What is Globalism and Why is it Bad?

The Christian Constitutional Society ^ | 4 August 2007 | Mark Moore

[Hail Spode]

Mark i would like to ask an honest question. it may sound stupid & maybe I've missed something, but i have been see a lot of references to "globalists". could you define the term for me & what you mean by it?

****************************************

Thank you for your question.

A globalist is someone who wants to weaken the national sovereignty of individual nations in favor of a unified world system, in an effort to advance some other goal.

They come in various flavors. For example, a leftist may want to advance a single set of rules for "gay rights" and impose that agenda on cultures they feel are "backward". A multi-national corporation may seek such a system in order to maximize its own profits, regardless of the costs to others.

While you may think that a gay rights activist and a global corporation have little in common, you can see that both share the same goal of weakening national sovereignty in order to impose unified global rules that are in their own interests. This helps explain the otherwise inexplicable support for the homosexual agenda you see in so many giant corporations such as Ford Motor Company.

As for the political class, their interest is in obtaining more and more power over your life with less and less accountability to you. This is why unless they make a conscious and sustained effort of the will to fight it, government people tend to be centralizers. They like to centralize control and decision making. Global government gives them one more layer of power and one more layer of bureaucracy between them and their subjects.

There is also the tendency to see themselves as the "cream of the crop" from their own nation. As they pursue relations with those who view themselves as "the cream of the crop" from other countries, it is only human that a certain amount of elitism creeps in. That is, they come to view the foreign leaders as their friends and equals while viewing the "little people" in their home countries as inferiors.

I need not take the space here to inform you that the Founders were in steadfast opposition to such thinking. They desired to give only limited essential authority to the central government and let regulation of most daily affairs of life pass to the states, or to the people.

Here is a Milton Friedman quote which applies, ""Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. [Because] if I do not like what my local community does, I can move to another local community... [and] if I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations." -Milton Friedman

Of course, a global government would make it even harder to hide from a government which goes wrong and starts persecuting people for the sake of "political correctness".

It may surprise some that the scriptures also take a dim view of the nations becoming united under one banner. Psalms chapter two is one of the classic passages in which it is revealed that world leaders will attempt to shake off the constraints that God has declared apply to all men. The elite, used to having their own way, are most likely to resent God's standards for civil government and private conduct.

Globalists are also pushing a flawed and radical view of individual freedom in order to accomplish their goals. A radical hyper-individualistic view of freedom is that no locality has any right to impose any rules on you. A classic view of liberty respects the rights of localities to order their lives as they see fit by imposing agreed-upon rules on its members. Under the latter view, a homosexual man cannot strut into a town which considers homosexuality a deviant act and demand that they change all their rules to accommodate he and his partner, who wants to be the church organist. Under the former view, a central government can impose its own standards, or lack thereof, on the community. Thus, this view of government and individual rights takes from the townsfolk the liberty to order the rules of their society as they see fit and transfers that authority to an insulated and unaccountable elite in a distant capitol. That is why global business, global media, and global government are all pushing this flawed and radical view of liberty.

In this short article I have not written a tithe of what I could write on the wicked potential of globalist thinking. Suffice to say that it is the duty of all persons who desire freedom for their posterity to fight the rising power of globalism in all the hydra-headed policies by which it devours our liberties.

[dragnet2]

Globalism is a bundle of theories: untried philosophy of state, speculative, with zero record of success or failure.

Perhaps you should look a little closer, down at the people level.

Here is an excellent read about some American farmers. Very well written about what is happening due to greed and profit, without any regard for the consequences.

It's long, but very well written by someone that took some time, and actually spoke with those involved.

Until Nothing is Left

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1875567/posts#37

[mnehring]

I think the knee jerk responses our out in force today.. but this is always a touchy subject that is difficult to have any adult conversation about..

[dragnet2]

Beware of those the become very wordy when asked simple, specific questions.

It's a common red flag.

[Paperdoll]

Globalization require the relinquishing of a country’s rule of law, judicial system, and governmental body to that of a self appointed world government - The U.N.? Besides the perils involved in denying our own sovereignty, that too many unknowns, with no accountability to anyone but itself is abject suicide.

[mnehring]

while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale.

Very good summary.. it took two posts and about 4 paragraphs for me to say the same thing.. :->
I'm glad someone understands the difference and knows not to interchange the concepts.

