• 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!

Globalisation vs Localisation

What would you preffer?

  • Globalization

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Localization

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hi folks

This is to be a continuation of my previous "socialism" thread, in a way. :lol:

So, would you prefer a localized form of government (let's say an medieval Italian city-state type of society) or you would go for the globalized centralized power (super-states like the USA, former USSR, EU, the hypothetical NAU, OWG (one world government), you name it...)?
Are you for localization (decentralization, local government) or for globalization (centralization, global/distant government)?

:peace

P.S. Sorry, I made some grammar mistakes. Could a mod fix them, please? Thanks in advance. :)
 
Last edited:
I think the U.S. basically got it right in principle even if the execution sometimes leaves something to be desired. It's a great idea for states to cooperate as a federation in order to engage in commerce and provide for mutual defense while trying to ensure that actual political power remains diffused and entrusted to the participant states.
 
Hi folks

This is to be a continuation of my previous "socialism" thread, in a way. :lol:

So, would you prefer a localized form of government (let's say an medieval Italian city-state type of society) or you would go for the globalized centralized power (super-states like the USA, former USSR, EU, the hypothetical NAU, OWG (one world government), you name it...)?
Are you for localization (decentralization, local government) or for globalization (centralization, global/distant government)?

:peace

P.S. Sorry, I made some grammar mistakes. Could a mod fix them, please? Thanks in advance. :)

Honestly, I don't care as long the economy is healthy, my lifestyle is adequate to my taste, and people are able to participate in a civil society in a manner they deem appropriate.
 
I wish I could have voted other, because I am 100% for Americanism.

Our economy will never recover and we will never be competitive in World markets until the grip the thug Unions have on some business and most Government is ended.

I believe Unions and their leaders should be put on trial under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act, because they use threats of and actual violence, and intimidation to coerce compliance to their demands. They contribute to inflation in the process.
 
Localisation, as you defined it, is too small of an area (ie city). If it was to the country's unique heritage and culture, then I would vote 100% yes
 
Localisation, as you defined it, is too small of an area (ie city). If it was to the country's unique heritage and culture, then I would vote 100% yes

On the contrary, it is a good thing. Because if you don't like one city-state, you can go to another that suits without the language barrier. Imagine if you have to move to another country - you have to learn another language and that is a big deal!
Imagine one big country, like the US, full of city-states - there will be literally thousands of them, so there would be great choice of communities. And they will all speak one language - English. :)
 
I love the idea of city-states, though there's a tonne of problems that comes with it, it'd still be pretty cool.
 
Hi folks

This is to be a continuation of my previous "socialism" thread, in a way. :lol:

So, would you prefer a localized form of government (let's say an medieval Italian city-state type of society) or you would go for the globalized centralized power (super-states like the USA, former USSR, EU, the hypothetical NAU, OWG (one world government), you name it...)?
Are you for localization (decentralization, local government) or for globalization (centralization, global/distant government)?

:peace

P.S. Sorry, I made some grammar mistakes. Could a mod fix them, please? Thanks in advance. :)

Wow...somewhat twisted so to speak...medieval for example will make people shy away instantly without thinking. Localization today would be more like sealing our borders for a period of time to reorganize, then venture out again slowly, as in the beginning of our nation, buying and selling with dignity and perseverance toward our continued existence. Globalization brings on thoughts of a One World Government where everyone lives in friendly admiration...which is absolutely impossible because someone will always want to be on top.
 
I wish I could have voted other, because I am 100% for Americanism.

Our economy will never recover and we will never be competitive in World markets until the grip the thug Unions have on some business and most Government is ended.

I believe Unions and their leaders should be put on trial under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act, because they use threats of and actual violence, and intimidation to coerce compliance to their demands. They contribute to inflation in the process.

I am not sure how unions can be blamed when 22 states are right to work. Globally we can't compete because unlike China actual American companies(outsourced companies are no longer American) they can not make an employee work for 80 hours a week for 75-120 dollars a month. This is why companies that outsourced simply did not move to right to work states.
 
As technology improves, the difference between local and global shrinks. When every other part of the world can be contacted by phone and internet, and can be traveled to in a few days, there aren't a lot of places that aren't local anymore. One end of New York State to the other, 150 years ago, is less local than Los Angeles and Tokyo are right now. I think we need to take a more modern view on what "local" really means. It's not defined by the small town in which someone was born. It's defined by the vast area in which the products one uses are made, the many markets in which one can do business, and the myriad lands of origin of the people we meet. Very soon, all the world will be local, and our mindsets will need to catch up.
 
Why globalization?

Let's live together keeping our localization principles maintained pluse having globalization aspects for may be improvements or development ...
 
I love the idea of city-states, though there's a tonne of problems that comes with it, it'd still be pretty cool.

There are other ways to justify wearing blankets and no underpants.
 
Eh... if the question were Globalism vs. Nationalism... considering the political state of the planet, I'd go with Nationalism as the first priority.

As much as some may dream of a Star Trekky Utopian One World Order, the simple fact is that the world remains a collection of tribal societies with each looking out for it's own interests be they political, economic, or whatever.

And that's really no different than the way most of us live our daily lives, is it? Family and friends first, community second, etc.

Of course that means it's hard to explain the rationale that led our politicians to pass laws that left our citizens without jobs... Oh! That's right! Campaign contributions... I guess getting re-elected is more important than those whiny citizens they're supposed to represent, huh?
 
As technology improves, the difference between local and global shrinks...

