Topic: Globalism
Is Globalism Evil? Is Globalism evil? Why do some people see trade as being evil when it provides us with so many choices?by Greg Sager
(Libertarian)
Saturday, March 15, 2008
There is nothing whatsoever "evil" or wrong about globalism in it's pure sense - EQUAL and FAIR trade with other nations.
What has been sold to us all as cheap products and more choices is really built on a system of corruption. There is no FREE or FAIR trade. It is NOT an equal playing field where we trade our goods and services at the same rate as other producers around the world. If this were true, there would be no incentive for U.S. companies to send jobs oversees. It's all about profit - without principle.
The "evil" is found in it's insidiousness - the underhanded, back room dealing that benefits the rich at a cost to everyone and everything else - cultures, the environment, economies. Without moral principle, CEO's are free (and expected) to boost their own salaries and corporate profits while negotiating around trade rules, taxation and liability. Our government is a perfect example of a corporation. One of it's "services" is to provide security.
We pay billions each year to be protected through the largest military on the planet - and some guys with box cutters can take us down. Meanwhile, not one person who could be held responsible has been. No jail time for incompetence (or complicity). No fines, nothing. In fact, they just INCREASE the cost of defense and insert non-governmental contractors into the position of defense (Blackwater) so they too can make millions killing innocents.
Without moral principle - the kind you can't just rewrite to fit your agenda - those in power who tax us to create the very prisons, arms and legal system which keep us in check will continue until the planet is a wasted cinder. All of it but the island retreats, golf courses and gated communities where they live.
These ammoral "globalists" see nothing wrong with selling arms to both sides of a conflict - or even trying to incite conflict if necessary to sell more arms. We destroy the infrastructure of other nations and then charge them to rebuild what we have destroyed. We say the oil belongs to Iraqis, but only if we can get our companies in there to run things and take our 70%. The globalists who run the show are the same bloodlines that have run the world for centuries. Look it up. John Kerry - cousin of George Bush, George Bush - distant cousin of Tony Blair and the "Royal" family, Barack Obama - cousins of both Cheney and Bush. All are secret society masons and insider millionaires or their wannabe surrogates. Except Ron Paul, and perhaps others such as Nader and Ventura - public servants who still have a soul.
I believe we really are all created equal. It's what happens AFTER birth that distinguishes who we really are. For most of us - it's whatever we have been programmed to believe through the dumbing down process of religion, education and the belief systems of our parents. If you are a racist - you weren't born that way. Influence peddling begins at birth. We are all lobbied to become what society wants us to become - affluent, self centered and competitive - with very little or no thought whatsoever about consequences or interconnectivity with the rest of the living world. All that IS - is ours for the taking. Pain and suffering don't exist unless it is ME that is hurting - then the pain is real.
The darker version of the globalist views people the way we consider farm animals. A commodity. Dispensible. In the way of "progress". We are the ones who do the work, who provide the land and whose taxes pay to enslave others - whose communities suffer in the wake of corrupt legislation, land grabs, genocide and resource wars. You won't find one of these rich pricks anywhere near a war zone. They haven't the time. They are too busy drawing up maps of who they are going to intimidate next - what resources they plan to steal from indigenous people somewhere - in trade for tupperware and televisions.
They are accountable to no one. They do not care about the pain and suffering they cause - because they don't feel it. They are indifferent. They have no souls. They are takers and users and parasites who feed off of other's labors at a ridiculous cost to the planet and it's people as a whole. They lie, cheat and steal. They rig elections. They use tasers, clubs and bullets to "keep us in line". They side with dictators and communist regimes.
They owe NO allegiance to anyone but the central bank. They print the money and make the laws. They are OWNERS. They are privelaged. Why? Because they are bullies who got a head start on the rest of us by inseting themselves through force - and because we were naive enough to trust them. If we are to succeed at someone elses peril, or benefit from another person's suffering - then we are all to blame for participating in the lies that we are fed.
