Globalism and democracy

Now, what news on the Rialto?

Globalism and democracy

Postby Parodite » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:56 pm

While the regressed left has its ego up their a** and self-righteously and hysterically keep pounding Trump too lazy to think about anything else, they missed the fact that Trump identified globalism as a threat to nation states and their democratic process. As was the core reason for the Brexit vote the fact that the EU erodes national democracy, sovereignty and control over your own borders.

(control over your own borders itself is neutral: it just means that it is always open to debate and change of policy on who and how much people are allowed in, can work for how long where, what social benefits apply to whom etc. The point is that this is and should not be decided upon by a non-elected bureaucratic supra-national autocracy)

I don't know since when caring about democracy and keeping an eye on what threatens it should be equalled with primitive nationalism: those regressed ones who can't see their own hysteria and forgetting the real issues like democracy that should matter to everyone... are becoming the useful idiots of the international oligarchy, of corporate crony capitalism, the emerging of a new class and monopoly of super rich and powerful people that without democratic controls and transparency start to rule the world. This class will be only one step away of behaving like the Big Hijo de Putin of the world.

There is an argument that globalization also has positive effects on wealth creation in formerly poor countries and force those countries to become more democratic as well. I am less optimistic about the positive effects on democracy since every corrupt politician can easily be bribed. Not because globalization itself is bad but because it generates bigger and bigger monopolies that no longer are controlled by any bottum-up democratic process. It is natural for a big monopoly to not like democratic interferences that eat away power and create competition in making the rules for the game.

Pros and cons of globalization are nicely summarized here:

Has Globalization spread Democracy around the world?
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby noddy » Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:41 am

its been a long time since democracy seemed such a hollow word, its being attacked from the left, the right and the middle at the moment.

any bets on how many generations it remains fashionable ? historically its not the end game.
noddy
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Simple Minded » Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:16 pm

noddy wrote:its been a long time since democracy seemed such a hollow word, its being attacked from the left, the right and the middle at the moment.

any bets on how many generations it remains fashionable ? historically its not the end game.


The ironic part is that the tech now exists to make implementation of democracy easier than ever before. It takes no effort to broadcast one's opinion to the known universe.

What we're really learning is that no one thinks the opinion of the other person is as important, or knowledgeable as the other person thinks it is. Turns out confirmation bias and ignorance are even easier to broadcast than knowledgeable opinion.

Now that we are learning what people are really like, democracy seems less appealing. We used to think only our Uncle Fred was nuts, now we are learning everyone is Uncle Fred.

First though, I think we need to agree to censor the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada for what they said about Pence. Those Canucks are so smug!

Broadcast, hmmm.... If only people had access to a really big... "net" or somethink (Freudian typo)...... to bring them together. :)
"There's only two types of people in the world. Those who divide all people into two groups, and those who don't."
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 5889
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Zack Morris » Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:41 pm

Parodite wrote:as a threat to nation states and their democratic process. As was the core reason for the Brexit vote the fact that the EU erodes national democracy, sovereignty and control over your own borders.


Your entire premise may be flawed. What makes nation states so sacred and why should they remain unthreatened? In the libertarian worldview, nation states are synonymous with "big government" and are a completely artificial construct. They restrict personal liberty. The concept of the nation state is relatively new in historic terms. You'll have to provide a compelling argument for why the 1940's model is something that is more sacred than our individual liberty.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Parodite » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:08 pm

Zack Morris wrote:
Parodite wrote:as a threat to nation states and their democratic process. As was the core reason for the Brexit vote the fact that the EU erodes national democracy, sovereignty and control over your own borders.


Your entire premise may be flawed. What makes nation states so sacred and why should they remain unthreatened? In the libertarian worldview, nation states are synonymous with "big government" and are a completely artificial construct. They restrict personal liberty. The concept of the nation state is relatively new in historic terms. You'll have to provide a compelling argument for why the 1940's model is something that is more sacred than our individual liberty.


I'm not sure libertarianism equates with being anti nation state, or even considering the nation state as secondary to individual freedom. My premise is that libertarianism in general applies to any economic-political system where individual freedom and responsibility are maximized in relation to the collective(s) it operates in. The collective can hence be anything, from a nation state to a collective of nation states like the EU, the USA or the competing markets that make the economy.

