[sbmassey]

So from their perspective, the amount of repression one gets in a Soviet Russia or China is acceptable, and scaling it up to be worldwide could be considered libertarian? Or do they believe there is some way of stopping the worst people rising to the top in a worldwide government that doesn't exist at the Russia/China scale?

[hx87]

From their perspective, a cosmopolitan USSR or China would be more libertarian than a national USSR or China, if only because their leaders, no matter how authoritarian they might be, would have a harder time utilizing the local-level knowledge that makes repression effective. They would have to deal with a wider variety of interests whose support they would need to stay in power, which further dilutes their power. In addition, citizens would have more options to play different levels of government against each other; if the state-level government is becoming too oppressive, one can always appear to the supranational government, as Europeans do to the ECHR or ICJ, or as southerners did to the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s.

In short, no dictator can oppress me like my family and neighbors can, which is why any dictatorship with a drop of wisdom would try to co-opt them.

[sbmassey]

I fail to see how a worldwide China has any less local knowledge than a China sized one - it is not even a factor of 10 difference in population. Also, a cursory look at history would suggest that dictators have a lot more power to oppress you than your family and neighbours. I assume you are misrepresenting the ideology due to lack of space - are there any books/tracts/thinkers you can point me at with more detailed descriptions of it? Thanks.