To be able to understand why globalism is bad for freedoms, we need to understand what globalism and freedoms really are, and to get a
handle on how they interact.
Globalism can be economic or political. We see economic globalism exemplified by NAFTA, the decline or elimination of
tariffs among countries, anti-dumping legislation; in short, those mechanisms that help a person to buy or sell goods anywhere in the world without
any barriers to the transaction.
Political globalism deals with the interaction of governments in the arenas of travel between counties, a common currency, common laws, a
coordinated or common foreign affairs, and, of course, mutual defense agreements. International treaties, especially when everyone signs them, are
examples of political globalism, and regional political confederations, such as the EU, can be though of as embryonic political globalism entities.
Freedom, like globalism, has economic and political aspects. Economic freedom is the ability of a person to engage in peaceful
negotiation and trade by arriving at an acceptable buying and selling price for his goods with as few constraints as possible. If a government
constrains his ability to trade by imposing taxes, tariffs, or outright bans on goods from another country, that person’s economic freedoms are
lessened. Indeed, outright taxation, even if it’s not tied directly to international trade, lessens one’s economic freedoms. An economically
free person has the right to do whatever he chooses with his own money as long as he doesn’t use that money to harm other people.
Political freedoms, are, of course, those with which we’re most familiar: the ability to vote; comment against the government; worship (or
not worship) Whomever or Whatever you please; travel unobstructed, be secure in your home, and not have these freedoms abridged based on your race,
sex, economic class, or religion.
Now only a fanatic believes that his own political or economic solution has no disadvantages! I think we can agree that any politico-economic
approach has its good and bad sides, and we need to determine if the good outweighs the bad – or vice versa – to decide whether it’s the best
for us.
I believe that, despite some of the surface arguments in favor of globalism from a freedom point of view, on the whole, the bad outweighs the
good. In a real-world scenario, despite the claims of the NAFTA supporters, we find out that globalism causes more economic problems than it
solves.
Over the next few days of this debate, I will show this by looking at several things.
The first is the obvious losses of economic freedom to globalism, such as the imposition of another layer or two (or three) of
bureaucracy which a trader has to navigate in order to sell or buy goods; the imposing of restrictive supranational codes on a nominally free person;
and the sheer cost of such a globalist scheme which destroys a person’s right to his property.
The second is the unintended consequences of loss of political freedoms to globalism, such as some of the dangers of NAFTA which even
its most ardent defenders did not foresee; and how we can now see that these unintended consequences are going to happen whether we want them to or
not.
The third is how we can predict increasing loss of both economic and political freedoms from globalism as we look at globalism’s
precursor situations, such as the Kyoto Accords, the UN Law of the Sea, and similar instruments.
To summarize, globalism, although touted as an open environment, is really a scheme imposed by governments. I think most of us know that when
governments impose things on us, our freedom is often the first casualty.
Round 1. Off_The_Street V they see ALL: Globalism, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 24-6-2005 @ 03:18 PM by they see ALL
Hello everyone! This is my first ATS debate ever and I am very happy to get started. I am really not that acquainted with this topic so, hopefully, I
will gain knowledge about this topic as the debate progresses. To the judges: please treat my posts during this debate as my first posts ever on ATS,
and please put my past post behind you. To Off_The_Street: good luck and I hope we have fun during this debate!
A brief definition[1] and history of globalism:
Globalism unites the entire world by means of trade and cultural diffusion. Nowhere in the signs of globalisation [2] does the topic “Globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom” come into play. To some, globalization is the beneficial spread of democracy and capitalism.
Meanings of Globalization (AKA globalism) [3]
Globalism simply means freedom of movement for goods and people. Globalism has nothing to do with an excessive loss of an individual’s freedom. I believe that the negative views of globalism, such as the topic, have their roots in a supposed “New World Order”. This fear of a single world government frightens people and, thus, anything that has to do with it, such as globalism, is negative. It should be known that this “New World Order” is supposed and thus, the topic has no truth.
[1] Brief definition and history of globalism
[2] Signs of globalisation
[3] Meanings of Globalization
Over to you Off_The_Street
A brief definition[1] and history of globalism:
Globalization (or globalisation) is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it is often understood to refer almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade". Between 1910 and 1950, a series of political and economic upheavals dramatically reduced the volume and importance of international trade flows. More specifically, beginning with WWI and until the end of WWII, when the Bretton Woods institutions were created (i.e. the IMF and the GATT), globalization trends reversed. In the post-World War II environment, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuilding programs, international trade dramatically expanded. With the 1970s, the effects of this trade became increasingly visible, both in terms of the benefits and the disruptive effects.
Globalism unites the entire world by means of trade and cultural diffusion. Nowhere in the signs of globalisation [2] does the topic “Globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom” come into play. To some, globalization is the beneficial spread of democracy and capitalism.
Meanings of Globalization (AKA globalism) [3]
- The formation of a global village — closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization. The World Bank defines globalization as the “Freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries”.
- Economic globalization — there are four aspects to economic globalization, referring to four different flows across boundaries, namely flows of goods/services, i.e. 'free trade' (or at least freer trade), flows of people (migration), of capital and of technology. A consequence of economic globalization is increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of National Sovereignty in the economic sphere. The IMF defines globalization as “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology” (IMF, World Economic Outlook, May, 1997).
- The negative effects of for-profit multinational corporations — the use of substantial and sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labor and services of unequally-developed regions against each other.
- The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations.
- "The concept of Globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" - Roland Robertson
Globalism simply means freedom of movement for goods and people. Globalism has nothing to do with an excessive loss of an individual’s freedom. I believe that the negative views of globalism, such as the topic, have their roots in a supposed “New World Order”. This fear of a single world government frightens people and, thus, anything that has to do with it, such as globalism, is negative. It should be known that this “New World Order” is supposed and thus, the topic has no truth.
