• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

globalization

globalization


  • Total voters
    24

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
l would like to learn your thoughts about globalization . l dont approve every globalist politics and practices and believe every nation should take the advantage of this global market in terms of economic and culturel integrations .
 
I believe in the globalization of human, civil, labor and environmental rights as embodied by the UN (an organization that mostly sucks):

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Not a globalist meaning "one world government" but globalist meaning the above.
 
I favor globalization in economics, but not religion/politics. I believe in the free trade of goods/services/information/ideas, but oppose any attempt at world government or UN law trumping our sovereignty, and of course any attempt to force a global religion like fundies claim is the future of Islam.

I have nothing but contempt for the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, or any central bank (especially the Bank of England)
 
I believe that globalization is not inherently evil, it is the execution of it that gives it its character. I fear it has become a modern form of imperialism with wealthier nations using it as an excuse for further exploitation of people and land for their own benefit.

For example, I think the relation between China and American can be characterized this way. Americans have for many years enjoyed inexpensive imports from China that could not be produced so cheaply at home due to worker rights and environmental regulation. As a result the people of China still have too low a quality of life and the pollution problem looks to be turning into a crisis. The relation has had negative effects on America but I still would rather be here than there, and I don't know that the average Chinese person is all that happy with the way things have turned out.
 
Democracy is good for ecology. When those directly affected by resource depletion and degradation have no voice in its authority, things get worse.
 
I feel globalization will only continue to lower the US standard of living. Americans cannot compete with global labor costs and we will continue to see the earnings disparity that we have been seeing for the past 30 years since any real globalization of big business began. As long as we remain a consumer based economy in a global labor environment things will continue to go as they have been.
 
I feel globalization will only continue to lower the US standard of living.

I find the US standard of living unsustainable and I don't care - let it fall. What's important is global human rights. Some nationalist I am, ay?
 
I would be more supportive of a globalized market if human rights were equally globalized. As it is now, businesses can profit from locating to countries with weak environemental laws and cheap labor because the people of those countries do not have the rights necessary to protect their own interests.

I'm in favor of cultural exchange and I think we are regularly benefitting from better methods of communication and despite many problems, international understanding is improving overall.

I would like to see a time when national borders no longer prevent individuals from visting or living anywhere they want, like we are free to do within the USA.

I am not anti-UN or international law, and I support using international law to prevent or punish serious war crimes and human rights abuses as long as it is democratic and fair. I am worried about the possibility that nations that don't respect human rights might have influence on international law and our own laws. (for example the consideration of applying other nation's censorship standards to the internet globally.)
 
Last edited:
I would like to see a time when national borders no longer prevent individuals from visting or living anywhere they want, like we are free to do within the USA.

Within? A US passport is a ticket to anywhere you want, buy a visa at the door and jump a couple hoops to stay as long as you like. It's near-instant world mobility (with double luggage allowance).


It is wrong that physical mobility is so restricted, but the hard truth is letting people into the country that have little chance of returning home is a little too much Statue of Liberty. Face it, living poor on the streets of a developing country is worse than doing so in a developed country. If a plane ticket (not completely out of the realm financially, perhaps with donations) could buy that... yeah, that doesn't work. So, we must have immigration law if we are not to become the receptacle of every street person that their government is willing to buy them a ticket. Now, let's calculate the cost of a street person. 1k? Gone, forever, welfare program called "Get your ass outta here" and they buy them a ticket wherever, no return. Like Castro, but a better chance of survival.
 
Last edited:
Has not been good for the vast majority of the worlds peoples.
 
Global society and bringing the whole world up to the social liberties and prosperity* of the first world? Global exploitation of the third world by the first? Not awesome.

*Long, complex process that will take a lot of technological innovations. A sustainable first world Earth is likely filled with robots doing all of our menial labor.
 
l would like to learn your thoughts about globalization . l dont approve every globalist politics and practices and believe every nation should take the advantage of this global market in terms of economic and culturel integrations .

I disagree about that part whole heartedly.
 
I find the US standard of living unsustainable and I don't care - let it fall. What's important is global human rights. Some nationalist I am, ay?

I actually agree to a point.

I believe most Americans are spoiled and inconsiderate of anyone outside their social circles and I would be ok will a lowering of our standard of living if it meant less fortunate people on the planet could have a better standard of living. Most of us have more then we need now to have a comfortable living, at least my definition of a comfortable living. Going back to about 1940's-50's standard of living is adequate to me. All the rest is just having things to have them if you know what I mean. I think Ideally everyone across the globe should have a comfortable living and they probably could if we change our outlook on things. Instead of the "more for me" mind set that many have if they instead thought "ok I have everything I truly need, why don't I help out someone that doesn't", the world would be a much different and better place. But where our views may differ I believe that should be an individuals decision instead of any kind of government sanctioned action.
 
