Thread: Why is Globalism Bad?

The question remains unanswered. I've asked the question time after time, yet none have answered it logically.

And so now, I lay it out for you in one simple sentence;

Why is Globalism bad?

EDIT: I realize now I should specify: I mean Global government (one-world state), not international trade.

globalism will destroy the institutions that create a sense of protection from the tyranny of the majority.

It circumvents the domain of the nation state. Not just the nation state; the state, the county, the township, and other associations that have come to be formed in our political life. These institutions and associations are essential for us to have actual liberty; for us to have self-interest properly understood, not self-interest anything goes.

How do I know this will happen? Listen to the core of the globalist arguments:
A) Provides for a better standard of living - creates more jobs in the distribution sector.
B) Trade is good.
C) Efficiency is good.

Theres a few other arguments. While globalism may bring in wealth, it does one horrible thing; it destroys our machine tools sector. It destroys our industries. That is essential to a nation because that is how a nation actually creates wealth, rather than buys it. If I have to buy my wealth from another nation, am I really the master of my own destiny? I don't want to depend on China, or India for my money; I want to depend on America.

As globalism becomes more prevalent in our society, local connections become trumpted by far connections. Theres no argument there. Look at the facts.
If local actions disapeer, than like I said before the local townships, where people get together and make laws, will also disapper. However, it creates less person to person contact. When there is person to person contact, its defined more along the lines of business relationships, rather than relationships based on neighborhoods. You want to live in a world where everyone is defined by how they relate to you in terms of money?

Essentially, here are my points, if I haven't said em already:
A) Weakens the nation state, and the institutions of our nation state, and will subject us to a tyranny against which we have no recourse.
B) Conditions humans to live in a state of materialism, where 'being free' is defined as being able to do whatever you want, without interruption; yet not decide the laws by which you live. Yes technically our governments will be able to overrule the corporations, and the synarchists, but it won't happen realistically.
C) Creates conditions for a world government, that is totally unnecessary unless we are able to get off this rock or are attacked by aliens. (hehe)
D) Makes our lives dependent on a bunch of people who may or may not be cool; at least in America, I know the people making my stuff are legit

Woah woah. You're talking international trade. I'm talking a Globalist Society. One Government for all.

I feel kind of guilty for not specifying now, you wrote all of that for nothing *cringe*.

bastard....you mean why is a one world state bad?

Originally Posted by thenextbesthang

bastard....you mean why is a one world state bad?

Yes. Err... whoops...

EDIT: Although I DO think that Globalization is a good thing...

no need for it unless we
A) somehow get off this rock
B) get attacked by aliens.

If neither of those conditions exist, then it would take the fun out of life.

Originally Posted by thenextbesthang

no need for it unless we
A) somehow get off this rock
B) get attacked by aliens.

If neither of those conditions exist, then it would take the fun out of life.

How so? I see it as a good thing. Finally humanity can work towards the good of humanity, not of the nations. For too long now nationalism has caused a hidden aristocracy.

Not only that, but nationalism is a nuisance. Wars will be fought as long as there are nations.

And as for the aliens attacking, someday humanity will fall to an alien civilization. This is totally inevitable, there is ALWAYS a bigger fish. The thing is, if we go globalist now, we can ensure longer survival by surviving more of these encounters before the inevitable fall that every civilization goes through.

How so? I see it as a good thing. Finally humanity can work towards the good of humanity, not of the nations. For too long now nationalism has caused a hidden aristocracy.

The madisonian argument, essentially, is what your point is right here. That a federal government powerful enough to override the states will help secure peoples liberty.

The problem is, a one world government is too far removed from the people for it to have any reliance on the people. It would be a tyrant, and the people would have no recourse. If we are abused by the government, to who do we turn?
The courts? There probably will not even be a system of courts that is recognized by everyone.
A universal legislature? How is any trans-national congress going to be able to function, while adequatly representing the will of the people?

Don't think about if the head of the government were a benevolent creature, that worked tirelessly for the good of mankind. Think about human nature; what kind of recourse would we have against such a government that can make laws and is universal?

I don't think a one-world government can ever exist unless people somehow stop being people. If the world government did not have absolute ability to make laws, which inevitably, it wouldn't, then who would make laws? The states? Isn't that similiar to the situation with the UN now?

oh and correction; wars will be fought as long as people are people. war came before nations. waay before.