No global government (no ANY government), without individual rights. No global economy, (no ANY economy), without accounting for economic externalities. Or you could say, no disrespecting property rights, private or public.
Economic externalities means the hidden costs of what we do.
No one buys a hamburger with the intent of encouraging people in far away places to destroy the rainforest, but it happens as a consequence of millions of meat-eaters in “developed” nations using the economic system to satisfy their desires.
What if the prices we had to pay for what we want included the cost of fees that producers would pay to destroy forest, erode soil, pave the earth, pollute the air and water? If the fees are set high enough, then producers would not destroy forests, pollute the air and water, or pave the earth–at least, not beyond what the people say is acceptable.
Money is not the root of all evil. It is a tool which we have not yet learned to use properly. The consequences of our failure to take account of externalities now have a global reach; and, since there are now so many of us, the consequences are enormous. The adverse impacts of what we are doing spell global catastrophe, (collapse of our natural resource base), unless we change our ways. We need to start taking account of those adverse impacts so that prices will tell us the truth about the real costs of what we are doing.
When we make this change, higher profits, (which today are closely associated with those for whom adverse impacts are well hidden), would flow to producers who promote individual AND community interests. Success will go to those who produce wealth for customers WITHOUT imposing disproportionately high burdens on others, in the form of dirtier air, depleted resources, destroyed habitat or extinct species.
The fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the natural resource wealth of earth–wealth NOT produced as a result of human ingenuity or effort. It could be shared equally among all people. (We ALL own the air and water). This would spell an end to abject poverty. It would mean a more fluid labor market. It would address concerns about poverty and disparity of wealth, (while preserving individual freedom), without the need for burdensome government programs. It would give citizens a mechanism, (by increasing or reducing fees where appropriate), for sculpting the overall human impact on the earth.
A biological model for politics and economics
A terrorism-disparity connection?