Comment: Ah, but...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If both premises were true, (see in situ)

Ah, but...

...a voluntary alliance among nation-states, which they can leave if desired, or refuse to honor because of x, y, and z reasons, is different than a coercive body overseeing all nation-states and demanding tribute or taxes or drafting their sons and daughters into a global security force, or establishing international courts or treasuries, and punishing anyone who would dare try to breakaway into a fully autonomous, 'rogue' nation again.

Regardless of where we are currently at in the transition between a hypothetical global government and an actual global government (sounds like we might disagree on how much progress has actually been made towards that end), if one were to actually form, then by your argument we could say that the nation-states were delusional to ever think they could get by defending themselves through voluntary alliances, without a global government, since if they could have, there would be no global government. And it would also be delusional for anyone to then try to form a nation-state outside of that global structure.

A smaller state being dependent on a larger state for security does not take away the sovereign ability of the smaller to eschew such security and decide to be a neutral state or take their chances with other alliances, or unilaterally. It is still voluntary (in terms of the state's leadership, at least), whether or not one option would be more foolish than the other.

A small, poor person might have a big bodyguard of a friend who would provide all kinds of protective benefits when out and about. The friend might even be richer than he, and treat him to all kinds of lavish gifts. It might be unwise for the small person to give up this protection or the friendship in general, but it is still the small person's prerogative to walk away from the friendship and not associate with the other, if desired. If the small person tries to walk away and the big 'friend' pulls out a gun and demands that he stay, now it's crossed into coercion, and a violation of rights/sovereignty.

All this to say that I don't think the above syllogism would be a valid critique that nation-states can't successfully defend themselves without a global state. Just because at that point in history, the nation-states caved in or were deceived or coerced into such a global state, does not mean that nation-states that were stronger/more enlightened and awake, could not have fared better, and could not fare better if eventually formed once more.

Likewise, the fact that we now live in coercive states at the national level does not mean that voluntarist societies of individuals could not successfully emerge and defend themselves at some point. It might be difficult; but the difficult is not impossible to achieve, with the right conditions, and the right motivations.

Whether or not anarchism is truly utopian in all its forms, I don't see how 'limited government' is any less utopian, because history certainly is demonstrating that it doesn't stay 'limited' for very long. Look at how quickly things decayed from the original Jeffersonian concepts of Liberty to nationalism under Lincoln and through the Reconstruction and Progressive era down to our present day.