Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Globalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Globalism

    One worldwide language
    One worldwide coin
    One worldwide law

    Language: This is fundamental for globalism, that every person on the world can understand each other, there have being several attempts on establishing a worldwide language, most of them have being just superpowers spreading their language abroad, and then here and there some interesting concepts like Esperanto.

    Today we can say that English is the most spread language in the world, as it is the Second Language choice for business... Though the United nations accepts 6 official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish; it is safe to say that everybody in there does speak English.

    And as great as it is to talk to each other... it is even better to get some business done...

    Coin: This is one of the most controversial points about globalism.. as it will call for a coin that is accepted everywhere, but at the same time it is descentriced... A Potence will not just desensamble their local economy and take the currency of another potence...

    From the dollar point of view, there have been some countries that have dollarized their economy, because their local economy is not so good, and the dollar is more stable, people on those countries feel like they have lose control over their economy and they are subject to the wimps of the country that owns the coin.

    For example Ecuador is a country with a dollarized economy, because of their crisis... but eventually they wanted to feel the control their own economy so they started to mint their own dollars, however this money is not currency in US, you can't take ecuadorian dollars and spend them in US...

    A very interesting experiment on the unification of coins was done on the European Union, with quit amazing results as their coin have proven over time to be more stable than the dollar.

    The closer we are to a coin that is accepted everywhere in the world is the Thaler, however it is not a common currency, as in people don't get paid in thalers...

    Probably the most rejected part of this is the idea of having a global banking, as people usually think this necessarily means a centralized bank, but this is not necessarily the case, though all the banks will have to be under the same regulations...

    One World Law: After the french revolution a legal doctrine was established, affirming that there where rights inherents to the people, this rights can't be taken away, this rights can't be voluntarily resign... so we got the Human Rights, this rights have being spread to most parts of the world, to the point where every country on the world have adopt them, one way or another.

    And that is pretty much what we have so far. There is several commerce agreements, an there is international laws accordingly to all this agreements but there is not a worldwide agreement for commerce.

    The biggest step on modern time, towards a worldwide law was done on the 90s when neoliberalism stormed over several countries and consistently called for updating constitutions and this new constitutions will carry the "neo-liberal" principles, so we could compare constitution after constitucion done by legislative bodies independently selected on each country... with little or no substantial difference between the documents.

    The neoliberal president in USA at the time was Bill Clinton, i don't think he even try to explain that the constitution was old and obsolete and we need a new constitution that serve our modern times...but that is the argument that fly in so many countries and they all ended with a constitution drafted in Germany.

    The idea then was that if so many countries have so similar constitucions then eventually it will be easier for them to consider an union. Or another step towards a worldwide constitucion.

    So that is what I have for now to start this conversation going.. are you guys in favour or against globalization, and why?

  • #2
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    One worldwide language
    One worldwide coin
    One worldwide law
    STRONGLY against. More unity, more laws, more control, less freedom, more violence... we are too diverse across the globe for this. It's too hard to pass laws when there are so many people. I don't really want Sharia law where I live for starters. There are so many reasons... I'll leave it up to everyone else to respond I don't have much time to write. I have an "hunch" I'm not alone on this one.
    "Men are told, 'you are nothing until you sweat yourself into something.' Whereas women are told, 'you are great.You are empowered. You have a voice.' We do not demand of you excellence. We instead, will paralyze you with praise." - Stefan Molyneux

    Comment


    • #3
      From my perspective, right or wrong. The best option for people is the decentralization of government...Nation states, States withing a Federation, etc. There will be winners and losers in this system. The alternative is all winning or all losing. I'd like to think based on our experiment in the US, that the losers learn from the winners. The winners help the losers when catastrophe strikes, and that all is not doomed because a centralized blobal government makes a mistake.
      ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
      virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

      It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
      AVFM Mission Statement
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        have we not learned from the EU?
        more layers of government means more corruption. more waste. more spending.

        we should learn from brexit.
        Originally posted by MatrixTransform
        where were you before you put yourself last?
        Originally posted by TheNarrator
        Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nope. Diversity of governments, ideas and economies are good things. If we were to adopt a ''global law'' system, who would police it? Each country? What type of government would we all fall under? Democracy or...?

          It would never happen, logically, but a fun topic to explore.

          Comment


          • #6
            Globalism:

            Great idea, terrible in practice.

            Why?

            People are different.

            Hard to imagine as it may be, Pacific Islanders have different cultural traditions from Northern Europeans, as well as different needs, desires, goals, etc.

            As for your "coin" argument, Bhutan doesn't even measure their economy that way, instead using "Happiness Units" to determine the best course of action for the country.

