Alternative suggestions to five points Kissinger proposes for a “new international order”.
As a student of Thomas Friedman and Henry Kissinger’s globalisation theories, I’m in awe of their knowledge, analysis and adept abilities to enunciate. But, these elites that shape opinion of the masses and the elites, respectively, ignore the lines that separate autonomy from legitimate consensual authority from illegitimate tyranny.
Quotes from Dr. Kissinger’s article in The Independent today:
1.) “The alternative to a new international order is chaos.“
2.) “The economic world has been globalised.“
3.) “In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.“
4.) “The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.“
5.) “The role of China in a new world order is crucial.“
1.) The alternative to an international order is not chaos. The alternative is people liberated to participate in the decision-making process of the decisions that affect them.
This alternative is cheaper, more transparent, and walks in step with people’s natural right to be free and only accept authority to which they consent. Dr. Kissinger’s suggestion is for an elite few to tyrannically govern the masses.
2.) The economic world has been globalised and now the global economy is in shambles. What’s the definition of ‘insanity’ again?
3.) There’s a third way: shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by the people to freely exchange these units with the freedom to accept and refuse these units, the freedom to cooperatively operate their workplace or delegate to managers of their choosing, and the freedom to hold those who damage their freedom liable.
4.) Those who wish to participate in damaging the environment should be liable to provide restitution to those they damage. Those who wish to arm themselves to higher degrees accept the added in risk in those around to do the same.
Those who wish to participate in reckless lending and consumerism accept the risk of being enslaved to their creditor when the debtor cannot meet his/her end of the contract and the contract is null and void when the creditor cannot meet his/her end by backing up the credit they sell. There’s no violent/coercive policy, robbery, or supreme monopolistic authority necessary.
5.) The only role China would accept in a “New World Order” is pretty obvious. As the most productive, economically secure, and populous nation in the G-20 with veto power on the UN Security [sic] Council and the most damaging weapon of mass destruction in the form of a US bank note, China will only participate in a world order where China gives the orders.
The only justifiable order is democracy — not the order of the few elite dominating the cattle or of a tyrannical minute majority, but consensus.
The alternative to a new international order is liberty.