There is a real problem that must be solved in the next century. How do we move from 'Nationalistic' civilization to 'Global' civilization and government? Should we even try?
I will first say that I do think we should try. Because we can only doom ourselves to war and discriminatory poverty if we don't.
That said. How do we do it? Any ideas?
I don't see it happening without there first being a univerally accepted 'Declaration Of Individual Rights' that include:
1 - The absolute right of self protection.
2 - Recall and redress of ALL levels of government. From local city council to global representative.
3 - Protection from unwarranted and illegal search and ceasure.
4 - Absolute right of individual property, which must include animals. <edit> grin... Just a little jab at the animal worship cult headed by prad and 'the good doctor'.
This is a 'very' abbreviated list. Feel free to add or subtract.
So I really don't see it happening. It should, but it wont.
James Wolfensen was rewarded and praised this week. He is the head of the current best effort at globalization. The world bank. The best estimates are that the 'globalized' consortium headed by him lost and/or defrauded between 100 and 200 billion dollars last year.
He was praised for this. Think about it. What a wonderful job he is doing in 'controling graft and corruption.'
The UN 'Lost' or grafted 10 billion of the 50 billion dollars involved in the 'Oil For Food' program over the last 5 years. Think about that.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to put the current bunch of crooks and fools in charge of anything? Except maybe a cell-block.
Can we ever become a global civilization?
I think the world will gradually get more peaceful, but not for its own sake, rather out of economic necessity. It's often said that once countries reach a certain level of development, be it democracy or McDonald's, they stop going to war with each other. What's really going on is that the rich countries of the world are only rich because they import and export huge amounts from and to each other, allowing people to move away from just providing for their own needs and specialising in what they're good at. The cost of instantly losing access to export markets, and having to shift production to make up for loss of imports, is so great that even a megalomaniac would realise he could never seize enough oil or demand enough 'reparations' in a war to pay for it.
We're already seeing the start of this globalisation of the economy, but it has much further to go. In future I think we'll see China, India, Eastern Europe and South America play an increasingly large role in the global economy. I'm not so optimistic about the Middle East or Africa though - in particular, the OPEC countries will be reluctant to give up their little cartel.
What has this got to do with political unity? Not a lot... at first. But bear in mind that the European Community started as a way to reduce trade barriers between the original six members, and look where it is now.
Originally posted by AcolyteYou just "quoted" my philosophical hero... Albert Einstein. It was his contention that "People don't kill their customers and vendors."
I think the world will gradually get more peaceful, but not for its own sake, rather out of economic necessity. It's often said that once countries reach a certain level of development, be it democracy or McDonald's, they stop going to war with each other. What's really going on is that the rich countries of the world are only rich because they import a ...[text shortened]... ed as a way to reduce trade barriers between the original six members, and look where it is now.
I was hooked. This pretty much sums up my views on "exporting america". It is our obligation to the second and third world because we use one sixth of the energy on earth.
Philosophical rectitude? What a concept! <grin>
I think that if we can avoid "killing ourselves" fighting non-civilizations... see Islamofacists... we MIGHT develop a global society. In a hundred years. But we have to start over. The current "start", ie, the UN has all the markings of a "dictatorship". No rights spelled out. No guarantees of freedoms. In short... we just need to start over and get rid of the monster at the stoop.
Oh well. Back to the drawing board.
Originally posted by AcolyteWould it be fair to say that the West as the dominant economic power massively subsidise their agriculture? Surely talk of free trade from these quarters is a farce.
What's really going on is that the rich countries of the world are only rich because they import and export huge amounts from and to each other, allowing people to move away from just providing for their own needs and specialising in what they're good at.
We're already seeing the start of this globalisation of the economy, but it has much further to go. .[/b]
I am a firm supporter of globalisation - but I am sick of the hypocrisy that surrounds it.
Let us start the process by allowing fair access to our markets.
I'm constantly amused at the Randian principle of Freedom, equality, safety and property.
What the hell is property doing there? How can one own land for example?
Another constant source of amusement is this concept of globalisation, where the rich and money are global and everybody else isn't. True globalisation will have no borders and everyone can live where everyone wants to.
I agree that certain things will have to happen before we are rid of the whole concept of nationality.
Property will have to go.
My country. My house. My car. It's just land, bricks and wheels.
I do not see it happening anywhere in the near future. Mainly because we are constantly indoctrinated that owning things makes us better and happier. Because the media has near-full control over that which motivates the majority. And because the people who control the media certainly don't want to give up their life styles.
Originally posted by shavixmirDon't know how you do it there. Here, you pay money to someone who owns some of it. They prove ownership by a title, held by local government. The agreement to purchase must be a wriitten contract and a copy is passed to the titles authority. Your name goes on the title and then you own it. Simple really.
How can one own land for example?
.[/b]
Happy to help you out.
