Points de vue libéraux
From Liberpédia
- Mondialisation : Le terme de "mondialisation" est trompeur, puisqu'il est en général compris à la fois dans le sens de mondialisme (Etat mondial, unité politique mondiale), dans le sens de libre-échange (c'est à dire, la suppression des barrières douanières), dans le sens de "faire du commerce avec l'autre bout de la terre", dans le sens de "mélange de toutes les populations mondiales" et dans le sens de "unification culturelle mondiale". Le libéralisme est bien entendu opposé à l'Etat mondial / au mondialisme / à l'ONU (voir par exemple UN is evil, Get Us Out, contre l'ONU, dossier PL, dossier QL) et favorable au libre-échange (et donc opposé au protectionnisme), quant au fait de commercer avec l'autre bout de la terre ou acheter des produits locaux, cela doit relever du libre-choix de chacun, de même que le fait de se mélanger à d'autres populations ou rester groupé au sein d'une même "ethnie", de même que le fait de vouloir préserver une culture spécifique ou non.
- UE : L'UE rajoute une couche supplémentaire d'Etat, une couche supplémentaire de bureaucratie, une couche supplémentaire d'impôts à ce que les européens doivent déjà subir de la part de leurs gouvrnements respectifs. La centralisation, la suppression de la concurrence fiscale et le pouvoir étatique accru que cela représente sont autant de raisons qui font que tout libéral qui se respecte ne peut que s'opposer à l'Union des République Socialistes d'Europe. Sans oublier le petit faible de l'UE pour l'endoctrinement et la propagande.
- NAFTA (ALENA) et WTO (OMC) :
- "Free trade means to impose neither import tariffs or quotas, nor to subsidize the exportation of goods or engage in any other export promotion schemes. In particular, free trade does not require any bilateral or multilateral agreements or treaties. Instead, free trade policies can be implemented instantaneously and unilaterally, and intergovernmental trade agreements, regardless of what they are called, must invariably be regarded as indicators of international trade restrictions rather than free trade. [...] Moreover, with the so-called North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a document of about 2,400 pages (when free trade prescriptions ca be summarized in two sentences !) the U.S. government, in colloboration with the governments of Canada and Mexico, has recently adopted another maze of international trade restrictions and regulations. In effect, NAFTA involves upward-harmonization of the tax and regulation across North America (very much like the so-called European Union (EU) does for most of Western Europe). Similar structures apply to the new creation, as the result of GATT's (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) recent "Uruguay Round" of the World Trade Organization. See on this The Nafta Reader: Free-Market Critiques of the North American "Free Trade" Agreement (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1993) and The WTO reader: Free Market Critiques of the World Trade Organization (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994)"
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy The God That Failed, footnote 7 p157-158
- World Bank (Banque Mondiale) et IMF (FMI) :
- As for help from the IMF or the World Bank, don't count on it. Instead, these institutions are a major source of economic mischief and misinformation. They have been established by Western governments, foremost the U.S., in order to promote their interests. They are manned by thousands of 'expert' bureaucrats on well-paid jobs requiring little work and offering exotic perks. If they are economists, the 'experts' are most likely Keynesians; that is, for them, there exists no problem that paper money cannot cure. This bureaucracy is endowed with paper money which the US and its allied governments have 'created out of thin air' (printed up). It negotiates loans to governments of countries in financial trouble, presumably in order to get them out of trouble.
- From this constellation the following prediction can be derived: Because it is not their own money or that of private investors that the international bureaucrats loan out, they have little or no interest that their policy proposals actually work and the loans be repaid. Worse, because it is 'governments in trouble' that are bailed out with loans, economic troubles and policies leading to such troubles are actually encouraged (think of Zimbabwe and Mugabe!). Perversely, then, the failure of their own policy-prescriptions provides a reason for the institutions' own continued existence and growth. What would the IMF do, if governments would not cause economic troubles?
- pour la légalisation de toutes les drogues
- pour le droit d'avoir et de porter des armes
- contre la (pseudo)-démocratie
- contre le racisme politique