[1] Brief definition and history of globalism
[2] Signs of globalisation
[3] Meanings of Globalization
Over to you Off_The_Street
reply posted on 25-6-2005 @ 03:31 PM by Off_The_Street
I think we can agree that globalization, whether you define it as “Freedom of movement for goods and people” (as my colleague they see ALL
does); or the somewhat more radical definition of “The process of exploiting economically weak countries by connecting the economies of the
world, forcing dependence on (and ultimately servitude to) the western capitalist machine.”
(www.anti-marketing.com... ); or something a bit more balanced between those extremes; the world's corporate and
political leadership is undertaking a restructuring of global politics and economics that may prove as historically significant as any event since the
Industrial Revolution.
This sea change is happening so rapidly it makes sense to look at all the ramifications of the globalization policy; for once we globalize, there will be little chance of turning back.
My colleague they see ALL says “Nowhere in the signs of globalisation [2] does the topic ‘Globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom’ come into play.” That’s not surprising; such a comment was coined by the folks here at ATS setting up the debate!
But the real question is not whether it was mentioned in an encyclopedia, but whether the loss of individual freedoms are impacted by globalization, and I want to show why they are.
People lose their freedom to make decisions on issues that impact them. The smaller the government, the more you have a say in it. A town council will listen to me; a statewide legislator will actively solicit my ideas (at least during Election Season. National officeholders don’t give a rip, and the really large globalization entities like the UN, EU, NAFTA, etc. realize that my voice is so diluted they can – and do – ignore me with impunity.
Globalization, with its supranational levels of government, is just another layer of bureaucrats who make my vote (and yours) less powerful and take away any freedoms which my vote gives!
For example, one of the prime cases of globalization is NAFTA, a supranational organization which, in some cases, trumps state and national safety regulations. By treaty, all NAFTA members’ transports should have access to other markets; as a result, here in the US (especially in the Southwest) we see Mexican tractor-trailers with safety equipment that would not be allowed on our highways. Safety, decided upon by the people of Arizona, is trumped by a globalization entity.
But we’re not just bashing Mexicans here; the Mexicans themselves are severely damaged by globalization. In January 2003 almost a hundred thousand peasants protested in Mexico City because American agricultural surplus food dumping -- which is supposed to be addressed by NAFTA but is not – deprives Mexican farmers of a market. American agribusinesses do just fine; it’s the Mexican campiseno who loses his livelihood. A Mexican farmer loses his freedom to engage in his ancestral profession (and the only one he knows) so that large businesses can find a ready market for their surplus foods.
The European analogue to NAFTA, of course, is the EU. In 2004, Britons paid about 3.5 billion pounds sterling in subsidies; and until last month, when the UK government finally said it would announce what those billions went for, no one really knew how much the average Englishman paid for subsidies. Was it to British farmers or other countries’ farmers? And if it was to support the crops of other countries, what benefit could a Briton get from it?
Every British taxpayer lost the freedom (through his lost income) to decide what to do with his share of the 3.5 billion pounds!
The list goes on and on. In this post, I have looked primarily at economic issues and shown how globalization has impacted peoples’ freedoms from an economic standpoint.
In my next post, I propose to answer any of my colleague they see ALL’s points and assertions and look at the loss of political individual freedoms, which are certainly every bit as important as economic ones.
This sea change is happening so rapidly it makes sense to look at all the ramifications of the globalization policy; for once we globalize, there will be little chance of turning back.
My colleague they see ALL says “Nowhere in the signs of globalisation [2] does the topic ‘Globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom’ come into play.” That’s not surprising; such a comment was coined by the folks here at ATS setting up the debate!
But the real question is not whether it was mentioned in an encyclopedia, but whether the loss of individual freedoms are impacted by globalization, and I want to show why they are.
People lose their freedom to make decisions on issues that impact them. The smaller the government, the more you have a say in it. A town council will listen to me; a statewide legislator will actively solicit my ideas (at least during Election Season. National officeholders don’t give a rip, and the really large globalization entities like the UN, EU, NAFTA, etc. realize that my voice is so diluted they can – and do – ignore me with impunity.
Globalization, with its supranational levels of government, is just another layer of bureaucrats who make my vote (and yours) less powerful and take away any freedoms which my vote gives!
For example, one of the prime cases of globalization is NAFTA, a supranational organization which, in some cases, trumps state and national safety regulations. By treaty, all NAFTA members’ transports should have access to other markets; as a result, here in the US (especially in the Southwest) we see Mexican tractor-trailers with safety equipment that would not be allowed on our highways. Safety, decided upon by the people of Arizona, is trumped by a globalization entity.
But we’re not just bashing Mexicans here; the Mexicans themselves are severely damaged by globalization. In January 2003 almost a hundred thousand peasants protested in Mexico City because American agricultural surplus food dumping -- which is supposed to be addressed by NAFTA but is not – deprives Mexican farmers of a market. American agribusinesses do just fine; it’s the Mexican campiseno who loses his livelihood. A Mexican farmer loses his freedom to engage in his ancestral profession (and the only one he knows) so that large businesses can find a ready market for their surplus foods.
The European analogue to NAFTA, of course, is the EU. In 2004, Britons paid about 3.5 billion pounds sterling in subsidies; and until last month, when the UK government finally said it would announce what those billions went for, no one really knew how much the average Englishman paid for subsidies. Was it to British farmers or other countries’ farmers? And if it was to support the crops of other countries, what benefit could a Briton get from it?
Every British taxpayer lost the freedom (through his lost income) to decide what to do with his share of the 3.5 billion pounds!
The list goes on and on. In this post, I have looked primarily at economic issues and shown how globalization has impacted peoples’ freedoms from an economic standpoint.