The reason I like nation states is primarily that they compartmentalize the bigger power structure and as such are a buffer against bigger monopolies. The gvt of a democratic nation state also is a monopoly, but people have something to choose from every 4 years, a say who are in power. A United States of Europe however is a much bigger monopoly, which is bad enough but even worse is that it has little democratic legitimacy which opens the door to more power abuse and on a much larger scale. In USA, it seems to me, too much power exists in the federal gvt, too. A lot can be delegated to states, and even within states more powers can be delegated to local levels to better fit the needs, ideas, life styles of those who live there.

Libertarianism will always fight the expansion of monopolies of all sorts. At this point removing sovereignty and borders of nation states is just plainly stupid, as it only opens the door to the growth and expansion of bigger and less democratic monopolies, ultimately the rise of and competition between only a few oligarchies in the world, a small class of very rich and powerful world-wide cartels that can do whatever they want because there is no democratic process left to keep them in check and accountable to laws. They will change laws instead to protect their interests and freedoms to control others.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Zack Morris » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am

Parodite wrote:The reason I like nation states is primarily that they compartmentalize the bigger power structure and as such are a buffer against bigger monopolies. The gvt of a democratic nation state also is a monopoly, but people have something to choose from every 4 years, a say who are in power. A United States of Europe however is a much bigger monopoly, which is bad enough but even worse is that it has little democratic legitimacy which opens the door to more power abuse and on a much larger scale. In USA, it seems to me, too much power exists in the federal gvt, too. A lot can be delegated to states, and even within states more powers can be delegated to local levels to better fit the needs, ideas, life styles of those who live there.


It's an interesting notion at first glance but in practice, the supposed benefits of this "compartmentalization" are a mirage. Some nation states are weaker than others and have no prospects to develop themselves. Their people have no great choices. It's a common among some of the simpletons on this forum to flippantly suggest that talented immigrants stay home because their countries need them. But a tree needs healthy soil in which to grow and bear fruit. Many nation states are simply destined to be client states regardless of the merits of their people and culture. This is incredibly unfair.

International actors -- including private corporations and a globe-trotting elite -- have always been a feature of the nation state model. Always. And typically, they comprise the ruling class. This doesn't square at all with your objective. All nation states manage to do is divide and weaken, raising barriers to mobility that concentrate power in the hands of the relative few who are able to enjoy free movement and conduct business internationally.

Lastly, the model is simply well past its shelf life. The nation state as we know it today is a relatively new phenomenon in world history. I see no compelling reason to keep it on life support. Whatever post-nation state model emerges, systems of local governance and sovereignty will be essential to it, but in the current model, you have troglodytes in, say, Alabama or parts of Britain or the Netherlands, dragging down half or more of the population who are open to the outside world and to forging new identities based on mutual values and intellectual heritage rather than blood and soil.

It's just silly. Patriotism and nationalism are regressive and irrational ideals. Having seen the world, nobody is going to turn their back on it. Tellingly, here in the US, many Trump voters have never seen the world in the first place. The arc of history will not bend to them.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Parodite » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:40 pm

Zack Morris wrote:
Parodite wrote:The reason I like nation states is primarily that they compartmentalize the bigger power structure and as such are a buffer against bigger monopolies. The gvt of a democratic nation state also is a monopoly, but people have something to choose from every 4 years, a say who are in power. A United States of Europe however is a much bigger monopoly, which is bad enough but even worse is that it has little democratic legitimacy which opens the door to more power abuse and on a much larger scale. In USA, it seems to me, too much power exists in the federal gvt, too. A lot can be delegated to states, and even within states more powers can be delegated to local levels to better fit the needs, ideas, life styles of those who live there.


It's an interesting notion at first glance but in practice, the supposed benefits of this "compartmentalization" are a mirage. Some nation states are weaker than others and have no prospects to develop themselves. Their people have no great choices. It's a common among some of the simpletons on this forum to flippantly suggest that talented immigrants stay home because their countries need them. But a tree needs healthy soil in which to grow and bear fruit. Many nation states are simply destined to be client states regardless of the merits of their people and culture. This is incredibly unfair.


But you do not seem to suggest that competition, where there are always winners and losers, itself is a bad thing. I would agree with that. When and for as long as there is an even playing field with equal opportunity, it is fair game. Winners and losers together raise the floor and create value that benefits all during the process of competition. It is all the people able to compete and willing to compete, to sometimes win and sometimes loose that create value and wealth. Those unable to compete for reasons a/b/c/ can be helped with charity/social security. There obviously are unfortunate people able to compete but who simply can't enter the competition. All they need is other people invest in them with money and perhaps some other forms of support. There are however many types of obstacles on the way that can make it harder. Some people are like delivered on a silver platter to the gates of the arena without much real effort, others have to battle from the slums up to even get a chance to get a chance. Fighters coming from very unprivileged and poor backgrounds but overcame many obstacles already will statistically do better during competition than those who were given chances for free.

