Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: cybercoma on May 28, 2018, 12:48:48 pm
-
With the expansion of technology that ties geographically diverse people together and with the global economic order that sees corporate enterprises spanning numerous jurisdictions, has the nation-state become unnecessary? Trade agreements, migrants, environmental plans, world health--the challenges we face today are on a global scale and require a supranational global order to organized, investigate, and act upon strategies for human welfare. It seems that the idea of nation-states, at one time with imperialist ambitions, exercising their power beyond their borders has given way to a new global order with no centralized power and no boundaries. In this political economy, do nation states serve any? Could we do without them? Could they, in fact, be problematic, in the sense that they insulate people from efficient and effective socio-political action by narrowing our focus too much?
-
I think my friend Alex Jones has a rant or two thousand on this one.
-
With the expansion of technology that ties geographically diverse people together and with the global economic order that sees corporate enterprises spanning numerous jurisdictions, has the nation-state become unnecessary?
In this political economy, do nation states serve any? Could we do without them? Could they, in fact, be problematic, in the sense that they insulate people from efficient and effective socio-political action by narrowing our focus too much?
Our democracy is a product of the renaissance philosophers. It's so out of date. We could do a lot better with digital architecture but there would be a price of freedom IMO.
-
Our democracy is a product of the renaissance philosophers. It's so out of date. We could do a lot better with digital architecture but there would be a price of freedom IMO.
Democracy is representative. The supra-national juridical structures are also representative. Nation-states in this order are nothing more than our MPs on a global scale.
-
1) A large number of countries are not democracies and are not likely to become democracies anytime soon. This makes a universally elected body a pipe dream;
2) People living in large democracies already struggle with internal conflicts between the existing jurisdictions (Scotland, Catalan, Quebec, et, al.). I can't imagine these groups would be happy to cede more power to a central authority.
3) The differentials in population and economic size would leave a lot of minority groups feeling powerless. I don't see this as a good or desirable thing.
-
I think my friend Alex Jones has a rant or two thousand on this one.
I can imagine how scary he would be on that topic. I'll look him up sometime when I feel like screaming at the TV. I was lucky enough to have traveled the planet a fair bit and it led me to the conclusion that inevitably we will have to level the playing field and arrive at a one world government. A rather large concept I agree but why the hell should we continue to **** away massive amounts of resources building "fences" and even fighting massive wars so that some of us can drive Cadillac's while others ride donkeys. I know I won't see it in my time but I'll keep an optimistic eye from wherever is next.
-
Democracy is representative. The supra-national juridical structures are also representative. Nation-states in this order are nothing more than our MPs on a global scale.
Sure. But representatives are seeing their roles deprecated everywhere, thanks to automation. You seem to be going against your initial question.
There are new ways coming soon, and for the better, once we get through this dark period.
-
I can see things moving slowly in the direction of a world democracy - slowly being the operative word. I can see certain countries like the United States having a lot of trouble giving up jurisdiction though. It will be decades before may countries could join though. You'd be looking at something containing the EU, Canada, maybe places like Japan, Australia, New Zealand (or what were those places).
-
There are new ways coming soon, and for the better, once we get through this dark period.
The 'darkness' as it currently exists is driven by hyper-nationalist non-democratic states (China and Russia) and failed states (Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.). There is no plausible change that would address these problems.
-
You'd be looking at something containing the EU, Canada, maybe places like Japan, Australia, New Zealand (or what were those places).
Not a chance. None of the populations of these countries have any interest in ceding power to a supranational body. More importantly, it is completely irrational to suggest they do (loss of power with no benefits).
-
I can see things moving slowly in the direction of a world democracy - slowly being the operative word. I can see certain countries like the United States having a lot of trouble giving up jurisdiction though. It will be decades before may countries could join though. You'd be looking at something containing the EU, Canada, maybe places like Japan, Australia, New Zealand (or what were those places).
I would venture a guess that discussions of such ideas take place from time to time behind closed doors at the UN.
-
The 'darkness' as it currently exists is driven by hyper-nationalist non-democratic states (China and Russia) and failed states (Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.). There is no plausible change that would address these problems.
Two response:
1 - No, the darkness is not our challenges but how our representatives act destructively to get elected rather than rally a public to deal with challenges
2 - Rogue states are on the downswing don't you know ?
-
1 - No, the darkness is not our challenges but how our representatives act destructively to get elected rather than rally a public to deal with challenges
2 - Rogue states are on the downswing don't you know ?
After years of increases, the number of states with democracies and rule of law is declining. This trend may be temporary, level off or reverse. The bottom line is the number of people living in states where they have control over their government is falling. I see that as the greatest "darkness".
