GLOBALIZATION AND THE FREE MARKET: A Diatribe

Debate in 21st century western society is divisive and overtly simplistic. Black and white are the only colors on the political palette, which are metaphors for right and wrong (or right and left), law-abiding and criminal, or in the case of this topic, capitalist and socialist. The United States proudly asserts itself as a wholly capitalist society, and with the policies of the current administration (as of his decisive victory in 2008) of Barrack Hussein Obama contrasted with those of his predecessor George W. Bush, political debate has reached a fevered and dualistic pitch. Bush’s republican allies have spent the first year of Obama’s presidency obsessed with “exposing” him as a blatant Marxist, and while they are correct in pointing out his sympathies for the 19th century German revolutionary, they are no less guilty than Bush’s democratic critics’ use of misinformation and short-sightedness in painting the Texan politician as a fascist, Machiavellian, Orwellian tyrant. In fact these are the tactics used by the political opposition in America’s dreadfully flawed two-party system, regardless of who the ruling party is. Bush and Obama have both been compared to Adolf Hitler (which is completely irrational), and each political party has been accused of dismantling the Constitution of the United States and implementing a system of totalitarian and autocratic rule. While this juvenile blame game persists, America’s national sovereignty and its citizens’ civil liberties are quickly being eroded by Thomas Friedman’s “golden straightjacket” and Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history”: globalization.
Before you, dear reader, accuse me of being an anarchist, a communist (assuming you’re a Republican), or a tin foil hat wearing paranoid (assuming you’re a Democrat), please read further and consider the case as it is presented. First of all, it is worth noting that the United States of America is not the only nation whose sovereignty is marginalized by globalization, but rather every country on Earth is victim to this deplorable scheme. Supposedly, globalization will eventually end all war and conflict, redistribute wealth, create more wealth, and advance technology, all while preserving (even promoting) liberal democracy. In reality, none of these benefits have been reaped, nor will they ever. The most obvious flaw with this theory is that such lofty goals cannot be achieved while retaining a free and just society. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan have both shown that peace and prosperity can be achieved by bringing many nations under the umbrella of one singular system of rule, however, their subjects still faced huge discrepancies in the distribution of wealth and even saw a decrease in their civil liberties. Those in favor of global free trade will argue that the ancient history of conquering and war-mongering tyrants and the (relatively) non-violent tone of globalization cannot be compared, as they have nothing in common.
The parallels are as obvious as the nose on Allen Greenspan’s face, if one is willing to set aside their partisan political views aside. Globalization is indeed a plot of planetary domination, and free market capitalism is its weapon of choice. Opposition of the free market can be disapproval and sweeping condemnation of the capitalist system at large, however the idea that capitalist systems work best and do the most good on the local level does not equal a desire for the abolition of private property and whipping the proletariat into a revolutionary frenzy. I have read The Communist Manifesto, and even for a time felt that socialism is the answer to humanity’s woes, but upon a little soul searching, I realized that I take issue with socialism on the same points that I do with globalization. What happened was, upon becoming aware of the global free market, I rushed to support a cause which stood in opposition to the erasure of national borders, civil liberties, and any real chance of prosperity for the common man. It did not take long, however, to realize the error of my ways, as the parallels between Marx and Engels and Friedman and Fukuyama are more apparent than one would be able to easily guess.
Communism was the idea that a world-wide revolution of the proletariat would relieve the bourgeoisie of their ill-begotten riches and man would exist in a Utopian society of equality and prosperity for all. It seems strange then that proponents of global free market economics would assert that criticism of globalization is simply nothing more than socialist dogma. Consider that the globalists espouse the idea that by removing tariffs, trade restrictions, and banning nationalization of traditionally state run enterprises such as infrastructure and national defense, they would relieve the corrupt bureaucracy of their wealth and power, allowing the middle class to use their new found capital (that they have acquired since their tax burden has been reduced by de-regulation) to exist in a prosperous society with equal opportunity for anyone who wishes to put forth the initiative to make an honest living. This fantastic scenario would of course take place world-wide because private enterprise would be allowed unfettered access to all commerce, regardless of where the industry is located. Wall Street financiers could take ownership of Bolivian public water works, and people in both places would profit. The previous example actually did occur in 2001, but not with the outcome that the globalists predicted: the price of water utilities shot up 35% and the impoverished rural Bolivians reacted violently, and were reined in even more violently when riot police killed 6 and injured more than 150 with tear gas and rubber bullets.
How odd then, that both theories claim to be a path to prosperous utopias, when in fact, upon their implementation, brutal violence and oppression were the only tangible results. As a sort of digression, I should point out that my argument against globalization is not a preventative measure, but rather a rejectionist one. The global free market is already fully in effect, and not one bomb was dropped, nary a bullet fired, to impose this new world order upon an unsuspecting populous. One would be hard pressed to find an individual who could give a correct definition of what globalization actually is, let alone anyone who can see its thus far disastrous effects. While I have the narcissistic audacity to portray myself as someone who has the intellectual endowment to discuss such a topic in an intelligent way (I am, after all, only a high school graduate), I cannot say with any certainty that even I know exactly what globalization is.
Globalization is free market economics, yes, but is that the whole story? If so, then what is the problem? Certainly capitalism is a key component to a society who holds liberty in high esteem. The blind equality of communism has shown itself to place more importance on a level playing field rather than the liberating effects of personal gain an achievement, so how could a system that would induce societies the world over to accept capitalism in its purest form – completely free from the shackles of government regulations and international negotiations on trade – be harmful? There is, in fact, compelling evidence that it can.
While the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world argue that regulation of the marketplace is the equivalent of the ushering in of the Bolshevik revolution, the fact of the matter is that turning market capitalism into a cacophony of economic anarchy is nothing short of euthanizing civilization as we know it. While it is true that the market should never be saddled with regulations that tie the hands of companies with anti-profit initiatives and excessive taxation, ownership of these enterprises must absolutely be closely scrutinized and subject to the rule of law. Even Michael Savage, who if he were any further to the right would be a modern day Joe McCarthy, agrees that it is despicable for corporate executives to rake in multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses year after year, regardless of performance. Salary caps for executives, while good for PR, however, are only an example of beneficial regulation of the market economy. Since the problem is with the global free market, regulation must be focused on how capital is exchanged across international borders.
The fact that the Chrysler Building in New York City is owned by a Saudi oil magnate is a simple example of how the global free market is a violation of national sovereignty. Perhaps the United States’ trillion dollar trade deficit with China is a better one. If reasonable regulations were in place, these sales would have never been cleared by management, and the Wall Street peddlers would have never made their healthy commission off of such a bum deal. While so called conservatives in America decry the flood of illegal immigrants from Latin America, they support a porous border and all the cheap labor it brings behind the closed doors of board meetings. On the other side of the same political coin, “liberals” accuse those in favor of strict border controls racists, ignoring the fact that a well monitored international border not only keeps out day laborers who dilute the wages of working class Americans, but also keeps out illegal weapons, organized crime, disease, and terrorism. Unfortunately, thanks the global free market inspired NAFTA agreement, America’s immune system is weakened, allowing dangerous foreign germs to infest and sicken the body of our country.
While it is true that it is patently unfair to arbitrarily tax the wealthy exorbitant rates and businesses should not be forced to pay unproductive workers for fear of retribution from law suits, these issues are not interchangeable with strong regulations on international trade. Stealing from the rich to benefit the poor and empowering the working class is socialist, but saddling foreign investors with strict rules and high tariffs is anything but. Alas, such is the nature of political discourse in America today. The Republicans and Democrats are the two faces of Janus, appearing to be in opposition, but in reality are in harmonious agreement that as long as they get a piece of the golden pie of globalization, they can throw a pesky thing like loyalty out the window. True, the democrats may be more open about their desire to become global citizens, but don’t let the doublethink of the Republicans fool you. While they preach patriotism, they in reality have no more loyalty to the republic than the loyalist to the British Crown did in colonial times. They like the idea that the borders have vanished because there is no longer a need to “covet thy neighbors’ goods”, as there are no more neighbors. Our planet is having a going out of business sale, with everything from office buildings and manufacturers to power and water treatment plants going to the highest bidder.

