[phs318u]

On a slight tangent here...

I've always thought one of the biggest problems with globalisation as a concept is the absence of free movement of people.

What I mean by that is the ability of people anywhere to move anywhere else, to work, consume, pay tax, and otherwise take part in civic life, for as long as they wish.

We have free movement of capital and free movement of goods. However the limitation on movement of labour has turned some parts of the planet into labour ghettos, creating forced economic gradients that benefit a few. While this has been the case for some time, the free movement of information has informed even the most ignorant that this need not be the case.

The so-called "economic" migration sweeping the world is the inevitable result of this state of affairs. Its not just information that wants to be free.

I find it hard to see how one could be a true believer in the power for good of the free market, without including free movement of labour.

If you follow the thought experiment of what such free movement would look like, you could imagine the end state being an effective equalisation across most of the globe. The net effect would also be an acceleration of cultural equalisation (religious extremists notwithstanding).

Of course, the journey from here to there would be interesting!

[jjn2009]

Some cultures are more aggressive than others and do not allow for the free exchange of ideas. This is why this does not always work. The freedoms provided by western culture are fragile, a monopoly over a democracy can result in an antidemocratic anti-free society, one where the benefits of free anything are extinguished.

[phs318u]

I think that's a bit of a simplistic generalisation. It's probably more accurate to say that there are aggressive and "dangerous" ideas that have taken hold among some groups of people, including among native westerners. And I agree that some of these ideas are inimical to free discourse and enlightenment ideals.

However, other than the pathological power-seekers that cynically exploit such ideas for their own benefit, most followers (those that are more inclined to support simplistic and extreme positions) are not much different across ideas. There is more in common between a neo-Nazi and a fundamentalist Muslim than either would care to admit. Both are fear-driven, exclusionary, apocalyptic, conspiratorial, and inclined to violent remedies. Both regard typical western centrists (both progressive and pale-conservative) as weak.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but surely some elements of a successful strategy must include education, focusing on unifying similarities, and forging alliances of moderate groups across religious, cultural, political and national boundaries. All of which take generations of sustained effort. There are no quick fixes, contrary to what demagogues would have us believe.