What is Globalization?

Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
7
What is globalization? Globalization is the diverse interconnecting of economies and cultures on a global scale. It is a video chat room where you can converse with a lawyer from Israel, a Chilean student and a Russian secretary within the same hour or minute. Globalization is the working-together of peoples of different nationalities to sustain and expand the global economy. It is French cargo ships passing through the Panama Canal bearing goods to be sold in the EU Free-Trade Zone. It is American corn sold at more convenient prices for a Mexican clientele. It is India opening herself up for international businesses to compete with Indian home-grown chains for the patronage of the Indian consumer. Globalization is the international community uniting to provide for law, order and humanitarian aid in the Country of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake disaster. It is the deployment of charitable aid organizations to fight hunger, poverty and disease in African nations stricken by war. It is the deployment of the Mexican Army during Hurricane Katrina to help the people of New Orleans in their hour of need. It is the uniting of Europe, the Arab Nations and the West to oust Muammar Qaddafi and to protect a helpless Libyan population. Globalization is the imported coltan necessary for the functioning of the TV screens and laptops people around the world receive their news on. It is the IMF and World Bank helping Third World countries not only get back on their feet, but participate in the international community.

The world we live in is more interconnected than ever before. However, while we are more interconnected than we have ever been in human history, we are also more divided. Given our capacity to interact, communicate and trade with each other there should also be an accompanying degree of unity. And while globalization is all of the above things, it, also, is not.

Globalization is the people of the world deceived into believing that true political struggle is over century-old lines in the ground. Globalization is the European and American arms companies that finance both sides of every conflict. Globalization is the ousting of democratically elected leaders for the sake of international elites that know no borders or peoples. Globalization is the democracy that exists between the television screen and a choice between millionaires. Globalization is the herding of all of the peoples of the world into a gas chamber where they are commanded to consume or die. Globalization is the value of your life determined by your ability to consume. Globalization is the death of space exploration and the birth of the “Private Military Contractor.” Globalization is the god that threatens the end of times unless it is given human sacrifice.

Unless it is given Mexican campesino farmers whose livelihoods were destroyed by cheap, American, NAFTA free-trade corn.
Unless it is given child soldiers that carry rifles reading “Colt” and “Heckler and Koch” on their barrels.
Unless it is given Chinese laborers, trying to fill the black hole of American hedonistic consumerism, whose employers have to put up nets to catch suicide jumpers.

Globalization is the Greek people being treated like children for refusing to make themselves even more beholden to international bankers who are the greatest purveyors of disorder and indebtedness the world has ever known. Globalization is the wars Americans fight to benefit companies that have not only the right to sell arms but the right to buy Senators. Globalization is the accumulation of fortunes beyond reason, in sums that were once astrological numbers but have become economical numbers. Globalization is the Libyan struggle for democracy reduced to Western arms companies losing the Iraqi market and needing more growth. Globalization is the argument, not of whether we should destroy the natural world, but at what rate. Globalization is the Syrian Civil War reduced to a trade war between Western arms manufacturers and their Russian counterparts. Globalization is the system that calls for continual growth on a planet with limited resources. Globalization is the sociopathy that knows this and continues anyway. Globalization is the destruction not only of our history, but our dignity and freedom, one bought-and-paid-for “democratic” politician at a time.

We are coming to a point of no return where we, as a species, must choose between Beijing smog on a global level by 2030 or something better. The Nations of the Earth stand for only varying degrees of the rape of this planet. The peoples of the Nations are further deceived into believing that the true fight, if there is one to be had, is amongst the Nations, when the means by which they are controlled know no borders. The international banking system, the international military-industrial system and the international commercial system all work together like the fighters of a hand while the peoples of the earth, on an opposing hand, are deceived into believing it is a fight amongst the fingers, the Nations. The Nations have made themselves irrelevant. They serve as proxies for a global order that enriches itself, through the political machinery of the Nations, at the expense of the people.

The international class of people that rule this world has come to the conclusion that there are no Americans, no French, no Egyptians -- there are only prospective victims. If they have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as nationality then why shouldn’t we? Are we not struggling to make the world a better place on a field of play that is but a microcosm of the true field of play?

Our educational systems are aimed at making us into consumers and those that sustain and expand the consumption. Our history is taught to us not with urgency but with nostalgia, as though it is something we don’t have to care about anymore now that liberal democracy has triumphed. Liberal democracy does not exist. We live in an oligarchy, controlled by international elites we have no means of combating within the context of the Nation. Here, in America, and all over the world, our schools are making us dumber and our jobs are making us poorer.

In economic crises money does not disappear; in politics there are no coincidences.

Those that manage the international military industrial system, the international financial system, the international commercial system – they are not subject to a common law with the peoples they disinherit, rob and make subjugate to other peoples far away. Americans are dependent upon foreign production. Chinese are dependent upon the American market for their goods. American electronics companies are dependent upon African coltan. Africans are dependent upon Western aid and arms. The West is dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Middle Eastern oil companies (and monarchies) are dependent on Western consumption of oil. Who are the intermediaries between peoples of distant lands in globalization? Who are the middle men that profiteer from this process? The international elite. Who are those whose position is never one of dependence on foreign lands? The arms companies, the central banks and manipulators of the financial system, the commercial juggernauts. But how is it that they are never in a position of dependence? They make others dependent on them. This dependence is not natural, it is fostered. Were it natural then the current capitalistic order would not need to bombard the people who participate in it with advertisements. They would not have to try to give capitalism a “green” side. They would not even have to address the topic at all were this dependence natural and not the end result of a global, cynical, nihilistic, coercive process that displays not only virulent disregard for the rest of humanity but for themselves and their own posterity. In all truth, there is more of a common law between the peoples that they victimize than there is between those of the Nation they originally hail from and themselves.