Our politicians are merely a reflection of society and you cannot separate the two. If elected politicians act destructively that is because voters reward those that do. Unless you have a solution for mass brainwashing then no technical change is going to fix this issue.
-
After years of increases, the number of states with democracies and rule of law is declining. This trend may be temporary, level off or reverse. The bottom line is the number of people living in states where they have control over their government is falling. I see that as the greatest "darkness".
You can't expect these things to follow a strictly straight line. It's far better than the cold war and than most of history.
Our politicians are merely a reflection of society and you cannot separate the two. If elected politicians act destructively that is because voters reward those that do. Unless you have a solution for mass brainwashing then no technical change is going to fix this issue.
I don't know what the answer is but this contentious period is an anomaly and is transitional, even if we are headed to civil war.
-
You can't expect these things to follow a strictly straight line. It's far better than the cold war and than most of history.
You are the one who started talking about a "darkness". I simply defined what I see as the biggest global concern.
I don't know what the answer is but this contentious period is an anomaly and is transitional, even if we are headed to civil war.
From what I have read it is no more contentious than in the past. The main difference is the huge volume of discourse which technology has enabled which makes the contention seem greater (i.e. our knowledge of the past is limited by what was written in newspapers etc.).
-
After years of increases, the number of states with democracies and rule of law is declining. This trend may be temporary, level off or reverse. The bottom line is the number of people living in states where they have control over their government is falling. I see that as the greatest "darkness".
Our politicians are merely a reflection of society and you cannot separate the two. If elected politicians act destructively that is because voters reward those that do. Unless you have a solution for mass brainwashing then no technical change is going to fix this issue.
Actually the number of democracies in the world continues to increase and is now at a post war high.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/12/06100302/FT_17.11.10_demo_auto_map.png
And then if you look at all the international groups that have come into being especially since we endured two world wars, you can see the direction things are headed. It will take time of course but who really needs more wars.
UN, WHO, World Bank, World Trade Org., OECD, WIPO, WMO, UPO, UNWTO, World Food Programme, International Development, and the list goes on.
Getting the picture yet?
-
The larger and higher the level of government the more distant it is from the citizenry. We can see this in EU, which is starting to shed nations. The British were the first, but the Italians could be the next. Extremist parties are rising in the face of the arrogance of Brussels in ignoring the will of the people on a number of issues, most notably now on immigration/migration. France's president has admitted that if the political elites there permitted a referendum the French would vote to leave. Eastern Europe is chaffing at the demands of the EU bureaucrats to take more migrants. Greece could separate after Italy...
We are still instinctively tribal. EU nations are somewhat similar in their mentality and cultural outlook, in their values and beliefs. That was the basis upon which the EU was able to set up in the first place. Now they have millions of Muslims from the middle east and North Africa pushing their way in while the Brussels bureaucrats wring their hands and do nothing. And that is likely going to cause the breakup of the EU. Because it wouldn't keep members of an entirely different tribe from coming in and settling there, despite the overwhelmingly consistent will of the people they were supposedly elected to serve.
So the idea that western nations are going to be willing to amalgamate with the likes of African or Asian or Middle-Eastern nations is nonsensical, elitist pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
-
The larger and higher the level of government the more distant it is from the citizenry. We can see this in EU, which is starting to shed nations. The British were the first, but the Italians could be the next. Extremist parties are rising in the face of the arrogance of Brussels in ignoring the will of the people on a number of issues, most notably now on immigration/migration. France's president has admitted that if the political elites there permitted a referendum the French would vote to leave. Eastern Europe is chaffing at the demands of the EU bureaucrats to take more migrants. Greece could separate after Italy...
We are still instinctively tribal. EU nations are somewhat similar in their mentality and cultural outlook, in their values and beliefs. That was the basis upon which the EU was able to set up in the first place. Now they have millions of Muslims from the middle east and North Africa pushing their way in while the Brussels bureaucrats wring their hands and do nothing. And that is likely going to cause the breakup of the EU. Because it wouldn't keep members of an entirely different tribe from coming in and settling there, despite the overwhelmingly consistent will of the people they were supposedly elected to serve.
So the idea that western nations are going to be willing to amalgamate with the likes of African or Asian or Middle-Eastern nations is nonsensical, elitist pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
I think if your consult your Funk and Wagnells you will find out that the concept of amalgamation is not something associated with elitists.
-
You are the one who started talking about a "darkness". I simply defined what I see as the biggest global concern.
Yes, that's not it. Although I agree we'e had setbacks of late.
From what I have read it is no more contentious than in the past. The main difference is the huge volume of discourse which technology has enabled which makes the contention seem greater (i.e. our knowledge of the past is limited by what was written in newspapers etc.).
Really ? The recent past ?
-
Really ? The recent past ?
