From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 20:34:19 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki writes:
> Brett wrote:
>
> >
> > Because of regulations put in place to protect him the
> > unskilled worker in the US may not get the *choice* to
> > sell their services at price parity with those in third world
> > sweat shops.
>
> ### That's why I would vote to abolish the regulations.
I don't think any contemporary political party could dare offer
you the chance to vote on the issue. The "ghosts" of Steinbeck
and Sinclair would hound them out of office. Or to put it more
directly, there are too many unskilled worker voters that won't
be deprived of their rights/privileges whilst they still retain their
vote.
To get to a freer global market I think there is little practical
alternative other than to extend and homogenise the rule of law
lifting the standards of human rights in countries where they are
low. Selling this to US voters, with its obvious costs and less
obvious return on investment, would be not be easy for any
aspiring US government. Yet, so far as I can see, as the
world's economic and military superpower, the US alone
has the real capacity to lead or thwart the development of
international law.
> > Free world governments elected on four year cycles are not
> > encouraged to take longer terms views because to do so puts
> > them at shorter term disadvantage.
>
> ### That's why I would vote to abolish the electoral
> democracy and replace it with a demarchy.
I like what I've read of demarchy, but don't see how we get
there from here.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 20:41:44 MDT