Well if it ended in the US, why not elswhere?

If you saw someone being raped you'd do something about it, wouldn't you? 100,000 years ago you probably wouldn't do anything, because it was socially acceptable back then.

We are however bound by the elements that make up history -- human nature, and institutional behavior. Any scheme that ignores that, fails.

Of course it is. It has no basis of success in history and the larger the empire in history, the more overbearing the oppression.

Sorry, that's a crass bait and switch to comflate technological progress with "Big Government" as if to smuggle in the concept that bigger government is "progress." You're begging the question. Why is the Leviathn State "progress?" Why is it inevitable? Why is it even desirable? You seem to simply assume some huge glittering HG Wells-like world is the inescapable future, yet I see no evidence that it is either happening or desirable if it did happen.

League of Nations. UN. ICC. Soon, I predict, the EU as well. I gave you the reasons why mingling democracies and autocracies under one banner fails. You are confusing not agreeing with my reasons as me not giving my reasons. You accuse me of not engaging your points but you have yet to make ANY points. Over and over you're simnply asserting that World Government is inevitable and beneficial and have given no real reason anyone should believe either. Then, when presented with the litany of failures along these lines, you elide them all.

We also see that it is dofficult enough to have one set of people under one government -- how do you propose that Americans, Chinese, Africans, etc all be happy under one set of government? Then there is the fact that even a casual reading of institutions rejects the scaling up of government. We see that bureaucracies become ossified and unresponsive as they get larger. They barely function at the national level. Now they have to support 6 billion people? Just look at how intrusive and unresponsive the EU is.

For someone who claims to teach history, you seem curiously unconcerned about the failing EU experiment.

It's increased elsewhere.

How do you know what was acceptable back then? Men were litle more than animals then -- do animals as a rule rape? I don't think so. Is sexual violence commonplace among mammals? I hardly think so. Yet look at any prison in the US and you see astronomical levels of rape.

Let me ask you one question since you keep coming back to this-
Why is a world goverment NOT desireable?

I have given many reasons.

Who picks the government style? Since most of the world is far less free than the US, it's hard to see anything other than a reduction in freedom. See my other comments about bureaucracies and how they don't scale up. Already we see that international bodies are simply war conducted by other means -- the ICC and UN are simply vehicles for dictatorships to attack democracies. An extreme example is the Kyoto treaty which is little more than a scheme to bankrupt the US. Thank God the US rejected it. What if it couldn't?

A world governent would lead quickly towards autocracy, collectivism, and hence drastic reduction in freedom and prosperity for those countries that have both, via bureaucratic predation.

The real question is: why have it? Either it tends towards more restriction, more oppression, less freedom -- in which case I'm dead set against it. Else it doesn't, in which case, what's the point? Why not simply let the rest of the world embrace freedom and the market?

Either the US is dragged down to their level -- in which case, NFW.

Or the rest of the world rises to the US level, which could never happen under a world government.

That hardly explains why it can't end elsewhere.

Discovery Channel, I believe.

Actually yeah it is pretty commonplace; dolphins engage in gang-rape, and elephant seals rape juveniles if they can't find a mate.

http://is2.dal.ca/~bread/rape.html

I suggest finding a new name for it; I doubt the people of SE asia would be too thrilled about joining something called the 'Anglosphere.'

Other than that it sounds like a good idea.

I am just wondering which Article within the Kyoto Treaty would have bankrupted the US??

I just reread the entire Treatise and still do not see how it would have bankrupted the United States.

Um, sorry, naming one or two mammals among the thousands of species does not make it common. Try naming more than 50%.

The Kyoto Treaty would have ruined the US economy to achieve almost nothing, and none of the third world countries would have had to do anything. Essentially it's a way for European countries, whose economies are stalled by socialism, to equally stall the vibrant US economy.

1. Global warming is based on junk science.

2. The US would bankrupt itself, not to reduce global warming, but MAYBE to effect some utterly trivial reduction in the increase. According to the IEA, up to 85% of the projected increase in CO2 emissions will come from countries effectively exempted from the proposed treaty.