The time when dems denounce the 'illegitimate" president or when the GOP kept looking for dirt of Clinton? Or the love that people had for Mulroney or Trudeau Sr? Or the Quebec sovereignty battles or Watergate or the Civil Right Era/Desegregation. Why were the politics fights in the past 'lesser' than today? Remember that time tends dull memories to the point were past presidents/prime ministers are a lot less polarizing in retirement.
-
1) A large number of countries are not democracies and are not likely to become democracies anytime soon. This makes a universally elected body a pipe dream;
This is one of the key reasons why a general co-operative order is necessary: to bring these nations into juridically just state of existence.
2) People living in large democracies already struggle with internal conflicts between the existing jurisdictions (Scotland, Catalan, Quebec, et, al.). I can't imagine these groups would be happy to cede more power to a central authority.
They've already ceded it. Capital operates outside the boundaries of nation-states, while labour cannot.
3) The differentials in population and economic size would leave a lot of minority groups feeling powerless. I don't see this as a good or desirable thing.
That's different from now, how? Most oppressed groups are oppressed because of nation states and the history of colonial oppression that was a function of national power extending beyond state borders. The elimination of nation states would level the playing field. As opposed to minorities within states, it would be conflict between equal groups under a supranational order. We already have a framework for handling disputes between groups or people with jurisprudence. The elimination of nation-states makes these groups equal actors before what would be a supranational juridical order. What's a minority in a country when even the majority is a minority in the global order?
-
I think if your consult your Funk and Wagnells you will find out that the concept of amalgamation is not something associated with elitists.
The Maastrich treaty was not the brainchild of a bunch of factory workers. It was dreamed up by Francois Mitterand and Helmut Kohl.
-
There are new ways coming soon, and for the better, once we get through this dark period.
We're not heading there. We are already there. We have a supranational economic system that has shaped societies in its image. Laws are tailored to it and people are physically adapted to it through the organization of labour. The World Bank and the IMF coerce governments to act at their behest, unless they wish to face the wrath of the exile of capital. Democratically elected representative governments have very little authority in the face of this juggernaut. They merely adapt or acquiesce to its demands. They can try to resist, but never get very far because they are threatened with annihilation if they do.
-
Not a chance. None of the populations of these countries have any interest in ceding power to a supranational body. More importantly, it is completely irrational to suggest they do (loss of power with no benefits).
It's interesting you say states won't do this, when political theory heavily relies on the idea that people do exactly that for freedom. You've frequently made Hobbesian arguments, which hold that people give up their freedom to be protected from the brutal violence that we would inflict upon one another for selfish survival in a state of nature. We give up our natural drives to kill one another for resources, so that we may all be free to prosper without the threat of destruction hanging over us.
Why not extend this thinking to states?
-
I think if your consult your Funk and Wagnells you will find out that the concept of amalgamation is not something associated with elitists.
Amalgamation is not the correct concept anyway. That's still a positive state of combination. It still leaves the same system intact. I'm referring to an entirely different order without borders and without centralized power, better understood as global co-ordination.
-
We're not heading there. We are already there. We have a supranational economic system that has shaped societies in its image. Laws are tailored to it and people are physically adapted to it through the organization of labour. The World Bank and the IMF coerce governments to act at their behest, unless they wish to face the wrath of the exile of capital. Democratically elected representative governments have very little authority in the face of this juggernaut. They merely adapt or acquiesce to its demands. They can try to resist, but never get very far because they are threatened with annihilation if they do.
Meh. You are too pessimistic. I may be too optimistic but I at least hold a healthy amount of doubt.
-
Just to be clear, we're not talking here of a state where there is an international order, but a state where there is a supranational order. This already exists and I'm contending here that the presence of nation-states give a false sense of control over this supranational order, when in matter of fact its power is diffuse, decentralized, and without borders. I'm arguing that in response to this supranational power, we dissolve their pathways of control: the nation-state. We organize as humanity for human needs, rather than nationally for nationalist interests. This isn't about the presence of a new global sovereign. It's about destroying states altogether.
-
Meh. You are too pessimistic. I may be too optimistic but I at least hold a healthy amount of doubt.
Pessimistic how? This is a matter of fact. These forces even shape the language we use, through the media, so that we are unable to even conceptualize a state where we are not enslaved by a global economic order that operates outside state authorities.
-
This is one of the key reasons why a general co-operative order is necessary: to bring these nations into juridically just state of existence.
They used that argument to justify adding China to the WTO. That argument has been thoroughly discredited.
They've already ceded it. Capital operates outside the boundaries of nation-states, while labour cannot.