In my next post, I propose to answer any of my colleague they see ALL’s points and assertions and look at the loss of political individual freedoms, which are certainly every bit as important as economic ones.
reply posted on 25-6-2005 @ 06:38 PM by they see ALL
My opponent stated:
I must take the time to correct him: [1]
“Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000.” Take a look at my opponent’s quote above, and compare it to the excerpt (in quotations), from the quote of the facts. My friends, the quote made by my opponent is incorrect. The facts I posted above are correct. The bad effects of globalism does not outweigh the good effects. Based on the facts [2], from a freedom point of view, on the whole, the good effects of globalism outweigh the bad effects.
Freedom is defined [3] as:
Where does globalism, as a whole require, excessive loss of an individual’s freedom (i.e.: unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered)? For this debate, we are talking about globalism as a whole and not just NAFTA or the EU.
An excessive loss of an indivdual’s freedom, is equal to an individual loosing many of his constitutional freedoms (this is an example for someone living in the United Stated of America obviously).
My opponent stated: “A Mexican farmer loses his freedom to engage in his ancestral profession (and the only one he knows) so that large businesses can find a ready market for their surplus foods.” This farmer lost one freedom out of the many freedoms [4] granted to him by the Mexican government. (Please be aware that citizens living in Mexico have the same freedoms as those living in the United States, with little difference). My opponent’s example does not show the topic: “globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom”. This Mexican farmer did not experience an excessive loss of individual freedom. He lost one, out of many, freedoms that he has. I would also like to point out that there is a lack of supporting evidence (links to news stories possibly?) for my opponent’s claims. I am not saying that he is lying. I just want to be sure that this event, and if the farmer example, is true.
My opponent also stated: “Every British taxpayer lost the freedom (through his lost income) to decide what to do with his share of the 3.5 billion pounds!” Again, these taxpayers lost one freedom out of the many [5] granted to them by the British government. (Please be aware that the citizens of Great Britain experience the same freedoms as those living in the United States, with little difference). Thus, this example does not show the topic: “globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom”. Again, I would like to point out that there is a lack of supporting evidence (links to news stories possibly?) for my opponent’s claims. I am not saying that he is lying. I just want to be sure that this event actually occurred.
In countering my opponent’s points, and using the facts, in this post, I have shown that:
- From a freedom point of view, on the whole, the good effects of globalism outweigh the bad effects.
- Globalism does not require excessive loss of individual freedom.
Off_The_Street
[1] en.wikipedia.org...-globalization_.28globalism.29
[2] Facts
[3] en.wikipedia.org...
[4] (Mexico) many freedoms
[5] en.wikipedia.org...
I believe that, despite some of the surface arguments in favor of globalism from a freedom point of view, on the whole, the bad outweighs the good.
I must take the time to correct him: [1]
Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization. One effect being that the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day have halved in only twenty years, although some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied. Supporters then note that life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing. Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000. Worldwide, the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per capita food supplies are under 2,200 [calories per day] was 56 percent in the mid-1960s, compared to below 10 percent by the 1990s. Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent of the world. And women have made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000. There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita as well as the percentage of the population with access to clean water.
“Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000.” Take a look at my opponent’s quote above, and compare it to the excerpt (in quotations), from the quote of the facts. My friends, the quote made by my opponent is incorrect. The facts I posted above are correct. The bad effects of globalism does not outweigh the good effects. Based on the facts [2], from a freedom point of view, on the whole, the good effects of globalism outweigh the bad effects.
Freedom is defined [3] as:
Freedom refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free (i.e.: unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered).
Where does globalism, as a whole require, excessive loss of an individual’s freedom (i.e.: unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered)? For this debate, we are talking about globalism as a whole and not just NAFTA or the EU.
An excessive loss of an indivdual’s freedom, is equal to an individual loosing many of his constitutional freedoms (this is an example for someone living in the United Stated of America obviously).
My opponent stated: “A Mexican farmer loses his freedom to engage in his ancestral profession (and the only one he knows) so that large businesses can find a ready market for their surplus foods.” This farmer lost one freedom out of the many freedoms [4] granted to him by the Mexican government. (Please be aware that citizens living in Mexico have the same freedoms as those living in the United States, with little difference). My opponent’s example does not show the topic: “globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom”. This Mexican farmer did not experience an excessive loss of individual freedom. He lost one, out of many, freedoms that he has. I would also like to point out that there is a lack of supporting evidence (links to news stories possibly?) for my opponent’s claims. I am not saying that he is lying. I just want to be sure that this event, and if the farmer example, is true.
My opponent also stated: “Every British taxpayer lost the freedom (through his lost income) to decide what to do with his share of the 3.5 billion pounds!” Again, these taxpayers lost one freedom out of the many [5] granted to them by the British government. (Please be aware that the citizens of Great Britain experience the same freedoms as those living in the United States, with little difference). Thus, this example does not show the topic: “globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom”. Again, I would like to point out that there is a lack of supporting evidence (links to news stories possibly?) for my opponent’s claims. I am not saying that he is lying. I just want to be sure that this event actually occurred.
In countering my opponent’s points, and using the facts, in this post, I have shown that:
- From a freedom point of view, on the whole, the good effects of globalism outweigh the bad effects.
- Globalism does not require excessive loss of individual freedom.
Off_The_Street
[1] en.wikipedia.org...-globalization_.28globalism.29
[2] Facts
[3] en.wikipedia.org...
[4] (Mexico) many freedoms
[5] en.wikipedia.org...
reply posted on 26-6-2005 @ 12:27 PM by Off_The_Street
It’s heartening to see that my colleague they see ALL agrees with me to the extent that he does admit some loss of freedom when he
says, in his previous post: ”This Mexican farmer … lost one, out of many, freedoms that he has….Again, these [British] taxpayers lost one
freedom out of the many granted to them by the British government.”
