Hello All,
It is my video that has caused this controversy, which I must admit, I don't fully understand. Our national sovereignty and individual liberties are at stake. These things are being perpetrated by a non-government "club" with no authority, who happens to have members in our government.
Please read this document written by their (CFR) president. Printed, it is only about a page and a half:
Sovereignty and globalisation ->
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html
You trouble maker!! I hadn't seen that CFR link before, thanks, here are some brief thoughts on it:
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
So we should grant corporate special interests the power to influence policy for how the people will be ruled? Isn't this one of the bases of fascism?
This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.
Why would citizens want to give up being able to buy basic vitamins and mineral without a prescription as the WTO wants? Why should we give up freedoms to not upset the "balance" of this "international trading order"?
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
Says who? Why should we care about this "international system"? Maybe we should focus on personal liberty?
At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.
So the control of ideas and e-mails across borders is fundamental to sovereignty?
Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.
This is a very confusion statement, is the author suggesting that controling things like all e-mail is necessary for a state to control their sovereignty? (See context from above)
States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
How is this not doublethink, weakness = strength? Still, even without sovereignty we can not insulate ourselves from what goes on elsewhere, so what is the point here? Is the author suggesting that we give up freedom for safety?
Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.
How is this case any different from countless other preventive wars throughout history? Of course, sovereignty never provided absolute protection, yet, nothing will ever provide "absolute protection" so what's the point of this?
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.
Since when is a government responsible for proving the "basic needs" of its citizens? The citizens ARE the government, they provide for themselves or not, no? What is the source of these resources that enable the government to provide these "basic needs"? Where are they coming from? The people?
The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.
So that is our choice? Some form of world government or anarchy? What definition of word "anarchy" is being referred to here? Either 1-3 or 4:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
Is the author trying to imply here that if we don't support his policy and agenda of some form of world government than we're going to have chaos and disorder or is he stating the obvious that we'll either have "rule" or "no rule"?