That is life. Any country has the option of opting out of the international system and becoming completely self sufficient. Except no one does because the benefits of getting access to the global capital markets far offsets the disadvantages. Even countries like Argentina which have been under the IMF thumb multiple times keep going back to the global capital markets.
That said, being required to run a fiscally sound government is a lot different from simply handing over sovereignty to a supranational group. The latter is alot more invasive and brings ZERO benefits to countries who choose this option. So why should anyone?
As opposed to minorities within states, it would be conflict between equal groups under a supranational order.
Right. Do you seriously believe that Quebec separatists would be happy ceding power to a supranational government when they already resent the powers being held by the current federal government? At least in Canada, Quebequers know they have a disproportionate influence on the federal government. In a global body they would be irrelevant. A lot of groups with significant local autonomy today would stand to lose and the question you have not answered: why should they? You have not articulated any real benefit of such a structure for countries that already have a stable democracy and rule of law.
-
They used that argument to justify adding China to the WTO. That argument has been thoroughly discredited.
But it's not. China is still China and the United States is still the United States.
That is life.
Not good enough.
That said, being required to run a fiscally sound government is a lot different from simply handing over sovereignty to a supranational group. The latter is alot more invasive and brings ZERO benefits to countries who choose this option. So why should anyone?
Authority isn't handed over. It's dispersed. This isn't about replacing national governments with a one-world government.
You have not articulated any real benefit of such a structure for countries that already have a stable democracy and rule of law.
You haven't understood the system I'm describing yet to make that criticism.
-
It's dispersed. This isn't about replacing national governments with a one-world government.
So who has the authority to collect the taxes and fund social programs? Local governments? If so you are not proposing change other than breaking up some larger countries which generally not in the advantage of the citizens of those countries because they would lose negotiating leverage on the global scale. If the central government has that authority then you are talking about the 'one world government'.
You haven't understood the system I'm describing yet to make that criticism.
Then explain the proposal by enumerating the benefits. What does a person living in BC have to gain from such a system?
-
So here's the nuts and bolts of it. In the early 20th century there was a violent reaction to industrialism (which was brutal and oppressive until it was reformed). This led to reforms and labour action. Socialism was widespread in Europe in the early 20th century.
What I'm describing here is capital's reaction to this state of affairs. They began operating outside of borders, beyond the confines of nation-states that were increasingly controlled by those who sought to bring capital under a leash of social welfare. We now exist in a world where these corporate interests operate outside (and within) the sphere of control from nation states. This was a process that accelerated through the 20th century.
What I can see happening now is that we are at a point technologically where the other half of society can now transcend borders with global communication. People don't vote in local elections because national politics is small-scale. National politicians have little authority in the global order. It is the global economic order that shapes people's lives, where we live, what we do, how we interact, how much resources we have to our name, etc. (See for example how less employment here is devoted to industrial production; we are now a society that produces knowledge, communication, and ideas).
So in order to bring the system back under the people's control, we need to begin thinking beyond the nation state. We need people and labour to be able to transcend borders as well to meet capital on the same playing field. However, the state apparatuses inhibit our ability to meet it head on. We need rise above them to bring the focus back towards human welfare and not bald and insatiable accumulation.
-
This isn't about the presence of a new global sovereign. It's about destroying states altogether.
That's what The Internationale was about... still too pessimistic.
-
So in order to bring the system back under the people's control
Control is about who collects the taxes and decides where they are spent. You have still not explained where that power resides in your proposal.
-
Control is about who collects the taxes and decides where they are spent
That's your definition because you can't see past your nose.
-
That's your definition because you can't see past your nose.
My definition is one anyone with a brain understands. Why do you think Quebec pays so much to collect its own income taxes? In any case, it should be a simple question to answer: who collects the taxes and decides where the money is spent? Can you provide a sensible response or are insults all you got?
-
What I'm arguing here is that the anti-globalists who show up at summits to protest can't see the forest for the trees. They don't realize that capital had transcended the battlefield to another plane and labour is now on the cusp of joining it in that supranational arena. They should welcome the new socio-political-economic order of the world with open arms because it finally means a global battle for the liberation of the masses.
-
My definition is one anyone with a brain understands.
Hey, **** you too, buddy.
-
Hey, **** you too, buddy.
You started it. But seriously - why can't you answer a simple practical question about your proposal? Generic rants about the evils of global capital and how it is horrible that nations like Canada don't want to be flooded by millions of unskilled workers does not provide a compelling vision for change.
-
Our democracy is a product of the renaissance philosophers. It's so out of date. We could do a lot better with digital architecture but there would be a price of freedom IMO.
You think enlightenment thinking of rule of law, individual equality under law, democratic representation in government, due process etc is out of date? The vast majority of countries in the world don't even have these yet.
-
1) You think enlightenment thinking of rule of law, individual equality under law, democratic representation in government, due process etc is out of date?