In a multi-polar world where there is no de facto victim on a frontier far from civilization, such as Africa or the Third World, they have to create victims. Whether by shocks to the financial system or wars or moving in after a natural disaster they intentionally engender conflict, misery and poverty. However, even people in their own countries are victimized, robbed and controlled to the maximum degree possible without inciting unrest… but even they were surprised when Western governments, in broad daylight, gave them hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money, scared as we were of the economic apocalypse they swore would come if we didn’t. It is not that it is just a matter of time before these internationals turn on the Western Nations many of the come from; it has already begun.

What is the driving force of the hedonistic consumerism that is cannibalizing the West, and, indeed, the entire world? It is the control this class has over our minds and bodies. What is destroying morals, families and individuals the world over? It is not homosexuals. The figure of the European Jew was the harbinger of the international bourgeois world we live in today and the nationalistic bourgeoisie of many European countries did not take kindly to that. Gays, too, are harbingers of things to come. Homosexuality is not the result of some liberal conspiracy to destroy families (we can blame advertising agencies for that) for its increasing prevalence in the modern world is a genetic, evolutionary response to our species getting closer to our planet’s carrying capacity. Homosexuals have been victimized the same way Jews were victimized during the Holocaust as a scapegoat for the real issue. It is consumerism.

We are deceived into believing that material possession is the key to happiness despite endless statistics that prove the contrary. There are spaces within people that should be filled with ideas and feelings which are instead filled with meaningless things. Love of these meaningless things and not love of justice, family, truth, beauty, honesty and other meaningful words is what is destroying our people. In this pursuit of meaningless material possessions (houses, electronics, food, etc., all of which are constantly advertised to us in every space money can buy) we go into debt to the system which presents these items as escapes from the very misery it creates. Deprived of our history we are incapable of recognizing that humanity has not always needed every building the eye can see being controlled by a bank; every person and Nation sunk in an ocean of debt where the only way out seems to be to swim deeper.

It is impossible to separate democracy (at least the modern, liberal-democratic form of it) from this system. At every turn these internationals seek to foist parliamentary or democratic forms of representation on the peoples they encounter and to make governmental power-structures as top-heavy as possible so that there are fewer politicians to bribe (or whose “campaigns to finance,” whichever euphemism one prefers.) We must distance ourselves from the short-term, quarterly report mindset that cannot provide for long-term concerns such as the destruction of our biosphere by a system that mandates constant growth.

Do you think that the great minds of the Enlightenment, whom those who adhere to the liberal-democratic tradition revere so greatly, would endorse this state of world affairs? Do you think Thomas Jefferson would endorse a society where everyone is beholden to their nearest bank and subtly coerced into consuming things they don’t want or need? Would the Philosophes buy stock in Exxon and participate in elections that are little more than political theatre? Would Sir Isaac Newton endorse the destruction, not only of our species, but of all of the flora and fauna that sustain it? Would they endorse this “order” which has taste of disorder, indebtedness, perfidy, murder and injustice on a global scale? I shudder at the thought of the shame with which they would behold humanity in its present state.

The true issues facing humanity today are the ecological crisis, population control, the financial crisis, the creation of new apartheids to divide and distract us and the control of the human and the natural genomes. The only issue our political process presents that has any substance today is the plight of homosexuals as our acceptance or rejection of them is indicative of our acceptance of the future of humanity (not to say that everyone will be homosexual but that, on a crowding planet, everyone cannot reproduce) or the rejection of it in the name of nationalistic attitudes that only empower those that seek to divide us in an age where the internet makes those divisions more artificial than ever before.

There is a saying in European history that when France sneezes, Europe catches a cold. During the Arab Spring Tunisia sneezed, then Egypt caught a cold, then the United States got sick and then Europe came down with it too. The largest Occupy protest was, in fact, in Rome. Tunisian protests against a governmental infrastructure controlled by internationals were continued in Egypt, New York, Rome and all over the world. The international elite is well aware that we have the capacity of acting with disdain for borders in the same manner they do, or else there wouldn’t be international treaties in the works to deprive us of freedom of the internet, signed off on by the very international corporations that opposed the laws on a national level to maintain their popular standing.

I, as an American, empathize with other Americans not necessarily because I share the same views about our history as them, but because we experienced those events together. In an effort to weaken us, to deprive us of a means of responding to their international hegemony, we have been systematically stripped of our history. Greeks are deprived of knowledge of an ancient history that produced some of the greatest political and philosophical minds the world has ever known, whose governments were qualified not by the economic growth they could create, but the justice they could uphold. Muslims are deprived of knowledge of a proud history of Caliphates that, while having their own internal power struggles, still recognized the humanity and oneness of their own people, in contrast to the monarchies and corrupt republics that stand where they once stood, that answer to and abet internationals that recognize only the oneness of humanity’s prospective victimhood. French are deprived of knowledge of the revolutionary tradition from which the Nations of today stem, as the French Revolution is taught by academia (in the last thirty years) according to universal moral standards as opposed to the understanding, subjective, revolutionary position it was traditionally taught from -- for that knowledge, that this order was created, is the key to understanding that it can also be destroyed.

