For People Who Are Against Globalism - Why?

[SnowyMacie]

I have a few questions if you don't mind, I'm trying to understand your position, but I can't quite wrap my head around it. I'm not so much talking about the current affairs of the country or world, but more in the general idea of globalism.

Why are you opposed to globalism?
Are you opposed to all of it, only certain aspects?
Do you see it as Anti-(Insert your nationality here)? If so, why?


For me, I was never really exposed to the idea that an interconnected world with free trade not only goods and services but culture and ideas, the economy is a worldwide market, open borders, seeing yourself as both your own nationality and global citizen as well was a bad thing. When I read the Left Behind series for the first time, one of the biggest issues I had with the series was truly seeing all nations united (not the totalitarian anti-Christian part, just the uniting of all nations into one worldwide country, if you will) or a global currency as something inherently evil.


If I think of any more questions, I'll add them in the thread. Thank you for your time.

 

[Speed112]

I'm not against globalism as a concept, but am of very liberal and individualist mind.

Groups, while useful and natural, generally lead to a loss of individuality (see collectivist societies) which of course is not cool when you value it.

Globalism would also come along with a single government entity, that means a governmental monopoly, which you can argue is probably not a good idea.

At the same time, you can argue that globalism would lead to a single big group, but there would probably still be subgroups, so you wouldn't really get rid of the Us vs. Them mentality.

I'm interested to read more on this topic as well... my views aren't really fleshed out on the matter.

 

[Sabertooth]

Off the top of my head, I can think of two considerations: slavery and pollution.

In the USA, we have an infrastructure that polices these two possibilities. Along with social protections, it adds overhead costs to our final products.

Countries that do not have such protections in place can undersell us, undermining said infrastructure (and tax revenue). From our POV, it lowers the standard of living on many fronts (and guts the middle class).

It also adds to the war chest of sworn enemies, like China.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Globalism has been the motivation behind the bloody "regime change" proxy wars. And globalism's call for open borders and having no regard for the individual sovereignty of nations would lead to a one world government which makes it possible for one evil dictator to take over the whole world.

 

[archer75]

Capital flows easily across borders. Humans don't. Makes it easier to cause utterly wretched poverty.

 

[lawofderp]

Free trade with underdeveloped areas depress wages in developed countries, keeping them artificially low. Free movement with underdeveloped areas leads to a massive brain drain in favour of developed countries and robs said underdeveloped areas of their best human capital and thus the chance to become developed in turn. Not only that, but Western countries now act as a pressure valve for the world's overpopulated areas, transferring the problem over to us in the long term.

State-supported multiculturalism cheapens cultural expression as a whole and reduces it to gastronomy, funky costumes and harmless, sanitized festivals for mass consumption just like any other product. However, since you can't truly reduce culture to only these things, it also encourages the formation of more or less opaque cultural/ethnic ghettos.

As a minority citizen in my country, multiculturalism also threatens to transform me into "just another minority" equal to any other minority and rob me of cultural and national (in the wide definition) rights that were hard-fought and preserved over centuries. Or worse, it could extend these rights to other communities, fracturing the country.

Globalization is only desirable when applied to regions with similar economic development, and even then, the benefits too often fall in the pockets of a single class of individuals. It is a harmful ideology enacted only so the same old people can make a quick buck.

 

[rjs330]

We can never have globalization in the way people really want. It's a utopian ideal that will NEVER work due to the nature of man.

 

[Sabertooth]

"Tower of Babel" anyone...?

 

[Rion]

A rather difficult question, and, if I may, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton:

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I against globalism, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent supporter of it believes in globalism." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence. But the evidence in my case, as in that of the supporter, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts.

I reject it because, like socialism, it promised to raise the poorest and weakest up, but in practice tears the strongest or better off down*.

I reject it because of the massive failure of the EU, and that their response to this failure is to call for even more power to be given to them.

I reject it because I believe in accountability in leadership, and this just seems to add another layer to make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold the top leaders accountable.

I reject it because I am an individualist, and globalism is just another form of collectivism.

I reject it because it is founded on the same folly of all utopias: that man can be made perfect, or at least those at the top are close enough to be given nearly unlimited power.

I reject it because, as far as I can tell, its fruit may be sweet, but they are highly poisonous.

*The exception to this is global corporations, which become even more rich and more powerful.

 

[Waterwerx]

There are basically two groups of people who favor globalism:

The first, smaller group, would be those who would profit the most from borderless trade. Bad for small businesses, good for the mega-corporations.

The second, larger group, would be those who have been brainwashed into believing that lumping every country together under a single government would eliminate the causes of wars, poverty, etc. They don't seem to know history very well.

 

[franky67]

I have a few questions if you don't mind, I'm trying to understand your position, but I can't quite wrap my head around it. I'm not so much talking about the current affairs of the country or world, but more in the general idea of globalism.

Why are you opposed to globalism?
Are you opposed to all of it, only certain aspects?
Do you see it as Anti-(Insert your nationality here)? If so, why?


For me, I was never really exposed to the idea that an interconnected world with free trade not only goods and services but culture and ideas, the economy is a worldwide market, open borders, seeing yourself as both your own nationality and global citizen as well was a bad thing. When I read the Left Behind series for the first time, one of the biggest issues I had with the series was truly seeing all nations united (not the totalitarian anti-Christian part, just the uniting of all nations into one worldwide country, if you will) or a global currency as something inherently evil.


