There are 3 elements of globalisation, and it is the very first two that are significant in “human rights”.
The first element is a limiting meaning of “free trade” and “free market”. That is to state, they are considered “complimentary” not since the labour is free to negotiate as an EQUAL in the global market, however only due to the fact that the product is easily offered in the global market. In other words, “totally free” as specified by Adam Smith.
For those who believe Adam Smith’s “economic theory” is affordable, you require to keep in mind that his theory was based upon the economics of the United Kingdom, that manufactured the servant ships, the economics of the American colonies, that utilized the slave labour, and the economics of West Africa, that provided the forced labour, where the primary “financial benefit” was for the “upper class” in the United Kingdom.
The “unnoticeable hand” that managed trade in his theory held the whip that beat the servant, and guaranteed that individuals that contributed the most labour to the item benefitted the least, and the people that contributed the least labour to the product benefitted one of the most.
Simply put, a globalised economy will eventually drive down labour expenses to such a level that the “slave labour” manufacturers of the product will never be the “fortunate” consumers of that product. And in this element of the international market, it is the denial of that consumer “privilege”, whether it is deliberate or not, that is the violation of human rights.
The servant labourer’s human rights are broken if he does not gain from his labour. Globalisation drives down labour expenses to slave labour levels.
The 2nd component is “worldwide commercialism” and “international currency”.
Industrialism in itself is nothing more than utilizing “capital” to invest to make more “capital”. On a nationwide level, “capital” is more easily defined and given a consistent value. In this meaning, “capital” is both an “estate” – something tangible that has a financial worth besides as currency, that is not taken in, and currency, which is something that has an economic worth only in trade – as an intermediate.
On a national level, supplied the market is as free and fair as it can be, which is to say that both the buyer and the seller have an equivalent advantage, both the estate and the currency can be fairly distributed.
Obviously, even in nations with a history of political equality, and therefore a minimum of some financial equality, there will be inequalities. Some of these will be “inherited”, and others will naturally establish as a repercussion of luck and judgement, and with the advantage of currently having some capital to invest with.
On a nationwide level, offered there suffices investment in the “common excellent”, the natural tendency of the capitalist system to increase the inequality in the distribution can be made up for by the natural propensity of a free and fair market to alter, where the less advantaged can frequently have a higher capability to adjust.
In other words, provided everyone has fairly equivalent access to the fundamental requirements of life, the inevitable instabilities in the market reward the more difficult working, smarter believing, and more versatile financier. And on a “national level”, with political equality and political flexibility, it is easier to insure that a market is as complimentary and as fair as it can be, although no market can ever be totally free or fair.
For example, in nations that have a clearly valued (both “difficult” and “strong”) currrency it is possible to have a property tax, and or a rapid rate of earnings tax, that can compensate in part for the natural propensity of existing capital to generate a lot more capital.
On an “global level” however it is difficult to guarantee political equality or political flexibility, and therefore difficult to have an “international market” that is affordable free or reasonable, if there is an “international currency”, that can value the labour of the “privileged” customer greater than the labour of the “servant labourer” manufacturer.
And there is such an international currency, which is the third component of globalisation. It is nonrenewable fuel source, a type of “black gold” that facilitates both unsustainable investment into practically every aspect of global economics and the worldwide economy, and also assists in unsustainable “marketing” and production of product through subsidised transportation and automation of production, despite the fact that in itself it’s usage does not violate human rights.
The servant labourer’s human rights are breached if he does not take advantage of his labour. Globalisation makes it simpler to keep the inequalities – the lack of fairness and flexibility – in the worldwide market, that denies him a fair share of the advantage of his labour.
Keep in mind nevertheless that I utilized the word “unsustainable” when talking about the consequences of “black gold”.
In the 19 th century “black gold” still implied imported slave labour, in the economic system promoted by Adam Smith, with his imaginary “unnoticeable hand”.
However that too was unsustainable. The very same cotton gin innovation, that drove the “industrialisation” of slavery, likewise drove in the future the engine driven cotton selecting machine and engine driven loom, that dispensed with both the black American cotton selecting slaves, and the white British mill workers that made the cotton cloth.
Globalisation eventually leads to infractions of human rights, because it is an essential right
or if you choose – a duty
of every human to work for a living. The fact that globalisation is also unsustainable, because it can just exist with “black gold” and the witholding of advantage, is for that reason a welcome consequence.