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.
Globalism is a bundle of theories: untried philosophy of state, speculative, with zero record of success or failure.
Nobody WANTS globalism, EXCEPT those with an alternative agenda which would be brought about by globalism. And the agendas and not of the choosing of the peoples involved.
Fight globalism. Nobody has shown ANYONE why it is a benefit, and then and only then, it should be appproved BY THE PEOPLE. Not a bunch of corrupt elitists.
No biggie, just some information for the future.
You've hit on one of my most favorite topics.
Wait for those to show up offering you aluminum foil, ignore their moronic replies. Denial is their shield.
bump for later...
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?
The first item (globalization) is good and is a natural result of technological progression.
The second item (globalism) is not good.
The problem is (as I mentioned in a previous post) is far too many people don’t understand the difference and interchange the first for the second.
I don’t see any threat to your liberties by a reciprocal patent agreement, nor do I see reciprocal trade agreements with another sovereign nation as globalism.
Now, if your next patent was held up for ten years so that it could be checked against not only existing U.S. patents but also the patents of other countries because of the regulations promulgated by some “international patent committee” over which Congress has no authority, then THAT would be globalism. I hope this helps.
Pray for America and its helpless citizens and their children, who remain at risk
from murder, rape, manslaughter, and terror, due to the incompetence of a traitorous Congress
and a uncaring President who remains steadfastly dedicated to giving Mexico what it could not
obtain previously via the Zimmerman telegram urged from Germany before WWI.
Thank you for the welcome. A question of posting etiquette, if articles on blogs are not breaking news then what about articles that are posted on websites with no print newspaper attached to the site? That is, the article is posted on a website, such as, I dunno, OneNewsNow or Townhall, without an opportunity for reader response rather than as a blog article.
Not to mention it could give the UN way too much power.
>Very good article, but I think for many people, we need to step back and define Globalism (& Globalists) vs. Globalization.<
And just who are you attempting to protect by your gobbly gook? A Globalist embraces Globalism with the goal of Globalization. It is as simple as that.
Globalization is a simple principle that trade and communication is easier because of technology improvements. For example, you can go on line right now and buy something directly from Ireland, using US dollars because technology has improved trade to the point that transactions can be ‘global’.
Unfortunately, so many people have interchanged the terms that, just as your reaction shows, the economic principle that has nothing to do with political sovereignty is too often mistaken for that.
Is it? If it is so simple, then where does the good/bad enter into it? Must be more to it.
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
It's a common red flag.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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..
>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.
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.
Thanks 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.
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...
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.