OMFG! Globalization!!1!

[Oliver]

It seems to me that a lot of non-US (such as European) supporters of Ron Paul are basically 1-issue voters, similar to the fundamentalist Christians here in the US whose only concern is a candidate's stance on abortion. They'll ignore every other policy stance that a politician will take in favor of one that's not even very likely to be acted upon. Yeah, he'll pull us out of Iraq, or try to, immediately, if elected, but have you looked at any of his other policies? It's very odd to me.

Ron Paul is essentially a xenophobe when it comes to foreign policy, and would not be supportive of any efforts to participate in world political affairs whatsoever, whether the cause is humanitarian, peacekeeping, environmental accords, or anything else that the UN member nations tend to be in agreement that it's a good thing / just cause. So any sort of increased globalization is pretty much out of the question with him.

In my own opinion, however, I don't necessarily see increased global cooperation as a bad thing. Raising standards for wages and working conditions in developing countries, having some sort of consistency in the laws from country to country, a basic general agreement on the standards of human rights - I don't really see how these things would be detrimental in the long term at all. However, I think we should let this process happen incrementally, at its own natural pace, rather than trying to force it. If you try to implement sweeping changes in world government while many people aren't ready or willing, you'll cause a lot of resentment.

With regard to the people who are ardently pro-globalization, I don't think that there's any conspiracy here. They don't seem to be working in secret, and I don't see their purposes as being particularly nefarious. They honestly believe that it's in the best interests of most of the people and that's why they're championing that cause. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

I disagree. And it's off-topic.

Nevertheless - I will reply to your false assumptions if you
start a related thread in politics.

 

[Minadin]

Off-topic? Wrong forum? How could you even make those accusations in this of all threads?

In any case I disagree with you as well.

 

[Brainster]

Let me clarify your post.

You say that there will be no competition once there will be
a "World Government". How is that true if this Government
is based on a free market?

Sure, the competition between Governments would end - but
not the competition concerning the Free Market. People would
still try to get their goods from good and cheap sources. So
this wouldn't eliminate competition in any way. Even if markets
would shift based on things like "a minimum wage".

My point is that there would be no competition between governments, not in the private sector.

The question is - what Kind of World-Government would be
the most democratic one? One that controls all the Member-
countries - or one that works like in the US: Parts are being
handled on District-, parts on State-, parts on Federal- and
Parts on Worldwide level.

It works the same way in the EU. On multinational Issues,
the EU and their members decide. Concerning domestic Issues,
the individual Country makes the decision.

But of course it is the figuring out what exactly is domestic and what is multinational that is causing all the problem in the EU. The French want to keep their small family farms, but the only way to do that is to have tariffs on food imports. But that means that (since the flow of goods is free from tariff within the EU) that the entire EU must agree to those tariffs. But why should the Italians be forced to subsidize French farmers?

 

[D'rok]

He isn't a hero to me - just someone who is honest in a dishonest
world. But that's another story.

As I pointed out in the OP, it's Human Nature and Social Behavior
that we're heading towards Globalization since the first time our
DNA appeared.

So what's your stance on the History of Unions. Don't you agree
that humanity is doomed to be one Government in the Future,
despite the historical evidence that there were always people
opposing Unions?

it's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I'm wondering if your perspective is coloured by recent experiences such as German unification and the EU in general? (Don't forget that that smaller union - Germany - came about after the dissolution of a larger union - the USSR).

As much as human nature pulls us together, it also sets us against each other. For every historical force that unites us, another vitiates union. Take a look around you. Nationalism is still going strong, especially ethnic nationalism. Religion still divides even when it conquers. Nation-states are constantly appearing, disappearing, changing their borders, etc.

There is nothing inevitable about history. You are committing the same fallacy of post-diction that your more famous historicist countrymen have done before you. (Hegel and Marx). You have looked at what has happened and said "well, obviously it had to have happened that way". This then gets extrapolated to the future - i.e., post-diction becomes prediction.

Hegel and Marx were wrong. Dead wrong. So was Kojeve and so was Fukuyama.

My own country, one of the most prosperous and peaceful on the planet, is perennially under threat of dissolution from ethnic nationalism. America and Russia are threatening our territory in the Arctic. Nothing significant has changed.

That's nothing new - but I already see who will finally win this
fight about Ideologies...

You would not be the first to make that prediction and you will likely not be the last. At lest you formulated it rationally. Most of the anti-NWO and anti-NAU crowd are unable to do that. Instead they just see bogeymen everywhere.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's quite natural that we ejaculate into the womb, but we now use contraception.

Should we throw off that because it is what our DNA wants?

 

[Oliver]

It's quite natural that we ejaculate into the womb, but we now use contraception.

Should we throw off that because it is what our DNA wants?

We don't have a Sex-Forum yet. So what are you talking about?
The DNA doesn't want anything. I just meant that the DNA is
responsible for what we are - not what we do.

 

[Oliver]

Off-topic? Wrong forum? How could you even make those accusations in this of all threads?

In any case I disagree with you as well.

...because I think that in contrast to you, I think that ...

 

[Oliver]

it's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I'm wondering if your perspective is coloured by recent experiences such as German unification and the EU in general? (Don't forget that that smaller union - Germany - came about after the dissolution of a larger union - the USSR).

As much as human nature pulls us together, it also sets us against each other. For every historical force that unites us, another vitiates union. Take a look around you. Nationalism is still going strong, especially ethnic nationalism. Religion still divides even when it conquers. Nation-states are constantly appearing, disappearing, changing their borders, etc.