I guess the debate can shift from ”are there freedoms lost?” to “are the freedoms which are lost excessive?”
I’ll discuss this “excess” in my concluding post; however, for today, I’d like to respond to some of my colleague’s points and discuss additional freedoms lost through globalization.
They see ALL, in his quote from the pro-globalization article in Wikipedia, presents some interesting bits of data which -- on the surface -- might lead one to think that globalization does not impact freedoms.
But let’s look at the quotes a bit closer.
The quote says “worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization”; then goes on to discuss life expectancy, child mortality, the decrease in the percentage of people living on less than a dollar a day, clean water, calories, literacy, etc.
The problem with those statements is that we’re not talking about a higher standard of living here; we’re talking about personal freedoms.
The People’s Republic of China has increased its standard of living dramatically since Mao’ “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution”, but they certainly don’t possess more personal freedom. Some of the Gulf countries have a high per capita income than either the United States or the UK, but where’re the personal freedoms in Saudi Arabia?
They see ALL says: ”The facts I posted above are correct.”
No argument there; the data he has presented are accurate. But they’re irrelevant. Wealth is not what we’re debating here; personal freedoms are.
Perhaps one of his quotes has some validity in the discussion of personal freedoms: ” Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000.” Again, it’s a good argument -- on the surface.
But where’s the evidence that globalization is a causal (rather than a casual) factor in the increase of democracy? Look at some of the countries which have been most impacted by globalization: Asian and Caribbean nations which feature the global sweatshops to make hundred-dollar Nike shoes for seventy-five cents’ worth of wages. Is democracy up in Haiti, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Burma? Hardly! I mean, they’re supposed to be the “beneficiaries” (or at least the exemplars) of globalization, aren’t they?
I think I can safely say that ALL has not has not disproved my assertion about personal freedom – because he hasn’t really discussed personal freedoms.
Earlier, I discussed how economic freedoms are impacted by unrestrained globalism, particularly in the area of predatory dumping by those countries which subsidize of their exports – like the US subsidies of surplus foodstuffs, Japanese subsidies of autos, Chinese subsidies of computer chips, US and EU subsidies of weapons, and so on.
What I’d like to do now is look at how political freedoms are diminished by globalization.
Benjamin Barber, in his essay on Freedom and Globalization, makes several cogent points when he shows privatization and “megamergers” of previously publicly-held or autonomous media structures as being tied to Globalism; he says: “when governments control information and news, we call it totalitarianism, but when monopolistic corporations control them, we call it virtual integration and free-market synergy.” Yet these corporations are as opaque to outsiders as any government is; indeed, where the freedom stealing government may be answerable to the people, the parallel corporations are answerable only to their stockholders – the very ones who have a vested interest in keeping the corporation powerful and solvent!
Barber goes on to say that “… the IMF and the WTO are not supranational organizations but the tools of groups of powerful nations.” Yet it is these ‘groups of powerful nations”, i.e., the G-8 countries, which are the exemplars and beneficiaries of Globalism. I think we can safely say that Globalism, therefore, drives monopoly which does remove both economic and political freedoms.
Globalism-driven monopolies like Microsoft stuff their web browser down your throat for an economic freedom attack, international and globalist media monsters like Disney/CBS and Murdoch use their control of the airwaves to spread their thought processes for a political freedom thrust, as do bribemeisters like the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank – the handmaiden of the globalist G-8 powers – ensure that the regimes who think their way get the money and survive, while a country which may choose to follow the will of its people is left bankrupt and subject to violent overthrow.
I guess the debate can shift from ”are there freedoms lost?” to “are the freedoms which are lost excessive?”
I’ll discuss this “excess” in my concluding post; however, for today, I’d like to respond to some of my colleague’s points and discuss additional freedoms lost through globalization.
They see ALL, in his quote from the pro-globalization article in Wikipedia, presents some interesting bits of data which -- on the surface -- might lead one to think that globalization does not impact freedoms.
But let’s look at the quotes a bit closer.
The quote says “worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization”; then goes on to discuss life expectancy, child mortality, the decrease in the percentage of people living on less than a dollar a day, clean water, calories, literacy, etc.
The problem with those statements is that we’re not talking about a higher standard of living here; we’re talking about personal freedoms.
The People’s Republic of China has increased its standard of living dramatically since Mao’ “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution”, but they certainly don’t possess more personal freedom. Some of the Gulf countries have a high per capita income than either the United States or the UK, but where’re the personal freedoms in Saudi Arabia?
They see ALL says: ”The facts I posted above are correct.”
No argument there; the data he has presented are accurate. But they’re irrelevant. Wealth is not what we’re debating here; personal freedoms are.
Perhaps one of his quotes has some validity in the discussion of personal freedoms: ” Democracy has increased dramatically from no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000.” Again, it’s a good argument -- on the surface.
But where’s the evidence that globalization is a causal (rather than a casual) factor in the increase of democracy? Look at some of the countries which have been most impacted by globalization: Asian and Caribbean nations which feature the global sweatshops to make hundred-dollar Nike shoes for seventy-five cents’ worth of wages. Is democracy up in Haiti, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Burma? Hardly! I mean, they’re supposed to be the “beneficiaries” (or at least the exemplars) of globalization, aren’t they?
I think I can safely say that ALL has not has not disproved my assertion about personal freedom – because he hasn’t really discussed personal freedoms.
Earlier, I discussed how economic freedoms are impacted by unrestrained globalism, particularly in the area of predatory dumping by those countries which subsidize of their exports – like the US subsidies of surplus foodstuffs, Japanese subsidies of autos, Chinese subsidies of computer chips, US and EU subsidies of weapons, and so on.
What I’d like to do now is look at how political freedoms are diminished by globalization.