2) The vast majority of countries in the world don't even have these yet.
1) Yes... we need to refresh it.
2) Ok.
-
I can see things moving slowly in the direction of a world democracy - slowly being the operative word. I can see certain countries like the United States having a lot of trouble giving up jurisdiction though. It will be decades before may countries could join though. You'd be looking at something containing the EU, Canada, maybe places like Japan, Australia, New Zealand (or what were those places).
True global representative democracy means terribly corrupt countries like China and India would dominate global government, and also consider the vast majority of the global population live in undemocratic countries with terrible human rights. No thanks.
In an ever-globalizing world, nation-states may be more important than ever, because it gives more local power to control global forces, and more local voices and self-determination to minority populations. Giving up sovereignty to global forces sounds like a dystopian nightmare. We need great reasons to undermine the Westphalian system.
-
You started it. But seriously - why can't you answer a simple practical question about your proposal? Generic rants about the evils of global capital and how it is horrible that nations like Canada don't want to be flooded by millions of unskilled workers does not provide a compelling vision for change.
Actually current immigrants to Canada who are selected under the heading "economic" (the majority ~60%) tend to be skilled/educated equal to or better than Canadians. Some others will need a kick start but again the stats show the majority of those seek work and stay with it once they get it. And of course there are those who are simply running for their lives from war zones. I don't think anybody who supports the concept of an integrated world government suggest simply opening all the doors next Friday. It would be a slow process. But maybe we need to look at how companies such as big oil go to such places as Africa, suck all the oil out of the ground and walk away with sacks of money while the locals continue to suffer.
-
True global representative democracy means terribly corrupt countries like China and India would dominate global government, and also consider the vast majority of the global population live in undemocratic countries with terrible human rights. No thanks.
In an ever-globalizing world, nation-states may be more important than ever, because it gives more local power to control global forces, and more local voices and self-determination to minority populations. Giving up sovereignty to global forces sounds like a dystopian nightmare. We need great reasons to undermine the Westphalian system.
And what leads you to your idea that China and India would dominate?
-
Actually current immigrants to Canada who are selected under the heading "economic" (the majority ~60%) tend to be skilled/educated equal to or better than Canadians.
You do love beating up strawmen! In this thread you seem to have missed the part in cyber's argument that he wants to get rid of the ability of nations to 'select' immigrants so my comment has nothing to do with how the current system works. Thanks for playing. Good luck next time.
-
You do love beating up strawmen! In this thread you seem to have missed the part in cyber's argument that he wants to get rid of the ability of nations to 'select' immigrants so my comment has nothing to do with how the current system works. Thanks for playing. Good luck next time.
It's usually pretty easy to beat up your strawmen. And no I didn't miss Cybers comment, I would suggest that comment refers to long term while I was looking at how we get there.
-
True global representative democracy means terribly corrupt countries like China and India would dominate global government, and also consider the vast majority of the global population live in undemocratic countries with terrible human rights. No thanks.
Good thing I excluded those countries (at this point).
-
And what leads you to your idea that China and India would dominate?
China and India have about 1.4 billion people each, not even counting their diaspora. The next closest in population is the USA at 320 million. If you're doing rep by pop, they win.
-
China and India have about 1.4 billion people each, not even counting their diaspora. The next closest in population is the USA at 320 million. If you're doing rep by pop, they win.
I don't see a world government being the old nonsense of rp by pop. We would need to advance to a system where we could have what we might call rep by need and strive to level the playing field a little better than it is just now.
-
Actually current immigrants to Canada who are selected under the heading "economic" (the majority ~60%)
A minority (15%)
And of course there are those who are simply running for their lives from war zones.
Like Haiti, Nigeria, Dominican Republic? Even the ones we got from Syria weren't running for their lives. They were safely in Turkey.
I don't think anybody who supports the concept of an integrated world government suggest simply opening all the doors next Friday. It would be a slow process.
A goddam slow process. A quarter of the world's population is Muslim, as one example, and in every single case I'm aware of where Muslims were given the option to vote in a fundamentalist Islamic government which would implement Sharia laws they did so with great enthusiasm.
But maybe we need to look at how companies such as big oil go to such places as Africa, suck all the oil out of the ground and walk away with sacks of money while the locals continue to suffer.
Maybe that's called independent nations making their own decisions. If they want someone to look after them they could seek to become someone's colony.
-
A minority (15%)
Like Haiti, Nigeria, Dominican Republic? Even the ones we got from Syria weren't running for their lives. They were safely in Turkey.
A goddam slow process. A quarter of the world's population is Muslim, as one example, and in every single case I'm aware of where Muslims were given the option to vote in a fundamentalist Islamic government which would implement Sharia laws they did so with great enthusiasm.