The international elite, however, in depriving us of our history did something they did not mean to do. They created a shared history amongst us. I can sympathize with French, Egyptian, Greek, South American, Chinese – all of the peoples of the world that have been victimized and regimented by them share with me a history of no history. They have made a nation of us. They, in deceiving us into thinking that the fight is amongst the fingers, the Nations, unknowingly hinted at the truth of the entire hand. So, I ask again, what is Globalization? Globalization is the truth of the entire hand. But what is the clenching of that hand into a fist?

What is Globalization to us, the people who are victimized, regimented and robbed by it? Nothing. But what does Globalization have the capacity to become? Everything. There is the capacity to create a nation unlike any the world has ever seen, to fight not only for the soul of humanity but of all of the flora and fauna that sustain it, to safeguard the sustainable development of our species, to once more explore the space frontier and to provide for the education and health of our children who are the only guarantors of human progress and greatness. In stifling out the long-term progress of mankind for the sake of their short-term interests the powers at be have expressed the contempt for humanity due not to an enemy (for even our enemies deserve human dignity) but an animal. All too often when considering the ecological crisis people disregard it and remark “We’ll adapt when the time comes.”

The time is now to decide what Globalization will become and whether or not we are due the moral treatment of human beings or animals.

Or we can continue to eat the fruits they feed us to keep us in our place.
 
We become globalized as a species. Through our morality, our thoughts, and our compassion. Globalization of government, will merely result in the opposite. Liberty brings compassion and morality. It brings tolerance, and objectivity. It brings forgiveness. Government will never be capable of globalization, because government is authority. Only human beings can bring globalization, and peace, as a species. This is done through freedom.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, application of the Law of Liberty brings about compassion, morality, tolerance and objectivity. One need only apply the Law of Liberty to the current situation: You are free to do whatever you want to do so long as it does not hurt others. During the Enlightenment the application of the Law of Liberty, when we were not on the verge of destroying our planet, was different. In our times we must appraise not only overt physical harm we do to others but the harm done by over-consumption. It is a huge credit to the human race as a species that we are even having the debate of over-consumption. Truly it is a debate not many species survive to have. But we need to have it.

The object of emancipatory struggle is constantly evolving. Liberty is not a destination, but a direction.

The political application of the Law of Liberty must be done on a national level. The means by which nations were once constructed (means of communication, spread of culture, commerce) are many times what they once were, however, borders do not reflect this nor the hegemony these internationals maintain over the nations of the world. My position is that to truly combat the evils afflicting our nations we must recognize that trying to remedy this ills of our respective nations on the conventional national level is ineffective (as those that control them, now, more so than any time in human history, know no borders.)

My position is that, were we to constitute ourselves a nation paying little respect to racist, nationalistic borders than only serve to divide us, then we can appropriately respond to the ecological crisis, the financial crisis and the crisis of American Empire. However, American Empire functions to benefit internationals that have no concern for any individual nation or people.
 
Last edited:
Why didn't you just say EVERYTHING is globalization & get it over with :D

Unless it is given Mexican campesino farmers whose livelihoods were destroyed by cheap, American, NAFTA free-trade corn.

I'm not a supporter of NAFTA (it's NOT "free trade" at all in reality) but sure as hell I'm for REAL free-trade so saying that cheap anything is bad is ridiculous; when you go for shopping, do you always choose to buy things at their costliest or at their cheapest? When some businesses are producing a product at $10 & then new businesses enter the market & start offering the same product at $8, is that bad? That also "destroyes existing businesses", either they must find ways to reduce costs or close down shop & take their labor & capital somewhere else in the economy where they can meet the society's demands more effectively

Unless it is given Chinese laborers, trying to fill the black hole of American hedonistic consumerism, whose employers have to put up nets to catch suicide jumpers.

Since the privatization of Chinese economy, MILLIONS & MILLIONS of Chinese people have been raised out of poverty & now, they have a growing middle-class courtesy, infusion of capitalism & privatization into the economy; if they don't work then they don't eat, that's how it was before economic liberalization of China, & that's how it will be soon after big government socialism & freeloadism has destroyed America & rest of the West

The international class of people that rule this world has come to the conclusion that there are no Americans, no French, no Egyptians -- there are only prospective victims. If they have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as nationality then why shouldn’t we?

Uhhh, because if national boundaries are torned down then global government will only be a step away

Our educational systems are aimed at making us into consumers and those that sustain and expand the consumption.

People are naturally consumers, most of them already want more & more stuff & higher living-standards; people were like that even before "our education system" came into being

Here, in America, and all over the world, our schools are making us dumber and our jobs are making us poorer.

That's why education should be a personal responsibility, dumb education is what you get when all-wise government, politicians, bureaucrats & regulators do it

As for jobs, as I've said, government intervention has driven out the businesses

Those that manage the international military industrial system, the international financial system, the international commercial system – they are not subject to a common law with the peoples they disinherit, rob and make subjugate to other peoples far away.

Who gave them that power? Those who believe that government should be big & control everything, guess what happens!

Americans are dependent upon foreign production.

Well, it's the government that's hindering production in a variety of ways, be it through minimum wage laws, various "regulations" on businesses & high taxes that drive out capital & companies or be it welfare system, which rewards people for being unproductive consumers

Chinese are dependent upon the American market for their goods.

NO, they're NOT! Only stupid Keynesians spread that propaganda!
Let's say there's a fat guy borrowing from others while others are busy producing goods & services, & uses the borrowed money to buy their products; now, what effect will it have on others if the fat guy stops borrowing & consuming? NOTHING, others will simply have MORE goods & services FOR THEMSELVES!

