Talk:Neo-imperialism

message: Okay, I'm the one who started this article, but now I think it should be merged to neocolonialism.
:I agree that this article might be best merged with neocolonialism.  I've just read that article and it seems very good. TomTheHand 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hogeye 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Neocolonialism]]? 

message: RJII, you wrote:
:"Some in the United States propose that the U.S. government should mandate that businesses in foreign countries adhere to the same labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the U.S. before they are allowed to trade with businesses in the U.S. (this has been advocated by Howard Dean). This may be seen as a form of neo-imperialism..."
My question is simple: According to whom? Who sees the above as a form of neo-imperialism? Friedman doesn't. He just says it's bad. He doesn't say (or even hint) that it is a form of neo-imperialism. How do you go from "X is bad according to Milton Friedman" to "X can be seen as a form of neo-imperialism and is bad according to Milton Friedman"? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says anything is neo-imperialism? It's not an officially defined term, as far as I know. I can give you the Merriam-Webster definition of imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"  So, certainly it's imperialism. Is it "neo" imperialism?  You guess is as good as mine.  Maybe I'll just stick that in the imperialism article. RJII 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want to insert a discussion of X as neo-imperialism, you need a source that says "X is neo-imperialism" or at least something along those lines. There is nothing in the Merriam-Webster definition that refers to regulation; notice that we're not talking about one country regulating other countries' companies here. We're talking about the United States regulating its own companies to prevent them doing business with countries that don't meet certain standards. The US government would not be imposing regulation on foreign countries - they could keep their old labor standards and simply stop doing business with US companies. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, you're not talking about imperialism or neo-imperialism, but about embargo. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Business is a two way street. If you forbid US businesses from doing business with overseas business then you are in effect forbidding those foreign companties from doing businesses in the U.S.. The result is the same --a government-imposed block that prevents businesses from trading with each other. RJII 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what an embargo is. The point is that (a) the government would not be imposing anything or using any kind of force against foreign businesses, and (b) no one has ever said that any of this amounts to imperialism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly would be using force against the foreign owned business. The foreign owned business would not be allowed to transfer money to a U.S. business, for example. The transaction would be stopped. The foreign business would not be allowed to use its property as it wishes. And, if that isn't enough, there is the exploitation and extortion effect --the U.S. would be saying "follow our standards or starve --we will not let you trade with the businesses in the U.S. and you will not have enough money to feed your families." RJII 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So "do what we say or we'll let you starve" = exploitation and extortion? I never knew you were a socialist, RJII. I assume you will logically have no objections if I were to write paragraphs in various articles claiming that capitalist companies who give their workers a "take it or leave it" choice between working for them or starving are engaging in exploitation, extortion, and imperialism. I wouldn't need any sources, of course, because you say that such practices are "obviously" imperialistic. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt that there's such a thing as explotation. If you offer to save a drowning man only on the condition that he promises to give you his life's savings, I think it's obvious that you're exploiting him. But, note that you wouldn't be initiating coercion against him. Nevertheless, I doubt any jury would enforce such a contract. At some point a free market trade becomes exploitation. Whether offering to give a hungry person money for a day of work is exploitation is entirely subjective. Many are grateful for the opportunity. RJII 03:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, you are also advocating the novel idea that any kind of government regulation anywhere constitutes an initiation of force against everyone on the planet. If the government of Ghana, for example, introduces some regulation on companies in its own country, this will restrict the ability of foreign companies to do business in Ghana, so those foreign companies "would not be allowed to use their property as they wish". By your logic, if every country in the world except one - say, North Korea - adopted laissez-faire capitalism tomorrow, my property rights would still be infringed by the fact that I can't buy stuff in North Korea. Oh, the horror! -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. If a government, whether the US government or the North Korean government coercively prevents trade between individuals in both countries, there is not a free market. Private property rights on both sides are being restricted by coercion. RJII 03:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So a free market is impossible unless it is adopted by every country in the world? You are entitled to your own views, of course, but you cannot add them to articles unless you have sources for them. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, an absolutely free market is not possible unless there is absolutely no coercion. In a free market, all capital, goods, and services flow freely. RJII 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter anyway. I found a better place for the information. As a challenge to you, why don't you go and try to track it down. If you find it and delete it, I'll hide it in another article, and so on. This could be fun game. RJII 04:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's on my watchlist, I will track it down. If it's not on my watchlist, I don't really care - but I might still track it down. In any case, it would be a violation of WP policy, for which you will be reported. I suggest that you give up on this particular bit of POV-pushing. You call it fun; I call it self-incriminating. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A violation of what Wikipedia policy? Hurry up and get out your little rule book. RJII 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A repeated violation of WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:NOR, with clear and self-admitted malicious intent. By the way, as I am not an anarchist, I have absolutely no qualms about resorting to the "little rule book". Wikipedia would do well to have more rules, and better enforcement of them. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 14:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Malicious intent? How is it malicious intent to put the information in another article where it's more appropriate, and modified in a form to better fit with that article? RJII 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedman and RJII's edits