Maybe that's called independent nations making their own decisions. If they want someone to look after them they could seek to become someone's colony.
I'll take my info from the people who actually have the facts and run the immigration system in the country, not your paranoia generated ideas.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2017.html
And you don't understand that independent nations, many in Africa have been **** by western company's who came along and stripped out the natural resources and then buggered off? You must live in a very cloistered world.
-
I don't see a world government being the old nonsense of rp by pop. We would need to advance to a system where we could have what we might call rep by need and strive to level the playing field a little better than it is just now.
Why is rep by pop nonsense, in general? Globally it would be disaster. If it's rep by need then this new government would be controlled by primarily by African countries. If it's one country = 1 vote like the UN general assembly then again you have third world countries run by corrupt dictators getting the agenda. I would never want any of Canada's sovereign policies decided by those scumbags.
I do believe that developing countries need at least a level playing field, in terms of trade policy at the very least. International issues can be solved internationally through reformed agencies like UN & WTO. Local issues should be determined locally by the people, not foreigners or a large global centralized bureaucracy. That's the whole point of the Westphalian sovereignty system. That's why the UK is leaving the EU.
-
Local issues should be determined locally by the people, not foreigners or a large global centralized bureaucracy.
I agree, but the problem becomes what is a local issue. We have seen many issues become global issues because of their effect on the global environment. Additionally the big contentious issue is human rights.
-
I agree, but the problem becomes what is a local issue. We have seen many issues become global issues because of their effect on the global environment. Additionally the big contentious issue is human rights.
Any sort of world government is colonialism by another name. The details of the structure would only affect who is colonized and who are the colonizers. The current system is far from perfect but it is really the only option on the table.
-
What I'm describing here is capital's reaction to this state of affairs. They began operating outside of borders, beyond the confines of nation-states that were increasingly controlled by those who sought to bring capital under a leash of social welfare. We now exist in a world where these corporate interests operate outside (and within) the sphere of control from nation states.
That's not quite true. Capital still operates within the borders of nation-states, but they can also operate within other nation-states depending on the laws of the given nation-states. Bank accounts, stock markets, company headquarters etc. all have a physical location within a nation-state, even if it's on a computer server in some bank in whatever country.
People don't vote in local elections because national politics is small-scale. National politicians have little authority in the global order. It is the global economic order that shapes people's lives, where we live, what we do, how we interact, how much resources we have to our name, etc.
The global order has influence for sure but nation-states have input to varying degrees on that order. And still a huge amount of policies that affect people's lives comes from national and more local elections Many people don't vote because they don't care about politics whatsoever.
So in order to bring the system back under the people's control, we need to begin thinking beyond the nation state. We need people and labour to be able to transcend borders as well to meet capital on the same playing field.
The good thing about borders is that it keeps bad people out. It can also keep bad money out, like the AECON deal that was nixed. I don't want a lot of criminal and corrupt people from developing countries anywhere near my community, and I like having the power to bring the well-behaved & educated hardworking people from developing countries into my community. With no borders, it still means Canadian jobs will be sent to China and other poorer countries because it saves money & makes goods cheaper for us to buy. If no borders, it means I'm competing for a job with anyone worldwide, which doesn't help me much.
If you had a specific proposal for how this new system of yours would work it would be easier to answer. As of now, borders mean sovereignty, and laws are determined locally and nationally. Neoliberal movement of labour sounds nuts, local cultures could be overrun and nobody could stop it, and that would cause violence. I'd rather there be more local and national economic controls on the flow of money and corporations within the current state system, and better international organizations to prevent war.
-
Any sort of world government is colonialism by another name. The details of the structure would only affect who is colonized and who are the colonizers. The current system is far from perfect but it is really the only option on the table.
Bullshit! If you look up the meaning of the word colonialism you would find we have been practicing it for decades. How many times have we gone into a poorer country, stripped out the natural resources and said syanora? World government, if managed properly could reweave that and give people a fairer shake.
-
Bullshit! If you look up the meaning of the word colonialism you would find we have been practicing it for decades. How many times have we gone into a poorer country, stripped out the natural resources and said syanora? World government, if managed properly could reweave that and give people a fairer shake.
You have to spell out how though. Otherwise this is all just wishful thinking with no actual plan or structure or political system spelled out whatsoever.
-
You have to spell out how though. Otherwise this is all just wishful thinking with no actual plan or structure or political system spelled out whatsoever.
I haven't spent enough time on the subject to be able to spell out exactly how. I do however think and have for some time that we would be better off if we achieved it. One snag I expect would be the fact that initially the haves having to share with the have nots would not go over well. Greed being what it is.