Who are the intermediaries between peoples of distant lands in globalization? Who are the middle men that profiteer from this process?

Why do you buy groceries from shops & supermarkets? Let's cut the profiteering of the middlemen & start buying directly from farmers!

Were it natural then the current capitalistic order would not need to bombard the people who participate in it with advertisements.

Why do people send their resume to prospective employers? They shouldn't be advertising themselves like that & instead HOPE that through some telepathic connection, employers are able to track prospective employees & contact them

What is the driving force of the hedonistic consumerism that is cannibalizing the West, and, indeed, the entire world?

Well, people can choose not to buy stuff & live like monks if they don't want consumerism
The driving force behind consumerism is limitless human wants

The figure of the European Jew was the harbinger of the international bourgeois world we live in today and the nationalistic bourgeoisie of many European countries did not take kindly to that.

Yeah, let's kill the bourgeoisie & have communism

Gays, too, are harbingers of things to come. Homosexuality is not the result of some liberal conspiracy to destroy families (we can blame advertising agencies for that) for its increasing prevalence in the modern world is a genetic, evolutionary response to our species getting closer to our planet’s carrying capacity.

Oh really? :rolleyes: Population explosion as a phenomenon has only come up in the last century or so, largely propelled by industrial, technological & medical breakthroughs but homosexuality has existed WAY before that time so calling it "evolutionary response to overpopulation" is far-fetched

We are deceived into believing that material possession is the key to happiness despite endless statistics that prove the contrary.

Material possessions are certainly not the key to happiness but then I guess people in the developed world are a lot better off than some primitive tribe somewhere

In this pursuit of meaningless material possessions (houses, electronics, food, etc., all of which are constantly advertised to us in every space money can buy) we go into debt to the system which presents these items as escapes from the very misery it creates.

Existence of these items has nothing to do existence of debt; correlation doesn't equal causation

As for debt - just don't borrow & live within one's means

every person and Nation sunk in an ocean of debt where the only way out seems to be to swim deeper.

Again, why did they borrow so much? What's wrong with living within one's means? What about with people taking responsibility for their actions?

the rejection of it in the name of nationalistic attitudes that only empower those that seek to divide us in an age where the internet makes those divisions more artificial than ever before.

Well, this movement IS about nationalism, which is different from jingoism; nationalism means taking pride in your national identities, it doesn't necessarily mean hating others
And in these times when global governance is being pushed, nationalism is exactly what people allover the world NEED to prevent centralization of power

to safeguard the sustainable development of our species, to once more explore the space frontier and to provide for the education and health of our children who are the only guarantors of human progress and greatness.

You know that people here don't approve of socialism & government suppressing & pillaging people in the name of "progress", right?

All too often when considering the ecological crisis people disregard it and remark “We’ll adapt when the time comes.”

How do you suggest we adapt, with use of force by the "well-intentioned" people against those who don't want to adapt because it's too costly to do so?

The time is now to decide what Globalization will become and whether or not we are due the moral treatment of human beings or animals.

The only "moral" argument that can be made is one that is based on VOLUNTARY interaction between people, & people having their right to life, liberty & property protected & be free from theft, violence, coercion, fraud or any such violations in the name of "greater good" & "progress"

You have made some decent points but the whole thing is a bit of a mixed-bag when looked at from the point of liberty

Letting people choose, even if they make mistakes, is always the most "moral" position
 
Last edited:
We become globalized as a species. Through our morality, our thoughts, and our compassion. Globalization of government, will merely result in the opposite. Liberty brings compassion and morality. It brings tolerance, and objectivity. It brings forgiveness. Government will never be capable of globalization, because government is authority. Only human beings can bring globalization, and peace, as a species. This is done through freedom.

+1

Freedom to be free from violation of our life, liberty & property is what brings about tolerance; it never comes from people sitting on a coercive monopoly aka government

Absolutely, application of the Law of Liberty brings about compassion, morality, tolerance and objectivity. One need only apply the Law of Liberty to the current situation: You are free to do whatever you want to do so long as it does not hurt others. During the Enlightenment the application of the Law of Liberty, when we were not on the verge of destroying our planet, was different. In our times we must appraise not only overt physical harm we do to others but the harm done by over-consumption. It is a huge credit to the human race as a species that we are even having the debate of over-consumption. Truly it is a debate not many species survive to have. But we need to have it.

Well, you may not approve of over-consumption & it's ok to make that argument but that still doesn't mean that their liberties should be violated

My position is that, were we to constitute ourselves a nation paying little respect to racist, nationalistic borders than only serve to divide us, then we can appropriately respond to the ecological crisis, the financial crisis and the crisis of American Empire. However, American Empire functions to benefit internationals that have no concern for any individual nation or people.

That's quite a contradictory position - we need to tear down national borders to prevent global government???? :confused:
In fact, that's exactly what globalists want, they want to tear down racial, national, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, etc boundaries so that whole world becomes a homogenized pool, so that they would be ready to accept a global government because otherwise they will prefer to have the more decentralized systems of nations

Again, this movement is about nationalism & national sovereignty, & people allover the world should rise independently for their sake & for their nations & oppose a move towards more centralization of power & global governance

 
I think when financial collapse happens they could all fall like dominoes. Countries are too interconnected now days.