            Comment


            • #7
              The by far and above problem with 'globalism' is in the inherent desire for those in power to be relevant. Politicians want to 'fix' the problems they see with society, and if they can't readily see a problem, or the problem is a result of an unintended consequence of another attempt to 'fix' some other problem (provide a 'patch' to fix rather than revisiting the originator law or policy that created the problem in the first place), they will actually create a problem.

              There are so many examples of this that it boggles the mind. I'll give one example to prove my point... that is Obamacare... and the fundamental ways that the current political ideologies approach 'fixing the unintended consequences'... Hillary loves the idea of government managed healthcare, a decidedly Democrat ideology... She readily recognizes the 'issues' that the constituents complain about, which are absolutely the result of the creation of the law in the first place, and she and democrats want to double down and create more laws or patches to fix the already failed concept. Trump on the other hand, recognizes that the issues that the constituents are feeling actually come from a failed policy at it's core and wants to scrap the idea and try something different... Actually make the government 'less' relevant. Which is an anathema to politicians, for we know that a politicians desire is to 'fix' things by being more in control.

              Another major issue with globalism is the higher level of government provides less ability to being overseen by the ones being governed. The EU is a prime example of this... None of the politicians were actually voted in by the people it ruled over... Creating policies that are locally tyrannical, in the hopes of creating 'equality for all'... Example of this is the EU policy on local fishermen not being able to fish their own waters in the north atlantic, but 'foreigners' did have the right to fish the waters...in the name of 'equality'...And none of the politicians who created such policies had any consequences to their actions at the individual level.

              The one thing that politicians can't stand is 'doing nothing'. That's why they hate the US Constitution. It places great controls over the politicians in that it 'limits' their ability to 'fix' things, that quite frankly don't need fixing.

              I have a theory about a one world 'government' that I believe would work, and it's based on the US Constitution, but that's not the type of government that the current globalists have any desire to create... They would prefer a much more tyrannical based government policy structure, separating the haves from the have nots, taking away the have not's rights to decide even more, and they are using failed ideologies such as the Marxist ideology of the long slow march through communism to get there. What politician wouldn't love to have it's tax slaves willingly agree to the march into more government control, with the promise of the eventual utopian ideal that Marx wrote about? For once they get more power and control, they believe they could 'stop' the march anytime they desire.

              The answer is not heading into more control, but actually turning about face and marching away from government control... Anarcho Capitalism is also a utopian ideal, as it promises the same 'stateless society' that Marx dreamed about, but instead of the lie of marching through MORE government tyranny to reach it's goals, it decidedly turns away from that premise and desires to shrink government to the point of the larger governments becoming even less relevant.

              Now one point further, there was a time when there was a single language, a single society, a single government... And that was when the 'people' wanted to build a tower to reach God. It was pure evil, and God recognized it and destroyed the tower of Babel, and created the different languages to the point that many couldn't understand each other, and had to form small groups that could communicate with each other... Forever banishing the whole idea and concept of a globalist government.
              Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
              "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

              For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

              "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

              "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

              "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm just gonna leave this here -

                http://forums.avoiceformen.com/entry...-of-Oppression
                "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                  STRONGLY against. More unity, more laws, more control, less freedom, more violence... we are too diverse across the globe for this. It's too hard to pass laws when there are so many people. I don't really want Sharia law where I live for starters. There are so many reasons... I'll leave it up to everyone else to respond I don't have much time to write. I have an "hunch" I'm not alone on this one.
                  I'd say you "hunch" is accurate, I'd be surprised if there is one more person in this website with favorable ideas on globalism.

                  so to your points.


                  "More laws" No necessary, as a matter of fact laws will be more consistent around the wold. So if you travel it will not be as foreign to what you already know.

                  "More control". I don't see how this is related to globalism... I can give you plenty of examples of small populations with crazy levels of control.

                  "less Freedom" Again, globalism will set up a basic standard or rights and freedoms fro everyone everywhere. The people who create the declaration of human rights where globalists.

                  "more violence" If anything violence will stay the same... unless global powers start to work on areas with more crime and tackle them down... then in that case would actually be less violence... But anyway, I don't think globalism, per se, is the solution of the violence problem, and it will not make it any worse.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                    From my perspective, right or wrong. The best option for people is the decentralization of government...Nation states, States withing a Federation, etc. There will be winners and losers in this system. The alternative is all winning or all losing. I'd like to think based on our experiment in the US, that the losers learn from the winners. The winners help the losers when catastrophe strikes, and that all is not doomed because a centralized blobal government makes a mistake.
                    So let me ask, do you think we will be better if there was not United Nations?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Beour3rd View Post
                      have we not learned from the EU?
                      more layers of government means more corruption. more waste. more spending.

                      we should learn from brexit.
                      Bexit is hardly a successful story.

