Well, that’s that I guess. Did any of the really awful bits get taken out? I have lost track.
Well that’s depressing…
One usual logical error people are doing when it’s about international laws imposing is something like this:
Because of globalism and internationalism, we are getting these filthy laws.
Because of global leaders’ traditional agenda, we are getting these filthy laws
The logical errors resounds on condemning globalism/internationalism instead of condemning leaders, processes and laws in place. The processes in place condemn free file sharing, for example, but not because it’s a global trend to do it, but because of those that imposed that in the first time
In order for us to have a free and fair internet, and to have patents/digital rights to not censor independent research and privacy, we should change the global process, not remove globalism / internationalism
Don’t give in to far-right / right-wing / extreme-right tendencies of promoting global disdain ( edited from ‘peace’, lol. )
Fight to remove the traditional processes that impose the censorship!
The inherent problem I see with globalisation is that the more large-scale and hence more centralized a system of governance becomes, the less influence the general population can exert. This is especially, but not only, true for neo-colonialist trade agendas in the global south where trade practices harm local economies immensely.
I’m sorry, but you’re not going to convince me that easily that anti-globalisisation is uniquely right-wing or extreme right ideology.
@LMK You are totally correct, it’s not uniquely right-wing / extreme-right to be anti-globalist.
And yes, on globalization the larger the centralized structure, the larger inherent powers are. The only solution I see here is federalism + democratic participation on small scale to decide for the larger scale.
Even though laws might be passed in let’s say ‘not timely manner’, I don’t believe we should hurry-up nowadays, in times of peace, of deciding some global laws / agenda.
I believe small nations with federal lands are capable of electing global principles and agendas, and I don’t believe some global agendas should be imposed over federal lands and nations.
It’s hard, it’s idealistic, but it might be the future
We don’t know yet
I quite agree, and I don’t believe it is too hard.
This is true,
We filter out the right and left extreams, and take the core.
We play the man, not the ball, once we have the ball, we change the game to one all can play.
This is the way, and it is now possible with expression and commutation at the greatest level in our history. We need to build the network infrastructure, we need to anticipate the Tipping Point, we need leadership (this is a tricky bit) that can articulate, a better future for the planet and all people.
We may also need a lot of LGM, lawyers guns and money, nar, just messing with ya, or am I. lol
omg, that awesome ' '. We need more of these.