What is true for individuals is to a large degree also true for nation states. Poor nation states are able to overcome obstacles, sometimes they need some help, investments from others to move in the right direction and start competing, start winning some battles. In the process identify what the initial obstacles are and how to overcome them.

You say that many nation states are destined to be client states regardless of their people and their culture. This suggests there are some major obstacles.. what are they? I would argue that a culture of such a state can certainly be one of the obstacles. A culture with little to no democratic tradition for instance and with socioeconomic classes that are "destined" to remain fixed in their position with no upward and downward movements possible; plenty of examples available. Indeed very unfair. Many more obstacles exist on all kinds of levels due to various causes even in the the richest, free and democratic societies. But when people can compete and participate... things tend to get better for everybody. As one black US conservative put it; the black civil rights right movement did not fight for the right to be taken care of, but to compete.

International actors -- including private corporations and a globe-trotting elite -- have always been a feature of the nation state model. Always. And typically, they comprise the ruling class. This doesn't square at all with your objective. All nation states manage to do is divide and weaken, raising barriers to mobility that concentrate power in the hands of the relative few who are able to enjoy free movement and conduct business internationally


This is not factual. The powers that operate a nation state will certainly interact, trade and at times go on economic or territorial conquests abroad, but that is not a feature of nation states alone. It is what all territorial entities do, from tribes to empires. From small business to multi-national empires. Power bubbles grow, boom and bust all the time. Territories grow and shrink. To accuse nation-states of being the sole medium for this is silly. And nation-states differ greatly in their internal and external behaviors among each other. And then there is differences how entities compete and/or cooperate. I can't think of any entity that is either/or any one thing. What is typical, is differences. In general, and in all specific cases. I can't think of any exceptions.

The other thing you seem to miss is that thanks to globalization not only national barriers are becoming porous or even non-existent... even more power ends up in the hands of even less people who, like a true monopoly, will erode not only territorial barriers of nation-states, but also the barriers of law because power includes being able to change the rules.

Lastly, the model is simply well past its shelf life. The nation state as we know it today is a relatively new phenomenon in world history. I see no compelling reason to keep it on life support. Whatever post-nation state model emerges, systems of local governance and sovereignty will be essential to it, but in the current model, you have troglodytes in, say, Alabama or parts of Britain or the Netherlands, dragging down half or more of the population who are open to the outside world and to forging new identities based on mutual values and intellectual heritage rather than blood and soil.

It's just silly. Patriotism and nationalism are regressive and irrational ideals. Having seen the world, nobody is going to turn their back on it. Tellingly, here in the US, many Trump voters have never seen the world in the first place. The arc of history will not bend to them.


National decent democracies are the only barriers that exists today against oligarchic monopolies where bottom-up democracy, checks and balances have evaporated from the equations. Fortunately enough intelligent and educated people in Europe see the danger and will vote against the European Super State in favor of national sovereignty and national democracy, against trade deals that favor corporate interests over national interests because the freedom and space to choose things in a democratic process is further eroded by them.
Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Zack Morris » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:27 am

Parodite wrote: But you do not seem to suggest that competition, where there are always winners and losers, itself is a bad thing.


Fair competition. Trapping people in arbitrary nation states does not produce fair competition. Fair competition is when everyone has equal rights and equal opportunity, which is precisely what you are fighting against because you believe your comfortable existence would be jeopardized if poorer, harder working people could compete directly against you.

Fighters coming from very unprivileged and poor backgrounds but overcame many obstacles already will statistically do better during competition than those who were given chances for free.


That's not necessarily true at all but whatever.

What is true for individuals is to a large degree also true for nation states.


Totally false.

Poor nation states are able to overcome obstacles, sometimes they need some help, investments from others to move in the right direction and start competing, start winning some battles. In the process identify what the initial obstacles are and how to overcome them.


Nation states are not people. You're speaking in abstract terms but at the end of the day, the actual souls unlucky enough to have been born in these countries can remain oppressed indefinitely through no fault of their own, as history demonstrates. Talented people are no match for entrenched, self-reinforcing power structures.

