Albert wrote:
>Instead I'd like to start a debate here about MAI and globalization.
If you want Neither to develop into a significant force, shouldn't you be
addressing its organization first?
>Why do you support national sovereignty and Parliamentary independence.
>Why not "One World"?
Simply because, "national" is closer to home. We know how difficult it is to
influence things for our own advancement just nationally amongst a
reasonably homogeneous society, and suspect it would be impossible if
sovereignty was handed over to some of the scary societies known to exist in
the world. Controlling our own destiny has some appeal.
>Essentially the MAI establishes complete "free trade" between
>nations in the same way as Federation established it between the
>Australian States.
Which has not been without its problems for the wealthier states.
>Why resist the natural extension of that same process, which has already
>occurred in the European Union? Why not push for world government rather
>than "State rights"?
Distrust of a world government over which we could exert negligible
influence, sounds like a good reason to me. It has something to do with a
desire for freedom from unwanted control.
>Why not push for wider involvement in building a global
>society rather than resisting that inevitable development?
We can't even get our governments to do the things we want done in
Australian society; why on earth would we trust them to do the right things
at a global level?
>Why not call for the
>poorer countries and the public to take the lead in pushing for an end
>to provincial barriers?
I thought the really poor countries already were (on trade, anyway).
>My understanding is that the MAI simply requires that exactly the
>same standards be applied in these areas to multinational capitalists as
>to local capitalists. What's wrong with that? Why tolerate lower
>standards for environmental protection, labour, health, safety and human
>rights when dealing with local capitalists?
The hope is that local capitalists will act in ways more beneficial to the
local scene WITHOUT having to be regulated to the umpteenth degree, simply
because they live here, have family and friends here, and sometimes even
entertain outmoded concepts such as national loyalty and patriotism. A vain
hope maybe, but better than the certainty that the multinational capitalists
will have no loyalties except to those foundations of the free market,
selfishness and greed (camouflaged in the nicest possible way of course).
>My understanding is that the MAI requires courts of law to strike down
>discrimination between "local" and "multinational" capitalists in the
>same way that Federation required the Courts of the various States to
>strike down discrimination between the capitalists of any State and
>those of (previously) "foreign" Australian States. What's wrong with
>that?
Nothing, if you are prepared to surrender the fate of Australian industry
entirely to the "multinational" capitalists. Personally, having worked for
several of them and seen how they treat the nationals of third world
countries I have visited, I would not trust them at all.
>What kind of power can a community have to
>"hold investors to account" if the investors own everything and we just
>work here. Why ask the Governments of the 29 richest countries to "Give
>the community effective new powers" when you already know whose side
>they are on. Why not ask the community to take power from the investors
>and their governments?
Are you inciting revolution?
>The Commonwealth government has generally set far higher standards
>for environmental, labour, health and safety than the provincial
>governments did (and would still do if they could).
The Commonwealth government hypocrits have indeed, pretending there are no
compliance costs resulting from their standards whilst advocating free
trade, the level playing field, world's best practice, efficiency, improved
productivity, competitiveness, etc (except when it comes to government).
>Should WA have been allowed to secede when
>its elected government wanted to?
Arguably yes, and the NT should have been allowed to retain voluntary
euthanasia when it wanted to. Having big brothers (in this case the
Commonwealth government) push people around is not appreciated by many. The
thought of a world government pushing us around more than the unofficial one
already does, is scary indeed.
Dave
--
David Kidd Webmaster http://dkd.net E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maryborough, Queensland 4650, Australia Phone (07) 4122 1120