If I think of any more questions, I'll add them in the thread. Thank you for your time.

May I ask you if you know anything about the Council on Foreign Relations ?

 

[EverybodyLoveEverybody]

Because I don't like being an IMF slave

I have a few questions if you don't mind, I'm trying to understand your position, but I can't quite wrap my head around it. I'm not so much talking about the current affairs of the country or world, but more in the general idea of globalism.

Why are you opposed to globalism?
Are you opposed to all of it, only certain aspects?
Do you see it as Anti-(Insert your nationality here)? If so, why?


For me, I was never really exposed to the idea that an interconnected world with free trade not only goods and services but culture and ideas, the economy is a worldwide market, open borders, seeing yourself as both your own nationality and global citizen as well was a bad thing. When I read the Left Behind series for the first time, one of the biggest issues I had with the series was truly seeing all nations united (not the totalitarian anti-Christian part, just the uniting of all nations into one worldwide country, if you will) or a global currency as something inherently evil.


If I think of any more questions, I'll add them in the thread. Thank you for your time.

 

[Armoured]

Globalism has been the motivation behind the bloody "regime change" proxy wars. And globalism's call for open borders and having no regard for the individual sovereignty of nations would lead to a one world government which makes it possible for one evil dictator to take over the whole world.

That isn't what globalism is or does. But don't let me get in your way.

Globalism - Wikipedia

 

[Armoured]

There are basically two groups of people who favor globalism:

The first, smaller group, would be those who would profit the most from borderless trade. Bad for small businesses, good for the mega-corporations.

The second, larger group, would be those who have been brainwashed into believing that lumping every country together under a single government would eliminate the causes of wars, poverty, etc. They don't seem to know history very well.

You forgot the third group. Those whose living standards increase as a result.

 

[rjs330]

You forgot the third group. Those whose living standards increase as a result.

Once again that is a utopian ideal that will never occur. Man had always had the desire to control other men. Mankind has always thought they know better how people should live. Just look at the nations of the world today and the mess many of them are in where it comes to how the people are treated. It would be no different with a global government. Why? Because of the nature of man. Remember the heart of man is exceedingly wicked who can know it?

People love control over other people and many people love to be controlled. That will be the end state of globalized government.

 

[Armoured]

Once again that is a utopian ideal that will never occur.

It's already occurred. That's why you can buy consumer goods more cheaply today than you could for comparable items 20 years ago.

 

[ananda]

"Globalism is fine ... as long as I get to tell other people what to do and believe."

 

[Waterwerx]

You forgot the third group. Those whose living standards increase as a result.

Based on whose standards?
And from where are we taking in order to give and improve the standard of living to "x" level? I don't believe its coming from the corporations.
Is a productive nation simply suppose to cut their standard of living in order to raise the standard of living in an unproductive nation? This presents a problem in regards to justice and does nothing to address the problem of "why" said nation is unproductive and to correct/help it improve its productivity for its people. This is just throwing money at the issue and nothing more. Kind of like Live Aid on a global scale, it sounds good, looks good, but does nothing to solve the problem.
How is it that some of these African countries have billions upon billions of dollars in diamonds and such, yet they are some of the poorest nations on the planet with the lowest standards of living? I find it hard to believe "globalism" is going to bust up the foreign monopolies partly responsible for this given those same individuals in those monopolies are the same people pushing for globalization. They're not going to support a system that kills their goose that lays the golden eggs, so to speak.

I just don't understand how those who are part of the problem and have such a fixation on wealth are going to bring in a solution that doesn't involve undercutting everyone else except themselves.

Globalization is mostly about giving corporations the ability to make more money without having to deal with international borders & laws.

 

[Waterwerx]

It's already occurred. That's why you can buy consumer goods more cheaply today than you could for comparable items 20 years ago.

And its also why a lot of stuff isn't as durable and doesn't last like it use to if you go back another 10-20 years. Hardly(assuming "any" exist now) any household items you buy now do people bother to repair because it costs more to repair them than it does to buy a whole new unit. It use to be the other way around.

I also wanted to mention, I recall buying a small set of screwdrivers for simple repair stuff a few years ago. Nothing heavy duty. The one day I was using one of them, and the handle literally broke into multiple pieces just from the strength of my grip leaving just the bare metal shaft. Of course, it was manufactured in China. Imo, "cheaply" means "easily busted" so you have to buy it more frequently.

 

[rjs330]

It's already occurred. That's why you can buy consumer goods more cheaply today than you could for comparable items 20 years ago.

No it hasn't occurred. Globalism is not just cheaper goods is it?

It's already occurred. That's why you can buy consumer goods more cheaply today than you could for comparable items 20 years ago.

Not really. Cheaper goods is not globalism.
the definition of globalism

We have not reached the utopian view because we still have nations who control their people and/or are full of major corruption in the governing class. Poor people abound in other nations and often it is due to a corrupt group of rulers. War abounds terrorism is everywhere. It's not utopian because there are evil people in this world who want to control everyone else.

It's the way of mankind and we will never get away from it.