Also, the free trade we have is not true free trade and currently it just allows American jobs to be shipped overseas. So I don't like it. Maybe we get some cheaper goods the problem is the cost is loss of American jobs and lowering of wages. If we can buy the same thing for less money means companies don't need to give you a pay raise. I think this benefits the rich and corporations much more than workers.

This free globalization means Americans having to work odd hours to communicate with foreign people to get business done. I know an engineer that has to work late to make phone calls.
 
Last edited:
I think when financial collapse happens they could all fall like dominoes. Countries are too interconnected now days.

Also, the free trade we have is not true free trade and currently it just allows American jobs to be shipped overseas. So I don't like it. Maybe we get some cheaper goods the problem is the cost is loss of American jobs and lowering of wages. If we can buy the same thing for less money means companies don't need to give you a pay raise. I think this benefits the rich and corporations much more than workers.

This free globalization means Americans having to work odd hours to communicate with foreign people to get business done. I know an engineer that has to work late to make phone calls.

These are typical progressive/communist arguments against free trade. If jobs are shipped overseas because labor is cheaper there, that is fine, the consumer gets his product at a lower price, capitalism at work.
 
I think when financial collapse happens they could all fall like dominoes. Countries are too interconnected now days.

Also, the free trade we have is not true free trade and currently it just allows American jobs to be shipped overseas. So I don't like it. Maybe we get some cheaper goods the problem is the cost is loss of American jobs and lowering of wages. If we can buy the same thing for less money means companies don't need to give you a pay raise. I think this benefits the rich and corporations much more than workers.

That's what free trade is supposed to do anyway whether "true" or otherwise, have the prices falling with reduced costs; through the Industrial Revolution, prices AND WAGES fell but living-standards went up because it's the production of goods & services that generates prosperity, not creation of "money"; otherwise Zimbabwe would have gotten rich during its recent hyperinflation

And again, this isn't a communist movement, to look out for workers or ANY special interest group for that matter, blocking free trade is essentially like stealing from others with the use of government force because if price-floors are put for wages then that addition in cost is passed on to the consumers as a result of higher prices, which results in higher prices for the things they produce & so on & so forth, you get bloated prices/wages throughout the economy, some people benefit some of the times but eventually everyone loses out as businesses either close down due to unsustanaibility or leave for greener pastures

Wages & prices & profits are NOT arbitrary factors, there's a real bargaining process continuously unfolding on the markets, just as prices of potatoes drop when there's a higher supply, the same applies to labor - if labor of certain kind is higher in supply to its demand & utility then it will bear lower wages while if labor is lower in supply to its demand & utility then it bear higher wages; this is the difference between labor provided by a bricklayer & labor provided by a doctor, & their prices (wages/salaries/income/etc) reflect the supply & demand position on the market

This free globalization means Americans having to work odd hours to communicate with foreign people to get business done. I know an engineer that has to work late to make phone calls.

So what? NOBODY is ENTITLED to comfort in a free market, not businesses nor workers or anybody, & that's how it should be; they earn according to the utility provided by them to the economy according to their supply-demand situation; if a task requires special sacrifices over the same task elsewhere then it will compensated for by way of incentives

The guy is doing the job because he wants the amount of pay that he's receiving, I suppose he could settle for less pay if he didn't want the hassle but his desire for higher pay trumps his possible inconvenience of working late

Again, wages/prices/incomes/profits are NOT arbitrary factors, they come about through an intricate process unfolding on the market, which automatically prioritizes & allocates economic resources like labor & capital according to their supply & demand in all the industries across the whole economy

Here's a great read for anyone who wishes to understand the market-forces in simplest yet very intuitive form - http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf (originally produced in 1940s, yet the content presented is just as valid today)

It destroyes a vast array of economic misconceptions most people have & explains how markets work & that government-intervention considered to be of the noblest kind is never the solution & always ends up in bad consequences

The whole book is essentially the best Austrian work for anyone wishing to learn about free markets & the concept of "Opportunity Cost"; the most important topics with respect to conversation at hand are "How the Price System Works", "The Function of Profits" & "Minimum Wage Laws" & there's of course "Who's Protected by Tariffs?"
 
Last edited:
"Again, this movement is about nationalism & national sovereignty, & people allover the world should rise independently for their sake & for their nations & oppose a move towards more centralization of power & global governance"

I am all for national sovereignty, however I feel as though were America to establish her national sovereignty once more, with no effort exerted to change the concept of national sovereignty in a way these internationals cannot foresee, then they will still control our government. When the United States was being founded the means of communication and interaction we had (necessary for the creation of a nation) were nothing compared to what they are today. It is important to remember that a great deal of the tyrannies of human history arise from efforts to establish global governance, however we must also be aware that it is not impossible, and, as I assert above, the foundations for it are being laid by the people that victimize us on a global level. That's why they let Paul on the stage to debate -- because his interpretation of the nation, of the Constitution, is something they are adept at working around.

I honestly have gone past the point where I think the system, as it is, can address the issues facing humanity today. I do not think that we can "Money-Bomb" (kind of a scary phrase) our way to defeating these people and reasserting our national identity. I do not think we can beat them at their own game. I miss the American national identity. I wish we could reassert it. But things have changed in an extraordinary age with globalization.

I created a form of government for a post-democratic world that I will be posting once I've typed it up and made diagrams, so all of the bitching I did above was aimed at introducing a new interpretation of the nation in the age of globalization.
 