                      EU as union have come stronger than the countries separated as before.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                        Nope. Diversity of governments, ideas and economies are good things. If we were to adopt a ''global law'' system, who would police it? Each country? What type of government would we all fall under? Democracy or...?

                        It would never happen, logically, but a fun topic to explore.
                        So why we don't go a step on the other direction then? why we need countries? we should have just cities each city independent and fully autonomous, not states, not nations... We certainly will have a lot more diversity of governments, ideas and economies this way...

                        Who will police the global law? Each region will have their local police, and there will be a global police.. kind like what the Interpol does already.

                        Yes a Democracy. Zones will elect leaders, and a college of leaders will do meetings for the important stuff.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                          Globalism:

                          Great idea, terrible in practice.

                          Why?

                          People are different.

                          Hard to imagine as it may be, Pacific Islanders have different cultural traditions from Northern Europeans, as well as different needs, desires, goals, etc.

                          As for your "coin" argument, Bhutan doesn't even measure their economy that way, instead using "Happiness Units" to determine the best course of action for the country.
                          I don't know if in bhutan you can pay your bills with "happiness"...

                          There is different people everywhere, you are different to the person living next door... but there is also similarities between all the humans on the world, they all, in general terms want the same things, cry for the same stuff...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by theplummer View Post
                            The by far and above problem with 'globalism' is in the inherent desire for those in power to be relevant. Politicians want to 'fix' the problems they see with society, and if they can't readily see a problem, or the problem is a result of an unintended consequence of another attempt to 'fix' some other problem (provide a 'patch' to fix rather than revisiting the originator law or policy that created the problem in the first place), they will actually create a problem.
                            This not a problem with globalism, this is a problem with some politicians.

                            There are so many examples of this that it boggles the mind. I'll give one example to prove my point... that is Obamacare... and the fundamental ways that the current political ideologies approach 'fixing the unintended consequences'... Hillary loves the idea of government managed healthcare, a decidedly Democrat ideology... She readily recognizes the 'issues' that the constituents complain about, which are absolutely the result of the creation of the law in the first place, and she and democrats want to double down and create more laws or patches to fix the already failed concept. Trump on the other hand, recognizes that the issues that the constituents are feeling actually come from a failed policy at it's core and wants to scrap the idea and try something different... Actually make the government 'less' relevant. Which is an anathema to politicians, for we know that a politicians desire is to 'fix' things by being more in control.
                            So... you against medical insurance?

                            Another major issue with globalism is the higher level of government provides less ability to being overseen by the ones being governed. The EU is a prime example of this... None of the politicians were actually voted in by the people it ruled over... Creating policies that are locally tyrannical, in the hopes of creating 'equality for all'... Example of this is the EU policy on local fishermen not being able to fish their own waters in the north atlantic, but 'foreigners' did have the right to fish the waters...in the name of 'equality'...And none of the politicians who created such policies had any consequences to their actions at the individual level.
                            So the fishermen starved to dead?

                            The one thing that politicians can't stand is 'doing nothing'. That's why they hate the US Constitution. It places great controls over the politicians in that it 'limits' their ability to 'fix' things, that quite frankly don't need fixing.
                            All the constitutions are like that.

                            I have a theory about a one world 'government' that I believe would work, and it's based on the US Constitution, but that's not the type of government that the current globalists have any desire to create... They would prefer...
                            I am a globalist and I don't prefer any of the stuff you say...

                            The answer is not heading into more control, but actually turning about face and marching away from government control... Anarcho Capitalism is also a utopian ideal, as it promises the same 'stateless society' that Marx dreamed about, but instead of the lie of marching through MORE government tyranny to reach it's goals, it decidedly turns away from that premise and desires to shrink government to the point of the larger governments becoming even less relevant.
                            Yes, as you say it will not work.. because money is not real power, guns are power, and anywhere you set up some form of anarchy, guns will rule.

                            Now one point further, there was a time when there was a single language, a single society, a single government... And that was when the 'people' wanted to build a tower to reach God. It was pure evil, and God recognized it and destroyed the tower of Babel, and created the different languages to the point that many couldn't understand each other, and had to form small groups that could communicate with each other... Forever banishing the whole idea and concept of a globalist government.
                            We are talking real stuff here, no fables.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Maxx View Post
                              I had a fast look at it, I have not time to answer now, but I want you to know that I am not ignoring you. I will come back at this.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X