Is libertarianism tenable given globalization?
My question is this: How can libertarians exist in a globalized world?
Countries are increasingly becoming more interdependent upon one another. That interdependence manifests itself through free trade agreements. The nature of Free trade agreements is to exploit the natural resources that countries have to offer. The poorer country opens up its natural resources to the rich country in exchange for jobs. There are many (un)intended consequences with that model. I will focus on the environmental. Developing countries do not have environmental regulations in place to stop unsustainable practices. The rich country devours the resources the poor country has to offer and when nothing is left or extraction is no longer profitable it moves on to the next poor country. Loss of rainforests and trees through extraction has a direct relation with the amount of carbon dioxide that can be processed. Fewer trees to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen means the co2 goes into the atmosphere where it gets trapped and warms up the earth. Even when a country has economically isolated itself from other countries (disallowed free trade agreements, etc.), this doesn’t preclude the country or its people from feeling the deleterious environmental effects of free trade. As developing countries continue to industrialize and countries like India and China continue to grow their middle class, the effects of carbon emissions will be felt even more by people all over the world. Additionally, developed countries like the U.S. do little if anything to reverse their high levels of emissions. One environmental result is global warming.
Macro scale geo-politics promoting globalization are having an ever-increasing effect on the lives of individuals. As the interdependence of countries grows, the effects are felt significantly at the individual level. Our ability to enjoy the natural environment we have come to know and love is being trespassed upon by free trade agreements and corporations that place more emphasis on money than our environment. Live and let live is no longer possible. Instead, the thinking needs to refocus on how well we should be able to live.
Countries are increasingly becoming more interdependent upon one another. That interdependence manifests itself through free trade agreements. The nature of Free trade agreements is to exploit the natural resources that countries have to offer. The poorer country opens up its natural resources to the rich country in exchange for jobs. There are many (un)intended consequences with that model. I will focus on the environmental. Developing countries do not have environmental regulations in place to stop unsustainable practices. The rich country devours the resources the poor country has to offer and when nothing is left or extraction is no longer profitable it moves on to the next poor country. Loss of rainforests and trees through extraction has a direct relation with the amount of carbon dioxide that can be processed. Fewer trees to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen means the co2 goes into the atmosphere where it gets trapped and warms up the earth. Even when a country has economically isolated itself from other countries (disallowed free trade agreements, etc.), this doesn’t preclude the country or its people from feeling the deleterious environmental effects of free trade. As developing countries continue to industrialize and countries like India and China continue to grow their middle class, the effects of carbon emissions will be felt even more by people all over the world. Additionally, developed countries like the U.S. do little if anything to reverse their high levels of emissions. One environmental result is global warming.
Macro scale geo-politics promoting globalization are having an ever-increasing effect on the lives of individuals. As the interdependence of countries grows, the effects are felt significantly at the individual level. Our ability to enjoy the natural environment we have come to know and love is being trespassed upon by free trade agreements and corporations that place more emphasis on money than our environment. Live and let live is no longer possible. Instead, the thinking needs to refocus on how well we should be able to live.
posted by John in Montana at 7:02 AM
2 Comments:
Quote "Additionally, developed countries like the U.S. do little if anything to reverse their high levels of emissions. One environmental result is global warming."
The U.S. cannot do anything to reverse emission because it will put more people out of work at the domestic level and force anything we have left to move even quicker over seas. It will also keep it over seas longer until they catch up or destroy their lands. In the long run if this is maintained all countries will be forced to the lowest common denominator in order to compete.
So if the world wants the United States to lower emission then they also need to do so and not merely sign the agreement while never following it.
So called Free Trade also needs to be Fair Trade both ways. It isn't a one way street.
The problem with the libertarian position is the assumption that you could create a level global playing field, where labor was as "free" to move and organize as capital now is. it also assumes a "free' flow of information so producers and consumers could make sound, sustainable choices butthat obviously won't happen when power can manufacture consent.Faith in the "invisible hand" is no different than faith in God.irrational. Fair Trade policy is an attempt to allow workers to "catch up" but in the end runs up against entrenched power structures. Capital will "allow" it, like Keynsian policy, to the degree it relieves social pressure.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home