4 ms·

> Promoting globalization while not also requiring counties we trade with have equivalent labor laws is just insane This should be an ideal, and I think we can

by JoBrad 7y ago

> Promoting globalization while not also requiring counties we trade with have equivalent labor laws is just insane This should be an ideal, and I think we can agree on some basic level of human rights (no forced labor, for instance). But refusing to deal with countries who don’t adhere to our moral code would just lead to a bigger bifurcated market. As examples, we did this to Cuba and North Korea, yet neither of them have changed to meet our demands. Short story is that boycotts have limited power when the group you’re boycotting has an alternative.

yourapostasy 7y ago
Isn't there a salient difference between boycotting and not-enabling? I can understand your point that a boycott is not necessarily the tool to bring about change. However, as China has so amply shown, there is a recipe they pioneered that others can now follow to engage globalization's benefits without dragging in the accompanying democratization precepts. In light of that, it is far from clear that globalization from now on will bring about the kinds of change liberal democracies desire to see. There may even be an argument to be made that China is leading the way to demonstrate how to co-opt most of the benefits of globalization, while blocking every attribute they deem subversive. So if globalization has become just another tool to accelerate despotic/adverse power consolidation (and there is an argument to be made that there is adverse power developments even in "advanced" economies from globalization), boycotts aren't about/solely a moral action, and add a dimension as a realistic response to avoid further anti-pattern enablement.
- JoBrad 7y ago
  I agree we shouldn’t directly sponsor immoral behavior. I think we were naïve to believe that globalization would automatically expand democratic government, but don’t think it will automatically lead to a despotic one, either. A moral code exists on top of whatever form of commerce you engage in.
hakfoo 7y ago
I suspect boycotts galvanize tyrants. They need an "us versus them" narrative to justify their actions and prosecution of their enemies. It provides a wonderful scapegoat for domestic issues too-- I suspect the Cuban government could write off mediocre economic growth for years as "hey, the biggest most obvious trading partner won't deal with us." It's a lot harder to get people rallied against an "enemy" who supplies your food/favourite consumer goods.

by JoBrad 7y ago

yourapostasy 7y ago

Isn't there a salient difference between boycotting and not-enabling? I can understand your point that a boycott is not necessarily the tool to bring about change. However, as China has so amply shown, there is a recipe they pioneered that others can now follow to engage globalization's benefits without dragging in the accompanying democratization precepts. In light of that, it is far from clear that globalization from now on will bring about the kinds of change liberal democracies desire to see. There may even be an argument to be made that China is leading the way to demonstrate how to co-opt most of the benefits of globalization, while blocking every attribute they deem subversive. So if globalization has become just another tool to accelerate despotic/adverse power consolidation (and there is an argument to be made that there is adverse power developments even in "advanced" economies from globalization), boycotts aren't about/solely a moral action, and add a dimension as a realistic response to avoid further anti-pattern enablement.

JoBrad 7y ago
I agree we shouldn’t directly sponsor immoral behavior. I think we were naïve to believe that globalization would automatically expand democratic government, but don’t think it will automatically lead to a despotic one, either. A moral code exists on top of whatever form of commerce you engage in.

hakfoo 7y ago

I suspect boycotts galvanize tyrants. They need an "us versus them" narrative to justify their actions and prosecution of their enemies. It provides a wonderful scapegoat for domestic issues too-- I suspect the Cuban government could write off mediocre economic growth for years as "hey, the biggest most obvious trading partner won't deal with us." It's a lot harder to get people rallied against an "enemy" who supplies your food/favourite consumer goods.