« Fiscal squeezes, class war & growth | Main | Inequality & innovation »

December 20, 2009


Paul Sagar


I've long been of the opinion that we're impaled on a rather horrible dilemma: global dictatorship vs. the planet burning.

Either way, I think we're fucked.


The relevant question when it comes to coercing states is 'you and whose army'.

David Friedman

"global dictatorship vs. the planet burning"

The IPCC offers a range of predictions for the scale of global warming, with 4 degrees C over a century a typical figure. That doesn't result in the planet burning. It isn't even entirely clear that it's on net a bad thing, depending on just what the pattern of change turns out to be--there are lots of places where people would consider a little warming a benefit, not a cost.

It takes considerable optimism to regard global dictatorship as preferable to climate change on that scale. Massively exaggerating threats is not conducive to thinking clearly about them.


Chris - what makes you think that global government in respect of climate policy would be "a limited domain"? Controlling and limiting the energy use of the world's population is something of enormous scope. It's not at all clear it's possible at the national level. Certainly no national government has seriously attempted it. An anarchic solution is really the only option we have. It's more surprising how many governments act as if there were an alternative.


Saying a problem with anarchism is that LAWS
would be rejected by the RICH and POWERFUL ia a new one to say the least1 The whole point of anarchy is that there would be no powerful elite.


B, maybe you've learnt something new then.

One is either free and thus enjoying the same constitutional guarantees (habeas corpus, free speech, etc) as fellow citizens or unfree and dependent on the arbitrary will of someone else. There are LAWS in free governments precisely because one's freedom cannot be entrusted to the goodwill of anyone. Otherwise you get monarchs, lords and elites.

The same with the issue at hand: weak nations that happen to be vulnerable to GW will depend on the good will of powerfull nations in order to survive.

The question is "is there a global common good?". The answer must be YES, if you accept there is a global common threat. The argument seems to me very clear.

John Cena

Control and limit the use of energy from the scope of the world's population is a great thing. This is not entirely clear, it is possible for the country. Of course, each national government is seriously engaged. Chaotic solution is really our only choice. But more surprisingly, many governments as if it were a choice. He calls this magnitude of climate change is quite optimistic about the best dictatorship in the world. Many of exaggerating the threat, they are not conducive to a clear head.

Sushil Kumar

R. Wilson

A paragraph of yours in yesterday's Times.

"Sometimes, people are out of work because they have unrealistically high expectations. Just as a girl stays single because she’s waiting for Mr Right, so people stay unemployed as they wait for the right job. At other times, there’s a mismatch between supply and demand. If you’re looking for a partner who is educated, cultured and sensitive, you’ll stay single if you’re looking in Dagenham. Ditto, if you confine your job search to the car industry in Birmingham"

As regards to "educated, cultured and sensitive, you'll stay single if you're looking in Dagenham".

That is an insult to many living in Dagenham, a borough which, politicians have admitted ignoring. Your moronic remarks indicate that even if you regard yourself as being being educated, cultured and sensitive you are infact neither, but just arrogant.

"The most dangerous form of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated classes"
"But of the two, Ignorance and arrogance, arrogance is worse."

You have only to look at the the state of Britain to know that both those quotes are true and, you are part of that stupid establishment, the chattering classes that have ruined Britain. You are an arrogant twit.

R. Wilson Brought up in Dagenham


"They think global government - in the sense of a coercive body standing above national governments - is inferior to agreements between national governments."

Who is they? Lots of the participants are from Europe.


I don't understand why "co-ercive government" suddenly becomes dictatorship. With proper reciprocal accountability and subsidiarity rules a limited global government would probably be a good thing.

As for instance Einstein insisted. It is a pity some other people aren't as clear sighted. Read "Einstein on Peace" if you find a copy somewhere.


" It's not at all clear it's possible at the national level. Certainly no national government has seriously attempted it."

Are you sure? Not even in wartime?

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad