why globalism is best

[Advocate]

The planet is physically finite so competing interests will always create instability which will inevitably lead to conflict. There are also world-level problems that can only be solved with world-level action.

But those are only why globalism is necessary. The reason it is best is that it is most efficient, leaving as much room as possible for freedom.

To the extent we share interests, such as having clean air to breathe, we should share government. To the extent we do not, that's where jurisdictional boundaries should be drawn, for practical management reasons only.

Literally no political boundary currently in existence was legitimately created.

[Immanuel Can]

The reason it is best is that it is most efficient, leaving as much room as possible for freedom.

You want your country run from Brussels or Tokyo or Shanghai? You think they're going to care about what happens in the little backwater that you inhabit, so long as it serves their "larger" interests? And do you think they're going to hold themselves accountable to you, when you are only one of the almost 8 billion people on this planet? What does Shanghai or Brussels know or care about whether or not Springfield or Tuscaloosa survives? What reason do they have to care that YOU survive, so long as the "larger interests" seem to be served?

Oh, it will be "efficient," alright: "efficient" for everything but what you want, everything that's actually in your local, regional, national and personal interests. For you, it will be a total disaster, because you won't matter at all. You'll watch yourself dwindle into utter insignificance, along with millions of others of your family, friends, townsfolk and national compatriots, who will all become disposable in the purported interests of the 8 billion.

And "freedom"? You'll have none at all, because there will be no way to resist a government that large, no way to appeal, and no chance they'll leave you alone to have your own money or make your own decisions. Welcome to the Global Planned Economy, chum. And the loser is going to be...all of us, except the few globalist elitists who actually get to run the show; they win, big time. They get unchecked power, and no accountability at all.

"Best"? For them, maybe. For the rest of us, God help us all.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=502624 time=1615867893 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502516 time=1615826563 user_id=15238]
The reason it is best is that it is most efficient, leaving as much room as possible for freedom.
[/quote]
You want your country run from Brussels or Tokyo or Shanghai? You think they're going to care about what happens in the little backwater that you inhabit, so long as it serves their "larger" interests? And do you think they're going to hold themselves accountable to you, when you are only one of the almost 8 billion people on this planet? What does Shanghai or Brussels know or care about whether or not Springfield or Tuscaloosa survives? What reason do they have to care that YOU survive, so long as the "larger interests" seem to be served? :shock:

Oh, it will be "efficient," alright: "efficient" for everything but what you want, everything that's actually in your local, regional, national and personal interests. For you, it will be a total disaster, because you won't matter at all. You'll watch yourself dwindle into utter insignificance, along with millions of others of your family, friends, townsfolk and national compatriots, who will all become disposable in the purported interests of the 8 billion.

And "freedom"? You'll have none at all, because there will be no way to resist a government that large, no way to appeal, and no chance they'll leave you alone to have your own money or make your own decisions. Welcome to the Global Planned Economy, chum. And the loser is going to be...all of us, except the few globalist elitists who actually get to run the show; they win, big time. They get unchecked power, and no accountability at all.

"Best"? :shock: For [i]them[/i], maybe. For the rest of us, God help us all.
[/quote]

Those are additional variables which may or not be at play in a particular scenario and may or may not produce either positive or negative effects in the same vein. Stop muddying the waters. Philosophy goes nowhere when you insist the kitchen sink be part of every conversation.

[gaffo]

The reason it is best is that it is most efficient, leaving as much room as possible for freedom.

You want your country run from Brussels or Tokyo or Shanghai? You think they're going to care about what happens in the little backwater that you inhabit, so long as it serves their "larger" interests? And do you think they're going to hold themselves accountable to you, when you are only one of the almost 8 billion people on this planet? What does Shanghai or Brussels know or care about whether or not Springfield or Tuscaloosa survives? What reason do they have to care that YOU survive, so long as the "larger interests" seem to be served?

Oh, it will be "efficient," alright: "efficient" for everything but what you want, everything that's actually in your local, regional, national and personal interests. For you, it will be a total disaster, because you won't matter at all. You'll watch yourself dwindle into utter insignificance, along with millions of others of your family, friends, townsfolk and national compatriots, who will all become disposable in the purported interests of the 8 billion.

And "freedom"? You'll have none at all, because there will be no way to resist a government that large, no way to appeal, and no chance they'll leave you alone to have your own money or make your own decisions. Welcome to the Global Planned Economy, chum. And the loser is going to be...all of us, except the few globalist elitists who actually get to run the show; they win, big time. They get unchecked power, and no accountability at all.

"Best"? For them, maybe. For the rest of us, God help us all.

and your solution? Nationalism/Fascism? - where the same people have no power over thier national gov anymroe than a global one.


is that your solution:? if so its 6 of one dozen of the other.


BTW Globalism - via soft power - Coka Cola - and MAD has prevented ww3.

in my mind that is a good thing, vs the alternative ww3

[gaffo]

The reason it is best is that it is most efficient, leaving as much room as possible for freedom.

You want your country run from Brussels or Tokyo or Shanghai? You think they're going to care about what happens in the little backwater that you inhabit, so long as it serves their "larger" interests? And do you think they're going to hold themselves accountable to you, when you are only one of the almost 8 billion people on this planet? What does Shanghai or Brussels know or care about whether or not Springfield or Tuscaloosa survives? What reason do they have to care that YOU survive, so long as the "larger interests" seem to be served?

Oh, it will be "efficient," alright: "efficient" for everything but what you want, everything that's actually in your local, regional, national and personal interests. For you, it will be a total disaster, because you won't matter at all. You'll watch yourself dwindle into utter insignificance, along with millions of others of your family, friends, townsfolk and national compatriots, who will all become disposable in the purported interests of the 8 billion.