Benjamin Barber, in his essay on Freedom and Globalization, makes several cogent points when he shows privatization and “megamergers” of previously publicly-held or autonomous media structures as being tied to Globalism; he says: “when governments control information and news, we call it totalitarianism, but when monopolistic corporations control them, we call it virtual integration and free-market synergy.” Yet these corporations are as opaque to outsiders as any government is; indeed, where the freedom stealing government may be answerable to the people, the parallel corporations are answerable only to their stockholders – the very ones who have a vested interest in keeping the corporation powerful and solvent!
Barber goes on to say that “… the IMF and the WTO are not supranational organizations but the tools of groups of powerful nations.” Yet it is these ‘groups of powerful nations”, i.e., the G-8 countries, which are the exemplars and beneficiaries of Globalism. I think we can safely say that Globalism, therefore, drives monopoly which does remove both economic and political freedoms.
Globalism-driven monopolies like Microsoft stuff their web browser down your throat for an economic freedom attack, international and globalist media monsters like Disney/CBS and Murdoch use their control of the airwaves to spread their thought processes for a political freedom thrust, as do bribemeisters like the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank – the handmaiden of the globalist G-8 powers – ensure that the regimes who think their way get the money and survive, while a country which may choose to follow the will of its people is left bankrupt and subject to violent overthrow.
reply posted on 26-6-2005 @ 03:36 PM by they see ALL
My opponent stated, in his last post, “are the freedoms which are lost excessive?” He then goes on to say that he will settle this
question in his concluding post. Well, I have answered the question in my last post. The answer, for those who want to hear it again is: the freedoms
lost are not excessive because the Mexican farmer (for example) lost one, out of many freedoms that he has.
My opponent stated:
I now must ask: what are economic freedoms? Doesn’t economic freedoms have to do with wealth? I think it does. Thus, Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing (from my last post and supported by this [1]) is a great piece of information, relevant to this debate, and it supports how economic freedoms (which is part of an individual’s freedom, based on your own words) is increased because of globalization.
My opponent also stated:
My opponents listed some, out of the many countries, that have been impacted by globalization. In reality, almost every country has been affected by globalization. If every country has had a great negative affect at the hands of globalization, then why is it still around? Is the answer: because the “global elites” want globalization to gain in wealth and power? The answer is much simpler than this and it is based on a very simple concept. The real answer is: globalization does not greatly affect every country negatively. This simple idea can be compared to children. If there were ten children (representing ten countries) and they made a “deal”, “pact” or “agreement” (representing globalization), and all ten children lost a piece of candy, daily, because of the “deal”, why would they continue using this “deal”? They wouldn’t! If globalization (this “deal”) affected every country (every one of the children) negatively, and the negative affects are greater than the positive affects, then why would the countries (the children) continue using the “policy” of globalization? Again, the countries wouldn’t! I will give my opponent the opportunity to post his answer.
My opponent then starts to look at how economic freedoms are diminished by globalization. He then states: Globalism-driven monopolies like Microsoft stuff their web browser down your throat for an economic freedom attack. This act is nothing but an “economic freedom attack”. It does not limit one’s economic freedom (individual freedom) in any way. Look at people now-a-days and their acts of downloading “Mozilla Firefox [2]”. Mozilla Firefox is a free internet browser that rivals Microsoft’s Internet Explorer [3]. Thus, people who do not want Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, can simply download Mozilla Firefox for free. Microsoft’s “economic freedom attack” is not an example of how globalization diminishes economic freedom. An example of how globalization diminishes economic freedom would be, in this context, Microsoft somehow forcing people to use their Internet Explorer and people not being able to use any other internet browser. Now that would be taking away freedom! I do not see that here.
My opponent then states: international and globalist media monsters like Disney/CBS and Murdoch use their control of the airwaves to spread their thought processes for a political freedom thrust, as do bribemeisters like the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank. This, too, can be described as an “attack”. Again, people can choose to give in to it or to go in another direction (just like the Mozilla Firefox and the Microsoft’s Internet Explorer example). Thus, this too, is not an example of how globalization diminishes economic and political freedoms (individual freedoms).
In review, in this post, I have shown that:
- The freedoms lost by the Mexican farmer (for example) is not an excessive loss of individual freedom.
- Economic freedom has to do with wealth, and thus, Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing (from my last post) is relevant to this debate and and it supports how economic freedoms (which is part of an individual’s freedom) is increased because of globalization.
- Every country does not experience a great negative affect at the hands of globalization.
- My opponent’s Microsoft Internet Explorer argument does not limit one’s economic freedom (individual freedom) in any way.
- My opponent’s “international and globalist media monsters” and “bribemeisters” arguments do not show globalization diminishing economic and political freedoms (individual freedoms).
Over to you Off_The_Street
[1] www.columbia.edu...
[2] www.mozilla.org...
[3] www.microsoft.com...
My opponent stated:
Wealth is not what we’re debating here; personal freedoms are.
I now must ask: what are economic freedoms? Doesn’t economic freedoms have to do with wealth? I think it does. Thus, Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing (from my last post and supported by this [1]) is a great piece of information, relevant to this debate, and it supports how economic freedoms (which is part of an individual’s freedom, based on your own words) is increased because of globalization.
My opponent also stated:
Look at some of the countries which have been most impacted by globalization: Asian and Caribbean nations which feature the global sweatshops to make hundred-dollar Nike shoes for seventy-five cents’ worth of wages. Is democracy up in Haiti, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Burma?
My opponents listed some, out of the many countries, that have been impacted by globalization. In reality, almost every country has been affected by globalization. If every country has had a great negative affect at the hands of globalization, then why is it still around? Is the answer: because the “global elites” want globalization to gain in wealth and power? The answer is much simpler than this and it is based on a very simple concept. The real answer is: globalization does not greatly affect every country negatively. This simple idea can be compared to children. If there were ten children (representing ten countries) and they made a “deal”, “pact” or “agreement” (representing globalization), and all ten children lost a piece of candy, daily, because of the “deal”, why would they continue using this “deal”? They wouldn’t! If globalization (this “deal”) affected every country (every one of the children) negatively, and the negative affects are greater than the positive affects, then why would the countries (the children) continue using the “policy” of globalization? Again, the countries wouldn’t! I will give my opponent the opportunity to post his answer.
