No Trade With Any Nation That Isn't Representative?

[CavLancer]

As in the government is elected. Also, any elected government that is aggressive to its neighbors, no trade.

In the above cases no ships or trains from that nation are allowed in representative nations ports or borders.

No hardship is too great. To do business with scoundrels and aggressors is a thing of the past. Hang them out to dry, and suffer the hardships that result with good cheer.

No alliances with same, cut them off.

What do you think? Would the non representative governments of the world be overthrown amid the economic chaos that visits the countries of despots and fascists?

Would freedom prevail?

All democratic industrialized countries would have to get on board.

The US would be forced to stop absurd wars.

China would have to overthrow and have free elections. The western 2% that sent our jobs to China would cry a river. Freedom in China would help bring an end to aggressiveness, abuse of labor, and bring wages up as (God bless em) unions take hold and don't let go. The law of the UN would prevail in the Spratly Island region and 200 mile EEC zones be negotiated. The great theft would end.
Jobs and industry would come home.

Russia would be out in the cold, western Europe would have some cold winters, the US would have to try to supply Europe and would be cold too.

I think its the answer to all the world's fascist bastard problems, agree?

Note: My very first RD thread.

 

[Arwon]

Literally none of the results you claim would in fact occur.

 

[Agent327]

As in the government is elected. Also, any elected government that is aggressive to its neighbors, no trade.

In the above cases no ships or trains from that nation are allowed in representative nations ports or borders.

No hardship is too great. To do business with scoundrels and aggressors is a thing of the past. Hang them out to dry, and suffer the hardships that result with good cheer.

No alliances with same, cut them off.

What do you think? Would the non representative governments of the world be overthrown amid the economic chaos that visits the countries of despots and fascists?

Would freedom prevail?

Capitalism doesn't care about freedom.

 

[Tahuti]

What about no trade with any ochlocratic nation?

Capitalism doesn't care about freedom.

Freedom isn't free indeed!

 

[Agent327]

Seeing as economic sanctions are as ineffective to regime change as possible (case in point: 50 years of Cuban embargo), I don't expect anything at all from this.

Freedom isn't free indeed!

I wouldn't confuse capitalism with freedom. They are entirely different phenomena.

 

[Tahuti]

Seeing as economic sanctions are as ineffective to regime change as possible (case in point: 50 years of Cuban embargo), I don't expect anything at all from this.

Well, you do have South Africa, although the Apartheid regime was pretty fragile in the years leading up to the boycott.

The thing with economic sanctions is that they can actually be conducive to political stability of the targeted nations.

 

[CavLancer]

While capitalism as you may see it is the representation of the 2%, it is in fact the energy and hard work of the small farm and store of our moms and pops, and screw the stock market of the super rich. Capitalism has been abducted by the 2%.

Communism will toss it all in as one, and screw the peasant farmers, the land belongs to the people, and We Communists decide who the true people are, but in fact only the leaches at the top need be (partially) disenfranchised, not the regular folk with the small farm or store or industry. Whether it be the 2% of the capitalists or the high Communists who claim all is owned by the people makes no matter. Its all the same.

 

[amadeus]

Sounds like just making the world's liberal countries considerably less liberal and much poorer.

 

[red_elk]

To do business with scoundrels and aggressors is a thing of the past.

Isolating USA may be a good idea from moral standpoint, but impractical.

 

[CavLancer]

You communists carry too much phantasms and overweight baggage. You forget the motivation of the small businessfolks who build everything worthwhile. They should labor for the 'state', but they won't.

 

[warpus]

Trade between most countries would stop and living conditions would go down, leading to more problems.

 

[red_elk]

You communists carry too much phantasms and overweight baggage. You forget the motivation of the small businessfolks who build everything worthwhile. They should labor for the 'state', but they won't.

I'm not a communist. Those who are, though, strive for complete elimination of state instead of making people labor for it.

As for businessfolk, they build a lot of worthwhile things, but not all of them. For example, business motivation works only in cases when people (capitalists) can make profit from their business. Consumer products which you can advertise and sell, over and over again. When there is no immediate profit for them, it won't work. For example things like fundamental science, space exploration, etc. And more importantly, it doesn't work when the benefit is common for all people, in things like maintaining clean processes in industry, ecology, stuff like that. That has to rely on state regulation or philanthropy, market mechanisms don't work.

As for the topic, the question is simple - how it will be determined, who is good and who is villain? Every country has its own economical and geopolitical interests and if you propose to create some sort of closed club of countries which will not trade with anyone outside of this club, it will be detrimental for their economy. And if this club will be broad, include most of the world countries, then what is the process of determining who is in and who is out? World countries are too different to agree on such things uniformly, and if you propose one authoritative state to dictate its will, others won't agree to it too.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Also, any elected government that is aggressive to its neighbors, no trade.

So the US would be restricted from trading with anybody?

Or does the US get to hypocritically decide what is "aggressive", just like "state sponsors of terrorism".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But the US follows this policy already, just ask them.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

How about no control over trade as in the Free Market™?

 

[Formaldehyde]

How else are they going to force non-communist countries to no longer be communist?

 

[Agent327]

Well, you do have South Africa, although the Apartheid regime was pretty fragile in the years leading up to the boycott.

The thing with economic sanctions is that they can actually be conducive to political stability of the targeted nations.

Your fragile apartheid regime had the support of major Western powers.

 

[BvBPL]

There's a question of how board a standard of representation is required to continue trade. China technically has a representative government, even though few of us would call it democratic. If China fell into the non-representative category then the world would change overnight. So much of the worlds goods, like this iPhone, can constructed with Chinese slave labor. Removal of that industry would dramatically affect the rest of the world. At least for a time. Chinas greatest asset is its labor force. Inexpensive labor can be found in other democracies so industry would quickly flood into those markets. A shift would occur, but over time people would adapt.

We'd also have to remove much of Arabia from the world market. This would dramatically affect oil concerns. We would have to shift From Arabian oil to alternatives which likely means additional exploitation of natural resources in democratic countries. It may also mean changes in how we view our resources. This would likely be a more dramatic change over time for the West than the exclusion of china from world markets.

Then there's the prospect of Iran. It is more democratic than China or Arabian states. Would it fall under a representative govt in this scheme? If so, they'd would rapidly fill in the oil exports left by the Arabians. This would dramatically shift interests in the Middle East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CavLancer]

There would have to be a voting body of democratic, trading nations to determine who is in and who is out.

Nations that are out where totalitarian governments depend on trade would be overthrown and replaced by representative governments.

As mentioned in the OP, the US would have to give up absurd wars.

This hasn't a chance of happening so do try not to get in a twist about it.

This could also be used to end child labor and slavery.

Any nation that converts to representative could get a free pizza.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isis must be a trading-powerhouse
Or does their desert produce everything they need? (including planes dropping supplies etc).