On 11/27/06, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The underlying assumption behind "free market" seems to be that *somebody* who is currently bankrolling these groups is free to vote with their feet?
yep. event sponsors, people who pay for stalls/seminars etc., and those who underwrite travel and other costs for delegates can all vote with their chequebooks. more importantly, the vast majority of participants can and do assess the value and opportunity costs of the time spent at these events, even if ''someone'' is subsidising their being there. What I do have doubts about is about groups that have incompatible
goals (as Rishab illustrated) claiming to be part of a *movement*. This seems to me to be a recipe for a messy implosion.
the goals can actually be quite congruent, the motives not necessarily so. e.g. manufacturers in the first world and workers in the third worlds both have an interest in raising minimum wages or banning child labour. there's also a semantic problem here. specifically, loose usage of the term globalisation (pro and anti). the most ardent pro-globalisers are certainly not in favour of removing restrictions to the free movement of people, for instance, while advocating for free trade in goods, services and capital. the wsf is not an anti-globalisation forum. its charter (quoted earlier) does not oppose globalisation, merely the form that favours the interests of mncs exclusively. -- "An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex." - Aldous Huxley