[mnehring]

Globalization require the relinquishing of a country’s rule of law, judicial system, and governmental body to that of a self appointed world government - The U.N.?

Nope, you just defined Globalism.. It is vital to understand the difference.. I'm only mentioning this because too many people put up a barrier when the wrong term is used.. we can't have an economics discussion on this site any more because people confuse the two terms.
As another poster said, Globalization is simply the shrinking if distance.

[Jokelahoma]

I disagree. Globalization is the recognition that we're not the only country on the planet, and we have to deal with other countries. That will include mingling of culture, as has happened continuously over time. Globalism is the idea of one world government, no national sovereignty, etc.

Globalization is pretty much inevitable if we're to continue to grow as a nation. We have to interact with others, whether we want to or not. Isolationist policies are stupid and self-defeating. On the other hand, globalism is not inevitable, and should be fought. Countries can and do interact without the need to give up any ounce of sovereignty.

I agree with mehrling. Far too many people confuse the two, and immediately upon hearing any word with "global" as its root, assume "it's bad. I know, because I read it somewhere!". Then they go on to accuse anyone who feels we have to deal with other countries as wanting to surrender American sovereignty, effective immediately. That is the very essence of tinfoil hat thinking.

[RightWhale]

Many of our favorite topics are out in force this weekend.
Even Iran is having trouble rising to the top of the brew at the moment.

[Iscool]

I have an invention recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I hope to sell in other countries beside the USofA. Thanks to international agreements (globalism) I am protected in other counties just as I am in the USofA. Foreigners must get my permission to use my patent. There are millions of such arrangements on the plant. Where is the threat to your freedom?

China doesn't honor any such agreements...I suspect you're looking for your invention to be made in China and to be sold to Americans for a hefty globalized profit...They may not recognize your patent...They likely won't even say thankyou for your invention...

[mnehring]

Any term with ‘global’ in it is such is such a hot button that it is hard to have any adult discussion any more. About a year ago, I posted a simple article on a company that helped companies purchase from each other through the use of currency conversions and transactions.

About 90% of the responses accused me of promoting giving up the US to the UN and other crap like that.. some of the posts got so aggressive and threatening, the mods killed the entire thread..

[Blake#1]

You state that an international patent committee would be less trust worthy than a national patent committee. In my situation, neither one of these committees would be solely working on my behalf. I accept the fact that competition will try to usurp my royalties. My only recourse is to hope for the dominance of Christian values. I pray alot!

[Paperdoll]

>Unfortunately, so many people have interchanged the terms that just as you your reaction shows, the economic principle that has nothing to do with political sovereignty is too often mistaken for that.<

Economics is the base of all governmental systems.
I think one does not have the proper perception of the Globalist’s mindset. Are you saying that political sovereignty transcends geographic sovereignty or economic sovereignty? I say the three are inseparable.

[mnehring]

No, I’m saying that the term ‘globalization’ has nothing to do with sovereignty.. Others here have explained it more concise than I attempted to do... Globalization simply put, means that you can buy something from someone across the globe.. that isn’t a threat to sovereignty. Globalism means that someone across the globe can make a law that effects you. That is a threat to sovereignty.

[Hail Spode]

I wonder if we are not talking past one another on this globalism versus globalization thing. Globalization can have a technological component, which is morally neutral and has been used to do a lot of good, and it can have a political component- which I think is a dangerous concentration of political power.

The same globalization which allows a world wide web and intercontinental flights and plums out of season allows third world terrorists to reach out and hit us, and U.N. bureaucrats to attempt to assert rights to our national parks and earnings. Globalization, in the technological sense of the word, is morally neutral. Globalism is a political movement and I believe it is inherently immoral.

We must learn to embrace the freedom of opportunity which modern technology gives us, while stopping those who would want to use these new tools to achieve old meglamaniacal dreams of centralized big government.

[mnehring]

Paperdoll..
Ping what Hail Spode said.. best answer yet..

Thanks Hail Spode.

[Hail Spode]

It sounds like you are very level headed. I agree with you that in the end, we must hope that governments have at least some remaining imprint of Christian values if we are not to be the playthings of the mighty. That might be one reason why we are better off with a strong national patent committee from our Christian-tradition nation with reciprocal agreements with others than an international patent board from cultures where the Gospel has never taken root.

At any case, if it is done on the national level first then your ideas are at least protected in that nation even if on the global level the system becomes corrupt.