You say that many nation states are destined to be client states regardless of their people and their culture. This suggests there are some major obstacles.. what are they? I would argue that a culture of such a state can certainly be one of the obstacles. A culture with little to no democratic tradition for instance and with socioeconomic classes that are "destined" to remain fixed in their position with no upward and downward movements possible; plenty of examples available. Indeed very unfair. Many more obstacles exist on all kinds of levels due to various causes even in the the richest, free and democratic societies. But when people can compete and participate... things tend to get better for everybody. As one black US conservative put it; the black civil rights right movement did not fight for the right to be taken care of, but to compete.


Culture is an obstacle to progress? That's a wonderful argument in favor of my position:

International actors -- including private corporations and a globe-trotting elite -- have always been a feature of the nation state model. Always. And typically, they comprise the ruling class. This doesn't square at all with your objective. All nation states manage to do is divide and weaken, raising barriers to mobility that concentrate power in the hands of the relative few who are able to enjoy free movement and conduct business internationally


This is not factual.


It's completely factual. European aristocracy was a multinational phenomenon, with plenty of cross-border marriage and business arrangements. They moved about with relative freedom on the continent and were financed by multinational banking families. For a long time, the Church was the dominant political power in Europe, a powerful international government if ever there was one. It even owned vast tracts of land and tangible assets. And during the age of colonialism, private corporations effectively took on features of the State outside of Europe, governing other nations and engaging in military operations.

The other thing you seem to miss is that thanks to globalization not only national barriers are becoming porous or even non-existent... even more power ends up in the hands of even less people who, like a true monopoly, will erode not only territorial barriers of nation-states, but also the barriers of law because power includes being able to change the rules.


You think people had more power 100 years ago? We definitely are suffering from a wealth distribution problem but that's a phenomenon that will eventually be rectified. Global institutions are diffuse and their power centers are numerous. The so-called "elites" are seemingly more numerous than ever before, and the majority of them are first generation.

National decent democracies are the only barriers that exists today against oligarchic monopolies where bottom-up democracy, checks and balances have evaporated from the equations.


Again you repeat this strange theory with zero evidence. Oligarchic monopolies are most prevalent in closed nation states. Duh! Hello! Earth to Parodite. Are you awake in there? Russia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, South Korea, etc, etc., etc.

You live in a bizarro universe if you believe the UK, US, Australia, Canada, etc. -- nations with liberal immigration laws -- are better examples of oligarchic monopolies than the others. All evidence points to the contrary of your position.

The classical libertarian argument against the state is that it facilitates oligarchies and monopolies and indeed, in the nations I listed, private interests are granted preeminence because it servers the interests of the nation state and its rulers, who are able to rally support by wrapping themselves in the flag of nationalism.

Fortunately enough intelligent and educated people in Europe see the danger and will vote against the European Super State in favor of national sovereignty and national democracy, against trade deals that favor corporate interests over national interests because the freedom and space to choose things in a democratic process is further eroded by them.


Without a functioning European Super State of some sort, you'll all wither and turn into basket cases.

History doesn't really go backwards. Especially not after a step function change like the Industrial Revolution. Conservative clowns think they can turn the clock back to some 19th century fantasy world. This is absurd on its face. It's time to move on. A new world has dawned.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby noddy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:04 am

lots of dogma and assertations that only work if you focus on 20% of the population and ignore the rest.

Zack Morris wrote:
Parodite wrote: But you do not seem to suggest that competition, where there are always winners and losers, itself is a bad thing.


Fair competition. Trapping people in arbitrary nation states does not produce fair competition. Fair competition is when everyone has equal rights and equal opportunity, which is precisely what you are fighting against because you believe your comfortable existence would be jeopardized if poorer, harder working people could compete directly against you.



why would anyone vote to have more people competing for their job so as to work harder for less ?

what kind of fascist sacrifice for the fatherland are you expecting from people ??


Zack Morris wrote:
Poor nation states are able to overcome obstacles, sometimes they need some help, investments from others to move in the right direction and start competing, start winning some battles. In the process identify what the initial obstacles are and how to overcome them.


Nation states are not people. You're speaking in abstract terms but at the end of the day, the actual souls unlucky enough to have been born in these countries can remain oppressed indefinitely through no fault of their own, as history demonstrates. Talented people are no match for entrenched, self-reinforcing power structures.


whats the proof that talented souls to redneck ratios are any better in other cultures than they are in european ones ?

do you have some wonderful racial theory about this ?

