*** NAZI AMERICA ***

Post Reply New Topic

I know what you mean, but I feel like this very prominent market based philosophy, which fears government involvement in business, is increasingly dangerous as the market becomes more global.

Allende and Batista: if you know who these two men are you'll know what I mean about dictatorial. While the U.S. may not be like North Korea, Zimbabwe, or Iran, do you honestly think that the United States is truly the land of the free? I don't because the people are scared of their government and not vice versa.

But isn't that an acceptance of globalism rather than a retreat? Wouldn't that be more receptive to the globalization of the world? I mean, you will have to define your terms and arguments in order to make a strong point as I assume you mean globalism as some international regulatory body, which I would argue to be the ignorant globalism as opposed to market based.

What do you mean by land of the free? Do you mean a land where freedom is maximized? It may not be that, but where do we have a land where people are free? I mostly see nations where either the government or interest groups, given power by the government, dominate and control. From my perspective the US isn't doing horribly(still not good in terms of freedom) but that the world sucks at providing it.... but I take the perspective of a capitalistic libertarian when defining political freedom and see the proper role of government as being something that is not large enough to be much concerned much less feared.

Well globalism does have a few different meanings I suppose.
I wasn't thinking of a global government really, and not specifically the idea of a global market.
But the global marketplace comes closest. So that is why I responded to your remark about the market.
When I say globalism I generally mean the increasingly interconnected nature of our world, including not only economics, but information, religion, politics, greenhouse gases, etc.

Our policies in the the middle east for one thing reflect a world-view that is incompatible with the transparency that arises thanks to a free flow of information. I'm thinking of the days when the CIA would overthrow a dictator, and replace him with someone that was more friendly, then pretend that it never happened. Our manipulation of the world stage just isn't going to be tolerated anymore.

Not to mention the fact that we are no longer insulated by our geographic location, and are therefore subject to repercussions from our involvement with people and nations that previously were only somewhere over there beyond the horizon.

We need to learn to think in global terms on a number of levels, and it seems that the American people as a whole have been slow to realize this.

Isn't that just pandering to discriminatory practices?

Life demands some pandering. It is ridiculous to think otherwise as discrimination based upon variables will always exist, and you cannot force other people to choose the variables you think are just in their calculations.

I have moved to Europe. It depends upon where in Europe you find most satisfactory but almost anyplace is better than where I used to live in the USA. Scandinavia seems most sane to me.

It must be cold!! !

You can if it is put into the law. Or if the laws that already exist against discrimination are properly enforced.

The weather in Helsinki is quite close to that in New York City.

New York is cold to my knowledge though. I hope that one day i can live below the equator and be free of the US!

Summer in New York can soften the asphalt in the street. I am grateful for the Helsinki cooler summers. Nobody needs air conditioning here. The winters are a tad colder than NYC but standable.

No, you can't. My very point was a statement that it couldn't be done and that laws that attempt this in essence attempt an impossible thing based upon the very nature of human existence. Basically, you seek to objectively value something that is inherently subjective.

No, not really. You apply the "reasonable person" test ie. what would a reasonable person think of it? It's not reasonable to tolerate and even condone discrimination.

Reasonable person test? I don't believe that reasonable people exist and consider the idea of one to merely be a cultural or a personal self-justification construct. It is reasonable to tolerate discrimination as I don't consider the methods to necessarily be good methods, nor do I think it could be effectively dealt with using these methods. Technically, with the right premises anything can be reasonable, however, but I do take this position on this matter.