Ignacio My friend always insists that the key to good governance is legal certainty for employers. It is true that "social peace" which is an integral part but not only the "common good" is essential to economic development of peoples.
anyone say that when a people colonized and subjugated to another, with that stress can improve economically. It may be that something was the colonial regime, but it is clear that this only gives a temporary advantage and a few. The tension will grow up to unsustainable empire based on exploitation.
But while no one says that this is desirable, modern colonialism imposed by this model through "predatory lending" aid linked to birth control, internal protectionism, wages garbage, etc..
is also true that capitalism has sought the development of Korea, Taiwan, and many other countries, that hunger in the world has fallen as a share but has continued to increase in absolute numbers and the global economy is no longer the case of a country. Today's economic crisis are global crisis. As said Leopoldo Abadía, without being literal in my date: today the U.S. crisis impact on the employer of my people.
So what good governance could make a country level, may be insufficient to address a global world order. And these attributes of social peace should be extended to the maximum number of states. And there is social peace and legal certainty populist nationalization large companies. There are some new rules that make the "nationalization" is no longer a robbery at a local level but globally
When Pope Benedict XVI speaks of the new world order refers to three aspects of the common good necessary for economic development sustainable in the sense of long lasting, not "low development" as my friend often said Humberto
.
The three aspects of the global common good is "the set of relations of trust, reliability and respect for the rules" necessary for coexistence civil.
These three aspects are related to the crumb and Ignacio statement: "legal certainty" but globally.
Trust relationships involve nothing less than the natural exercise of justice in economic activity, "pacta sunt servanda" in addition to not impose "onerous and unfair burdens" taking advantage of the strong position, which would be masked by the need to steal.
reliability and respect for the rules flies in the face with ethical relativism. If the rule is nothing more than mere convention among men is like a river unstable. Depending on the state, ever changing, nations, the desirability of governments or powerful change the rules so you will always "is the strong who plays the checkmate." There is no fair competition but economic warfare.
And, of course, in a globalized world, power tends to be concentrated in few hands. Today is moving inexorably to a "World Authority" can become, as we observed in the State governments, a huge "Matrix", which degenerated into a democracy, dictated by rules that subjugate our good conscience as experiment plays economic liberalism. That is the intent of one of our great powers, China: a "give controlled release" attached to a sturdy control of education and thought. And in the West, a libertarian permissiveness on the body and a negation of values \u200b\u200beducation in public institutions, taken from the citizens who placed their trust in the State.
So when Benedict XVI speaks of the "World Authority" speaks of "limits" to maintain that set of values \u200b\u200bnecessary for peaceful coexistence, economic development, social and cultural of peoples, but with a clear division of powers, respect for the autonomy of nations, and greater respect and affection to the freedom of individuals and their dignity.
Anyway, although it seems that the world through communication and a global world, through the movement of capital also will still have to move towards the movement of people, respect for personal rights States to respect the cultural event. This will involve domain tensions may lead to conflict situations that could be devastating for humanity.
My opinion on the matter is that this order world that we are inevitably doomed, has no desire to be a pint of freedom system based on the dignity of individuals but a system that will require "more and more deliveries of our plots of freedom", while for " , our good "could decide on inalienable rights, yes" to save the planet. " Time to build intellectually strong value system that prevent inalienable "Matrix" landing finished first in the West and then show its universal vocation. Frid