I actually agree to a point.

I believe most Americans are spoiled and inconsiderate of anyone outside their social circles and I would be ok will a lowering of our standard of living if it meant less fortunate people on the planet could have a better standard of living. Most of us have more then we need now to have a comfortable living, at least my definition of a comfortable living. Going back to about 1940's-50's standard of living is adequate to me. All the rest is just having things to have them if you know what I mean. I think Ideally everyone across the globe should have a comfortable living and they probably could if we change our outlook on things. Instead of the "more for me" mind set that many have if they instead thought "ok I have everything I truly need, why don't I help out someone that doesn't", the world would be a much different and better place. But where our views may differ I believe that should be an individuals decision instead of any kind of government sanctioned action.

I don't know. That just doesn't sound feasible to me. Is "going back" even possible? I don't think so.
 
When people say "cultural integration," there are SOME cultures which are very resistant to any kind of change whatsoever and would resist violently.
 
Within? A US passport is a ticket to anywhere you want, buy a visa at the door and jump a couple hoops to stay as long as you like. It's near-instant world mobility (with double luggage allowance).


It is wrong that physical mobility is so restricted, but the hard truth is letting people into the country that have little chance of returning home is a little too much Statue of Liberty. Face it, living poor on the streets of a developing country is worse than doing so in a developed country. If a plane ticket (not completely out of the realm financially, perhaps with donations) could buy that... yeah, that doesn't work. So, we must have immigration law if we are not to become the receptacle of every street person that their government is willing to buy them a ticket. Now, let's calculate the cost of a street person. 1k? Gone, forever, welfare program called "Get your ass outta here" and they buy them a ticket wherever, no return. Like Castro, but a better chance of survival.

You are correct about the problems/challenges of a freedom to travel and live anywhere. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but I think it should be a long term goal.
 
I find the US standard of living unsustainable and I don't care - let it fall. What's important is global human rights. Some nationalist I am, ay?

Your country is the world, your religion to do good kinda thing?
 
Your country is the world, your religion to do good kinda thing?

Ecology is, by nature, a global issue. I believe that people should do what they enjoy. I expect our thinking regarding sustainability and the interconnectedness of the world to evolve, and I am active in promoting such.

I don't have a religion, just a philosophy.
 
Multi-culturalism is a misnomer or a fatally flawed goal. Inter-culturalism, like a melting pot, is where it's at. I think a comparison of Europe and the US, regarding immigrant cultures and assimilation, demonstrates this.
 
my thoughts are that we should work to make globalization beneficial for all by exporting first world working conditions and pollution controls along with the jobs. I don't want rivers catching on fire in Ohio. I also don't want rivers catching on fire in China, or anywhere else.

I feel that free trade should be conditional. adopt OSHA and reasonable pollution controls? you're our free trade partner. skirt the rules? we tariff the **** out of you.
 
Multi-culturalism is a misnomer or a fatally flawed goal. Inter-culturalism, like a melting pot, is where it's at. I think a comparison of Europe and the US, regarding immigrant cultures and assimilation, demonstrates this.


There was a time when the united states was known as the melting pot of the world. In fact when my wife took her naturalization citizenship test, she was taught there is not such thing as a hyphened American, we are all Americans regardless of where we came from or what race, color or creed. But that has changed, I do not think we are the melting pot anymore, we now have African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans and a couple of more I probably forgot about. We have went from a goal of including everyone and everybody as Americans to segregating us once more into groups. Instead of uniting one and all, we are once again dividing.
 
Multi-culturalism is a misnomer or a fatally flawed goal. Inter-culturalism, like a melting pot, is where it's at. I think a comparison of Europe and the US, regarding immigrant cultures and assimilation, demonstrates this.

That's a good point. We don't seem to have the culture clashes here that seem to occur across the pond.
 
Globalization mostly means westernization. It means the sweeping away of local culture and economy and supplanting it with someone else's way.

Most of the world population still lives on less than a dollar a day. Globalization benefits only a few.
 
Globalization mostly means westernization. It means the sweeping away of local culture and economy and supplanting it with someone else's way.

Most of the world population still lives on less than a dollar a day. Globalization benefits only a few.

That's true and I question the benefits too. I certainly don't think it would eliminate poverty, pollution or anything else for that matter. Not to mention, who and how would this ever be organized. The UN?
 
Was that a stupid question? :lol: Seriously, I want to know how a global economy would be organized, and what if some countries don't want to be a part of a global economy?
 
Back
Top Bottom