My opponent then starts to look at how economic freedoms are diminished by globalization. He then states: Globalism-driven monopolies like Microsoft stuff their web browser down your throat for an economic freedom attack. This act is nothing but an “economic freedom attack”. It does not limit one’s economic freedom (individual freedom) in any way. Look at people now-a-days and their acts of downloading “Mozilla Firefox [2]”. Mozilla Firefox is a free internet browser that rivals Microsoft’s Internet Explorer [3]. Thus, people who do not want Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, can simply download Mozilla Firefox for free. Microsoft’s “economic freedom attack” is not an example of how globalization diminishes economic freedom. An example of how globalization diminishes economic freedom would be, in this context, Microsoft somehow forcing people to use their Internet Explorer and people not being able to use any other internet browser. Now that would be taking away freedom! I do not see that here.
My opponent then states: international and globalist media monsters like Disney/CBS and Murdoch use their control of the airwaves to spread their thought processes for a political freedom thrust, as do bribemeisters like the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank. This, too, can be described as an “attack”. Again, people can choose to give in to it or to go in another direction (just like the Mozilla Firefox and the Microsoft’s Internet Explorer example). Thus, this too, is not an example of how globalization diminishes economic and political freedoms (individual freedoms).
In review, in this post, I have shown that:
- The freedoms lost by the Mexican farmer (for example) is not an excessive loss of individual freedom.
- Economic freedom has to do with wealth, and thus, Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing (from my last post) is relevant to this debate and and it supports how economic freedoms (which is part of an individual’s freedom) is increased because of globalization.
- Every country does not experience a great negative affect at the hands of globalization.
- My opponent’s Microsoft Internet Explorer argument does not limit one’s economic freedom (individual freedom) in any way.
- My opponent’s “international and globalist media monsters” and “bribemeisters” arguments do not show globalization diminishing economic and political freedoms (individual freedoms).
Over to you Off_The_Street
[1] www.columbia.edu...
[2] www.mozilla.org...
[3] www.microsoft.com...
reply posted on 27-6-2005 @ 12:37 AM by Off_The_Street
Our debate has devolved, it seems – like many debates do. We now have a discussion over whether the freedoms admittedly lost to globalization are
“excessive”. I said in my last post I would explain why I think they are; they see ALL says they are not excessive because the two groups I’d
used as examples had “only” lost one out of “many” freedoms.
That is a frightening thought indeed.
They see ALL, any loss of freedom is, if not excessive, certainly not something that can be blown off, as you seem to be implying. That is like saying that losing the right to life is okay because the Declaration of Independence talks about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and two out of three ain’t bad?
I don’t think so.
If a person loses the freedom to choose a profession because globalist combinations have subsidized his competitors to drive him out of business, is he supposed to be content with a job that goes against his culture, separates him from his land, and pays half of what he’d get in an autonomous trading society?
If a person loses the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves, is he supposed to forget about choices and tune to soap operas to take his mind off his lack of representations?
No to both! Any freedom is precious, saying otherwise is the height of arrogance. You might as well say, “Okay, so you’re losing your right leg. You still have the other leg and both arms!”
Neither of us has the right or the ability to tell a person that his loss of rights are not” excessive”. I, for one, wouldn’t dare to try!
I regret to say I see further misunderstandings on my colleague’s part when it comes to understanding the importance of freedom – or even of what freedom is vis-à-vis wealth. He says:
“Doesn’t economic freedoms have to do with wealth? I think it does.”
I don’t think it does! Freedom is about choice. Economic freedom is choosing how to work and earn your money; political choice is choosinghow to run your life -- or choosingpeople to help you run it.
Saudi Arabia has a tremendous per capita income, yet there is little freedom. You cannot buy and sell what you choose, you cannot vote, you cannot (if you’re a woman) drive a car or appear in publics without a male relative chaperone! Giving a person a handout while you refuse to let him make any meaningful decisions may be a good tradeoff to some, but it certainly is not freedom!
He says:
” If every country has had a great negative affect at the hands of globalization, then why is it still around? … globalization does not greatly affect every country negatively.”
No one’s saying that it does. There are always winners and losers in the freedom game. My point – which my colleague ignores – is that, contrary to his assertions earlier, globalism does not bring democracy to countries that haven’t had it in the first place. America is globalist and it is a democracy – but it was a democracy before globalization. The countries I mentioned in my last post were not democracies prior to their exposure to globalism, and they aren’t now.
So much for the “democratization’ effects of globalism!
Finally, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding which my colleague may have with a monopoly. They see ALL seems to believe that Microsoft’s monopolistic practices don’t really impact us because we can all “download Mozilla” to replace the built-in MS browser.
No.
The bulk of browser users are corporations which cannot allow their thousands of users unlimited access to other sources of computer applications; they’re forced for economy’s sake, to make the “choice” of Microsoft and its browser. It’s like the people who worked at domestic Levi’s factories. When Wal-Mart forced Levi’s to either cut its costs or forget about being a supplier, the Jean’s maker didn’t have to close its factories here and move their production to China – but if they didn’t, they’d lose out on the biggest retailer in the world; they realized that a presence at Wal-Mart was imperative for them if they wanted to stay in business.
Wal-Mart is not a pure monopoly. As long as there’s one other store in the world, Wal-Mart will not be a pure monopoly. But it’s an economic monopoly, because due to its size, suppliers must sell to Wal-Mart – at its prices – or go out of business.
