I'm not quite in tune enough with my inner PoliSci to give a good compare/contrast argument between anarcho-capitalism and international politics, at least not without re-reading the Wikipedia.
However it's an insightful argument. Certainly there are the similarities that in both systems there is no central force-monopolizer that adjudicates disagreements, there is only whoever has the bigger stick in a given area.
Likewise countries can choose their own economic adventure in many ways by choosing which currency to use, what fiscal policies to set, and what major ideological alignment they will fall in with (which has large implications for things like trade). Here though the U.S. has been fairly successful in trying to standardize a lot of the economic interplay amongst the nations (e.g. the Bretton Woods accords), but again other nations could do something different if they wished.
As far as world federalism, I'm assuming you mean some type of world-wide central government that has specific delegated responsibilities and authorities and that would operate "on top" of the existing national governments.
There's a lot to be said for the idea... you'd finally actually have "international law", ways of resolving conflicts amongst nations (since there will be actual "world police" of some sort), etc.
Certainly the normal example in the U.S. is the slightly wiser Federal government sometimes have to lead state and local governments to Do the Right Thing by the nose if necessary (e.g. voting rights for minorities).
But on the other hand such as system tends to accrete power towards the top over time, and you would thus tend to end up with the needs of the many (i.e. China, India) outweighing the needs of the rest, or (more likely) the needs of the already rich (U.S., E.U., etc.) outweighing the needs of the rest of the developing nations.
Either way I can see that going poorly for nations like the Philippines or Malaysia, who could over time be gerrymandered right out of resources that would otherwise contribute to their economies.
I used to be real idealistic about such Star Trek-style world governments but at this point the idea would probably introduce more worries for me than potential benefits.
My guess is that if it were to arise, the path to world government would first see all nations governed by unions like the EU, and then from there a union of unions. But seeing as the EU is really struggling now, we have quite a ways to go.
However it's an insightful argument. Certainly there are the similarities that in both systems there is no central force-monopolizer that adjudicates disagreements, there is only whoever has the bigger stick in a given area.
Likewise countries can choose their own economic adventure in many ways by choosing which currency to use, what fiscal policies to set, and what major ideological alignment they will fall in with (which has large implications for things like trade). Here though the U.S. has been fairly successful in trying to standardize a lot of the economic interplay amongst the nations (e.g. the Bretton Woods accords), but again other nations could do something different if they wished.
As far as world federalism, I'm assuming you mean some type of world-wide central government that has specific delegated responsibilities and authorities and that would operate "on top" of the existing national governments.
There's a lot to be said for the idea... you'd finally actually have "international law", ways of resolving conflicts amongst nations (since there will be actual "world police" of some sort), etc.
Certainly the normal example in the U.S. is the slightly wiser Federal government sometimes have to lead state and local governments to Do the Right Thing by the nose if necessary (e.g. voting rights for minorities).
But on the other hand such as system tends to accrete power towards the top over time, and you would thus tend to end up with the needs of the many (i.e. China, India) outweighing the needs of the rest, or (more likely) the needs of the already rich (U.S., E.U., etc.) outweighing the needs of the rest of the developing nations.
Either way I can see that going poorly for nations like the Philippines or Malaysia, who could over time be gerrymandered right out of resources that would otherwise contribute to their economies.
I used to be real idealistic about such Star Trek-style world governments but at this point the idea would probably introduce more worries for me than potential benefits.