Orange Room Supporter
N.DUPONT-AIGNAN (16/05) "Les Français vont vite déchanter. On va pas rigoler cet été !"
No one is creating a global 'federation', so your 'fact' is irrelevant.
Centralization is unnecessary to a group of nations negotiating a climate deal, for example.
All of what we know about power and its pursuit corroborate the fact that a central world government is not possible, because sovereign national actors will never willingly relinquish their power to someone else. The UN/US perpetual conflict is an illustration of that.
The practiced speech above, yet again, dismisses nuance of a much more complex subject in favor of routine talking points. Not sure why you rely too much on dichotomies in the presentation of the above argument (?).
"The people in positions of political power are the same people running multinational corporations, in a system of revolving door politics." -- For one, what or who are you arguing against? Surely not against anything I've written. Second, that statement is highly inaccurate; while the phenomenon ("revolving door") exists to some degree, your presentation of it can at best be described as over-exaggeration, and at worst be called a hasty generalization. There are so many other actors besides MNCs all vying for the juggernaut that is called political power. These actors are often in roles that not only conflict with what MNCs hope to achieve, but also ultimately ends up balancing the power of MNCs. Not to mention that MNCs can be at conflict with one another over what regulations to pass in a particular country and what regulations to scrap. The fact that any kind of regulation exists in any industry is proof that political power isn't solely in the hands of MNCs as your statement claims.
"Multinational corporations are primarily concerned with profits, not social justice." -- Again, who are you arguing against? The dichotomy you present assumes that profit, even MNCs, carry a negative connotation. That is not so. It also ignores the elephant in the room: social justice can be profitable and consumer preferences often drive the market (actually it depends on how the market is doing, and each side drives the market at different times).
"For this reason, multinational corporations favor more centralization (one centralized government is easier to deal with and control than multiple local governments)" -- this conclusion does not follow your other points. The logical connection you attempt to draw is not there. For all intents and purposes, MNCs do not have the power to create a centralized world government because their power is offset by so many other state and non-state actors including but not limited to: some MNCs, national governments, NGOs, NPOs, academics and professionals, the media, the common people... all of which may be opposed to that idea.
The push towards a global system of governance, in the sense I described in my previous post, is also not exclusive to MNCs. The other actors listed above are in favor of it for one reason or another, while others of the same category may be opposed for different reasons. Existence of MNCs is important and has many advantages both to first and third world countries, but their existence should be regulated to a certain degree and not left to roam freely.
In our world today, there is the kind of global governance that I am describing, not the one you are. If MNCs at their height could not achieve a centralized world government, they're unlikely to do so when they're in retreat. Not that there's any evidence they even tried...
And there is worse.Here is what they promote and militate for:
Donnons-leur un passeport européen !
Le président d’ESF, dans une tribune publiée dans lemonde.fr et reprise par Slate et par BHL, a proposé que les migrants admis sur le territoire d’un Etat européen reçoivent un « passeport européen », pour matérialiser leur droit à la libre circulation sur le territoire européen.
La tribune sur lemonde.fr - Version PDF
Bernard Henri-Lévy sur ITélé
TL;DR version of ur vid