That's what free trade is supposed to do anyway whether "true" or otherwise, have the prices falling with reduced costs; through the Industrial Revolution, prices AND WAGES fell but living-standards went up because it's the production of goods & services that generates prosperity, not creation of "money"; otherwise Zimbabwe would have gotten rich during its recent hyperinflation

And again, this isn't a communist movement, to look out for workers or ANY special interest group for that matter, blocking free trade is essentially like stealing from others with the use of government force because if price-floors are put for wages then that addition in cost is passed on to the consumers as a result of higher prices, which results in higher prices for the things they produce & so on & so forth, you get bloated prices/wages throughout the economy, some people benefit some of the times but eventually everyone loses out as businesses either close down due to unsustanaibility or leave for greener pastures

Wages & prices & profits are NOT arbitrary factors, there's a real bargaining process continuously unfolding on the markets, just as prices of potatoes drop when there's a higher supply, the same applies to labor - if labor of certain kind is higher in supply to its demand & utility then it will bear lower wages while if labor is lower in supply to its demand & utility then it bear higher wages; this is the difference between labor provided by a bricklayer & labor provided by a doctor, & their prices (wages/salaries/income/etc) reflect the supply & demand position on the market



So what? NOBODY is ENTITLED to comfort in a free market, not businesses nor workers or anybody, & that's how it should be; they earn according to the utility provided by them to the economy according to their supply-demand situation; if a task requires special sacrifices over the same task elsewhere then it will compensated for by way of incentives

The guy is doing the job because he wants the amount of pay that he's receiving, I suppose he could settle for less pay if he didn't want the hassle but his desire for higher pay trumps his possible inconvenience of working late

Again, wages/prices/incomes/profits are NOT arbitrary factors, they come about through an intricate process unfolding on the market, which automatically prioritizes & allocates economic resources like labor & capital according to their supply & demand in all the industries across the whole economy

Here's a great read for anyone who wishes to understand the market-forces in simplest yet very intuitive form - http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf (originally produced in 1940s, yet the content presented is just as valid today)

It destroyes a vast array of economic misconceptions most people have & explains how markets work & that government-intervention considered to be of the noblest kind is never the solution & always ends up in bad consequences

The whole book is essentially the best Austrian work for anyone wishing to learn about free markets & the concept of "Opportunity Cost"; the most important topics with respect to conversation at hand are "How the Price System Works", "The Function of Profits" & "Minimum Wage Laws" & there's of course "Who's Protected by Tariffs?"

I personally am in awe of the accuracy of Austrian economic analyses and advocate for the dissolution of central bank currency monopolies. I think free trade is fine, but there is a form of free trade that makes communities unhealthily dependent on foreign production (particularly of food) and that is something I am against. It makes communities weak and not self-sustaining. Self-sufficiency is one American value I still cling on to. Also, all of the things done by these people on an emotional level (advertising, creation of new apartheids) are things that must be combated on a cultural, not a political, level. I would encourage all of the parents of this country, for this Christmas, to not buy their children anything, as that would be the best thing they could do for them. Simply not trying to stuff possessions down the throats of our children will lead to the natural filling of places within them with the ideas and feelings that should be there.
 
Globalization = free trade (not to be confused with "Fre Trade Agreements", that are actually managed trade).


Unless it is given Mexican campesino farmers whose livelihoods were destroyed by cheap, American, NAFTA free-trade corn

Actually it's not NAFTA that destroyed Mexican agriculture...it's our govt subsidies.


If you believe in property rights ANY trade restrictions are attacking and destroying those rights - tyranny. No govt has any right to tell you who to hire, for how much, who to work for, for how much, who to sell to, for how much, or who to buy from, or for how much. The only way to have anti-free market non-free trade is to use govt thugs and threats of violence (laws) to achieve the tyrannies of "balanced trade", "fair trade", and/or "reciprocal trade".

Borders are irrelevant to economists. Property rights are inherent from your humanity...govts do not grant them and their borders cannot repeal them or regulate them justifiably. All they can do is aggress against them.
 
I think free trade is fine, but there is a form of free trade that makes communities unhealthily dependent on foreign production (particularly of food)

What you call "dependency" preceeds wealth. What you might call "self sufficiency" is correlated with poverty.

Nations do not exist in economics, beyond labels to make group measures. The borders to economists are just dotted lines on maps some govt arbitrarily made up.

It's like saying you're hopelessly "dependent" on the grocery store because you don't farm any of your own food. It's nonsense. If one store closes or refuses you service, you just go to another store. If there are no barriers to entry in the market (via govt) there is no problem. The answer to your reservations are simple:

1. You have more wealth to buy more expensive food when free trade (even in the extreme) takes place, so if our supplier suddenly stops supplying we're still in a better situation than under self sufficiency or govt forced diversity in supply.

2. Since we have more wealth, and other suppliers to go to, it's best to fight against tyranny like govt laws that create barriers into the market or higher prices for consumers by way of tariffs, taxes, regulations, et cetera because that violates the property rights of the suppliers and consumers and just makes the consumers (us) poorer.

The poorer you are, and the more agrarian your society (as opposed to industrialized or automated technological), the more starvation you have. I'd rather have less starvation and no regulations beyond harm and fraud than self sufficiency (or any level of supply diversity) forced upon us by the govt which always results in poorer people and more hunger.
 
Last edited:
The poorer you are, and the more agrarian your society (as opposed to industrialized or automated technological), the more starvation you have. I'd rather have less starvation and no regulations beyond harm and fraud than self sufficiency (or any level of supply diversity) forced upon us by the govt which always results in poorer people and more hunger.

