¹ In contrast, authoritarianism has historically been quite durable, and even today arguably remains the most common form of government.

² Given their durability, it is not surprising that authoritarian regimes face only a highly attenuated version of this dilemma. Many authoritarian regimes provide reasonable levels of prosperity and happiness for their citizens, so exposure to the outside world is no more than mildly demoralizing. Authoritarian regimes can therefore safely allow their people enough contact with other countries to economically and scientifically keep up.

³ In correspondence, Nick Bostrom raises the possibility that the creation of a democratic world government might provide better protection against the emergence of a totalitarian world government than the status quo does. In my view, however, major moves in the direction of world government will happen either democratically or not at all. Any world government is going to begin democratically. The problem is that once a world democratic government exists, there is at least a modest probability that it becomes totalitarian, and if it does, the existence of a non-totalitarian world will no longer exist to provide a safety valve. Bostrom (forthcoming) suggests that a technological breakthrough in something like nanotechnology or artificial intelligence might be a non-democratic route to world government. The discovering nation or bloc of nations could leverage the breakthrough to subjugate the rest of the world. In my view, though, modern communications make it highly implausible that the first mover could retain a monopoly on such a breakthrough for long enough to realign world politics.