You know, this will sound wierd enough, although just about anyone here will agree but...
I support globalisation. I don't support globalism.
I think free trade and free foreign investment is a worthy goal to the progress of all nations.
I think nations surrendering their sovereignty and delegating power to international authorities, and foreign interventionists is a hindrance to the progress of all nations.
Of course, it can be a little difficult to clarify this position. People can assume that if you are opposing international deals and international agreements, you oppose the existence of any interaction between nations or expansion of economic spheres. People can also assume that if you support free trade between nations, you support the internationalisation of political power.
I think it all comes down to these simple facts:
- Sovereign states ideally exist to protect individual rights and freedoms
- They do so by strictly handling a smaller and more specific geopolitical territory
- By virtue of protecting individual freedoms, states allow the right to contract between peoples of different nations
- It is only by having small, honest, minimal, and independently functioning governments that the right to contract and trade across nations remains protected
That's one way I have figured out of trying to clarify this idea. How would you guys do it?
Just Say It:
I am absolutely in favor of individuals engaging in peaceful interactions without regard to their locations on the globe. Peaceful means that the interactions do not violate the private property rights of other individuals without the permission of those other individuals.
I am against globalization. I am against governments or super governments telling peaceful individuals in what they can and can not do simply because of the locations of these individuals.
Prateek Sanjay:I think free trade and free foreign investment is a worthy goal to the progress of all nations.
Goals cannot be achieved if the means of achieving them are contradictory to the goal itself. Nation-States are contrary to free trade. Free trade produces, Nation-States siphon off the product.
Prateek Sanjay:I think nations surrendering their sovereignty and delegating power to international authorities, and foreign interventionists is a hindrance to the progress of all nations.
The problem is power delegation. The monopoly of force.
Prateek Sanjay:- Sovereign states ideally exist to protect individual rights and freedoms
Sovereign States exist to protect themselves.
Prateek Sanjay:- By virtue of protecting individual freedoms, states allow the right to contract between peoples of different nations
The State does not hold or conform to this virtue. A State allows nothing. It it exists to forbid.
Prateek Sanjay:- They do so by strictly handling a smaller and more specific geopolitical territory
A State is made up of individuals handling ever smaller and more specific geopolitical territory; reduced, this says the optimal unit is the individual utilizing his property. Why does a State need exist at all then?
Prateek Sanjay:- It is only by having small, honest, minimal, and independently functioning governments that the right to contract and trade across nations remains protected
Why must governments guarantee trade? Why wouldn't the traders protect their own assets and trade routes?
Prateek Sanjay:Of course, it can be a little difficult to clarify this position. People can assume that if you are opposing international deals and international agreements, you oppose the existence of any interaction between nations or expansion of economic spheres. People can also assume that if you support free trade between nations, you support the internationalisation of political power.
It sound's like you've been mistaken for a straw man if this is the case.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.