See:

http://www.akdart.com/warming.html

Did you read the beginning of the link you handed me??

""It is my opinion, based on the material cited below, as well as my years of careful observation (of the news media, not the weather) that the entire "global warming problem" is a hoax. The forces of nature are hundreds of times more powerful than the influence of human activity. ""

He states that it is his opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

Global warming is not "junk" science.

I would trust this site far more than some guys opinion--

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ent/index.html

They benefit from actual Scientific observation and unbiased procedure.

You still did not answer my question--- Which Article in the Kyoto Treaty would bankrupt the United States???

Like I said I have read the entire thing--- twice now-- and still did not find one thing within it which would damage the United States Economy.

Of course it is, by far more than just one person's opinions. Global warming may or may not be happening -- the "junk" part is the assumption that man is mostly responsible.

Really? And your algorithm for predicting job loss and economic hardship based on increased energy costs is ...?

See:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-30-01.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-10-01.html

Best of all:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307.html

I did not make an algorithm nor expostulate anything other than asking how the Kyoto Treaty would bankrupt America.

Even with those nifty Libertarian links I still do not understand how it would bankrupt us. It does not point out any Articles; it only glosses over stuff and makes some assumptions.

I was wondering if you yourself had an explanation or could point out certain articles which would confirm your statement??

Science lays the groundwork and only ever settles with certain foundations which can be proven in empirical methods. The Earth is warming-- this has been proven. That Man is causing it is a hypothesis and so far the best one. It may be wrong and I can easily grant you that. Yet what is the harm in researching viable energy resources which will be more Earth friendly??
What is the harm in the assumption that WE are causing it??

In reverse; what may be the harm in blindly believing that we are not causing it when we just might be and temperatures climb a steady 4Degrees a century??

With the first we can look back and go-- well we were wrong -- BUT now we have better and more economical energy resources.

In the latter we would say-- damn we were wrong and now all of our coastal cities are under water and millions are dead due to high heat conditions and poor atmosphere.

So-- my question still stands--

Which Articles on the Kyoto Treaty would have caused the United States to go bankrupt??

Please also note that right now the United States may as well be bankrupt in that we are operating with what may as well be play money

The Kyoto treaty imposes emissions standards on the developed world that are extrordinarily expensive to meet. Less devoloped nations, including China, are not held to the same standards. "Bankrupt" is too strong a word to use to describe the results, but it gives factories another incentive to relocate to third world nations. Combine it with the free trade agreements, and many more Americans will be out of work.

Thank you for a more rational answer ot my questions. From what I understand though we could easily restrict factories from relocating to other countries if we made it economically unviable for them to do business outside of the United States--- Something we should already be contemplating as goods from outside the US are already affecting our economy.

The free trade agreement should be thrown out the window as it pretty much draws jobs out of the United States which are very much needed here. It also makes it harder for companies based in the US to stay in business unless the mimic those other companies and move to areas outside the US economic market.

Those emissions standards would only be expensive to meet so as to persuade those businesses which are dependent upon them to find resources from other areas. At first things would probably look fairly bleak and yet as money is dumped into research of alternatives we would see more economic resources appear as well as resources which would be more earth friendly.

Sooner or later those alternatives must be researched as petroleum products are depleted. better we do it now while we have enough to last us through a complete change over rather than suffer through an international crisis as we are left with no alternatives and no more petroleum to draw from.

Do you really think the Kyoto articles will be candid?

You're going to have to do the math on your own:

1. Find out what percentage of the world's greenhouse gases the US produces.

2. Find out what if any reduction the rest of the world has to make.

3. Find out what the reduction in global warming would be if the US complied 100% with Kyoto.

4. Figure out what percentage of the US GDP would be spent complying.

5. Estimate jobs lost per percent reduction in the GDP.

Look, did you even read this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307.html

it has all the numbers you could require.