Comment 4-

While I know there are those who deny that trade enhances economic well-being, it seems clear that that is just wrong.

Answer 4-

I think it’s more complex than this- sometimes it enhances well being- sometimes it doesn’t- it depends on the trade and who it’s with. I suspect that trade improves well being more often than not. See Francisco D’Anconia’s (James Taggart Wedding) and Hank Reardon’s (A sale requires the consent of the seller) speech. An interesting counter example to trade improves well being is the example of Western trade with China- China uses trade profits to build weapons to destroy the West.

Comment 5-

The globalist project (which seems to be your main concern) is indeed as you describe, an attempt by global elites to define away global boarders. They do want open transfers of peoples between nations (although nations would really not exist) and the free movement of monies and means of production.

Answer 5-

Thanks.

Comment 6-

So, from my perspective - tourism is great and useful-

Answer 6-

If pushed I wouldn’t support broad tourism from non-friendly nations or cultures.

Comment 7-

- why the workers in those industries are to be sacrificed in that fight is unclear and manifestly unfair. So again...do you have any sympathy for the victims of lockdown?

Answer 7-

I have sympathy for the victims of lockdown- but also disappointment for those that caused it.

Comment 8-

"I try to see the world as it was in the 1950's and the 1500's and other mileposts and try to work out what went wrong contemporarily…". Might I suggest that you consider working out what went RIGHT, contemporarily. No one who understands the period wants to live in the 1500's. As much as I admire Periclean Athens, life there compared to now would be abysmal. We live in a golden age (or did until very recently)-

Answer 8-

Some things go right and some things go wrong in every era perhaps. I think I implied this in my original comment. The modern era has sacrificed community for technology.

My concern is in this so called enlightened age people feel less empowered and in a sense more enslaved than at other more ancient times- a gilded cage- better to die virtuous (free in an Aristotelian sense) than to live in a golden (c)age. It might be useful to reflect on the Hierarchy Of Needs- despite it’s faults.

Comment 9-

(We) need to understand how and why we got here.

Answer 9-

I agree.

Comment 10-

We live in a golden age (or did until very recently)- It wasn't all down to globalism, but it was a large part of it.

Answer 10-

This comment is like saying that the biggest profit comes down to the biggest market. This is sort of what David Ricardo said about free trade in Comparative Advantage of Nations. It can be a guide. The Art of War- best army has the best- leadership, law, chain of command, training, discipline- it’s not just about having the biggest army. Depends perhaps how one defines globalism and well being- is it research, exploration. I’m torn by the philosophy of Ayn Rand here. Some things can be defined in terms of Economics or Accounting. A lot of things in the community are not quantifiable economically at least not in the short term- perhaps it’s even more strong than that- the most important things in the community are not quantifiable in economic terms- at some point I suspect that it’s subjective/ existentialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Overall the current embodiment of globalism is characterised by naivety- the naive belief that with openness everything will be ok- globalism has always existed in a sense- to greater or lesser degree- depending on the place- it’s nothing new. It’s interesting that businesses promote openness in others but are closed themselves- sounds like a power play to me.

But at the same time trust can be promoted between mutual friends by reciprocal sharing.

Some have implied that global businesses are the nations of the future- they are more adaptable- they are dictatorial- they are efficient- etc.

In a sense many monarchies were in a sense similar to this- but the best nations understood that well being needs to filter down through the hierarchies in order for themselves to prosper- this can take many forms- at first glance perhaps malevolent.

Monarchies in ruling their own ethnicities had a perhaps closer empathy with their own people that those of other ethnicities due to more common traits- and were perhaps more emphathic- though there is always a gap between the ruled and the rulers- the powerless and the powerful. Also eg. project power hierarchy is necessary to achieve goals. Project leaders should try to delegate where feasible.

Technology has the potential to be more dictatorial than dictatorship ever was.

Trust is important between the army and the general- if they both face death together they will give their all- people also need an enemy at times to give them meaning- a good leader perhaps might be one in which helps people to understand that meaning can be internal.

Perhaps we should all be more tourists of our own communities rather than tourists of the world.

Canem Malum,
From my viewpoint this so-called enlightened age is in fact 90% a new dark age.

Thanks Individual for your comments.

"From my viewpoint this so-called enlightened age is in fact 90% a new dark age."

Answer- Yes this has become my view too. I've been researching Mass Psychosis and Group Think as well as Dostoevsky's comments in Demons/The Possessed- seemingly encapsulating our era- though narcisistic totalitarians of course will try to use DARVO to reverse the blame to avoid accountability.

Some of this research suggests that Pavlov's techniques are used by Totalitarians on The Masses. It seems to present James Burnham's Managerialism in a subtle new distinctiveness.

On a lighter note- Dandrews has seemingly become a figure of ridicule due to his maskless exploits- despite his claims of "maskless village witches". Hoisted with his own petard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard

I suspect that mhaze has an exemplary knowledge of Dostoevsky- I spent a week reading Solzhenitsyn when this came up in previous discussions- and remember mhaze's comments to be instructive.

Thanks again Individual for your comments. When all we have is our sardonism they'll still indict us as aggressors. It's important to keep a sense of sardonic humour in these times- it may be the only power we have- they'll still of course try to take it away- let them come for it.

mhaze- Thanks for challenging me on this issue- it always helps me to clarify my thoughts and position on things even if I find my position sometimes proven to be somewhat inconsistent. It enables me to pressure test my ideas. It indicates the complexity and subtlety in the argument and the pressure points in the community. I found the way you challenged me was great. Thanks again for sharing your greatness mhaze. Canem Malum.