Zack Morris wrote:


International actors -- including private corporations and a globe-trotting elite -- have always been a feature of the nation state model. Always. And typically, they comprise the ruling class. This doesn't square at all with your objective. All nation states manage to do is divide and weaken, raising barriers to mobility that concentrate power in the hands of the relative few who are able to enjoy free movement and conduct business internationally


This is not factual.




It's completely factual. European aristocracy was a multinational phenomenon, with plenty of cross-border marriage and business arrangements. They moved about with relative freedom on the continent and were financed by multinational banking families. For a long time, the Church was the dominant political power in Europe, a powerful international government if ever there was one. It even owned vast tracts of land and tangible assets. And during the age of colonialism, private corporations effectively took on features of the State outside of Europe, governing other nations and engaging in military operations.



yep international corps love the globalist model, it keeps the local governments and local workforce completely under their control and replacable as you rightly point out, its east india company all over again.

the fact that the progressive left and the international capitalists are singing in harmony on these issues is what makes idiots like trump viable.


Zack Morris wrote:

National decent democracies are the only barriers that exists today against oligarchic monopolies where bottom-up democracy, checks and balances have evaporated from the equations.


Again you repeat this strange theory with zero evidence. Oligarchic monopolies are most prevalent in closed nation states. Duh! Hello! Earth to Parodite. Are you awake in there? Russia, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, South Korea, etc, etc., etc.

You live in a bizarro universe if you believe the UK, US, Australia, Canada, etc. -- nations with liberal immigration laws -- are better examples of oligarchic monopolies than the others. All evidence points to the contrary of your position.

The classical libertarian argument against the state is that it facilitates oligarchies and monopolies and indeed, in the nations I listed, private interests are granted preeminence because it servers the interests of the nation state and its rulers, who are able to rally support by wrapping themselves in the flag of nationalism.


I cant keep track of which strawmen are fighting which in all this.

Zack Morris wrote:
Fortunately enough intelligent and educated people in Europe see the danger and will vote against the European Super State in favor of national sovereignty and national democracy, against trade deals that favor corporate interests over national interests because the freedom and space to choose things in a democratic process is further eroded by them.


Without a functioning European Super State of some sort, you'll all wither and turn into basket cases.

History doesn't really go backwards. Especially not after a step function change like the Industrial Revolution. Conservative clowns think they can turn the clock back to some 19th century fantasy world. This is absurd on its face. It's time to move on. A new world has dawned.


history doesnt move backwards or forwards, it jumps around like a headless chicken and then ideologues impose a story onto it after the fact in an attempt to propagate their agenda.

having said that, i think the european project is wrongly formulated and having economic union without a democratic political union structure to tweek it is a mistake in formulation.
noddy
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Simple Minded » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:03 pm

noddy wrote:lots of dogma and assertations that only work if you focus on 20% of the population and ignore the rest.



Yep, that's the way it is on Planet Zack.

noddy wrote:why would anyone vote to have more people competing for their job so as to work harder for less ?

what kind of fascist sacrifice for the fatherland are you expecting from people ??


I think it is called the Common Good that screws the Commoners.


noddy wrote:whats the proof that talented souls to redneck ratios are any better in other cultures than they are in european ones ?

Or for that matter, US inner cities vs. US rural areas.

noddy wrote:do you have some wonderful racial theory about this ?


You knew the answer to that before you asked.


noddy wrote:I cant keep track of which strawmen are fighting which in all this.

Bet on the one with the flame!


noddy wrote:history doesnt move backwards or forwards, it jumps around like a headless chicken and then ideologues impose a story onto it after the fact in an attempt to propagate their agenda.

having said that, i think the european project is wrongly formulated and having economic union without a democratic political union structure to tweek it is a mistake in formulation.


Inventing... and then projecting linear trends into the future, and maybe even the past for good measure, to milk the herd, AGW anyone? what good is having a God if he can't even control the weather?

Amen Bro, yer still my hero.
"There's only two types of people in the world. Those who divide all people into two groups, and those who don't."
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 5889
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Zack Morris » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:10 pm

noddy wrote:lots of dogma and assertations that only work if you focus on 20% of the population and ignore the rest.

Zack Morris wrote:
Parodite wrote: But you do not seem to suggest that competition, where there are always winners and losers, itself is a bad thing.


