Actually yeah I do think a global democratically elected constitutional government might be fine save for the issues of scaling that come with that much size. Probably something that various technological innovations could help with
Access to education has been supported by the federal government where individual districts lagged behind more wealthy areas. Without the federal aid poor districts would be much worse off as far as education goes.
Yes the federal government has long violated rights and done terrible things. We could go on listing the atrocities committed by the feds domestically and abroad for days e.g. forced sterilization, internment camps, vietnam, iraq, residential schools and the various iffy things the intelligence community did relating to drugs and black nationalism last century. I am not arguing that federal power is universally good or that increased federal power only resulted in good things but rather that its been a net improvement. You say its impossible to determine if we have more or less rights post civil war than before but I would posit it is very clearly more.
Yeah statelessness is a cool idea in theory. Like I said an ideal to aspire to as a society. The less coercion/threat of violence we have and the more freedom and empathy we have in society the better. Its just an ideal and not something we can achieve now IMO but still something inspiring to think about in conversations about state power or otherwise.
I have to say it's really weird to see someone advocating for every-growing larger centralized governments and advocating for statelessness as a means to freedom.
Do you see how these ideas are diametrically opposed? How does farther-removed, more powerful federal governments lead to freedom compared to close, small governments staffed by people who live right next to you?
I think the big problem with historical anarchist discourse is that it ignores bad actors, edge cases and economics and where it does deal with those things its solutions usually look a lot more like totalitarianism or mob rule than some anarchist ideal.
The reason I think classically liberal economic and political values push us towards greater freedom is because I believe the following two things to be evident:
1. Freedom is related to wealth.
2. In the US we are for the most part more free than any other society in history.
Obviously there are exceptions to these but I think they are generally true. The reason I dont see statelessness and large democratic governments to be opposite ideals is because I see statelessness as an idealized result of freedom and democracy as the means to get ever closer to that ideal. This isnt really a unique perspective save for the fact that I think the idealized form of a free society doesnt have people forcing other people to do things.
Access to education has been supported by the federal government where individual districts lagged behind more wealthy areas. Without the federal aid poor districts would be much worse off as far as education goes.
Yes the federal government has long violated rights and done terrible things. We could go on listing the atrocities committed by the feds domestically and abroad for days e.g. forced sterilization, internment camps, vietnam, iraq, residential schools and the various iffy things the intelligence community did relating to drugs and black nationalism last century. I am not arguing that federal power is universally good or that increased federal power only resulted in good things but rather that its been a net improvement. You say its impossible to determine if we have more or less rights post civil war than before but I would posit it is very clearly more.
Yeah statelessness is a cool idea in theory. Like I said an ideal to aspire to as a society. The less coercion/threat of violence we have and the more freedom and empathy we have in society the better. Its just an ideal and not something we can achieve now IMO but still something inspiring to think about in conversations about state power or otherwise.