# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Do you support globalization?

## donnie darko

From what I understand, libertarian ideology is inherently anti-nationalist and hence against loyalty to the American nation. Protectionism is a form of government regulation of the market and American patriotism is loyalty to the oppressive state.

As a capitalist and a libertarian, do you promote globalization in the sense of a technocapitalist global economy? Do you support offshoring of American jobs to India, American factories to China and the "Race to the bottom"?

Do you support illegal immigration?

Do you support a culturally homogeneous human race devoid of heritage and united by California English and Coca Cola?

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Do you support a culturally homogeneous human race devoid of heritage and united by California English and Coca Cola?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> From what I understand, libertarian ideology is inherently anti-nationalist and hence against loyalty to the American nation. Protectionism is a form of government regulation of the market and American patriotism is loyalty to the oppressive state.
> 
> As a capitalist and a libertarian, do you promote globalization in the sense of a technocapitalist global economy? Do you support offshoring of American jobs to India, American factories to China and the "Race to the bottom"?
> 
> Do you support illegal immigration?
> 
> Do you support a culturally homogeneous human race devoid of heritage and united by California English and Coca Cola?


You seem to be concerned with the well being of the common man. Does supply and demand apply to labor? Does an excess labor pool make each man worth less?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Donnie darko seems concerned with personal excess at the expense of group interests.  

I'm curious if he would support Robert Frank's Progressive Consumption Tax.  Or the X Tax.

----------


## JustinTime

I support freedom, and freedom means people will come to different conclusions about any given issue, and that means parts of the world will be different and want sovereign government. So Im a nationalist.

----------


## Origanalist

> You seem to be concerned with the well being of the common man. Does supply and demand apply to labor? Does an excess labor pool make each man worth less?


No, just his wages.

----------


## bolil

Of liberty?  True liberty?  Absolutely.

The thing is: You cannot give liberty to another person, they must see that they own it inherently and then seize it.

----------


## Neil Desmond

Here are some questions I have for you, for now at least:

1. What is nationalism or anti-nationalism?  Please define.

2. There is such a thing as immigration, and there is such a thing as an illegal alien; but what is illegal immigration?  Is there such a thing?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> From what I understand, libertarian ideology is inherently anti-nationalist and hence against loyalty to the American nation. Protectionism is a form of government regulation of the market and American patriotism is loyalty to the oppressive state.
> 
> As a capitalist and a libertarian, do you promote globalization in the sense of a technocapitalist global economy? Do you support offshoring of American jobs to India, American factories to China and the "Race to the bottom"?
> 
> Do you support illegal immigration?
> 
> Do you support a culturally homogeneous human race devoid of heritage and united by California English and Coca Cola?


Don't group everyone together.  Not everyone in this movement agrees on everything.  

I consider myself to be very patriotic, but patriotic to what America was founded to be; not what the people occupying OUR government have twisted it to be.  

I am not a globalist, so I guess that means I am a nationalist.  I put my own nation and my own countrymen first, but believe in trade and travel with all nations.

I think it's fine if some companies want to offshore their factories, as long as they are not given special favors by our government to do so.  The latter is what is happening now.  I am also different than some others here, in that until the regulations are removed that will allow U.S. businesses to compete on a level playing field, that it is nothing short of suicide to not be concerned with the balance of trade.  That includes using tariffs, as necessary, to ensure that balance.  Yes, yes, I realize that isn't the libertarian mantra, so get rid of the regulations first and then we'll talk.

----------


## buenijo

> As a capitalist and a libertarian, do you promote globalization in the sense of a technocapitalist global economy? Do you support offshoring of American jobs to India, American factories to China and the "Race to the bottom"?


Define your terms. What you see as "globalization" today is an orchestrated phenomenon made possible by a legal structure founded upon and maintained by force and fraud. In other words, like protectionism, "globalization" is a form of government regulation of the market. Therefore, "globalization" as seen today is not supported by capitalists (properly defined) or libertarians (defined as those who apply the non-aggression principle). Yet, there is nothing inherently bad or wrong with certain labor practices once performed in one region being adopted in others (what some might consider "offshoring"). Nor is there anything inherently bad or wrong with the people residing in most regions of the world making use of modern technologies. If you wonder about a libertarian position, then apply the non-aggression principle.

I don't know what you mean by "Race to the bottom".

----------


## Jim Casey

> I don't know what you mean by "Race to the bottom".


The race to manufacture where labor costs are cheapest.  Currently that would be China but wages are on the rise there so Mexico might be seeing more manufacturing relocation as they take the lead on China in the race to the bottom.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...87191288101170



> China's rising wages and slowing growth present a chance for Mexico to wrest back some of the business that chased cheap labor across the Pacific in the past decade, when Chinese wages averaged a quarter of Mexican pay.
> 
> Mexico may already be a less-expensive place to make an array of products for the U.S. market, said Boston Consulting Group, which estimates that China's average manufacturing wage topped Mexico's this year, when accounting for differences in productivity.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0CR1TY20130404



> Stagnant salaries in Mexico, fueled by strong population growth, will give Latin America's second-biggest economy an edge over China in the U.S. market, Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Carlos Capistran said on Thursday.
> 
> Average hourly wages are now 19.6 percent lower in Mexico than China whereas in 2003 they were 188 percent more costly, according to the Bank of America study.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

I am able to live as comfortably as I do, which is below middle class but not ever starving, because of the companies seeking cheap labor and in turn cheap imported goods. I presume the same about you. Do I support globalization? No, I do not. What the end game of what you ultimately advocate is a global system of fiat currency. You think the World Bank cozies up to Monsanto or Becthel now watch and wait as a major cause of the global suffering becomes less removed from the people._ Two legs bad, four legs good_ and all that. You undoubtedly have a standard of living higher than the majority of the world. Is that inherently evil? Or even inherently immoral? I support companies that uphold the general principles and adherence to character that I myself do. I support the abolition of all government favoritism in the form of monopolies writing monopolization laws, of government collusion to write their said industry's regulations, of corporate welfare being ended all the way down to the last penny given away "overseas," of finding our roots in a currency based in actual value. You ever wonder how Monsanto is able to get the billions it gets? How Becthel or KBR is able to "rebuild" Iraq or Afghanistan? The fiat, inflationary, manipulative dollar is how. 

