Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Ponder on those modern oxymora!

a) foreign inward investment
b) foreign products (imports)
c) foreign workers and people (humans) in general:

1) Why are a, b, and c each treated differently by part of the political world and public opinion? Specifically, why are political parties who are against foreigners and emphasize national sovereignty focus either (or both) on foreign humans as well as transnational or supranational laws? Why are they not "bothered" equally or more by "loss of sovereignty" and privileges of the "national citizens" from foreign ownership of businesses (via direct and indirect investment, some of it by funds controlled or supervised by foreign governments) and the loss of sovereignty due to tastes for foreign goods that displace "made in" (at home country) ones and loss of sovereignty due to foreign debt?

2) Assuming that one considers a, b and c equally "damaging" to sovereignty or national interest, why is factor (c) considered so? And is this treatment of fellow human beings consistent with a) humanism b) the human allegiance principles of many religions?

Yes we do live in complex and volatile world systemics and many people, including politicians get "dizzy" inside this chaos. But it it not time for humanism as well as logic to kick in?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi there,

Feel free to comment.
Only suitable comments will be posted.
In EN, FR, GR, D, IT, SP, NL only (Use Google Translate otherwise SVP).

Thanks.
BRs
Nick

Share/Bookmark