we're just powerless to toss that coin, are we? Obviously we would try to make it good.
Your assertion that the "odds" are in favour of bad is not backed up by anything you've said. There are plenty of good supranationals, and they all seem to be working OK, or at least not actively bad. I don't understand the kneejerk antipathy to the idea.
> I meant per-country local actually, so for the USA that would be the FBI. Are you against that?
No, I'm not especially impressed with the FBI. Their crime "lab" turns out to have been a sham and that's supposedly one of their best features.
> Plenty of examples of national/federal law enforcement, they seem to work OK.
Oh really? How about some actual evidence instead of quotes cribbed from their funding requests.
> Large governments have their flaws, but it's hard to see a viable alternative.
Small govts of limited scope are pretty easy to see.
> Greater international cooperation would hopefully act against this kind of thing.
Hope isn't a plan. Greater international cooperation doesn't have the properties you assume. We have agricultural subsidies because the contries involved want them. We'll stop having them when they don't. International cooperation won't change that.
> And then you come up with that point, in which it would obviously be a good thing if a supranational body had the power to force the US and the EU to abolish an unjust subsidy.
You misunderstand. You're claiming that the WTO is good. I'm pointing out that it isn't good because it hasn't done the good thing that is obviously within its scope. Claiming that it could doesn't change that fact.
> You were holding up isolationism as something good, and I was pointing out it has been on the decline for a century, with few bad effects and many good ones.
Actually, you didn't point to any effects - you merely pointed that it was in decline.
>>How does getting a bunch of evil together in the same room produce good?
> My suggestion was that you'd have the major trade blocs sitting around a table, and empowered to authorise, or not, wars.
Trading blocks are composed of nations and we've already heard about nations, namely "I would be a lot more persuaded by your points about an evil supranational if we didn't see so much evil perpetrated by mere nations all around us."
> It would produce "good" in the same way that getting a bunch of evil people together to make the laws they all have to live by would produce "good". Even a society of murderers doesn't want to make murder legal, since they all have to live in it!
Except that it doesn't work that way. The murderers don't want folks murdering them, but they don't extend that courtesy to others. You need mostly good to pull off good govt and that's not an option at the supranational level.
> You can question the IMF's methods but they're hardly a "disaster".
Actually, I can question pretty much everything about the IMF as it has been a disaster in both methods and results.
> There are plenty of good supranationals, and they all seem to be working OK, or at least not actively bad.
The good ones have extremely limited scope and are in areas where standards have huge benefits to all parties and almost no downside to anyone. (That's why I mentioned the radio folks.) The WTO is on the edge of that and starting to fail. The organizations that you propose are well beyond that threshold.
> I don't understand the kneejerk antipathy to the idea.
That's okay - I do understand the fanboy reading of the press releases.
It's unclear that the WTO hasn't passed its peak of "good". There hasn't been much progress since 2006 and the recent G-20 meeting abandoned the term "free markets" as a goal.
I'm perfectly willing to blame the US for that change (even though it's not the only one pushing that direction) - my point is that the smashing success is likely a thing of the past.
They already do, of course. Heard of the WTO?
Anyway, I'm not proposing we submit all authority to the UN. One country One vote doesn't work, IMO. But One Trade Bloc One Vote is far more palatable.
The arguments you make against global police are generalisable to local police, too. Yes, corruption is a danger. With good governance this is manageable.
"What experience with supranationals supports that theory?"
The WTO, which has, as far as I can see, been a smashing success.
I don't really understand the rest of your points. "Isolationism" has not been practised by the USA for a century.
I would be a lot more persuaded by your points about an evil supranational if we didn't see so much evil perpetrated by mere nations all around us. You might fear the USA's wings being clipped, but everyone elses' would be as well. And a global body with real power and moral mandate could do real good. For example, it could have stopped Darfur. And, being disinterested in China's exports, it could constrain their misadventures in Tibet and Africa too.
Think "WTO with morals". Does that really sound so bad?