I'm against countries, borders, and

[cally]

protectionist trade policies. My ideal is a world without borders. I know the US standard of living will decrease if we allow free trade, but if impovervished nations benefit than I'm not against it. Can someone help make the case on a global scale why protectionist policies make sense.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Protectionism will help the USA. The globe is second on my list.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

44. Straight up.

I don't elect representatives to look out for everyone except me.

[Taeger]

2. I suggest ...

I suggest that you could easily exercise your freedom and wander across the world. Once we let down all are border protections, are way of life is FINISHED!!!!!!

[cally]

5. I have traveled extensively

I just don't see our way of life as sustainable. We use more than our share of energy and other resources. Less developed nations can never abuse resources the way we do or the planet will not survive.

[Elwood P Dowd]

11. Then eliminate the borders of your home

and see what happens. Open all your windows and doors. Put a welcome sign in your front yard. Set back and watch the insects, criminals, the homeless, and who knows what else pays you a visit. Suddenly your wealth begins to disappear, your kids pick up TB or Hepatitis, and your wife is raped.

As we embrace more free trade, we bring in more problems than just lost jobs and a lower standard of living. We also bring in many problems from the rest of the world. We import fruits and vegetables coated with DDT and irrigated with sewage water. We bring in illnesses that were once rare in our country. We bring in insects on ship containers that destroy maple trees, harm our wheat crops, or upset delicate ecosystems. We bring in consumer goods made by slaves who earn 20 cents an hour and work 60 hours a week. All of this in the name of free trade. You can have it.

[cally]

13. I don't agree with your analogy

I've worked on trying to keep agricultural pests from California. I think it's hopeless. We can delay their entry but not stop it.

I think the only way to protect ourselves is to promote better lives in the world.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

25. protect ourselves by promoting better lives in the world...

...there. You hit the nail on the head.

...and Cally - that comes from someone who's worked in some far-flung corners of the world, for an organization that goes by the name of "...Without Borders"...

[cally]

31. Thanks

That's my point. I honor you for your service.

[ret5hd]

14. May I ask a question?

Let us imagine that tomorrow, magically, the entire world enjoyed "our way of life". I put that in quotes because i don't imagine that you are talking about homelessness, poverty, or lack of medical care, as there is plenty of that in the world as it is. So i imagine that you are talking about a middle class or working class lifestyle.

So tomorrow, all the hundreds of million families in china suddenly have a car in the garage, commuting 45 minutes to get to work. They have central air and hot running water to be comfortable year round, an electric oven to warm pre-processed pre-digested pap (imported from around the world) for their evening meal under electric lights in their dining room. They wash their clothes and flush their waste and water their lawn and wash their car with potable water. They pave every road except the most remote with oil products (asphalt) so that their drive is easier.

Etc, etc, etc.

Now, besides all the millions of families in china, we need to add all the families in south america. And all the families in africa. And all the families in eastern europe. And all the families in the indian subcontinent. And all of the families in the middle east.

How long would the world resources last? I don't know. Probably you don't either. But I would bet that we could agree that it wouldn't last very long.

So now, unless you can convince yourself and me that somehow we, as u.s. citizens, are somehow magically entitled to "our way of life" and a large majority of the world not only is not entitled but deserves to be kept down, we would have to agree that "our way of life" is inherently unfair.

[cally]

32. You're correct

Our way of life is not sustainable for the planet. I can't justify why the US should have it when others cannot.

[Broken]

34. ?

so what are you saying?

[I AM SPARTACUS]

42. that's as it is inherently unfair...

...we should find ways to correct ourselves. Isn't that what people do when they find out that they are being unfair, and that it's not necessary to continue to be unfair?

[murielm99]

3. Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion, too.
Imagine all the people
living life in peace....