Originally posted by steerpikeDoesn't the whole concept seem slightly strange to you?
Don't know how you do it there. Here, you pay money to someone who owns some of it. They prove ownership by a title, held by local government. The agreement to purchase must be a wriitten contract and a copy is passed to the titles authority. Your name goes on the title and then you own it. Simple really.
Happy to help you out.
Owning a piece of a planet? How on earth did that person get to owning it? What if I filed for ownership of Jupiter or something?
Originally posted by shavixmirNot really strange. It gives me exclusive use of it - which is handy.
Doesn't the whole concept seem slightly strange to you?
Owning a piece of a planet? How on earth did that person get to owning it? What if I filed for ownership of Jupiter or something?
Jupiter? Not up on Jovian property law.
But if you want to discuss property - I did start a thread on Tino Rangatangatira a while back.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat's interesting, because Einstein advocated a vegetarian diet.
[b]You just "quoted" my philosophical hero... Albert Einstein.b]
This appears to be the first time that I agree with the general gist of one of your posts (although I disagree with some details such as absolute right to property).
While I'd like to see borders and nationalism go the way of the telegraph, I don't think that it will happen for a long time.
The current trend in globalization is very disturbing, where profit is put ahead of all values...just read up on some interesting cases involving GATT or NAFTA. The World Bank and the WTO represent the wrong way to do globalization.
The UN is not up to the job, because the rules allow for the most backwards countries ruled by the most ruthless dictators to have power.
In order to unite the world, we need to get rid of all those centrisms.
Originally posted by shavixmirThis is why I said it has much further to go. I'm in danger of making a straw man here, but consider the following: a clothes factory in the EU is closed down and replaced by one in the Third World, which pays much lower wages and has worse working conditions. Who gains and who loses?
Another constant source of amusement is this concept of globalisation, where the rich and money are global and everybody else isn't.
Let's see...
The third-world factory workers must gain something, otherwise they wouldn't work in the new factory (assuming it isn't a country with industrial conscription 🙄 ). It's likely that they're much BETTER paid there than they would be in their old jobs, for example. As unpleasant as the job might be by Western standards, it does represent an improvement in their lives.
The company's shareholders gain, because the company is able to reduce its costs and increase profit, at least in the short run.
Consumers gain (and everyone is a consumer of something!), because now that companies can sell their clothes more cheaply and still make a profit, they'll be forced to cut prices unless they're in a monopoly position - this is unlikely to be the case in the clothes market, unless we're talking about products where people will doggedly buy a particular brand - this behaviour increases prices.
As I said, the factory makes its workers richer. This means that they can afford more goods, so now there's more demand for them. This creates jobs elsewhere, eventually rippling back to the EU. So in the long run even the laid off factory workers (or their descendents) may benefit.
What's so bad about all this?
Originally posted by shavixmirYour non-materialistic sentiments are laudable. However, laws enforcing private ownership by individuals can be a useful aid to social stability as well as a regrettable means of capitalistic exploitation. If no laws were in place to allow people to monopolize use of a limited number of things, then people would have no recourse to a higher authority should a bunch of presumptuous but powerful thugs decide that they are entitled to more than their fare share. Laws, though imperfect, act as a deterrent to all sorts of disputes and fights about who should get what.
I'm constantly amused at the Randian principle of Freedom, equality, safety and property.
What the hell is property doing there? How can one own land for example?
Another constant source of amusement is this concept of globalisation, where the rich and money are global and everybody else isn't. True globalisation will have no borders and everyone c ...[text shortened]... And because the people who control the media certainly don't want to give up their life styles.
Nonetheless, I do share you dismay at the way in which happiness is overwhelmingly predicated of individual ownership. It strikes me that we could beneficially share a lot more than we do. At least, that's why I tell myself when I steal other people's milk from the fridge...
Aiden
I do believe the nation-state will become obsolete in the centuries to come (in some ways it already is). But what will replace nation-states? Multinational corporations, perhaps? That would be a nightmare scenario, since present-day corporations are modeled more along the lines of fascism than democracy, and I've long been of the opinion that the principles of capitalistic economics contradict the principles of democratic politics. Capitalism as we know it will have to become extinct before humanity can ever truly unite, since capitalism is all about division and warfare.
That is what is strange about international relations nowadays. First-world nations like to think they're more evolved now because they no longer fight each other militarily. But what do they do instead? Wage unceasing economic warfare with each other in the guise of "competition". Once again it's "us against them", and there's still a price to be paid that's nearly as grievous as the bombing of cities: starvation amidst plenty, and destitution juxtaposed to superabundance. In short, the Third World pays. Multinationals are the new colonizers, and people are cogwheels for the benefit of economies rather than the other way around. Chaotic, psychology-driven markets are not the hallmark of a truly evolved civilization, so humanity does indeed have a long way to go yet.