You have assumed that there are two alternatives, and if one is not against the globalization then he is for it. The anti-globalization protestors are usually misfits that could not find another cause. Opposing THEM does not imply acceptance of all forms of globalization.
Next, the original meaning of the term implied fluidity, ease in the movement of people, thoughts, capital. Most people who accept capitalism and free markets celebrate such ease. It is not our reposnsibility for the hijacking of the word: global taxes is socialism, not globalization, for instance.
It most certainly does...
Because some American socialists are against Saddam Hussein, that means Free Republic should be for him???
It's true, there are some at FR who own businesses that would love to see "globalisation"...Cheap labor, higher profits, at the cost of American Sovereignty and freedom...However, any American that has to "labor" for a living, has to oppose globalisation, whether he be a republican, democrat or neither of the two...
Dress it up any way you want, but I will never support it...
Let's not define "it" or "is," please.There is but only one definition. DID CLINTON TAKE OVER THIS SITE? You are either for it or against it.Just because not all of the United Nations WE THE PEOPLES is not yet in order and happening does not make it NOT globalization.
So oppose them and their causes. Not what they are against.
Not to you and me perhaps, but thats not how it will be perceived. I'd be marching WITH THEM.