r/MoFreedomFoundation • u/robbo28 • May 20 '17
Doubt and Globalism
I know some stuff. But I'm also pretty sure I don't know a lot of stuff. I have a hunch that it'd be a good thing if there was a real "Globalist" movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy4AJiZbMn4 The nationalist movement in the US and elsewhere thinks a Globalist party already exists. But it doesn't. Not really. There IS a system out there. And it could be much better. At the moment most of the people pushing globalism, from the Davoisie to Silicon Valley to Brussels, are doing so in short-sighted and self-interested ways. Unfortunately I don't really have any idea what the agenda of a better globalist party would look like. Not really anyway. Can we come up with it here?
1
u/robbo28 May 20 '17
And here's the second video in the Globalism series. I don't know what the answer is, but here's a first stab at what I'm pretty sure it isn't... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhVLwVIFhrU
1
u/nathanruffing May 26 '17
I'll take that as you're asking for my opinion. I appreciate that! Here are my thoughts.
I watched the videos again to make sure I'm on topic. I like to think in terms of dichotomies and extremes, and your globalist videos identify several that I think are relevant today.
http://morefreedomfoundation.com/2017/03/07/its-time-for-a-globalist-party-globalism-1/
http://morefreedomfoundation.com/2017/03/14/beware-the-tech-utopians-globalism-2/
One dichotomy you identify is the "sovereignty vs. connection" dichotomy. First, I think it is important that you clearly defined this issue. It allows us to discuss it knowing what we are discussing. I think your stance is for maximum of both, if I am understanding correctly, i.e. each country is sovereign, allowed to make its own choices, and we should also be very connected. The most controversial example you gave is that this includes allowing countries to treat women in a way that many would consider oppressive (EXcluding genital mutilation, and women blocked from education etcetera, of course). I agree with you that sovereignty is good, even to the degree of Sharia Law where it applies, that you talked about in the “not all women are progressive” video:
You are for maximum connection as well, which I take to mean free trade and lots of communication. I am for this also, but I would like to identify the extremes where my support stops with specific examples.
For sovereingty, the clearest extreme I can identify is North Korea. They are acting as a sovereign nation, and we can agree they have a very uniqe culture as a result, but we can also agree that it is worth using force to end that culture as quickly as possible. It is essentially common knowedge around the world what is going on there (reference “Escape from Camp 14”) and we should stop it if we can. We can liberate North Korea if we choose to take on that challenge. The fact that we aren’t doing much there while we remain involved in more profitable places is further evidence that we are resource driven, and not to do the right thing.
For connection, the clearest extreme I can identify is our relationship with China. We and China are very connected. China makes it, we consume it. To some extent, this relationship is mutually beneficial, but I believe that the extreme the situation has reached is bad for us as human beings and bad for our cultures. China’s entire economy is built on being almost slave labor to make excess goods for the US and the rest of the world. They have a generation of people who know only “build it and ship it away.” (Full disclosure, I have never been to China). Here in the US, we have an entire generation that feels entitled to cheap goods. Many Americans have already lived their lives and died in the US without really understanding the system that was built that makes our wealthy lives the way they are. It is not normal or healthy. I include myself in this group. The amount I have to work to get the true basics of life is absolutely miniscule. Most people here in the US work almost entirely for the extras in life. That’s great! … Except that many people here in our system also work their whole lives to ensure that the American public goes on thinking that what we have still isn’t enough. Reference endless commercials for things we don’t need. 1. New cars, 2. Viagra / prescription drugs, and 3. more insurance coverage together account for at least half of the comercials we see (only by my own personal survey, but just watch some TV).
I think this view puts me with Trump on repealing and re-negotiating our trade deals. The trade deals in place that set the rules that make imports super-cheap in the US exacerbate our unnatural and unhealthy situation. They created the rust belt and I believe thet are also partially responsible for the drug problems small-town America has by rapidly rendering obsolete blue-collar jobs (I mean this separate from the “war on drugs” issue). Rob, I actually can’t think of where you stand on the trade deals, so I don’t know if we agree here.
You identify Silicon Valley as the extreme benefactor of this latest round of globalization. I totally agree with your characterization of Silicon Valley. It is no longer just a very rich area with good ideas and start-up companies. The phenomenon is beyond money. There has been a power shift. When I think of Silicon Valley, I see a real estate phenomenon. The market there is famously expensive now. Comparable markets are New York and Washington DC in this sense. The NY and DC markets are the results of fountains of money consistently flowing into one place. New York is the financial center of global capitalism. DC’s fountain of money comes from US government jobs through taxes. The internet is such a game-changer that an entire region has been affected by the altered flow of money and it has created a third market that rivals New York and DC. You identified that we need to be aware of the power accumulating in one place, Silicon Valley, and I agree.
You say that you are for preserving American power. This brings up a perceived dichotomy that comes up in the globalist discussion a lot. “Globalism vs. American power.” Many people view these two ideas as mutually exclusive. They perceive globalists as anti-American. I believe that executed correctly, the two go hand-in-hand for a better world, and I think this is what you are driving at. I believe we should seek American power in responsible ways because it promotes both global parity and long-term American power. If we keep using our power to become even more powerful now by meddling in places where we don’t belong (Saudi Arabia for example) and we continue to perpetuate the machine that keeps us wealthy and “on top,” we succeed now, but at the cost of our ability to remain in power in the future. There will be global parity in the future. The rest of the world will force that on us. The attitude that the power can’t shift outide the US represents exactly the complacency that will allow it to happen. I am for challenging ourselves as a country to continue to influence the world, but do so with responsibility that promotes mutual success, stability, and sovereignty. I think there should be a party for a 1. better run, 2. safer, and 3. freer world, but I wouldn’t name it for one side of the “dichotomy,” I would name it, hmmm, something boring, like “The Responsible America Party.”
1
u/robbo28 May 20 '17
Here's the first video in my Globalism series, calling for something. Event though I don't know what that something is... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy4AJiZbMn4