And the freedom lost? Well, if you want the freedom to buy American shoes or jeans --- you just lost it.
Globalization does cause a loss of freedoms; and even one freedom lost, if it costs one his future, is “excessive”.
That is a frightening thought indeed.
They see ALL, any loss of freedom is, if not excessive, certainly not something that can be blown off, as you seem to be implying. That is like saying that losing the right to life is okay because the Declaration of Independence talks about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and two out of three ain’t bad?
I don’t think so.
If a person loses the freedom to choose a profession because globalist combinations have subsidized his competitors to drive him out of business, is he supposed to be content with a job that goes against his culture, separates him from his land, and pays half of what he’d get in an autonomous trading society?
If a person loses the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves, is he supposed to forget about choices and tune to soap operas to take his mind off his lack of representations?
No to both! Any freedom is precious, saying otherwise is the height of arrogance. You might as well say, “Okay, so you’re losing your right leg. You still have the other leg and both arms!”
Neither of us has the right or the ability to tell a person that his loss of rights are not” excessive”. I, for one, wouldn’t dare to try!
I regret to say I see further misunderstandings on my colleague’s part when it comes to understanding the importance of freedom – or even of what freedom is vis-à-vis wealth. He says:
“Doesn’t economic freedoms have to do with wealth? I think it does.”
I don’t think it does! Freedom is about choice. Economic freedom is choosing how to work and earn your money; political choice is choosinghow to run your life -- or choosingpeople to help you run it.
Saudi Arabia has a tremendous per capita income, yet there is little freedom. You cannot buy and sell what you choose, you cannot vote, you cannot (if you’re a woman) drive a car or appear in publics without a male relative chaperone! Giving a person a handout while you refuse to let him make any meaningful decisions may be a good tradeoff to some, but it certainly is not freedom!
He says:
” If every country has had a great negative affect at the hands of globalization, then why is it still around? … globalization does not greatly affect every country negatively.”
No one’s saying that it does. There are always winners and losers in the freedom game. My point – which my colleague ignores – is that, contrary to his assertions earlier, globalism does not bring democracy to countries that haven’t had it in the first place. America is globalist and it is a democracy – but it was a democracy before globalization. The countries I mentioned in my last post were not democracies prior to their exposure to globalism, and they aren’t now.
So much for the “democratization’ effects of globalism!
Finally, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding which my colleague may have with a monopoly. They see ALL seems to believe that Microsoft’s monopolistic practices don’t really impact us because we can all “download Mozilla” to replace the built-in MS browser.
No.
The bulk of browser users are corporations which cannot allow their thousands of users unlimited access to other sources of computer applications; they’re forced for economy’s sake, to make the “choice” of Microsoft and its browser. It’s like the people who worked at domestic Levi’s factories. When Wal-Mart forced Levi’s to either cut its costs or forget about being a supplier, the Jean’s maker didn’t have to close its factories here and move their production to China – but if they didn’t, they’d lose out on the biggest retailer in the world; they realized that a presence at Wal-Mart was imperative for them if they wanted to stay in business.
Wal-Mart is not a pure monopoly. As long as there’s one other store in the world, Wal-Mart will not be a pure monopoly. But it’s an economic monopoly, because due to its size, suppliers must sell to Wal-Mart – at its prices – or go out of business.
And the freedom lost? Well, if you want the freedom to buy American shoes or jeans --- you just lost it.
Globalization does cause a loss of freedoms; and even one freedom lost, if it costs one his future, is “excessive”.
reply posted on 27-6-2005 @ 03:21 PM by they see ALL
I will start my last “alternating reply post” by stating the, obvious, deffinition of “excessive” [1]:
My opponent stated: “ They see ALL, any loss of freedom is, if not excessive…”. Your own words say that any loss of freedom may not be (I say “may not be” because your own words say “if not excessive”) excessive! This means that your entire argument (that says: if a person losses one freedom, that is dear to him, it is excessive) is “null and void”. You said it yourself: “ any loss of freedom is, if not excessive”.
My opponent states: “ If a person loses the freedom to choose a profession because globalist combinations have subsidized his competitors to drive him out of business,”. My opponent states this claim with absolutely no evidence that supports this. Also, no one “loses the freedom to choose a profession” in a democratic nation (thanks to globalism) because, if they did, they would not be a democratic nation! People choose jobs they want in democratic nations. If a Mexican farmer “looses the freedom” to practice farming (which is not possible in a democratic nation), he can simply farm on another farm. This is a very simple concept.
My opponent states: “ If a person loses the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves”. In all seriousness, and respect, all I can say to this claim is: “Are you serious!?” I will now explain why I say this. A person does not “lose the right to choose and support” a candidate because “globalist media monopolizes the airwaves”. A person can choose any candidate he or she desires. My question to my opponent is: “How can a person loose the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves?” For example, if “globalist media monopolizes” constantly air (on the radio) a commercial to re-elect President Bush, how does a person listening to the commercial “loose the right to choose and support his own candidate”? This person listening to the commercial can vote for whoever he or she desires. This person does not have to give in to the commercial. If your claim was true, every single person would have voted for President Bush in the last election! A person does not "loose the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves". Again, this is a very simple concept.
My opponent states:
Again, in all respect to my opponent, I must admit I laughed when I read this quote. My opponent does not think economic freedoms have to do with wealth. He then says that “Economic freedom is choosing how to work and earn your money”. I must ask an obvious, to some, question: “What does money have to do with!?” The answer is wealth. This means that economic freedoms have to deal with wealth.
He then says: “ The countries I mentioned in my last post were not democracies prior to their exposure to globalism, and they aren’t now.” With his own words, I will disprove the topic: “Globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom”. If the countries you listed were not democracies before they were exposed to globalsim (as is stated by your own words), then how did the people, living within them, loose individual freedom after the exposure to globalsim? If a country had a dictatorship government before the exposure to globalism, and then after the exposure, they still followed a dictatorship form of government, how did individual freedom lessen? The answer, again it is very simple, is that individual freedom did not lesson and no individual freedom was lost because of the exposure to globalism.