My only concern with your critique of my position is that (not blaming you for this) we have different estimations of value. It sounds as though you associate wealth with value whereas, with the position I come from, I do not. Not saying that there is no relevance or goodness to wealth, but that for the problems coming for humanity, wealth is irrelevant. When someone approaches me and says "I have a B.A. in Accounting from Dartmouth." I am nonplussed, however if someone approaches me and says "I know how to organize mass agriculture" or "I know how to appropriate water resources equitably" or "I know how to harness geo-thermal energy" my reaction is something to the effect of "Wow, you're a ten-million dollar person."

And that is the true horror of this system. The only way I know how to articulate my reverence for the knowledge of how to sustain humanity through the coming crises is through money, when the valuation I have of that knowledge is truly measurable in anything but. I don't yet have the language to articulate that system of value.

With regard to foreign aid, the common libertarian position is that we should cut aid to those countries so that self-sufficient economies can develop. How can we advocate that position while advocating Americans being beholden to far-flung food manufacturers that makes us dependent and domesticated? If you remove those systems of dependence self-dependence will develop. Rational self-dependence. The way we consume more than we can sustainable consume is because we are so far removed from the procurement of resources. One of the foundations of the libertarian critique of U.S. Foreign and Domestic policy is that it is unsustainable. How can we critique a government that engages in unsustainable policies while sitting idly by while our environment is being appropriated in unsustainable ways? There will be no humanity whose freedoms for which to fight if we do not confront that issue.
 
Borders are irrelevant to economists. Property rights are inherent from your humanity...govts do not grant them and their borders cannot repeal them or regulate them justifiably. All they can do is aggress against them.

Absolutely, property rights are inherent to our humanity, however the Law of Liberty does not always mesh with property rights. The most elementary example being that I do not have the liberty to deprive you of your property. The Law of Liberty is, succinctly, that I have the freedom to do whatever I want so long as I do not harm others. A factor for the proper evaluation of the struggle for liberty in the modern day is that of the harm to others caused by over-consumption. The Free Trade that is to be praised is the free trade of ideas, cultural history and products that have laid the groundwork for a nation the likes of which the world has never seen. The Free Trade that is to be reviled is the Free Trade that makes communities dependent on one another not in mutually beneficial ways, but in ways that are beneficial to the internationals that control the governments of the communities that interact, that seek to foster dependence, division and over-consumption for the sake of their short-term, quarterly report interests that show no concern for the crises humanity is approaching.

The Law of Liberty is not a constant value or picturesque nation-state we are to strive for. It is a direction. If we understand it in the former, limited sense then we will be incapable of applying it appropriately to the modern day in the way that Enlightenment thinkers applied it to their day, not with a picturesque nation-state in mind, as there was no picturesque nation-state at the time, but with yearning for a world of greater liberty and justice... which is part of why I think the power structure in the United States allows Ron Paul to speak. Paul is advocating a system the international elite has already conquered. His yearning for greater liberty and justice is sincere, and were there more people like him earlier in our history out nation would not be in the condition it is. But we are here, and we need to advocate for liberty and justice not only a national level, but on a global level, which is precisely where the international elite do not want us to advocate for it, for they would prefer us to be lost in this outdated infrastructure of nation states where we may be able to bruise them, but will never be able to defeat them.
 
Last edited:
There is the good kind good globalization: spreading of markets and products to every person-free exchange between all humans. Then there is the bad kind: governments joining together into a one world government to control every human; by "managing" their buying and selling decisions to benefit the crony capitalists and the idea of government itself.

There is a noticeable effort by certain powerful interests, through their 'representatives", to claim the former while advancing the latter.
 
Last edited:
I honestly have gone past the point where I think the system, as it is, can address the issues facing humanity today. I do not think that we can "Money-Bomb" (kind of a scary phrase) our way to defeating these people and reasserting our national identity. I do not think we can beat them at their own game. I miss the American national identity. I wish we could reassert it. But things have changed in an extraordinary age with globalization.

I'd just been having discussion on another thread here talking about why there's no "them" or "elite" or whatever one wants to call it; the whole philosophy of liberty is based on the fact that people are INDIVIDUALS with different views & are driven by perceived self-interest & often, just individuals working towards their self-interests breeds "spontaneous order" which may resemble a "plan" or a "conspiracy" but it necessarily isn't, it's just people working towards their self-interests, it doesn't necessarily mean they're all "in" on this plan to takeover the world

And "the system" didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere, it's ALL the people that make up the system that are responsible for it, their ignorance & unwillingness to abide by liberty, their desire for big government & regulationism & socialism has led to corporatism that we see around ourselves so little will change occur unless people themselves change their attitudes & start recognizing that liberty is the answer

I created a form of government for a post-democratic world that I will be posting once I've typed it up and made diagrams, so all of the bitching I did above was aimed at introducing a new interpretation of the nation in the age of globalization.

May be I'm being a little premature but I'd just like to point out that most people here don't approve of central-planning or social-engineering by those who THINK that society should be "moulded" a certain way but we rather emphasize on "spontaneous order" that's bred out of free individuals VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another; that's exactly what free market is about, just letting people be, is the best answer

Anyways, it will be interesting to see what you have got to say, as & when you do post your proposition

I think free trade is fine, but there is a form of free trade that makes communities unhealthily dependent on foreign production (particularly of food) and that is something I am against. It makes communities weak and not self-sustaining. Self-sufficiency is one American value I still cling on to.