There is no god: Reason #1

Think of the 3 most powerful religions on the planet: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These Abrahamic religions make up more than 50% of the total human population, which is currently calculated to be in the neighborhood of 6.8 billion people. There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians, 1.84 billion Muslims, and a paltry (by strictly quantitative standards) 13.2 million Jews. Perhaps, it is more important to consider how much power is centralized within these religious groups. North America, Western Europe, and Russia are all predominately Christian regions, and also contain massive amounts of wealth and power. Also, consider the Middle east, which is predominately Muslim, and is glutted with trillions of dollars of oil wealth. Also, in the Middle East, we find Israel, which contains most of the world's Jewish population. These two centers of power only have India, China and the far east to compete with, which are the only strongholds of metaphysical dissent on our planet.
Bearing that in mind, the God of Abraham (who is the one figure revered by all three of these faiths) has an unfair advantage over opposing points of view. Adherents to these faiths will of course argue that is because there is no god but god and he is the truth and the law. However, how do we know that? I was raised Catholic, and all through my childhood, I prayed. I prayed with firm belief and unfaltering faith. I wanted desperately to speak with god, but he never engaged me in conversation. He never even showed himself. Now, of course, the pious will argue that I was lacking in faith and conviction, but that topic is neither here nor there. I simply bring this up because that is how I began to realize as a teenager that god did not exist. Since then, I have been mentally compiling evidence, and I will present the first item here.
I will argue that there is no god because according the Abrahamic religions, god is kind, just, and loves humanity. Now, of course, all the war and horrible crimes and atrocities committed by humans are commonly used to argue against this idea. It's a valid argument, but not a strong one. Rather, I present to you, dear reader, this hypothesis: there is no god because his religions are anti-human. Why would god, if he loves us so much, want us to kill each other? Consider all the hatred and violence endorsed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Judaism is materialistic, Christianity is sociopathic, and Islam is psychotic. All three are homophobic, racist, and misogynistic. All of these psychological damaged viewpoints have provided endless fodder for non-stop war, rape, assault, and murder. These religions, despite what they espouse themselves to be, actually encourage these behaviors.
Judaism teaches it's adherents that since they will spend the afterlife as a servant of god that mortal life is the time to accumulate wealth and power, as it will be taken away when the body dies. Christianity teaches their flock that one must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or they will spend eternity in hell and torment. Finally, Islam teaches its practitioners that if one does not accept that Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is his prophet, then one should be executed and all who refute this "truth" must also be summarily killed. There of course is the shared view amongst the three faiths that homosexuals must be executed, women must be subservient, and that god has only one chosen race of people - which varies from faith to faith.
These aren't exaggerations, and one needs not delve too far into the doctrines of these religions to realize that these are the kinds of beliefs that these faiths promote. To sum up the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions in one, I feel the most obvious choice is evil. Since god is supposedly good, and the tenants of these faiths are anti-human (when god supposedly loves people), I offer these items as my first reason why god does not exist.