My opponent then states: “The bulk of browser…”. Yet again, obvious to some, when a person signs up for a job that has to do with this quote, he or she signs a contract. Somewhere in this contract it will state something along the lines of: “You shall not download anything on the computer you are working with”. You might not, but believe me, it does. Thus, this does not “force” this person to use Microsoft’s internet browser as they freely chose to take part in this job and they freely signed the contract.
My opponent finally states: “ Globalization does cause a loss of freedoms; and even one freedom lost, if it costs one his future, is “excessive”.” You can look at how I disproved him in my first paragraph.
[1] dictionary.reference.com...
Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.
My opponent stated: “ They see ALL, any loss of freedom is, if not excessive…”. Your own words say that any loss of freedom may not be (I say “may not be” because your own words say “if not excessive”) excessive! This means that your entire argument (that says: if a person losses one freedom, that is dear to him, it is excessive) is “null and void”. You said it yourself: “ any loss of freedom is, if not excessive”.
My opponent states: “ If a person loses the freedom to choose a profession because globalist combinations have subsidized his competitors to drive him out of business,”. My opponent states this claim with absolutely no evidence that supports this. Also, no one “loses the freedom to choose a profession” in a democratic nation (thanks to globalism) because, if they did, they would not be a democratic nation! People choose jobs they want in democratic nations. If a Mexican farmer “looses the freedom” to practice farming (which is not possible in a democratic nation), he can simply farm on another farm. This is a very simple concept.
My opponent states: “ If a person loses the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves”. In all seriousness, and respect, all I can say to this claim is: “Are you serious!?” I will now explain why I say this. A person does not “lose the right to choose and support” a candidate because “globalist media monopolizes the airwaves”. A person can choose any candidate he or she desires. My question to my opponent is: “How can a person loose the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves?” For example, if “globalist media monopolizes” constantly air (on the radio) a commercial to re-elect President Bush, how does a person listening to the commercial “loose the right to choose and support his own candidate”? This person listening to the commercial can vote for whoever he or she desires. This person does not have to give in to the commercial. If your claim was true, every single person would have voted for President Bush in the last election! A person does not "loose the right to choose and support his own candidate because globalist media monopolizes the airwaves". Again, this is a very simple concept.
My opponent states:
He [they see ALL] says:
“Doesn’t economic freedoms have to do with wealth? I think it does.”
I don’t think it does! Freedom is about choice. Economic freedom is choosing how to work and earn your money
Again, in all respect to my opponent, I must admit I laughed when I read this quote. My opponent does not think economic freedoms have to do with wealth. He then says that “Economic freedom is choosing how to work and earn your money”. I must ask an obvious, to some, question: “What does money have to do with!?” The answer is wealth. This means that economic freedoms have to deal with wealth.
He then says: “ The countries I mentioned in my last post were not democracies prior to their exposure to globalism, and they aren’t now.” With his own words, I will disprove the topic: “Globalism requires excessive loss of individual freedom”. If the countries you listed were not democracies before they were exposed to globalsim (as is stated by your own words), then how did the people, living within them, loose individual freedom after the exposure to globalsim? If a country had a dictatorship government before the exposure to globalism, and then after the exposure, they still followed a dictatorship form of government, how did individual freedom lessen? The answer, again it is very simple, is that individual freedom did not lesson and no individual freedom was lost because of the exposure to globalism.
My opponent then states: “The bulk of browser…”. Yet again, obvious to some, when a person signs up for a job that has to do with this quote, he or she signs a contract. Somewhere in this contract it will state something along the lines of: “You shall not download anything on the computer you are working with”. You might not, but believe me, it does. Thus, this does not “force” this person to use Microsoft’s internet browser as they freely chose to take part in this job and they freely signed the contract.
My opponent finally states: “ Globalization does cause a loss of freedoms; and even one freedom lost, if it costs one his future, is “excessive”.” You can look at how I disproved him in my first paragraph.
[1] dictionary.reference.com...
Judging will begin in a little while so sit back and enjoy what remains of the show!reply posted on 2-7-2005 @ 12:14 PM by Amorymeltzer
Well, the results are in, and it's a blowout! Off_The_Street wins with by an outstanding 13-0 margin! I know I for one hope to see they see
ALL again in future debates after a very good job for a first debate. Good Luck to Off_The_Street in Round 2!
Some comments:
Some comments:
They see ALL did a great job of defending the weaker position, especially for his/her first time on a tough assignment.
Hands down the winner of this debate is Off_The_Street. He not only was able to get his opponent to tacitly agree with his point, he also was able to counter and argument that was put forth. they see all put up a good defence however, I hope to see him in future debates.
A valiant effort from both debaters, and not an easy topic due to it's broad and multi-faceted nature.
TSA rebutted consistently and well, but failed to make points for his own argument that left a strong impression.
Well-structured, strong arguments combined with confident rebuttals and convincing real examples won the debate for OTS in my view.
As the debate progressed, Off_The_Street commented that it seemed to have "devolved" into a "discussion over whether the freedoms admittedly lost to globalization are 'excessive'." I think this progression made the debate a great deal more interesting and thus don't consider it a devolution at all. While they see ALL provided some excellent demonstrations of the many benefits of globalism, he often relied on far too much quotation without explaining the significance of many of the great points he was raising. On the other hand, Off_The_Street provided an exhaustive explanation of globalism and it's effects on almost every aspect of life. Though sometimes his sources were questionable (his second post's link to www.anti-marketing.com... was particularly iffy), he presented a clear, engaging, brilliant argument. My vote goes to Off_The_Street.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