John Lennon

[neoteric lefty]

4. and together

we can boldly go where no man has gone before.....( dah-da-da-dah dun dun dah... :star trek theme:) :) It is a noble goal, however, to break the human race of their need to distinguish themselves into nations (large groups), that will take either a extreme, catastrophic event or a few hundred years (at least!). I hope my great-great-great grandchildren live in a world where everyone is equal and are all together, but the way things are going now, I doubt I'll be around to enjoy it.

edit spelling

[JasonBerry]

6. Sorry - no way

Can't buy that for a minute. The answer to poverty is not to impoverish the entire world. Please try to keep that view away from the Kerry position. John Kerry does NOT support destroying the American form of government in any way, shape, form or fashion.

[Cleita]

7. It depends on whether you want to bring them up to our standard of

living or get pulled down to theirs. I think we need to go to the drawing board with this one. I have nothing against a group of nations agreeing to trade with each other if they agree to maintain standards of decent wages, safety in the work place, pollution standards, no child labor and guaranteed health care. Then it might work.

[cally]

9. I agree with the safeguards to trade

agreements. I also don't think that we want other nations to follow our lifestyle. The planet cannot sustain it. That's part of the reason for my post.

[Dirk39]

8. The USA is somehow the most protectionist country on the

entire globe. And the home of all that "Free-Trade" propaganda.

"Free Trade" is just an ideology: open your doors for U.S. - and to a lesser extent - European etc. investors, or we bomb it open.

To destroy import-substituting industries in weaker countries and violently let them depend on imports - often highly powered by subventions - of stronger countries has nothing to do with free trade. It's a power-game and the decision, who would lose, was made, before the game started.

I agree with your position in general and I'm not even sure we would lose our standard of living, if we would enter a stage of globalisation for the benefit of all, not a few global players.

To label our economic system, led by the IMF and the Worldbank, "free trade", is like labeling Murdochs media-empire "the home of free speech and fair and balanced news".

Even the now well-being middle-class and working-class people will rather be the victims of this kind of "globalisation" and maybe we have more in common and share more interests with people in so-called developing countries than we do with our own elites.
The less borders there are for the few global players, the more borders are there for people, for refugees, for workers.

To go back to old-kind protectionism, nationalism, is no solution, if you ask me. We have to replace the ideology of globalisation with real globalisation.

No countries, no borders!


Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[ldoolin]

10. "Free" trade doesn't increase the standard of living anywhere

It's a corporate scam to increase their own profits, and bust existing unions by closing union shops and moving labor someplace cheaper. Typically, the standard of living goes down in third world countries once "free" trade agreements are enacted.

One solution would be to advocate unionization of the entire third world, and stronger minimum wage laws there on par with those in the U.S. That would work, it would raise the standard of living in the third world to that in North America and Europe, but it would be opposed by the corporations just as much as they support "free" trade.

A world without borders wouldn't be possible until such time as we either have (a) anarchy or (b) world government. The former would require human nature itself to change in order to work, and the latter I don't think we are anywhere near being ready for either, maybe in a couple of centuries.

[Dirk39]

17. As much as I agree with your view...

would you propose to go back to old-style protectionism and nationalism?

We have a kind of world government already. The decisions made by the WTO, the IMF, the Worldbank and other organisations prescribe solutions that fundamentally have an impact on every single human being, living or rather dying on this earth, but - although being part of the U.N. somehow: These organisations lack the smallest kind of legitimation, not even mentioning democratic control.

Most governments, and among them the USA, have given up control of the financial markets, federal banks etc. Solutions are made, that have incredible consequences for everyone of us without any kind of democratic control. Clinton was among the most cynical politicians ever to force this situation. Do you think, we should accept this?
It's not even a question of being left or progressive or liberal or moderate, it's a question of defending democrazy or leave it all to a not elected world-government against the interests of the majority of mankind.
Dirk

[ldoolin]

38. I don't know if we can go back, better would be to find a way forward...

would you propose to go back to old-style protectionism and nationalism?

I'm afraid it's probably too late for that, if you mean putting all the old tariffs and trade barriers back in place. And probably not an appropriate response - I'm thinking one answer lies more in a global unionization and minimum wage drive, which would be more appropriate to post-NAFTA and post-GATT conditions than bringing back old tariffs and trade barriers, which may have been appropriate pre-NAFTA.

