Globalization or Atomization?

[hmkpoker]

Since there seems to be some push for the North American Union, a blatantly globalistic endeavor, to come into existence, I thought I'd ask which side people stand on; Globalization (the tendency toward gubernatorial consolidation, expanding jurisdictions and decreased sovereignty, i.e. the NAU) or Atomization (decentralization of power, increasing sovereignty of smaller jurisdictions, i.e. state sovereignty.)

I have intentionally left out the choice for conservativism (keeping things the way they are) since I think that's what most people would tend to answer and it doesn't really say anything about preference.

[iron81]

I favor globalization. One of the reasons why I like the UN is because it is the first step to a worldwide government. Personally, I think a world government is inevitable and we are certainly moving in that direction with institutions like the WTO playing a increasingly important role. I think a unified global government would lead to a solution or lessening of any number of global problems:

1. War - If there are no nation-states, there will no longer be inter-state warfare. You also avoid the problems of small scale but pervasive violence inherent in anarchy because you maintain the monopoly of force.

2. Poverty - The wealthier states often pursue strategies that benefit them at the expense of poor nations like farm subsidies and stupid wars like Iraq. A world government could act in the best interests of all of the people without respect to regional interests.

3. Racism/Hatred - One of the main reasons why people from different regions hate each other is because they hate the policies of foreign governments that they have no voice in. If a worldwide democracy were established, the ability of Muslims to enforce their rights against Americans at the ballot box would go a long way to relieving worldwide tensions.

Granted, I am well aware that there will not be a United States of Earth in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean we can't start moving in that direction now. The UN has its moments in places like East Timor and Lebanon and often it is the only organization that can solve these problems. While the UN can't solve the 3 problems I mentioned, it can lessen them and therefore it deserves our support.

[bobman0330]

I agree with the jist of your post, although I might have replaced the war in Iraq with indulgence of terrorism. You should be aware, though, that farm subsidies do not benefit the granting country. The only people they benefit are farmers.

[ShakeZula06]

Never heard of the North American Union before, so wikied it. Is This what you're talking about? Big suprise the CFR is behind it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
1. War - If there are no nation-states, there will no longer be inter-state warfare. You also avoid the problems of small scale but pervasive violence inherent in anarchy because you maintain the monopoly of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't there just be more civil/class warfare instead? A bigger monopoly on force also increases the danger of a totalitarian police state.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Poverty - The wealthier states often pursue strategies that benefit them at the expense of poor nations like farm subsidies and stupid wars like Iraq. A world government could act in the best interests of all of the people without respect to regional interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so much the states that are benefitted as certain individuals running them. The stupid wars we're engaging in are not benefitting the American people. They're extremely costly (costing us our tax dollars), and yield negative benefit, except to energy and arms dealers. I think it's pretty clear that this war is not benefitting anyone.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Racism/Hatred - One of the main reasons why people from different regions hate each other is because they hate the policies of foreign governments that they have no voice in. If a worldwide democracy were established, the ability of Muslims to enforce their rights against Americans at the ballot box would go a long way to relieving worldwide tensions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Globalization brings with it the integration of otherwise homogenous cultures into heterogeny. We see that in the USA with rednecks and metrosexuals. The result is polarity and partisanship.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I favor globalization. One of the reasons why I like the UN is because it is the first step to a worldwide government.

[/ QUOTE ]
*Shivers* One global government is one of the scariest possiblitiies of the world's future to me, even before I became a libertarian.
[ QUOTE ]
1. War - If there are no nation-states, there will no longer be inter-state warfare.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about civil wars? The American Civil war killed nearly a million people, a good chunk of the American population at the time.
[ QUOTE ]
You also avoid the problems of small scale but pervasive violence inherent in anarchy because you maintain the monopoly of force.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is a monopoly on force in anarchy. You have it on your property.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Poverty - The wealthier states often pursue strategies that benefit them at the expense of poor nations like farm subsidies and stupid wars like Iraq. A world government could act in the best interests of all of the people without respect to regional interests.


[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that will happen?
[ QUOTE ]
3. Racism/Hatred - One of the main reasons why people from different regions hate each other is because they hate the policies of foreign governments that they have no voice in.

[/ QUOTE ]
See, tyranny of the majority.
[ QUOTE ]
Granted, I am well aware that there will not be a United States of Earth in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean we can't start moving in that direction now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, the process is going pretty damn quick.
[ QUOTE ]
The UN has its moments in places like East Timor and Lebanon and often it is the only organization that can solve these problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
why?
[ QUOTE ]
While the UN can't solve the 3 problems I mentioned, it can lessen them and therefore it deserves our support.


[/ QUOTE ]
But then what will Statists tell us ACists when there is only one option of government? Surely can't tell us to move somewhere else.

[HumanACtor]

Since the availability of Somalia is the only thing that makes a state legitimate, I'm sure they'll leave it open for us.

[lehighguy]

1) Most violence and war today is not inter-state, it is within states.

2) Actually, farm subsidies are pursued by a minority in a large country, because they benefit a tiny number of people greatly at the expense of a larger majority. Wouldn't a larger and more impersonal government be even easier to manipulate by small interest groups.

3) I thought we where gonna break Iraq in three because forcing different ethnicities to live togethor was a horrible idea.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
3) I thought we where gonna break Iraq in three because forcing different ethnicities to live togethor was a horrible idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good point.

HumanACtor,
[ QUOTE ]
Since the availability of Somalia is the only thing that makes a state legitimate, I'm sure they'll leave it open for us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey we can just go to mars too. I mean obviously if you don't hate the world government enough that you not willing to pay for a trip to mars and terraform it and live there, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BEING SUBJECT TO EARTH'S LAWS.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I favor globalization. One of the reasons why I like the UN is because it is the first step to a worldwide government.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, just wow! A world government is only going to be a reality if it benefits those countries that are on top at the expense of the rest of the world. Look at kyoto, a treaty which is supposed to help out the entire world but wasnt good for America so see you later kyoto.