Communism will no less save the day. I implore you to read a fictional fable that might allow you to see some similarities of the past reoccurring or what you advocate truly would be. (not that you wouldn't similarities with today's system and what the book describes) The book is Animal Farm by George Orwell. It's a pretty striking prophecy or a keen understanding of progression of precedents that are set.

That's where the "four legs good, two legs bad" comes from by the way. It's the sheep. It's what I hear when most people speak of government shutdowns and what the law is. (or their legal positivist understanding of it)

----------


## pcosmar

Yet another thread started by the OP that he never responds to.

I am seeing a pattern.

----------


## libertygold

Globalization meaning free trade is good. People fear mongering about job outsourcing don't know what they are talking about. The efficiency gains make everyone better off and create more jobs.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

The division of labor is a wonderful thing. I support it wholly.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I support freedom, and freedom means people will come to different conclusions about any given issue, and that means parts of the world will be different and want sovereign government. So Im a nationalist.


I agree with you. People do like to form into groups & be with people that are like them, one way or another, so I don't know about "nations" but different "communities" will always exist, be they based on religion, ancestry, political leanings & whatever......I mean isn't that why many of us come here on RPF? And wouldn't some of us want to form our own "community" or "nation", separate from socialistic masses, & live under our own rules?..........so I guess I'm more of a "communalist" & would like to live alongside those, who, like myself, support individual freedom & consider only voluntary interaction amongst humans to be legitimate.....the concept of "countries" like America, India, China is more or less irrelevant to me, being free & living alongside those who believe the same is the most desirable outcome.......

Of course, I don't support "globalization" in the form of global government but definitely support globalization in terms of trade & mobility of labor & capital since as has been mentioned, division of labor & trade is not only beneficial but also essential to moving towards ever-greater amount of economic prosperity & living-standards.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> it is nothing short of suicide to not be concerned with the balance of trade.  That includes using tariffs, as necessary, to ensure that balance.


Do you worry so much about your balance of trade with your grocer, your employer & every other person that you buy/sell from/to? You'd have a positive BoT with your employer since you're selling your labor to him & he's paying you for it, would you say he's losing out by hiring you? May be, if you are a lazy worker  but if you are a good worker then he mightn't losing out on anything.

You'd have a "trade-deficit" with your grocer (& other people that you have only bought stuff from) because you are always buying from him & never sell anything to him, isn't that supposed to be nothing short of suicide?  May be you should worry about that first before worrying about BoT of US. But are you REALLY losing out simply because you have a negative trade balance with your grocer, I don't think so, in fact, it has no DIRECT bearing on your financial wellbeing!

Same is true of BoT between countries! It has no direct bearing on financial wellbeing of a country!

BoT is a Keynesian concept, no different than their belief that a central-bank should control influence interest & supply of money, their belief that markets won't run properly on their own & that they must be regulated & manipulated by government & regulators to set them right!

Austrian economists have written lots of stuff about BoT & its insignificance so if you want to follow Keynesian economics of controlling & manipulating the markets then.......

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> The race to manufacture where labor costs are cheapest.  Currently that would be China but wages are on the rise there so Mexico might be seeing more manufacturing relocation as they take the lead on China in the race to the bottom.
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...87191288101170
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0CR1TY20130404


"Race to the bottom" is just a liberal propaganda, especially by unions to increase their memberships; anybody that understands even a little bit about the economy & price-formation will realize that labor-cost is what forms prices in the economy so if labor-costs are low then price of goods & services in the economy will be low too & vice versa. This is precisely the reason, by earning $3000 per month, you'd be doing pretty well in US, not so well in Sweden & VERY WELL in china or India because wages/salaries & prices are two sides of the same coin, when wages fall, prices fall subsequently, when wages rise so do prices, it's the fundamental relationship in economics so of course, sweden would have some of the highest wages but prices & cost of living would be just as high while opposite would be true for India, China, etc.

Wages fell through the floor during Industrial Revolution in Britain, US & elsewhere in 19th century, liberals gawk & whine about "robber barons" by looking at falling wages but they don't realize that prices of goods & services fell drastically too & the living-standards of people rose, probably at a faster pace than they ever did in history.

The reason is obvious, when wages fall, more people are hired, production of goods & services increases & increasing supply obviously reduces prices of stuff; conversely, trying to forcibly raise wages, causes unemployment, reduction in production of goods & services & thereby rising prices.




> I support the abolition of all government favoritism in the form of monopolies writing monopolization laws, of government collusion to write their said industry's regulations,


If you truly are against monopolization laws then you can't be against cheap labor because preventing companies from investing in other countries' cheap labor or using protectionism or preventing mobility of labor would entail supporting monopoly (oligopoly if you will) on labor because you'd be asking favors from government to restrict competition from laborers in other countries. Not something to be expected of someone opposing monopolization. Competition is seen as a good thing in the free market for everybody while producers of goods & services (& labor) often intend to monopolize & restrict their competition in the hopes of securing better income for themselves but as I've explained above, it doesn't lead to better living-standards because of the subsequent reduced production & availability of goods & services & rising prices.

----------

