What is Globalism and Why is it Bad?

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

[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.