Dear Friends,
It seems to me, globalization can be either good or evil, depending on what you mean by “globalization.” The trouble with language is, we always equate words with emotion, it is hard wired into us I suppose. This tendency can protect us both logically and emotionally from real threats, like poison creates in most of us a negative emotion, to go along with the knowledge that poison is bad to ingest. That multiplying of the effect of the word poison to keep children from poisoning themselves has probably saved untold lives. However, when a word has an emotional effect, and that effect can be both appropriate or inappropriate, the emotional effect can actually be a bad thing. Globalization is just such a word.
If by Globalization we mean, global government, then globalization is a very bad thing indeed. Humanity is similar to ecology. We grow in a multitude of ways when we compete with each other, honestly and in a fair structure. Ecology is the same way, all the multitude of species compete with each other for the necessities of life, honestly and in a structure that is fair. Remove that competition, that struggle if you will, and the environment becomes ever less fertile. Human government is the same way. The multitude of governments compete with each other in a plethora of ways. Each vying for the necessities of life. If that competition is removed, human government, as a matter of common sense as well as precedent, would quickly become corrupt and the people impoverished.
If by Globalization, you mean the globalization of trade, that would be a good thing. Remember our analogy of government being like ecology? Business is the same way. The multitude of businesses in an economy compete with one another. If the system they compete under is honest and fair, laissez faire for example, they will flourish, but when their environment is polluted by government corruption, crony capitalism, aristocracy (as in the new class), and trade barriers, the environment, the economy, becomes ever less fertile. When the economy is not polluted however… it is fecund.
Global trade further opens markets for the goods and services each business provides. In a nearly perfect global free trade small businesses would benefit the most. This is because if trade is in any way hindered, larger, more well financed businesses will always have the advantage. The less restrictive trade is for all businesses, the greater the benefit to small business. If a craftsman or woman in the outskirts of Nairobi carves lovely figurines, and can only sell them locally, the profit will be very low, but if he or she has access to the world, the profit will be high. Every person on the planet has some advantage that if that talent had access to the world, as potential customers, honestly and in a fair system, the opportunity for economic advancement for the human race would be phenomenal.
Under global free trade governments would be forced to equalize their regulations and burdens, (pollutants) on the economy, (environment). The hindrances of the various government burden their economies with would be onerous to small businesses, (as they are intended to be) but, the small businesses themselves would have access to global trade and thus more profits with which to force government to change. Over time, governments would reach a relatively similar level of regulaton and tax burdens to their economies, in order to effectively compete in a global trade environment.
In essence, the negative emotional impact of the word globalization is both a good and bad thing. If by globalization the speaker means global government, then it is a very bad thing. If however the speaker means open free and fair trade in unhindered markets, that is a very good thing. In that way the negative emotional effect of the word globalization is detrimental to our own well being. Let’s push for economic globalization while at the same time push against governmental globalization, because the one means a freer, more honest and fair world and the other leads to global tyranny, corruption and poverty.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