And "freedom"? You'll have none at all, because there will be no way to resist a government that large, no way to appeal, and no chance they'll leave you alone to have your own money or make your own decisions. Welcome to the Global Planned Economy, chum. And the loser is going to be...all of us, except the few globalist elitists who actually get to run the show; they win, big time. They get unchecked power, and no accountability at all.

"Best"? For them, maybe. For the rest of us, God help us all.

and your solution? Nationalism/Fascism? - where the same people have no power over thier national gov anymroe than a global one.


is that your solution:? if so its 6 of one dozen of the other.


you seem to be championing the re-balkanisaton of nations state - say Europe, so you hat ethe EU? and? you wish to re insstate the 30 or so nations as they were decacedes ago - each with their agenda, so endless world wars like ww2 and ww2? you offer no solution other than globaliszation is bad. well the EU has unified eurpore and prevent ww3.

your solution is......................to break up europe to the prior 30 stats where internal national inerests create another world war?


no thanks bubba.

.................

if you hate globalisation so m much, you are goign to have to think outside of the nationalism box to convinse me that Globalism is worse than antionalism.

offer an alternative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

otherwise you got nothin. and give Hitler my regards.


BTW Globalism - via soft power - Coka Cola - and MAD has prevented ww3.

in my mind that is a good thing, vs the alternative ww3

[Immanuel Can]

and your solution? Nationalism/Fascism?

Globalism is international Socialism, which is second cousin to Fascism. Why not instead opt for multiculturalism and national sovereignty, particularly if both are run democratically?

What's the advantage of giving total power to Brussels or Shanghai? How is that a good thing for Philadelphia or Tegucigalpa?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=502961 time=1616036574 user_id=9431]
[quote=gaffo post_id=502946 time=1616026842 user_id=15438]
and your solution? Nationalism/Fascism?[/quote]
Globalism is international Socialism, which is second cousin to Fascism. Why not instead opt for multiculturalism and national sovereignty, particularly if both are run democratically?

What's the advantage of giving total power to Brussels or Shanghai? How is that a good thing for Philadelphia or Tegucigalpa?
[/quote]

As per always, you attack a version of government that nobody is intending or defending. The purpose of having power concentrated in one place is to manage issues that are best managed from one place. You can't just dismiss the idea because you can imagine a version that would go terribly wrong. There is no ism today that is sufficient to be a world government but there are plenty that are better than anything we have today, and that's the benchmark to judge them by; do they attempt to rectify the problems of past versions. It's never going to be right the first time a new system is tried, and that doesn't matter at all. What matters is whether it's progressive - better than before.

[gaffo]

and your solution? Nationalism/Fascism?

Globalism is international Socialism, which is second cousin to Fascism. Why not instead opt for multiculturalism and national sovereignty, particularly if both are run democratically?

What's the advantage of giving total power to Brussels or Shanghai? How is that a good thing for Philadelphia or Tegucigalpa?

I laothe multiculuralism as much as indentity politics - they ate the ame thing.

I arrim the Western world and the melting pot ideal. a race blind society that affrim the ideals of Locke and my contitution ------ie character ovr race.

[Immanuel Can]

character ovr race.

That's what King said.

[gaffo]

character ovr race.

That's what King said.

Exactly - and a affirm the concept as a Hellbound egist shitbag Athiest.


always like Martin, but liked Malcomlm x more - the latter was a racist - blakc supremist - but later become a full human and one that was killed by his former church (Nation of Islam - fully racist - as today's Israel Isrealites (here in OKC we have them sadly - the Isrealites are the black folks, not the "Whitey" the latter are always the "so called isrealites".


I hate thuggery and racists - from all sides (i know history so racism has no color - per history its all about power and whites have had the power most times so..................but know about uganda where the blakcs had the power and fucked ove indians living theier for not being blakc (i.e. being white)) - so ya

i reject DNA in racism buut afffirm humanity in such.

;-/.

[gaffo]

BTW to clarify i affirm the UN and the concept of international law as gneral rule of conduct .

we have this for stuff like navigation of ships

you for throwing this away and replace with national rules of international shipping (so chinese laws are differnt than serdian and if a serb ship do this or that adccrding the thier rule and not chinese........surbs are impounded for affirming serb rule (or vise versa)? - just aksing.

its a small world and a need for internation rules/law in many cases.

in which and when - valid argument - but not no internal law mindset as valid in the modern world sir.




I otherwords i affirm the concept of international rules for commerce but not for gov rule - but the UN is a debating society and will never be that nor will it ever - it serves a function i support as a debating soc - and it will never be anything more - nor will its removal surve u - it serves a valid fucntion as a debating soc. UN has no army and never was close to so your fears of such is utter nonesence.

2-cents.

[Immanuel Can]

As per always, you attack a version of government that nobody is intending or defending.

And as always, you propose to defend a form of "Socialism" that has never existed, and deny the reality of all the Socialisms that have.

The purpose of having power concentrated in one place is to manage issues that are best managed from one place.

That's what people naturally suppose. But when you concentrate power, you provide the goal for the dictator. And the more you concentrate it, the more damage he will be able do when he seizes power.

You can't just dismiss the idea because you can imagine a version that would go terribly wrong.

I dismiss Socialism because it has been tried and tried, and has literally never gone right.

It's never going to be right the first time a new system is tried, and that doesn't matter at all.

It's been tried...and failed, and failed, and failed...economically, morally, in terms of equity, justice and fairness, and ultimately, homicidally.

100 million dead. How can somebody who claims to love humanity and seek the common good fail to recognize the hideousness of that number?

What matters is whether it's progressive - better than before.

Then Socialism loses: it's always worse.