This amazed me: "I had no idea that something like world government was an animating feature of right-wing politics...." I worked in a John Birch Society bookstore in the early 60s and it was all about "one-worldism". In the 80s, as a civics teacher, I was warned not to put 'global' into any of my material or lectures so as not to bring down the wrath of the locals on me. Between that and race you have, in my experience, the heart of right-wing politics.
"That’s where the current right gets into trouble, because they bridle against any form of international cooperation, even if you can show very clearly that it is in the national interest of the United States.” — Francis Fukuyama
The current (American) right will tag along with international cooperation if it is in the personal interest of one man at any particular given moment. However as our peers around the international community understand this is wholly unreliable and unstable. If they are lucky any agreement reached will possibly endure in 4 year intervals--- if the American political pendulum continues to swing back and forth. Or none at all should the pendulum stop altogether.
A world of rigidly sovereign states as Professor Fukuyama noted will create incentives (quite rationally) for the quest for nuclear weapons by any nation wishing to maintain its sovereignty.
In the end I wonder if after the burst of fundamentalist sovereignty we are seeing there will be a resettlement of traditional hegemonic powers where galaxies of nations revolve upon (and depend upon) the sovereign nation with the gravitational force to politically and economically order in their immediate sphere. Russia is quickly becoming subordinate to China. The United States may pretend otherwise but just beneath the isolationist pretenses the heart of regional hegemony beats as strongly as ever.
As to some global world order. International law seems to be becoming international guidance and even with something like climate change any international body that had the power to effectively slow change would require an international power and authority that almost no nation would accept--- certainly no democratic nation. This means most actual international action will remain conferences and suggestions and pleas for humanity and nothing to actually curb the environmental destruction.
My deep skepticism of world government comes from the observation that a government's efficacy and morality are inversely proportional to its size and distance from the governed. I believe even the Federal government is way too big and does too much. A world government is likely to be obscenely bigger and more intrusive.
The reason why "unfettered capitalism" is so hard to contain is because it is an expression of every person's desire to follow their bliss. To decide what to do, who to associate with, and what to possess without interference from their "betters."
If I may indulge in a little good-natured ribbing, Ms. Dalmia and Mr. Pinker should have introduced themselves since they came after the "retired guy" who was so strongly encouraged to do so.
I would just like to point out relative to Franck’s first discussion of sovereignty, that the appeal to sovereignty (from the right or from the left) to reject a supranational entity is very widespread. For instance, it was one argument in the Brexit discussions and it is a recurring argument in the (mostly) right or extreme- right political parties’ attacks on EU in Europe…
Why do you call them 'extreme right' when MOST on the right are generally centrists? Everything is going to look far right when the Left has gone so far into left field that it's in outer space where there is no oxygen left.
The reason individual sovereignty is important, is that power MUST STAY DECENTRALIZED. This is the single greatest lesson we've learned about democracy.
The centralization of power (free speech / free markets / freedom of association) is the single greatest weapon / foil against authoritarianism, and whenever you start to see a centralization of power, you start to see monopolies form, which necessarily and always lead to fascism and authoritarianism.
The far Left's attempts to centralize all power will necessarily end up in an authoritarian Government just as it has been over the past 10-15 years. They seem to be incapable of understanding this, or the fact that history has repeatedly shown this to be the case.
This amazed me: "I had no idea that something like world government was an animating feature of right-wing politics...." I worked in a John Birch Society bookstore in the early 60s and it was all about "one-worldism". In the 80s, as a civics teacher, I was warned not to put 'global' into any of my material or lectures so as not to bring down the wrath of the locals on me. Between that and race you have, in my experience, the heart of right-wing politics.
"That’s where the current right gets into trouble, because they bridle against any form of international cooperation, even if you can show very clearly that it is in the national interest of the United States.” — Francis Fukuyama
The current (American) right will tag along with international cooperation if it is in the personal interest of one man at any particular given moment. However as our peers around the international community understand this is wholly unreliable and unstable. If they are lucky any agreement reached will possibly endure in 4 year intervals--- if the American political pendulum continues to swing back and forth. Or none at all should the pendulum stop altogether.
A world of rigidly sovereign states as Professor Fukuyama noted will create incentives (quite rationally) for the quest for nuclear weapons by any nation wishing to maintain its sovereignty.
In the end I wonder if after the burst of fundamentalist sovereignty we are seeing there will be a resettlement of traditional hegemonic powers where galaxies of nations revolve upon (and depend upon) the sovereign nation with the gravitational force to politically and economically order in their immediate sphere. Russia is quickly becoming subordinate to China. The United States may pretend otherwise but just beneath the isolationist pretenses the heart of regional hegemony beats as strongly as ever.
As to some global world order. International law seems to be becoming international guidance and even with something like climate change any international body that had the power to effectively slow change would require an international power and authority that almost no nation would accept--- certainly no democratic nation. This means most actual international action will remain conferences and suggestions and pleas for humanity and nothing to actually curb the environmental destruction.
Another great video, thanks!
My deep skepticism of world government comes from the observation that a government's efficacy and morality are inversely proportional to its size and distance from the governed. I believe even the Federal government is way too big and does too much. A world government is likely to be obscenely bigger and more intrusive.
The reason why "unfettered capitalism" is so hard to contain is because it is an expression of every person's desire to follow their bliss. To decide what to do, who to associate with, and what to possess without interference from their "betters."
If I may indulge in a little good-natured ribbing, Ms. Dalmia and Mr. Pinker should have introduced themselves since they came after the "retired guy" who was so strongly encouraged to do so.
I would just like to point out relative to Franck’s first discussion of sovereignty, that the appeal to sovereignty (from the right or from the left) to reject a supranational entity is very widespread. For instance, it was one argument in the Brexit discussions and it is a recurring argument in the (mostly) right or extreme- right political parties’ attacks on EU in Europe…
Why do you call them 'extreme right' when MOST on the right are generally centrists? Everything is going to look far right when the Left has gone so far into left field that it's in outer space where there is no oxygen left.
The reason individual sovereignty is important, is that power MUST STAY DECENTRALIZED. This is the single greatest lesson we've learned about democracy.
The centralization of power (free speech / free markets / freedom of association) is the single greatest weapon / foil against authoritarianism, and whenever you start to see a centralization of power, you start to see monopolies form, which necessarily and always lead to fascism and authoritarianism.
The far Left's attempts to centralize all power will necessarily end up in an authoritarian Government just as it has been over the past 10-15 years. They seem to be incapable of understanding this, or the fact that history has repeatedly shown this to be the case.