4 ms·

I have large cognitive dissonance to "we shouldn't be the world police" and "globalism is bad." At face value I agree, but... If you believe in the rule of law

I have large cognitive dissonance to "we shouldn't be the world police" and "globalism is bad." At face value I agree, but... If you believe in the rule of law and human rights, then globalism seems like a natural consequence, as does policing the world. What would happen if you let China have global hegemony and they become the over-fishing police? What type of enforcement do you think they might have (or non enforcement, or selective enforcement). It seems clear with world scale commons, there must be both a common set of laws (globalization) and an entity capable of enforcing those laws (America is the world police).

sudosysgen 4y ago
Unlike the US+the West, China will never be able to be world police.
- sharkjacobs 4y ago
  Why not?
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Because the West in general is ideologically cohesive and generally follows a country which, alone, is a sole superpower. China is never going to be able to outproduce the ~billion people in the west economically, and will never be able to have an overwhelming military edge over NATO sufficient to set up and for at least a decade enforce its own version of the liberal international order. The US was able to do so because, once the USSR fell, it was able to do things like invade Iraq and Afghanistan and play a hand in destroying Syria and Libya. Unless China gets such overwhelming advantage militarily, it's not going to be able to overpower NATO outside of Asia, and as a result won't be able to dictate an international order.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      "Never" is a very long time. I could imagine similar arguments being made 100 years ago against the notion of China becoming a global superpower.
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      I think if Chinese people were to throw off their slave shackles and liberalize, then Chinese hegemony would be permissible/possible. I don't see any reason that's not possible, Taiwan is exactly an example of an ethnically Chinese society doing just that. America was ceding power to China through making it's supply chain vulnerable. If it were not for Xi's disastrous reign, that likely would have continued. America was losing, China snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Another fallacy is that there is a strategy to out-compete via producing more. Russian and Chinese strategy is to corrupt and destroy institutions such that the west produces less and becomes another low trust society. Given recent political happenings, I would say this is an effective strategy that is showing both success and results. It's not hard to imagine an America where every single American is paying rent to a Chinese landlord. That is winning a war without firing a single gun. Military might is only one form of power. Economic and social power are not null.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
akira2501 4y ago
> If you believe in the rule of law and human rights, then globalism seems like a natural consequence, as does policing the world. You might ask, what problems is globalism going to solve that treaties and national cooperation can't today? More importantly, what will those mechanisms be and will they be just as vulnerable to the problems of corruption and interconnection that plague the meaningful enforcement of treaties and agreements today? I haven't heard an actual appeal for structural "globalism" that answers these basic challenges.. as such, I mostly see it as a grift designed to remove democratic and republican control from the hands of individuals and cede them entirely to the technocratic machinations of the "new world order." Recently, we did have a very globally similar response to a world wide event, and I'm not at all surprised that during that time the rich managed to make themselves much richer and the middle class has mostly taken the hit. If that's a hint to what "globalism" has to offer, you can keep it. We'll have to figure out the fishing problem some other way.
- b112 4y ago
  You might ask, what problems is globalism going to solve that treaties and national cooperation can't today? More importantly, what will those mechanisms be and will they be just as vulnerable to the problems of corruption and interconnection that plague the meaningful enforcement of treaties and agreements today? The difference is, much as the same with a democratic nation. In a democratic nation, citizens collectively elect representatives, and then laws are passed. Once in place, citizens are bound by those laws, and will be encouraged by various means ; fines, jail, etc, to obey that collective decision. Now imagine if our democracy was "treaties are made with all citizens of the nation, but you don't have to agree or sign the treaty." Succinctly put, treaties aren't something you can make another nation sign, and if signed due to force, really force them to comply with in their local area. A global government however, could punish citizens of any country, should they fail to follow global laws passed. That said, I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of a global government, because there is such a wide range of belief systems out there, some of them totalitarian, many of them non-democratic, many of them tied deeply to religion, and I don't think the outcome could last, or be pretty.
  - 4y ago
boomchinolo78 4y ago
Unfortunately, as someone who the intelligence agency in my land said, ultimate power brings ultimate corruption. If there is no #2 then no one can police #1
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  Yes, sadly this is more true than ever. America is all about due process and socialism for the rich and powerful, and plea bargains and rugged capitalism for the poor and unfortunate. We have no right to preach rule of law (which more than anything means consequences for billionaires and politicians), when we don't practice it at home. I suppose the best the argument can get is that many governments would be much worse police at least for the time being. I think Europe does have the capacity (but maybe not the will) to check America's power.
Sporktacular 4y ago
Given its environmental record and susceptibility to lobbying, the US is not in a good position to police this issue. Whether anyone is can be debated, but must there be only one sheriff?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

sudosysgen 4y ago

Unlike the US+the West, China will never be able to be world police.

