Michael Wiik wrote:
> Brian D Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I guess it depends on what you mean by globalization (an awkward
> > term) if you mean free world trade, I'm all for it, if you mean
> > world government, I'm completely against it.
> I'm all for free trade, but am curious if such is possible without world
> government. As more and more trade is in the form of intellectual
> property instead of physical manufactured goods, then the law
> enforcement actions necessary to protect the IP holders would seem to
> require increasingly global coordination of policies.
Not really, all that is needed is that there be consequences to states
for not enforcing the standards already adopted. We've seen this before
here in the US: prior to the civil war, each state ran its own business
unhampered by the US Constitution, and was not obligated to respect the
bill of rights. It was commonly seen that this bill was only for the
feds to respect. It wasn't until we had the civil war and enacted the
14th amendment that this issue was enforced among all the states. The
existence of the 14th amendment didn't mandate that the federal
government take over all functions previously attributed to the states,
it merely said that the states had to respect the rights of its citizens
to a common standard.
Similarly, we don't need a world government to eliminate national
governments, it merely needs to make sure that national governments
respect some common standard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:55 MDT