"The fact that something exists doesn't make it desirable."

But you haven't pointed out any reason why it's not desirable. And in the case of, say, the WTO, there are measurable improvements in trade and international cooperation arguing in its favour.

"Yup, but the scope of local police is limited, which limits the problems that bad ones can cause."

I meant per-country local actually, so for the USA that would be the FBI. Are you against that? Plenty of examples of national/federal law enforcement, they seem to work OK. And needless to say there are international associations as well - Interpol, for one. Have you noticed any of them spinning headlong into tyrranny?

"You don't get to assume unobtanium. Good governance decreases with organization size."

Your argument here is expanding in scope, seemingly against all government. By the same principle you'd be against Federal government in the US - indeed, even State govt. Where do you stop? And why hold this view at all? Large governments have their flaws, but it's hard to see a viable alternative.

"Tell that to the folks whose economies are crippled by agricultural subsidies by the EU and the US."

Because there's no-one big enough to stand up to them? Greater international cooperation would hopefully act against this kind of thing. And I agree, it is an outrage.

Your arguments are confused. In one you're saying that supranational influence over countries is a bad thing. And then you come up with that point, in which it would obviously be a good thing if a supranational body had the power to force the US and the EU to abolish an unjust subsidy.

"So? We don't have the supranationals that you favor, yet that's no obstacle to you proposing them, so how is the lack of isolationism today an obstacle?"

I don't understand. It's not an obstacle. You were holding up isolationism as something good, and I was pointing out it has been on the decline for a century, with few bad effects and many good ones.

"How does getting a bunch of evil together in the same room produce good?"

Look, I don't know what you're thinking of. My suggestion was that you'd have the major trade blocs sitting around a table, and empowered to authorise, or not, wars. Trade blocs are not "evil", they have interests, and those interests would hopefully advise against starting wars unless they were really well justified.

It would produce "good" in the same way that getting a bunch of evil people together to make the laws they all have to live by would produce "good". Even a society of murderers doesn't want to make murder legal, since they all have to live in it!

"I don't think that the WTO has especially good morals"

Morals was probably the wrong word. I meant, with a mandate beyond trade. Specifically, to authorise wars, interventions, etc, and with the power to back it up, unlike the UN. I guess I kind of think that's a moral thing but the word doesn't seem to fit all that well - can't think of an alternative for now.

"The vast majority of supranationals are a disaster."

What are you talking about? No they're not. You can question the IMF's methods but they're hardly a "disaster". Nor the world bank, ICC, EU, Mercosur, etc etc. And there's a lot of international law - law of the sea, the WTO rules, hell the Geneva convention.

Where's this "vast majority" which is a "disaster"?

The UN hasn't exactly gone as well as it could have, but even so most of its own "disaster" has been in opportunities lost, not misguided actions taken.

"Yes, there's a chance that a new supranational would be good, but the odds are that it won't be."

And we're just powerless to toss that coin, are we? Obviously we would try to make it good.

Your assertion that the "odds" are in favour of bad is not backed up by anything you've said. There are plenty of good supranationals, and they all seem to be working OK, or at least not actively bad. I don't understand the kneejerk antipathy to the idea.