sharkjacobs 4y ago
Why not?
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Because the West in general is ideologically cohesive and generally follows a country which, alone, is a sole superpower. China is never going to be able to outproduce the ~billion people in the west economically, and will never be able to have an overwhelming military edge over NATO sufficient to set up and for at least a decade enforce its own version of the liberal international order. The US was able to do so because, once the USSR fell, it was able to do things like invade Iraq and Afghanistan and play a hand in destroying Syria and Libya. Unless China gets such overwhelming advantage militarily, it's not going to be able to overpower NATO outside of Asia, and as a result won't be able to dictate an international order.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    "Never" is a very long time. I could imagine similar arguments being made 100 years ago against the notion of China becoming a global superpower.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    I think if Chinese people were to throw off their slave shackles and liberalize, then Chinese hegemony would be permissible/possible. I don't see any reason that's not possible, Taiwan is exactly an example of an ethnically Chinese society doing just that. America was ceding power to China through making it's supply chain vulnerable. If it were not for Xi's disastrous reign, that likely would have continued. America was losing, China snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Another fallacy is that there is a strategy to out-compete via producing more. Russian and Chinese strategy is to corrupt and destroy institutions such that the west produces less and becomes another low trust society. Given recent political happenings, I would say this is an effective strategy that is showing both success and results. It's not hard to imagine an America where every single American is paying rent to a Chinese landlord. That is winning a war without firing a single gun. Military might is only one form of power. Economic and social power are not null.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

akira2501 4y ago

> If you believe in the rule of law and human rights, then globalism seems like a natural consequence, as does policing the world. You might ask, what problems is globalism going to solve that treaties and national cooperation can't today? More importantly, what will those mechanisms be and will they be just as vulnerable to the problems of corruption and interconnection that plague the meaningful enforcement of treaties and agreements today? I haven't heard an actual appeal for structural "globalism" that answers these basic challenges.. as such, I mostly see it as a grift designed to remove democratic and republican control from the hands of individuals and cede them entirely to the technocratic machinations of the "new world order." Recently, we did have a very globally similar response to a world wide event, and I'm not at all surprised that during that time the rich managed to make themselves much richer and the middle class has mostly taken the hit. If that's a hint to what "globalism" has to offer, you can keep it. We'll have to figure out the fishing problem some other way.

b112 4y ago
You might ask, what problems is globalism going to solve that treaties and national cooperation can't today? More importantly, what will those mechanisms be and will they be just as vulnerable to the problems of corruption and interconnection that plague the meaningful enforcement of treaties and agreements today? The difference is, much as the same with a democratic nation. In a democratic nation, citizens collectively elect representatives, and then laws are passed. Once in place, citizens are bound by those laws, and will be encouraged by various means ; fines, jail, etc, to obey that collective decision. Now imagine if our democracy was "treaties are made with all citizens of the nation, but you don't have to agree or sign the treaty." Succinctly put, treaties aren't something you can make another nation sign, and if signed due to force, really force them to comply with in their local area. A global government however, could punish citizens of any country, should they fail to follow global laws passed. That said, I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of a global government, because there is such a wide range of belief systems out there, some of them totalitarian, many of them non-democratic, many of them tied deeply to religion, and I don't think the outcome could last, or be pretty.
- 4y ago

boomchinolo78 4y ago

Unfortunately, as someone who the intelligence agency in my land said, ultimate power brings ultimate corruption. If there is no #2 then no one can police #1

hayst4ck 4y ago
Yes, sadly this is more true than ever. America is all about due process and socialism for the rich and powerful, and plea bargains and rugged capitalism for the poor and unfortunate. We have no right to preach rule of law (which more than anything means consequences for billionaires and politicians), when we don't practice it at home. I suppose the best the argument can get is that many governments would be much worse police at least for the time being. I think Europe does have the capacity (but maybe not the will) to check America's power.

Sporktacular 4y ago

Given its environmental record and susceptibility to lobbying, the US is not in a good position to police this issue. Whether anyone is can be debated, but must there be only one sheriff?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]