We also have an ecological disaster in the making with all the global trade that is importing noxious weeds and insects into areas where they can wreak a lot of damage. Again, it may be too late to do anything about this. Cutting off already existing trade isn't a solution. I don't have any good solutions here.

It would have been better had NAFTA and the WTO never been implemented in the first place.

I think some kind of very limited world government, that were limited to a world court to deal with major international war crimes and human rights trials, and with a goal of eliminating wars by making the initiation of wars and military buildups themselves illegal offenses which would be prosecuted in the world court, would be a good thing in theory - BUT - I would be very wary of anything like a world court or limited world government so long as people like the Bush regime are still with us - they could very easily rig the game so that only people like Saddam Hussein and Kil Jong Il wind up being tried in world court, but never Bush, Cheney, Powell, or Blair. In other words it could give Bush or others like him even more of a free license to engage in more unilateral wars, if not implemented right. In any case such a limited world government would be a far cry from the utopian vision of some (and the nightmares of John Birchers) of a world government with countries and borders eliminated. That wouldn't be workable or possible right now, for a number of reasons.

[Elwood P Dowd]

12. One more thing

The world many of you vision would require a world currency, a world army, a world police force, a world religion, a world language, and a world constitution. Most of all, it would require fair and honest world politicians, world attorneys, world CEOs, and world media. I say the chances of that happening are one in one billion!

[cally]

15. It would not

It would require agreements, honest treaties, honest debate.

[Broken]

16. question

are you an anarchist. And i mean real anarchist, one who is against heir-archy's?

[cally]

23. Farthest thing from it

I'm a small business owner. We consult on financial issues.

[Broken]

26. ......................

"Farthest thing from it, I'm a small business owner"


I almost already knew. I just wanted to make sure. Does your economic philosophy subsrcibe to the idea of absolute private property rights?

[cally]

33. No!

Not a chance. Guess again.

[Broken]

35. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I guess Liberal, since you have john kerry on your sig. maybe you think of yourself as "classical" liberal?

[Elwood P Dowd]

18. I have to admit

you do have a sense of humor.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

20. slipped that ol' "world religion" right in there, did'nya..

...hmmm. I don't see why...

[Elwood P Dowd]

24. You have to give Pat Robertson something to do

Otherwise, he might become a politician, and then the honest politician policy would go out the window.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

27. can we assign Pat to the basket-weaving classes instead...

...call me over-cautious...

[Dirk39]

22. There were so many like you...

when people asked for the general right to vote

for black people, being allowed to sit down in a bus

for gays to marry

for women to work

not to long ago.

We already have a world government without any legitimation, deciding about our lives.

Just a few years ago, noone has expected that the resistance against the IMF and the WTO could become so strong.

Noone would have expected that corporate interests would have been at least partial stopped as it happened at the last WTO meeting. Why not going further?

When people did fight for general elections, there were so many moderates asking people to compromise: leave the women out, leave the blacks out, let's try for general elections for the most wealthy 20% first, this is all we can ask for, if we ask for more, we will only lose...

Look at us now!
Dirk

[shance]

46. Elwood - I have to say you speak from a very limited perspective

and a very capitalistic one at that.

You need to open your mind a little more and realize that there is much more to the world than how the patriarchal United States assumes everything to be.

Who made the rules that we need a currency? Who in the HELL says we need a world army? a world police force? You speak from a fear-based, and preditory life perspective. Havent we seen enough of this from the past 4 years?

Of course, women and/or feminine energy in general MUST begin to play a far more significant and protective role in the salvation of the environment and life itself.

We as women bring life into this world, as much are many, primarily white males in this society would like to overrule and dominate.

Why are they so threatened by those of us who have the wisdom and understanding of what bringing and losing life is all about? Talk to some of the mothers who have lost their sons and daughters in the war. Of course men have felt similar pain, and yet women are invisible in this whole wretched war policy.