I was thinking more about political localization and globalization, not technical. That is, politics. The power to conduct your life as you consider right - that's liberty; not some fatass bureaucrat in Brussels, Moscow or Washington deciding which hand people should wipe their ass with.
 
I was thinking more about political localization and globalization, not technical. That is, politics. The power to conduct your life as you consider right - that's liberty; not some fatass bureaucrat in Brussels, Moscow or Washington deciding which hand people should wipe their ass with.

What difference does how close you live to the seat of government have to do with "the power to conduct your life as you consider right"? What's to stop a corrupt local government from trying to take away rights? What's to entice an honest global government from doing the same? It's the honesty of the organization, not its location, that makes all the difference.

And as I said, local and global are becoming the same thing. We are all becoming interdependent. Segmenting political structure, and ignoring the reality of economics, trade, flow of information, and culture... that's refusing to keep up with the modern world.
 
What difference does how close you live to the seat of government have to do with "the power to conduct your life as you consider right"? What's to stop a corrupt local government from trying to take away rights?

You know, if you meet everyday your managers and legislators on the street, it's easier to tackle the problems than delegating the right to some guy 2000 miles away to decide your life (with s/he not knowing if you ever exist). :) It's the "small town" type of relations.

And as I said, local and global are becoming the same thing. We are all becoming interdependent. Segmenting political structure, and ignoring the reality of economics, trade, flow of information, and culture... that's refusing to keep up with the modern world.

Trading and following the same orders are two different things. Otherwise we forge a World Constitution and we are all fine and dandy - all people equal.
 
Globalization is a cancer. The benefits it proposes are overshadowed by all the problems it creates, and there is no earnestness to bring material equity to the world though it. It is just a vehicle for a select few to acquire more capital and accumulate obscene profits.

These institutions should be challenged and destroyed if necessary. Transnational capitalism is decaying infrastructure all around the world by taking public money and transferring it to private coffers. Our governments are complicit in this.

We are headed for a deadly showdown right now, either when millions of people start starving to death or when government oversteps its powers granted by the people. Everyone should be prepared.

294284_104682392973547_100002953598003_37676_1553178070_n.jpg
 
I like governments working together to promote economic integration. Globalization has pulled millions of people out of poverty, and it has treated developed nations pretty well too.

However, I support keeping most decisions on as local a level as practically possible. Lower levels of government tend to be more responsive to their people's needs as they have to represent a narrower set of interests.
 
You know, if you meet everyday your managers and legislators on the street, it's easier to tackle the problems than delegating the right to some guy 2000 miles away to decide your life (with s/he not knowing if you ever exist). :) It's the "small town" type of relations.

But then a government can never tackle a problem larger than "should we add a stop light over on Sycamore Street?" But you omit one big issue. NO government should ever "decide your life", local or otherwise. That's what happens in a country where women are not full citizens, or where homosexuals are put to death, or in countries run by a military dictatorship. None of that is a function of the size of government. It has to do with whether or not that government has legal bounds put upon it.
 
i'd prefer to buy goods manufactured under humane conditions. we should tariff any imported good that isn't.
 
I'm local. 50,000 people in the whole county. 5 miles to the nearest town (1,000). 8 miles to the largest town in the county (5,500). Totally rural. Great place to raise children and animals. Not a great place to look for jobs. Rural, low population density areas must constantly be aware and trying to prevent the arrival of waste companies. All kinds of waste. Put it where there is no political power. Mountains, fresh air, clear water, beautiful wilds and wildlife, but no concentrated malls, coffee shops, few police, backwoods education, and all might be one person's plus and another's minus. Really difficult to promote local economies. Difficult to even picture the metropolitan paradigm. Kids, local sports, fishing, hunting, farming, a few factories, trees, some oil, and no other resources with which to build more of anything. It can be a trap or a blessing, but that is local in this paradigm.
 
I don't think they're necessarily incompatible. Globalization is both necessary and inevitable, but that doesn't mean we have to become homogenized. The best solution would be small units within a larger framework, but with enough independence to make their own laws.
 
But then a government can never tackle a problem larger than "should we add a stop light over on Sycamore Street?"

Why is that? How about legislation?
I agree we need some federal legislation for the country's security. But it should be large and common enough to leave room for liberty and local rules. If it's too detailed and concrete, it won't do any good. For example, a couple of years ago the EU Commission banned curved cucumbers from selling on the market. It was ridiculous. :lamo That's a regulation I don't want in my back yard. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I wish I could have voted other, because I am 100% for Americanism.

Our economy will never recover and we will never be competitive in World markets until the grip the thug Unions have on some business and most Government is ended.

I believe Unions and their leaders should be put on trial under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act, because they use threats of and actual violence, and intimidation to coerce compliance to their demands. They contribute to inflation in the process.

Bah...the ceos thiefs and criminal corporations should be put on trial and imprisoned..for milking america till were in the hole were in....your hate for the working class is sad
 
You know, if you meet everyday your managers and legislators on the street, it's easier to tackle the problems than delegating the right to some guy 2000 miles away to decide your life (with s/he not knowing if you ever exist). :) It's the "small town" type of relations.

We already have that more or less. The Feds (supposedly) establish the overall framework, each State has the authority to legislate in response to it's citizens needs within that Federal framework, and your local county/city government can legislate within the extents of it's jurisdiction.

Gets messed up when the Feds step on the States' toes, or the States pass laws contrary to some local interests. Hmmm.. sounds like Trickle Down Politics...
 
Back
Top Bottom