Does Globalisation prevent war?

[ivnryn]

To respond to this:

• Yes, a territorial monopolist of any kind, including a monopolist of justice and security, is considered bad

Apparently, in Iceland, they used to have a competition based government (hundreds of years ago). Basically, you could pick from a number of sub-governments. Each sub-government was lead by a chieftain/high priest/chief justice (one person). If there was a dispute between two members of the group, he handled it. However, if there was a dispute between members of different groups, the 2 groups went to arbitration. If they couldn't agree on an arbitor, then it could lead to violance, so they generally came to an agreement. If you lost in court and refused to pay, you were kicked out of your group and no longer subject to legal protection (killing you wouldn't be murder for example). The key point was that you could switch group at any time, as long as the chief of the new group would accept you.

• How can a government decided by majority vote ever be suited to protecting minorities? For instance, democracy has an appalling record in polyglot societies. (The Germans in Czechosolvakia were antagonised under democratic rule, whereas no such thing occured under democratic rule)

There is an argument that 'democracy' and majority rule are not equivalent.

For majority rule to work, the swing voter must hold balance of power.

• Unsurprisingly, democratic governments also fracture society, rule for the benefit of some to the detriment of the many. And as I have argued the transfer of wealth to government, and also within society will increase under democracy

This is an example of a public goods problem, where it is good that it fails. When a group representing a majority can ensure that its group block votes, then the minority loses all power (see NI). However, if the majority fail to achieve that, then the 'swing voters' hold power, and they tend to be reasonable.

• You are fully correct when you say that any government must rely on an air of legitimacy in order to survive. Any government that loses in the court of public opinion will soon crumble.

It can take a while. Also, there is alot of 'friction', the government has to be pretty bad before people will revolt.

OTOH, people will leave an oppressive country, if they are allowed to.

[Hazlitt]

I believe that states or regions that do a significant amount of trade with one another will be highly unlikely to want to begin or support a war on each other.

20000 - I agree with you on more things than not, but on the question of Monarchical government I completely disagree that it is preferable to a constitutional democracy. As I believe you already have quite a good thread on this matter, give it an auld bump and I'll join you there.

[amblincork]

That the 10 or 15 years preceding the First World War was one of the first great periods of globalisation ( Whatever that word means ) surely should suggest that the answer is no !

Globalisation is one of the more overused and least defined words in vogue.
Lets try defining what we mean by it and showing that is actually a force shaping events before deciding what role it plays in limiting war.

[Kev408]

I thought 'globalisation' was old hat and we'd moved on to 'world systems' theory? (That was at least 4 years ago).

[DS-09]

20,000 you know a lot about economics! Have you ever studied it?

[20000miles]

I served a four year sentence studying Keynesian economics at TCD. I got paroled two years early and am now taking a one year break before I resume my punishment.

But seriously, Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe have taught me more than anyone about the nature of economics and politics.

[amblincork]

" Indeed, globalisation is often assumed to exhibit casual properties of its own, as if it were somehow an actor in its own right. Yet globaliation is not a 'real thing' and, as such, cannot actually do . anything. For Hay and Marsh, then, globalisation must be seen as a description rather than an explanation "
author Nicola Jo-Anne Smith, ' Showcasing globalisation '

[DS-09]

Interesting post amblincork- is that a book you got the reference from?

Also what does everybody make of Barrack Obama's first half year in power? And will he involve the US in world affairs as many of his predecessors have- or will the United States withdraw from the world, given the current economic situation

[amblincork]

Interesting post amblincork- is that a book you got the reference from?

Also what does everybody make of Barrack Obama's first half year in power? And will he involve the US in world affairs as many of his predecessors have- or will the United States withdraw from the world, given the current economic situation

Yes, it is written by an Irish academic and examines globalisation from an Irish perspective.
Published last year and available from Easons (€20.25) it reviews the development of Irish industrial policy from 1921 to 2004, it would also be of interest to Irish history students.
It is relevant to the Lisbon Treaty debate as well, or should be if it ever goes beyond the fairly superficial/ generalised level that characterised the Lisbon 1 debate.