There is nothing inevitable about history. You are committing the same fallacy of post-diction that your more famous historicist countrymen have done before you. (Hegel and Marx). You have looked at what has happened and said "well, obviously it had to have happened that way". This then gets extrapolated to the future - i.e., post-diction becomes prediction.

Hegel and Marx were wrong. Dead wrong. So was Kojeve and so was Fukuyama.

My own country, one of the most prosperous and peaceful on the planet, is perennially under threat of dissolution from ethnic nationalism. America and Russia are threatening our territory in the Arctic. Nothing significant has changed.

You would not be the first to make that prediction and you will likely not be the last. At lest you formulated it rationally. Most of the anti-NWO and anti-NAU crowd are unable to do that. Instead they just see bogeymen everywhere.

And you have a point concerning "it also pulls us apart".
History acknowledges this - but the winner throughout history
always was Pro-Union.

So why do you think that people are afraid about Globalization
and based on those unfounded emotions, highly opposed to it?

And I apologize, but I fail to see what Nation you belong to
saying that "My own country, one of the most prosperous and
peaceful on the planet, is perennially under threat of dissolution
from ethnic nationalism. America and Russia are threatening our
territory in the Arctic."

Added: I see - Canada. Does it deserve an own thread or
is this still on topic according to the tight rules in here?

 

[Oliver]

*doublepost*

 

[Oliver]

My point is that there would be no competition between governments, not in the private sector.

But of course it is the figuring out what exactly is domestic and what is multinational that is causing all the problem in the EU. The French want to keep their small family farms, but the only way to do that is to have tariffs on food imports. But that means that (since the flow of goods is free from tariff within the EU) that the entire EU must agree to those tariffs. But why should the Italians be forced to subsidize French farmers?

Well, that's when democracy comes into play. If the other
countries oppose France, France basically can whine all
day long since they agreed that this very issue is one they
give away to a multi-national vote instead a national one.

To make this clear: Countries should think very clearly about
what rights they are willing to give away. The Idea of voting
about multi-national issues itself isn't a bad thing if nations
agree that some Issues are indeed more suitable for a multi-
national vote since it affects all member-states.

 

[D'rok]

And you have a point concerning "it also pulls us apart".
History acknowledges this - but the winner throughout history
always was Pro-Union.

Tell that to Gorbachev and the USSR. Tell that to Czechoslovakia. Tell that to Kosovo. Tell that to Kurdistan. Tell that to India and Pakistan. Tell that to Belgium. I could go on and on.

So why do you think that people are afraid about Globalization
and based on those unfounded emotions, highly opposed to it?

Tribal instincts run deep. Nationalism is alive and well.

 

[Oliver]

Tell that to Gorbachev and the USSR. Tell that to Czechoslovakia. Tell that to Kosovo. Tell that to Kurdistan. Tell that to India and Pakistan. Tell that to Belgium. I could go on and on.

Tribal instincts run deep. Nationalism is alive and well.

While Nationalism will die - as it did throughout history
in all it's different names, the USSR wasn't thinking globally
in any way.

So yes - they opposed Globalization - and failed. Just
like human history predicted. Nothing new or extraordinary.

 

[D'rok]

While Nationalism will die - as it did throughout history
in all it's different names, the USSR wasn't thinking globally
in any way.

So yes - they opposed Globalization - and failed. Just
like human history predicted. Nothing new or extraordinary.

 

[mr rosewater]

While Nationalism will die - as it did throughout history
in all it's different names, the USSR wasn't thinking globally
in any way.

So yes - they opposed Globalization - and failed. Just
like human history predicted. Nothing new or extraordinary.

WOW, What drugs are you on, I want some.

 

[gtc]

There is a general tendency towards globalisation (which I will define as more trade and communication and cooperation across greater distances). As I see it, better transport and communication links makes globalization easier, while greater wealth and industrialisation drives demand for long distance trade and communication.

I think that the process of globalisation will continue so long as it keeps becoming easier to trade and communicate over long distances.

Having said that, globalisation is not inevitable. There have been times (lasting centuries) when the trend went against globalisation.

After the Roman Empire broke up it became much harder to trade and communicate over long distances. Roads broke down as did the ability of people to travel safely over long distances (without being robbed or having goods confiscated by the local ruler). On the demand side, fewer people could afford to purchase the products of people in far off lands.

In China and Japan up until recent times, government rules limited international trade and communication. The same thing occurred in the West where the relatively free trade of the 1800s was replaced by trade barriers in the 20th century.

In the very readable book 'Guns, Germs and Steel' it is suggested that the fragmented and competing nations of Europe were more open to globalisation after the 1500s than the strong central government of China.

At the moment free trade and co-operation seems to be increasing within regional blocks (NAFTA, EU etc). I suspect the EU will eventually resemble something like a very weak national government (with the individual countries resembling very strong state governments). I also suspect that this process will lead to the break up of several existing countries. The advent of the EU, NATO and the UN means there is not much more benefit for Scotland to be a part of the UK than there is for West Virginia to have remained a part of Virginia.

The other question is whether the barriers to trade and commerce between regional blocks will decrease.

As far as the CT is concerned, I have seen no evidence that anyone is planning to expand NAFTA into some kind of North American Union. People who campaign against the NAU have either fallen for a CT or are trying to exploit people's anxieties.

 

[D'rok]

Bolivia seems blissfully unaware of Oliver's historical determinism:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/15/bolivia.unrest/?iref=mpstoryview