[AL]
>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.
[AL]
But where is "home". Is it Queensland, Victoria etc or is it Australia?
Is it Australia or is it the world? Are the problems we face in winning
control
of our destiny from the rulers of Australia fundamentally different from
the problems
faced by other peoples in other countries? If it was individual states
once and is
now a nation, was that our destiny?
Controlling "our" own destiny would probably be a common aspiration
among
Neither supporters. The differences would be about who "we" are and how
to do so.
[AL]
>Essentially the MAI establishes complete "free trade" between
>nations in the same way as Federation established it between the
>Australian States.
[DK]
Which has not been without its problems for the wealthier states.
[AL]
Nothing is without problems. Should the wealthier states establish
barriers to protect "our" interests against those of the less wealthy
states like Queensland? Or are we "one nation" now ;-)
[AL]
>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.
[AL] Let's distrust governments then, not foreigners.
[AL]
>Why not push for wider involvement in building a global
>society rather than resisting that inevitable development?
[DK]
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?
[AL] Pushing for wider involvement is the opposite of trusting them to
do things right.
One of the things people want done in Australian society is reduced
unemployment.
Apart from blaming each other, the consistent answer of the ALP and the
Coalition is
that there really isn't much they can do because it isn't an Australian
problem but a
world problem arising from the state of the world economy (heading
straight towards
another major crisis like the 1930s depression). Looking around the
world, that happens
to be what EVERY government is saying. We can trust them to go on saying
it. If we want
the right things done to fix the world economy, they are not going to be
done by any
national government.
If we don't trust the multi-national companies to fix things up, then
we're going
to have to push for wider involvement.
[AL]
>Why not call for the
>poorer countries and the public to take the lead in pushing for an end
>to provincial barriers?
[DK]
I thought the really poor countries already were (on trade, anyway).
[AL]
On the contrary, elimination of trade barriers is pushed most strongly
by the more developed countries (poor countries have a negligible share
of world
trade and tend to be more protectionist). MAI for example is an
initiative of the OECD.
[AL]
>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?
[DK]
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).
[AL]
"Regulation to the umpteenth degree" and the "free market"
are direct opposites. Your opposition to one on the basis of the other
being
founded on selfishness and greed simply does not make sense. No wonder
you do
not have confidence in this "vain hope".
[AL]
>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?
[DK]
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.
[AL]
Well, I would not trust them at all either, (though my understanding is
that wages and conditions of employees of multi-national companies
in third world countries are generally higher than "local" standards -
as is the case in Australia too). However patriotic and concerned about
family
and friends the small businesses of Australia may be, they are going
under
and cannot afford the same standards as their larger competitors.
Workers aren't going to accept lower wages and worse conditions in the
name of patriotism.
The fate of Australian industry has already been surrendered to
multinational capitalists.
It's about time small businesses got used to the fact that they don't
own the place
and only work here for the people that do, just like their family and
friends. It isn't a reversible process, we can only go forward to take
control from those who have it - which certainly isn't local
capitalists.
[AL]
>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?
[DK]
Are you inciting revolution?
[AL]
Not in this millenium...
But I can think of better arguments for the right to keep and bear arms
than the inconvenience of gun control to farmers and sporting shooters.
[AL]
>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).
[DK]
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).
[AL]
True - and equally true of State governments, whose very existence is a
substantial inefficiency and cost without providing any REAL element of
controlling their own destiny to the people of any State.
[AL]
>Should WA have been allowed to secede when
>its elected government wanted to?
[DK]
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.
[AL]
None of WA's problems could have been solved by an independent WA. They
are Australian
problems. The people of the Northern Territory aren't the only people
being pushed
around by Christian hypocrites opposed to voluntary euthanasia - they've
imposed their
will throughout Australia and they will eventually be defeated
nationally, not just in
the NT.
Don't be scared. Fear of the future rather than confidence that people
can take their own destiny in their hands together is what lies behind
the opposition to barriers breaking down,
from both right and "left". Fear paralyses. We can't avoid being pushed
around by people
who own the world by retreating into smaller local communities. We have
to get
together with all the other people being pushed around and push back.
