Post by FightingFalcon on Apr 4, 2005 8:55:49 GMT -8
I was talking to Chris last night about our foreign policy views and although he (obviously) disagreed, I wanted to see what you guys thought. Mike, I'd especially like to see what you have to say because you are a registered Libertarian.
When talking to Chris, I was arguing that America should strive for a world where every country is economically inter-dependent upon each other. So much so that if any country went to war, it would be so disastrous economically that they would never even think about it. For example, Chris was telling me that he didn't appreciate the fact that China has an economic advantage over us because we use a lot of their labor. If China wanted to, they could all-of-a-sudden refuse to let American corporations work there and kick them all out. However, we also have economic advantages over China in that we are the largest importer in the world and they wouldn't be able to replace a market like America. In other words, war for both countries would be economically disastrous - so they are both kept in line.
Ultimately I believe in a world with no tariffs or barriers to trade - a world where goods freely flow between democratic and Republican countries. A world where tyrannical and authoritarian rule has been outlawed and human rights are respected. The way to go about this is using humanity's greatest flaw - our love of money. With a completely free world market, every country would rely on each other. No one would be able to operate on their own because their corporations would operate in various other countries. Countries, in a sense, would no longer exist other than to set domestic policy. But once we enter into a truly global market, corporations won't think of themselves as "American" or "British" or belonging to any country. They will have operations all over the world and employ people from various nations.
In the long run, the goal is to have a world of completely free-market countries that are run by a Republican form of government, which all have a universal declaration of human rights. The UN would be replaced by a world body that actually has the authority and the will to carry out the world's agenda. If a country suddenly erects barriers to trade or abuses human rights, they would be economically sanctioned by the entire world. Such an economic collapse would bring that country back into line and avert war.
Now, how do we go about securing a world like this? Well, this is where I disagree with the Libertarians. Although the world is naturally moving in a Capitalist/Democratic direction, some countries aren't moving fast enough. Some times war is necessary to speed up the process in various areas of the war. That was the biggest reason why I supported Iraq - forget WMDs, forget Saddam, forget his ties to terrorism, etc. None of that mattered. It could have been any country in the ME for all I care. But it was necessary to introduce democracy and capitalism in the area. Once Iraq starts to prosper, the rest of the region will take note (as is already happening) and will reform themselves.
As strong a nationalist as I am, in the end America will lose much of its power in the world in the name of peace and prosperity. We won't have our hegemonic control of the world anymore because foreign policy won't be dictated by one country. In the end I think its dangerous for one country (even America) to have enough power to dominate the entire international landscape. When power is divided up between 200+ Capitalist/Republican countries, the world will be much safer.
Or am I just a utopian dreamer?
When talking to Chris, I was arguing that America should strive for a world where every country is economically inter-dependent upon each other. So much so that if any country went to war, it would be so disastrous economically that they would never even think about it. For example, Chris was telling me that he didn't appreciate the fact that China has an economic advantage over us because we use a lot of their labor. If China wanted to, they could all-of-a-sudden refuse to let American corporations work there and kick them all out. However, we also have economic advantages over China in that we are the largest importer in the world and they wouldn't be able to replace a market like America. In other words, war for both countries would be economically disastrous - so they are both kept in line.
Ultimately I believe in a world with no tariffs or barriers to trade - a world where goods freely flow between democratic and Republican countries. A world where tyrannical and authoritarian rule has been outlawed and human rights are respected. The way to go about this is using humanity's greatest flaw - our love of money. With a completely free world market, every country would rely on each other. No one would be able to operate on their own because their corporations would operate in various other countries. Countries, in a sense, would no longer exist other than to set domestic policy. But once we enter into a truly global market, corporations won't think of themselves as "American" or "British" or belonging to any country. They will have operations all over the world and employ people from various nations.
In the long run, the goal is to have a world of completely free-market countries that are run by a Republican form of government, which all have a universal declaration of human rights. The UN would be replaced by a world body that actually has the authority and the will to carry out the world's agenda. If a country suddenly erects barriers to trade or abuses human rights, they would be economically sanctioned by the entire world. Such an economic collapse would bring that country back into line and avert war.
Now, how do we go about securing a world like this? Well, this is where I disagree with the Libertarians. Although the world is naturally moving in a Capitalist/Democratic direction, some countries aren't moving fast enough. Some times war is necessary to speed up the process in various areas of the war. That was the biggest reason why I supported Iraq - forget WMDs, forget Saddam, forget his ties to terrorism, etc. None of that mattered. It could have been any country in the ME for all I care. But it was necessary to introduce democracy and capitalism in the area. Once Iraq starts to prosper, the rest of the region will take note (as is already happening) and will reform themselves.
As strong a nationalist as I am, in the end America will lose much of its power in the world in the name of peace and prosperity. We won't have our hegemonic control of the world anymore because foreign policy won't be dictated by one country. In the end I think its dangerous for one country (even America) to have enough power to dominate the entire international landscape. When power is divided up between 200+ Capitalist/Republican countries, the world will be much safer.
Or am I just a utopian dreamer?