Fair competition. Trapping people in arbitrary nation states does not produce fair competition. Fair competition is when everyone has equal rights and equal opportunity, which is precisely what you are fighting against because you believe your comfortable existence would be jeopardized if poorer, harder working people could compete directly against you.



why would anyone vote to have more people competing for their job so as to work harder for less ?

what kind of fascist sacrifice for the fatherland are you expecting from people ??


Since globalization became a household word, we've all worked less, not more. Globalization lifts the destitute out of poverty, enriches the middle class by providing them more and cheaper goods and services, and bigger markets create enormous upward potential as new value-added jobs are created.

The fact of the matter is, Australians and Americans work a lot less hard today than they did decades ago. Lots of people here are able to avoid employment altogether while living a life of serene luxury.

whats the proof that talented souls to redneck ratios are any better in other cultures than they are in european ones ?

do you have some wonderful racial theory about this ?


Where's your proof that European ethnics are more likely to be talented? Do you have some wonderful racial theory about this?

yep international corps love the globalist model, it keeps the local governments and local workforce completely under their control and replacable as you rightly point out, its east india company all over again.

the fact that the progressive left and the international capitalists are singing in harmony on these issues is what makes idiots like trump viable.


The international corps succeeded in oppressing people by replacing the governing structures of weaker nations from whom the population had no opportunity to leave. The European powers and their corporate surrogates played weak nations off against each other. This has little to do with the benefits or drawbacks of greater mobility of people between nations. Do try to keep up, will you, noddy?

I cant keep track of which strawmen are fighting which in all this.


Ask Parodite who made the bizarre claim about oligarchies being more prevalent and more powerful in a globalist society. Where are there oligarchies in developed nations and the common markets that exist today?

Just because you can't win an argument,noddy, doesn't mean you can dismiss it as a strawman.

history doesnt move backwards or forwards, it jumps around like a headless chicken and then ideologues impose a story onto it after the fact in an attempt to propagate their agenda.


As the Great Barrack Hussein Obama said, history moves in zig-zags but the overall direction is forward. The world has not regressed overall since the dawn of civilization.

having said that, i think the european project is wrongly formulated and having economic union without a democratic political union structure to tweek it is a mistake in formulation.


A tighter political union would blur the lines between nation states even further. And a good thing that would be!
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Parodite » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:59 pm

I will just refer to a book written by Thierry Baudet, The Significance of Borders and will vote for his new Forum voor Democratie (Forum for Democracy) party this election.

pdf full text

In support of this:

Outside, away from the noise, grows a flower.
User avatar
Parodite
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:29 pm

Zack Morris wrote:Your entire premise may be flawed. What makes nation states so sacred and why should they remain unthreatened?

Because they provide sovereignty.

In the libertarian worldview, nation states are synonymous with "big government" and are a completely artificial construct.

Strawman. The only people I've seen argue against the nation state were the Tinkers in Bush's 2nd term, then they started loving it again when obama won.

They restrict personal liberty.

No, they secure it. Liberty 101. There is this thing called the US Consitution that settles the issue.

The concept of the nation state is relatively new in historic terms.

No.

You'll have to provide a compelling argument for why the 1940's model is something that is more sacred than our individual liberty.

Made up nonsense.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:31 pm

Zack Morris wrote: Trapping people in arbitrary nation states does not produce fair competition.

You are definitely not trapped here. You are free to go anytime.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Zack Morris » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:02 pm

That is absolutely incorrect. Many countries do not have a liberal immigration policy (although I would easily qualify for many OECD countries) and the US imposes an exit tax on renunciation of citizenship. I do retain dual citizenship however so I can use whichever is advantageous.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Mr. Perfect » Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:59 am

Lol like I said you are free to go anytime. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Globalism and democracy

Postby Simple Minded » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:05 pm

Zack Morris wrote:That is absolutely incorrect. Many countries do not have a liberal immigration policy (although I would easily qualify for many OECD countries) and the US imposes an exit tax on renunciation of citizenship. I do retain dual citizenship however so I can use whichever is advantageous.


The fastest, surest way I know to turn a virtuous, selfless, altruistic, rich, Liberal, into a mean spirited, selfish, capitalist, Conservative Pig....... is to ask them to pay their fair share of taxes. :o

Works every time it is tried. :D

Of which nations do you consider yourself a citizen Zack?

Hopefully, you like the other one better. ;)
"There's only two types of people in the world. Those who divide all people into two groups, and those who don't."
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 5889
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm


Return to Finance and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest