Abundance isn’t achieved by the same old subsidies or tax breaks for special interests, price controls, or spending loads of taxpayer money on transfer payments. It’s achieved by freeing up the supply side of our economy. That means freeing producers and innovators from excessive regulatory obstacles and heavy tax burdens (including tariffs) so they can provide more of what Americans need.
Stifling diversity might also undermine beneficial competition between nation-states. Currently, national governments compete with each other to attract business, investment, trade, and productive workers. This, to some degree, incentivizes states to adopt more-effective economic policies and reduces their ability to impose excessive taxes and regulations. It also promotes policy innovation, as a successful innovator can get ahead in the economic race. Examples include Britain in the 19th century, the United States in the 20th, and the Asian Tigers more recently. A world government would not be subject to this kind of competitive pressure. By definition, it would have little if any opportunity to learn from the achievements of other states.
…..
The enormous size and complexity of world government would also exacerbate one of the already serious flaws of democracy at the nation-state level. Recent events have awakened many to the dangers of widespread political ignorance. The role of voter ignorance in the rise of Donald Trump and other populists has led more people to start taking this problem seriously. In reality, however, widespread ignorance is a problem that long predates the current political moment. It is not limited to the United States, but actually ubiquitous in other democracies around the world, including many of the most advanced. American voters often don’t know even very basic facts about public policy, such as the names of the three branches of the federal government which party controls the legislature, which officials are responsible for which issues, or which programs consume the lion’s share of federal spending.
For the most part, political ignorance is not the result of stupidity or lack of information. It is a predictable consequence of the insignificance of individual votes to electoral outcomes. Because there is so little chance that any one vote will make a difference, it is rational for most people to pay little or no attention to government policy. And that is exactly what most voters do: they are “rationally ignorant.” The danger of public ignorance is exacerbated by the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government, which makes it difficult for voters to keep track of more than a small fraction of its activities.
In a democratic world government, public ignorance is likely to be an even more serious menace than it is now. It would be even harder for rationally ignorant voters to understand government policy for the entire world than to grasp what is happening in their own country. How well are American voters likely to understand the problems of Africans or Chinese, and vice versa?
…..
Advocates of world government claim that it is needed to cope with a variety of potential catastrophes, many of which also have a relatively low probability of occurring (e.g., an environmental disaster so severe that it might destroy modern civilization). The point cuts both ways. If it is valid at all, the precautionary principle should apply to political risks no less than to environmental ones. In the words of George Orwell in 1984, global totalitarianism would be “a boot stamping on a human face—forever.” We should think long and hard before accepting even a small risk of that kind.
The risks of world government are also relevant to strong forms of global governance that fall short of officially establishing a world state. The more powerful and centralized the institutions of global governance become, the more likely they are to turn into a world state in all but name.
Absent is any discussion of the root cause of this dilemma: the Democratic Party’s sharp move to the left, with policies and power grabs that are deeply unpopular with the electorate. Mr. Biden is a product of this pendulum shift, and his obvious successors are a continuation of it. If Democrats truly want to improve their prospects, they might consider having a debate about ideas.
Don’t forget how a man pushing 80 came to office. The 2020 Democratic primary was dominated by candidates vying to curry favor with a rising progressive left. Worried that Bernie Sanders would kill a chance at the White House, voters turned to the only fixture who claimed to be moderate. He was a two-time presidential primary loser, as old as Methuselah, and slipping even then, but whatever. He was deemed the only candidate able to beat Donald Trump, which was probably true. Even four years ago, the party understood pure progressivism to be a political liability.
Profit may appear cold but the alternatives to the profit motive are far worse. As the late economist Walter Williams put it, “Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering, and enslaving their fellow man. With the rise of capitalism, it became possible to amass great wealth by serving and pleasing one’s fellow man.”
Philosopher James Otteson concurs with Williams that by seeking profit through cooperative market exchanges, a business owner serves others. Entrepreneurs are called to “seek ways to benefit themselves only by benefitting others…” Otteson comments, “…they must put others’ needs, desires, and well-being on par with their own.” A business is successful when it accounts for its customers’ needs and wants and meets those desires at a price customers are willing to pay. When a voluntary exchange is made, both parties do so because they would be better off than if the exchange had never happened.
Arnold Kling reflects on his visit to the NatCon convention.
Their roll-call of evidence about how wages and work conditions are not in fact declining, but are better than a few decades ago, goes on and on.
…..
Sure, there are plenty of issues with the labor market and the economy as a whole. But as one example, concerns about high prices for housing, or health insurance, or a college degree, or inflation in general are not actually complaints about the jobs that people have. The desired for salaries and wages with higher buying power and jobs with better career prospects aren’t quite the same as hating your current job, either. There’s a kind of fake profundity that delights in solemnly announcing how the world is going to hell. Almost two centuries ago, John Stuart Mill was writing disapprovingly about how “the man who despairs when others hope… is admired as a sage”–as if pessimism was necessarily synonymous with hard-earned wisdom, rather just emotional dyspepsia.
