Localized free trade – against CETA and CEFTA

In the heat of CEFTA and CETA discussions (EU with USA and EU with Canada) a liberal should ask himself a simple question:

Is global unification of rules, laws and cultures prerequisite for a free trade and for, what is even more important, for a free man, a man that is unabridged in acting according to his interests and not in interests of non-transparent collective bodies?

The answer is not only NO!, but even a logical conclusion that higher unification (globalization) of rules necessarily results in empowerment of supranational-collective bodies that “take care” of globalized one-culture, one-world. It is a path to monoculture that was ideal of communist regime both in agriculture and political-culture. Workers around the world, unite (under one communist ideology – culture). Globalistic movement led not so much by corporations but in fact by non-transparent collective bodies like United Nations, WHO, WWF, IMF and so on… in fact execute the same ideology as Lenin and Stalin did in Soviet Russia. The problem namely is not socialism or capitalism behind those two movements, but the ambition that both movements share: transfer of sovereignty from a man to supranational, collective bodies.

It is a fatal mistake to understand “capitalism” in itself as a guardian of individual freedoms. Capitalism in itself is nothing but a description of exchange of goods among humans. It is as such universal. But the mode in which this exchange happens can be as different as possible. And the mode should be evaluated on the basis of individual freedoms. Even Stalin could not avoid to exchange goods on some capitalistic principles. China is likewise an example of quite competitive capitalistic centralized system. Sweden used to employ social welfare capitalism. Arabic countries try to develop capitalism on basis of sharia law and culture.

For us that share liberal values the ideal would be capitalism that is decentralized like neurons in the brain or computers in WWW. Why? Because decentralized capitalism is closest to natural state described by Darwin. Individual agents that are not ruled by some central authority play according to evolutionary randomness in in the interest of each individual and through such actions sustainable society (economy, culture, …) develops, or better: emerges.

It is thus completely wrong to assume that one-world ideology would be in interest of corporations. One should not confuse present state in which for obvious reasons corporations try to take advantage from multinational bodies with a state in which actors in play would be smaller and more transparent. If I go to woods I have to dress differently than if I go to the theater. Globalistic movements try to equalize those two cultures in one multi-culti wods like theatre culture. Sorry guys: it does not go that way. Companies can adapt to extremely different cultures around the globe. One global culture of trade is not a prerequisite for global trade. If I want I can have different strategies for India, USA and Iran. Even more: it gives a great pleasure to experience diversity. Not only in food and tourism, but in business as well.

That is why I coined word “homonism” as a brand name for a state of highest freedom of individuals that include highest responsibility to separation and preservation of different, separated cultures. Unfortunately we can no longer use word “humanism”, since this brand was hijacked by multinational bodies to support multiculturalism and one-world ideology. We do not want one economy as much as we do not want one animal that would combine traits of all bacteria, fish, reptiles and vertebrates that would replace current diversity.



Andrej Drapal


  1. Very simplistic view, Mr. Drupal. Of course we need unified rules and laws. Just one example, child work. It’s not just unethical, it also means unjust advantage and has to be forbidden. Unification of the cultures is just side effect of connected world, not prerequisite.

  2. As long as you are sure that there is not a certain supra-national body behind “anti child work” movement, I agree with you. But in the moment when such supra-national body gets hijacked by this or that obscure (not transparent) agent, be it individual, NGO’s or corporations, you apparently solve one problem but you get couple of new in addition.
    I might have lower cultural standards in certain respects than you and you most probably have different standards in other respects. Although I do not support your standards I will fight as much as possible to allow you to follow your standards. And I expect same from you.
    Individual responsibility is the only answer. Nanny-state or nanny supra-national bodies are preventing individual responsibility to be fully expressed.
    This is not simplistic view. This is over-complicating view searching for much more complex society than simple one-world, one-emperor ideology prevailing in this very moment.

Comments are closed.