Men wage war beautifully, how about allowing women in the mix to work on waging peace?

We have long neglected the feminine energy that provides compassion and consciousness. We can place blame on lots of people, but it ultimately belongs to the lack of courage in consciousness in all of us.

More than anything I would invite all of us to begin to value and promote the necessity of more feminine enlightenment into world policy. Then and only then will we salvage this planet we live on.

[cryofan]

19. mind if I give your wallets contents to this poor dude in Nigeria?

How about we eliminate the borders around your house? I and my friends need somewhere to sleep tonight.

[cally]

28. But that's my point

I don't understand how we can maintain borders. If you showed up and asked for a place to sleep I would probably say yes. I'm not saying that for this debate.

[Broken]

30. ////////////////

The economic system you support needs borders.

And kicks people out of their homes they sleep in, if they can't pay up.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

29. you ever seen the flick "Reservoir Dogs"...?

..."throw a buck on the table, ya cheap bastid..."

I don't think she's talking about the entire contents of your wallet.

[Broken]

21. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"I know the US standard of living will decrease if we allow free trade, but if impovervished nations benefit than I'm not against it."


Who's standard of living will decrease? Certainly not the owners, CEO's, and executives of corporations. They're going to the third world for cheaper labor so they can make more profits. This is why workers in the US will have a living decrease, they will have to compete with third world workers wages.

[cally]

36. Yes my standard of living will decrease

if you base that on consumer items. Look how GDP is measured, it's all about consumption. I think quality of life matters much more.

I don't understand, or I choose to not understand, your other implications. Just specify what you mean and I will too.

[Broken]

37. ok

It means that workers will lose bargaining power with capitalists. I do not see this as 'quality of life'.

[cally]

39. Huh???

How does eliminating borders end up with workers losing bargaining power. :shrug:

I recognize that the world is now dominated by world corporations. I think country politics help them maintain their power over workers. For smaller countries, large corporations have more political power than they do. The only way to counter that is for countries to band together.

[Broken]

40. .

"How does eliminating borders end up with workers losing bargaining power. :shrug:"


Please explain to me how you would do away with borders, yet still enforce the private property rights of capitalists?

The elimination of borders does not mean workers will decrease their bargaining power with capitalists. Just the opposite in fact. But you are not truly against borders.

[cally]

41. I never said I would support the private property rights of

capitalists. The rest is just hyperbolie.

[Broken]

43. ----------------------------

thanks, I feel foolish now.

[cally]

47. I've enjoyed our debate

these issues are extremely important. IMHO, of course.

[MsDemeander]

45. the US standard of living will decrease if we allow free trade

Why?

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Some protectionism is needed because world democracy

isn't ready yet. Countries like China do not have a truly free press, or elections, and aren't going to get them overnight.
Until there is a way of truly representing the people of the world, completely unrestricted trade would give the power to those who currently have the money, and are able to organise - ie big corporations and very rich individuals. This would allow them to entrench their power further. While our politicians are a pretty sorry lot, they do still have to do some things for us to get our votes occasionally. I think the average American does have more respect for the average world citizen (and will have more still, as they gradually get to know more about them, through the Internet and the media) than the very rich do.

I think the standard of living of the average American is unlikely to go up, in monetary terms, again. The median male wage hasn't since 1973, and the rest of the world (women, other countries) is playing catch-up. A gradual decline does seem more likely, because I don't think we have enough resources to sustain that level for more and more people.

[el_gato]

49. rediculous

these phoney "free" trade agreements have not helped third world countries in any way shape or form. It is about resource extraction and nothing more.

[cally]

50. I think you missed my point

Third world countries have little economic or political power to protect their workers or their resources. Current political boundaries do not work. Under most trade agreements the smaller, less wealthy, countries will be exploited.

We patrol our borders to try to keep out undesirable products and lower wage workers. It may help maintain our own standards. I do not see any way most in the world will mimic our lifestyle. We use too many resources to be sustainable worldwide.