Posted on 08/04/2007 10:35:21 AM PDT by 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.
In case you haven’t been there lately, you might want to read all the way through that one, and the other that is linked in one of the posts.
Thank you gentlemen. Free trade is healthy and desirable if the trading nations are on an equal par, and humanitarian assistance should be offered to a suffering nation, of course, but the welfare of foreign countries should be the at the expense of the American taxpayer on an individual basis, not a collective basis, which is unaccountable. Which is off subject somewhat, but an interesting concept.
I have relatives that live in China. They are American citizens. They own a factory that sells equipment all over the world. They just bought a 1 1/2 million dollar home, their kid goes to a private school that is taught in English. He pays top (for China) wages, average worker gets $500 per month. He just bought a Porsche and joined a auto club of Porsche owners. I could go on, however, I hope you get the idea. China is not what you imply. They are going crazy with capitalism and are about to overtake us. Isolationist Americans (you read like one)are going to let them take over the capitalist world.
So what you are saying is that your relative sell his Chinese manufactured equipment to the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Australia, etc...
And we know he sells the stuff at a price that is slightly less than what it would cost Americans, Aussies, Germans, etc. to produce that stuff in their own countries...
And he pay his employees at the top of the slave labor scale...
There are no OSHA regulations...No environmental regulations...No labor laws...So his overhead is as low as it could possibly be...
No unemployment benefits, no insurance benefits...
I say good for the guy...But if I was in charge, his products would be forbidden for sale in the U.S. and the rest of the free world...
You are the type that does not want global regulations. You are probably for free trade then? I am pointing out to you what the future holds for the USofA. The USofA finds away to compete with my relative or the USofA losses.
You need to be very careful about putting US standards and judging currency rates to foreign countries. For example, Blake said the employees were paid $500/month. If this was the US, I would agree, very close to slave labor, but this isn't the US. There is a thing called Purchasing Power Parity. Based on the PPP value of the yuan vs the dollar (for most industrialized areas in China) that $500US has the purchasing power of about $3800/month. Not great, but far more than the average Chinese employee and far in what would be considered 'middle class'.
Agreed...But he didn’t say 500 dollars, American...I assume it was in the Chinese currency...
A citizen can choose to buy, or not buy. Sounds good to me. But then, unlike you, I believe in freedom.
What loyal patriotic American would want to trade with China, knowing that wealth would enforce communism as a viable political system?
The American can choose to not buy from China.
but the greedy globalists love trading with run down communist countries because of the availabilty of slave labor and the double and triple digit profits they can make.
Who is making double or triple digit profits? WalMart? LOL!
I agree. A citizen can also choose not to buy from communists, even if their government allows them to.
You are. You're the one who wants the government to restrict the choice of citizens. I want citizens to have the choice, not government.
“You are. You’re the one who wants the government to restrict the choice of citizens. I want citizens to have the choice, not government.”
With tariffs they’ll still have the choice, they’ll just have to pay a lot more to make it. And the choice would be made steadily more expensive until buying domestic becomes cheaper.
Now we know what your philosophy really is.
Yes, I'm in favor of freedom. You keep proving that you are not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.