Finally, your talk is fascinating and I hope your completed thoughts make it to published form.

Of all the options to critique, I chose your piece -- Anarchy Is What States Make Of It. I haven't read your work in it's entirety but I could already assume the over arching goal is to eliminate power competition in an anarchical world. If this solves military confrontations in this self-help world, the injustices resulting from wars become effectively eliminated by a global Leviathan yet much of all injustices incurred between states or otherwise are committed by the elites upon the weaker class of society. In absence of the State, it may be the case that the catalysts of injustices or elites will find new tools to continue their process of extraction and possibly use the superfluous nature of the superstructure as their new tool to extract. At some point, irrespective of Rousseau's self-regulated collective will, corruption will eventually perpetuate and penetrate the centralized governance system. Immanuel Kant may be correct in stating that the structure will result to tyranny.

16:29 power should be accountable to those whom it affects

Title: Rethinking Global Governance: Alexander Wendt's Case for the World State In his thought-provoking discourse, Alexander Wendt challenges conventional assumptions in international political theory, particularly regarding the structure of global governance. Wendt's exploration revolves around the central question of whether a world state would be superior to a system of plural sovereignty or anarchy in terms of realizing justice on a global scale. By shifting the default position from anarchy to considering a world state as the preferred option, Wendt presents a compelling argument aimed at reshaping the discourse on global governance. This essay will delve into Wendt's key arguments, examine the critiques he addresses, and evaluate the implications of his proposed paradigm shift. Wendt's argument hinges on the assertion that anarchy, defined as the absence of a centralized global authority, is inherently despotic compared to the potential alternative of a world state. He contends that in an anarchic world, sovereign states wield unchecked power, leading to arbitrary actions and injustices against individuals. By contrast, a world state, while not devoid of challenges, offers the prospect of greater accountability and the potential to uphold universal norms of justice. Wendt's framing of the debate places the burden of proof on defenders of anarchy, compelling them to justify the continuation of a system characterized by inherent despotism. Central to Wendt's analysis is the exploration of the normative aspects of a world state versus plural sovereignty. He elucidates the concerns and objections raised by scholars and policymakers regarding the feasibility and desirability of a world state. Skepticism towards the idea stems from apprehensions about tyranny, governability, cultural identities, and democratic deficits. However, Wendt contends that these challenges, while significant, do not outweigh the potential benefits of a world state, particularly in terms of preventing war and safeguarding human rights. Wendt's critique extends to both communitarian and cosmopolitan perspectives on global governance. He interrogates the normative superiority of plural sovereignty, arguing that it fails to reconcile the principles of liberalism and democracy with territorial state sovereignty. Moreover, Wendt challenges communitarian theories that advocate for communal autonomy, highlighting the complexities of determining territorial boundaries and ensuring accountability within such frameworks. Instead, he advocates for a more democratic approach to global governance, emphasizing the need for a global demos where power is accountable to all individuals. One of Wendt's central contentions is that plural sovereignty or organized anarchy amounts to a form of despotism from the perspective of individual citizens. He underscores the lack of accountability and the arbitrary exercise of power by sovereign states in such a system, which undermines principles of justice and equality. While acknowledging that a world state is not devoid of challenges, Wendt argues that it offers a more viable path towards addressing the normative contradictions inherent in plural sovereignty. In conclusion, Alexander Wendt's advocacy for the world state represents a bold departure from conventional wisdom in international relations theory. By challenging the default assumption of anarchy and advocating for a paradigm shift towards considering a world state as the preferred option, Wendt offers a compelling vision for reshaping global governance. While his proposals are not without complexities and controversies, they serve as a catalyst for reimagining the possibilities of achieving justice and stability on a global scale. Ultimately, Wendt's ideas prompt us to critically examine existing paradigms and explore innovative approaches to addressing the pressing challenges of our interconnected world.

According to him, a world state would be the centralized authority with the power to declare a state of exception and command a monopoly of force globally. However, he notes that the rest of the organization of a world state, such as its decentralization, remains an open question. Wendt acknowledges the historical and current scholarly skepticism towards the idea of a world state due to concerns over tyranny, governability, superfluity, cultural identities, democratic deficit, communal solidarity, territorial property rights, and immigration. Despite these challenges, some argue in favor of a world state for reasons of war prevention, human rights, and other ideological grounds

Back to Rawls, would a good case study be post colonial transition in Africa? The new African leaders faced two options: individual sovereignty or Pan-Africanism (monrovian vs. cassablanca sides if I recall). Are the realities that prevented panafricanism the same realities that hinder any more global state idea?

too hard to understand for my poor english and some mistakes in the subtitle.

He lays emphasis on who controls organized violence

the locus of authority to declare war will reside in a world state. and it must command some kinf od monopoly of force 5:58

4:31 what is state 4:36

8:16 counter arguments would be to large too governable 8:21 8:22 superfluous 8:26 undernine cultural diversity 8:32 remote from people lack legitimacy or democratic deficit 8:39 8:51 foster level of communal solidarity 9:07 9:17

5:45

15:52

I could totally see a world government happening in the wake of the US-China bipolarity, or due to the decline of the US as a hegemonic force in general. The US will be incentivized to create institutions that can outlast their dominance. This in conjunction with the rise of Chinese power could lead to a loose international Governance we have with our current institutions to something more intentional due to its mission to preserve democratic/western values. Militarily, China can't touch the US, and the US wouldn't want to destroy China. There differences and their mutual interdependence would force them to create more institutions to keep each other in check. I also think the ecological and environmental concerns will necessitate greater cooperation and will therefore require more global institutions.

Secondly, who holds the one world government accountable? the "untouchable" sovereign state killer is an extreme example of a system that might better be balanced by 190 sovereign countries using statecraft to "punish" and "reward" each other. Back to Kant.

World government would be evil, we are best as different tribes working together

of course they don't want a world state ..... who would they take advantage of?

I don’t believe in lizard people but now I understand why people believe you guys are lizard people.

He lays emphasis on who controls organized violence

5:58