Again, it's interesting that you have talked at length about "humanity" as a whole but you wish to debar people from VOLUNTARY exchange? If anything, free trade benefits all the countries since it leads to countries producing what they are good at & buying from others what they can't do so cost-effectively; that's the whole purpose of trade

Why don't you make your own fridge or tv or computer or whatever?
Because you yourself mayn't necessarily be able to make it as well as those who are able to make it more cost-effectively; so you focus on doing the kind of work that you are good at, you earn the money & then use it buy tv or computers or whatever from others who are good at producing that. The SAME principle applies to countries as a whole, it's NOT "dependence", it's called CO-OPERATION FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

If you think buying cheap stuff from other countries is bad then what about buying cheap stuff from another State? Or another County? Or another household? Where do you draw the line? And more importantly, WHY do you draw the line when it's just a VOLUNTARY transaction between people?

And free trade is the best way to establish friendly ties between nations & avoid wars & such destructive activities; and again, you mayn't wholly agree with it but it's the goods & services available to people is what determines their living-standards & free trade maximizes goods & services available within countries & everyone is better off than if they were to try & produce everything locally; it's just as ridiculous as trying to make your own fridge, oven, tv, computer or whatever when you could just do what you're good at & buy the rest from others

Again, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that people being able to buy cheap stuff is a bad thing, NO, it's a good thing, that's how economies progress & living-standards go up

I urge you to go through the link to the free book I've posted in my last post & you will find a lot of of answers there to your questions

Also, all of the things done by these people on an emotional level (advertising, creation of new apartheids) are things that must be combated on a cultural, not a political, level. I would encourage all of the parents of this country, for this Christmas, to not buy their children anything, as that would be the best thing they could do for them. Simply not trying to stuff possessions down the throats of our children will lead to the natural filling of places within them with the ideas and feelings that should be there.

Well, that's fine, you're free to promote the ideas that you think are desirable so long as it doesn't involve government or anyone else coercing others

Yes, certain things are needed to be influenced through culture so that people at least ponder over what their better options are
 
Last edited:
Globalisation is trying to justify why you should get paid 10-50 times as much as someone else for doing the same job.
 
Globalisation is trying to justify why you should get paid 10-50 times as much as someone else for doing the same job.

Actually that's anti-gloabalization. The only way to have labor protectionism is to have govt intervention in trade.

The Law of Liberty is not a constant value or picturesque nation-state we are to strive for

I do not strive for any nation-state...I seek to abolish them. Plato's "Utopian State" is an oxymoron. The best way to human liberty is the smallest possible states...and if the best state is one that governs least, then the best state is none at all. Some say the state is a necessary evil...then it must be made unnecessary. I'm straight stealing Benjamin Tucker phrases here...as I'm sure you are aware.

Global liberty comes about via free markets, not tyranny of trade restrictions.

Absolutely, property rights are inherent to our humanity, however the Law of Liberty does not always mesh with property rights.

I agree...but I've explored utilitarianism vs Natural Law/Natural Rights vs the NAP, and deontological ethics vs consequentialist ethics here . Both have their failings as you'll see in that post. There are times when the "path of least coercion" is the only practical choice....but that ONLY occurs when no non-coercive path is available. In the case of trade, a non-coercive choice is always available..."let it be". Free trade is simply how humans interact without govt tyranny to prevent it. Unilateral fre trade is even better, not worse, as it is governed by comparative advantage (ala David Ricardo).

My only concern with your critique of my position is that (not blaming you for this) we have different estimations of value. It sounds as though you associate wealth with value whereas, with the position I come from, I do not.

Not exactly. I value a society with less starvation...therefore whatever system uplifts more people out of poverty is best consequentially. This is why free markets are preferable and the most humanitarian system. Anything that impedes this will be invariably anti-humanitarian (in consequence, not intent) and create more poverty and therefore starvation (we're discussing food, but this is true of lifespans being shorter in non-free trade, etc.). I personally know that all human valuations are based on marginal utility. There is a point at which free time is valued higher than money (usually before you tire, but at least then). This is perfectly rational, and subjective. For instance, you can value free time so much as to only work as much as you need to survive...and another person can value capital or goods and services (wealth) so much as to work until he has little free time all the time. Both are perfectly rational decisions according to marginal utility. Both seek to lessen what they perceive to be suffering and to increase what they perceive to be happiness. For the former the pain is work, for the latter the pain is going without certain things. Both are rational valuations.

What is clear is that when starvation occurs (because of poverty) both have the same marginal valuations...to eat is prefered universally over free time. So, in order for our differing marginal valuations to matter, we both have to meet our most basic needs. Any system that does that best is universally preferable (given the proper information of course...ignorance will breed contempt for free markets, always), and any system that impedes that is universally not preferable. Therefore free markets, and its necessary aspect of free trade, is universally preferable to the educated. All reservations are rooted in ignorance, unethical egoism, or illogical arguments.

So, you can value things differently than I...insofar as your basic needs are met. Otherwise, we both value things equally. We will both act predictably in these situations...unethically. We will both steal to eat if starving to death (if we're rational, anyways). How do we prevent this condition Durkheim called "anomie" (a lack of rules and social norms that occur in social entropy when there are too many or too few rules)?

Free markets and free trade. Anything that hinders these things is masochistic (self abusive)...or worse, sadistic (abusive to others).

Hope that clears up any misunderstanding I created by being too ambiguous in my first responses.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top