-
Bullshit! If you look up the meaning of the word colonialism you would find we have been practicing it for decades. How many times have we gone into a poorer country, stripped out the natural resources and said syanora? World government, if managed properly could reweave that and give people a fairer shake.
"We" have done no such thing. Pretending to be responsible for things you had nothing to do with may be something you like to do but does not mean it is true. That said, pushing your values on countries and people who want nothing to do with them is as bad as any of the injustices that were committed by Europeans 100+ years ago yet you seem to think that is a great idea. Whether you like it or not large majorities in many countries don't think much of western concepts of human rights or democracy. The only real option for those of us that do value them is a state with well defined and protected borders where we create the society that we like and let the rest of world look after itself.
-
"We" have done no such thing. Pretending to be responsible for things you had nothing to do with may be something you like to do but does not mean it is true. That said, pushing your values on countries and people who want nothing to do with them is as bad as any of the injustices that were committed by Europeans 100+ years ago yet you seem to think that is a great idea. Whether you like it or not large majorities in many countries don't think much of western concepts of human rights or democracy. The only real option for those of us that do value them is a state with well defined and protected borders where we create the society that we like and let the rest of world look after itself.
We have done such things many many many times and it sure as hell wasn't all a hundred years ago. And you have benefited from them. Assuming you put gas in your car.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/africa/looting-machine-tom-burgis-africa/index.html
-
We have done such things many many many times and it sure as hell wasn't all a hundred years ago. And you have benefited from them. Assuming you put gas in your car.
"We" most certainly did not. As for you reference to to gas: countries that exported oil do so for their own benefit because they want the stuff that they can buy with the procceeds. Furthermore all the gas in my car comes from Alberta or Alaska.
-
"We" most certainly did not. As for you reference to to gas: countries that exported oil do so for their own benefit because they want the stuff that they can buy with the procceeds. Furthermore all the gas in my car comes from Alberta or Alaska.
Mayby you didn't because you haven't left Mama's basement, but I spent a number of years in Africa and so I know better.
-
A pipe dream. Any world government would become dominated by factions that would likely be self serving. Hell, this country can’t even build a pipeline between two provinces anymore. Look at Brexit, the present situation in the US and the cracks forming in the EU because of granting membership to countries that really shouldn’t be in it or part of a monetary union. Ya sure, world government.
-
A pipe dream. Any world government would become dominated by factions that would likely be self serving. Hell, this country can’t even build a pipeline between two provinces anymore. Look at Brexit, the present situation in the US and the cracks forming in the EU because of granting membership to countries that really shouldn’t be in it or part of a monetary union. Ya sure, world government.
Well we just saw this am how a strong government can solve the problem you mentioned, just buy the pipeline and the project to twin it. There seems to be no doubt that the potential return for the taxpayer is significant. The idea of world government has been around for centuries all the way back to the Bronze Age of Egyptian Kings and the Han dynasty in China. Of course nationalism is a strong force against the idea. And if you don't think that is often self serving to a fault I will leave a quote from someone who was also a proponent of world government even before he had to suffer at the hands of nationalism. You may have heard of him.
”As a citizen of Germany, I saw how excessive nationalism can spread like a disease, bringing tragedy to millions,” he wrote in 1947.
Albert Einstein.
-
Well we just saw this am how a strong government can solve the problem you mentioned, just buy the pipeline and the project to twin it. There seems to be no doubt that the potential return for the taxpayer is significant. The idea of world government has been around for centuries all the way back to the Bronze Age of Egyptian Kings and the Han dynasty in China. Of course nationalism is a strong force against the idea. And if you don't think that is often self serving to a fault I will leave a quote from someone who was also a proponent of world government even before he had to suffer at the hands of nationalism. You may have heard of him.
”As a citizen of Germany, I saw how excessive nationalism can spread like a disease, bringing tragedy to millions,” he wrote in 1947.
Albert Einstein.
All the ideas of world government have come from those who see themselves as governing it, including Einstein's reference.
-
All the ideas of world government have come from those who see themselves as governing it, including Einstein's reference.
Certainly nothing that will ever occur in our time but I still find it an interesting concept. For one thing just think of what could be done with all that money we now spend either preparing for or recovering from wars. Syrians for instance would likely prefer to stay home rather than jumping into flimsy boats to escape the bombs from the Russians and their own government.
-
Certainly nothing that will ever occur in our time but I still find it an interesting concept. For one thing just think of what could be done with all that money we now spend either preparing for or recovering from wars. Syrians for instance would likely prefer to stay home rather than jumping into flimsy boats to escape the bombs from the Russians and their own government.
I don't believe the whole world will have some kumbaya moment and live happily ever after. You will still have to police a world full of conflicting societies, religions and regional ambitions, many of which are prepared to use violence to advance their interests. They won't go away just because there is a central authority which seeks to impose its will on them.
-
I don't believe the whole world will have some kumbaya moment and live happily ever after. You will still have to police a world full of conflicting societies, religions and regional ambitions, many of which are prepared to use violence to advance their interests. They won't go away just because there is a central authority which seeks to impose its will on them.
I don't think anybody realistically imagines a kumbaya moment where all the conflicts simply go away. But those conflicts where born under the current system and continue under it. I would imagine a proper central authority would need to be well represented including intelligent people from a wide variety of regions who understand the basis for those conflicts and can therefore proffer ideas as to how to resolve them, other than by firing up some Mig's. An example that comes to mind is we now have Trump prattling on about spending billions to build his friggin' wall to keep Mexicans out. Many of those Mexicans are jumping the border because they can't grow crops anymore due to the growing effects of global warming. Now I don't think we can pin the blame on that global warming solely on Mexico, so building a wall to keep them from trying to escape the effects of it seems to me to be a little unfair and another bad example of nationalism.
-
China and Ethiopia:
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/addis-ababa-china-construction-style/index.html?utm_content=2018-09-03T13%3A50%3A06&utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN
-
The Chinese are basically buying Africa. They want to assure the resources go to their industries and economy, and they're not hesitant about bribing local presidents and potentates to ensure they get good prices either.
Meanwhile, western countries have laws now in place to charge any of their corporations that are caught offering bribes abroad. That's very moral of them, but it's not going to do anything good in a competition for resources.
-
The Chinese are basically buying Africa. They want to assure the resources go to their industries and economy, and they're not hesitant about bribing local presidents and potentates to ensure they get good prices either.
Meanwhile, western countries have laws now in place to charge any of their corporations that are caught offering bribes abroad. That's very moral of them, but it's not going to do anything good in a competition for resources.
What are you suggesting?
-
What are you suggesting?
I wasn't making a suggestion. I was commenting on the likely results of current world policies. The Chinese are going to grab up Africa and its resources, and the West will take what's left, if anything, at higher prices.
-
I wasn't making a suggestion. I was commenting on the likely results of current world policies. The Chinese are going to grab up Africa and its resources, and the West will take what's left, if anything, at higher prices.
The west will take? So you are suggesting that African resources are not there for Africans. They are just something to be divided up between China and the west?
-
I wasn't making a suggestion. I was commenting on the likely results of current world policies. The Chinese are going to grab up Africa and its resources, and the West will take what's left, if anything, at higher prices.
My boy, the west have been grabbing up African resources for decades.
-
The west will take? So you are suggesting that African resources are not there for Africans. They are just something to be divided up between China and the west?
Yeah. Pretty much. Welcome to planet Earth.
-
My boy, the west have been grabbing up African resources for decades.
Sure. Because the West was where the industry was that needed it. And that's involved a good deal of chicanery and bribery over the years by Western companies - and even governments. But the latter have been mostly easing off in recent decades and trying to curtail bribery from their corporations. I think we're going to find out that the way the Chinese government is going to act in Africa will be reminiscent of the worst excesses of the banana republic days of the US and Latin America.
-
Sure. Because the West was where the industry was that needed it. And that's involved a good deal of chicanery and bribery over the years by Western companies - and even governments. But the latter have been mostly easing off in recent decades and trying to curtail bribery from their corporations. I think we're going to find out that the way the Chinese government is going to act in Africa will be reminiscent of the worst excesses of the banana republic days of the US and Latin America.
Well yes I had some "interesting" relations with a Chinese firm who was contracted by a Canadian company to do seismic operations for oil exploration in Eastern Africa. Let's just say they didn't get along with the locals well after the latter realized they were getting ripped off in many ways. The Americans did the same thing but were snubbed when the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act came into being and I had to sit through a days briefing by a company lawyer. I doubt the Chinese have a similar regulation.
-
Certainly nothing that will ever occur in our time but I still find it an interesting concept. For one thing just think of what could be done with all that money we now spend either preparing for or recovering from wars. Syrians for instance would likely prefer to stay home rather than jumping into flimsy boats to escape the bombs from the Russians and their own government.
Well the thing with governments is that they need to be stable to be effective, and legitimate and representative. Even strong gov institutions can't prevent civil wars. Look at the USA. So i don't think a world gov would stop war, you'd just might have less country-to-country war but still civil wars.
-
So i don't think a world gov would stop war, you'd just might have less country-to-country war but still civil wars.
Stopping wars seems a looong way off. But there definitely are fewer wars than before aren't there ?
The NHL has almost stopped hockey fights. Culture change happens on some scale.
Why do we have fewer wars ?