Profit at any cost is not really a profit at all when so many lose in the process. Is it profit - or plundering? Evil is here to stay. It is SELF centered rather than concerned with the welfare of all. Blame whoever is responsible; but it will not go silently into the night.
We must banish it through the decisions we make - what we purchase, what we choose to accept as REALITY. We must use the brain we've been given to decipher the intentions and the double-speak. We must view ALL decisions through a lens of caution, distrust and respect. We must awaken the sleeping masses to truth.
Think for yourself. Consider others. Make the right choice. Evil is as evil does.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Greg Sager only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Greg Sager is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Then globalism is evil. Trade is a term that need not be defined by globalism. Globalism is just a trendy collectivist word to justify reigning in world government. Here, check out the definition from dictionary.com:
glob·al·ism [gloh-buh-liz-uhm]
–noun the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
Wikipedia expands on that:
Globalization in a literal sense is international integration.[1] It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and functioning together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces.[2] Globalization, as a term, is very often used to refer to economic globalization, that is integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and spread of technology.[3] The word globalization is also used, in a doctrinal sense to describe the neoliberal form of economic globalization.[4] Globalization is also defined as internationalism, however such usage is typically incorrect as "global" implies "one world" as a single unit, while "international" (between nations) recognizes that different peoples, cultures, languages, nations, borders, economies, and ecosystems exist.
I'm for equal and fair trade, but why must it come with a label of globalization? Why can't we just worry about ourselves? You know, the good ole US of A. As long as the US is practicing equal and fair trade, who are we to tell others how they must trade? I'm not an isolationist, but globalism sure is a collectivist point of view.
How is globalization Libertarian, even merely in the economic sense of the term? Do Libertarians support world governent?
Excellent point. I understand your way of looking at it. I suppose I am thinking of globalism not in the defined sense as it is given to us - but in a higher sense of being connected globally in a positive sense - cooperatively and with respect, as opposed to the few determining what is best for the many. In that sense I see us as connected and not the U.S. vs the "other" nations.
But you make a more precise point when taken literally which is that if WE (The leadership of the U.S.) were to support an equitable form of trade that did not negatively impact others or the environment disproportionally to our own share, we could perhaps persuade others to follow suit. But we do NOT follow such a policy, and we unfairly blame capitalism when the greedy few decide to game the system.
No, Libertarians do not support world government that I know of. It is indeed Collectivism as you point out - just a negative collectivism vs. a positive one. The world is not OUR oyster. It's everyones' oyster. And taking more than our fair share just because we can still doesn't make any of us - liberal, conservative or libertarian any better for it.
I am for the free-market when it comes to OUR economy, but when it comes to international trade, there needs to be some limitations. I don't like the idea of China dipping deep into the US economy. Here is an example:
China also owns much of our national debt. Selling off our infrastructure to other countries isn't good and allowing foreign corporations to operate in our country needs boundaries. It's the same as us going to another country and telling them to be a completely free-market and free-trade economy and then buying up all of their businesses and infrastucture. Does sovereignty retain itself in a completely free-market system of international trade?
Globalism should be frowned upon by Libertarians.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Outsourcing of jobs is hurting our economy in the US when US workers have to compete with slave labour in China and other 3rd-world countries. International corporations such as Walmart are killing the US economy, and some of these international corporations have larger economies than 3rd-world countries with their own security forces as well.
Paul Craig Roberts has a very interesting article here (please read):
I am more of a protectionist when it comes to trade with other countries. I believe in national security. A one-world economy is but a small step away from having a one-world government. Maybe I am an isolationist, but who likes to be called that? I don't want to be isolated and I'm all for trade, but I'm not willing to give up my freedom and job so that people in other countries like China can have more jobs at a lower pay rate and corporations can make more money. Our Founding Fathers were protectionists and the Tarrif Act of 1789 signed by President Washington on July 4 was called the "Second Declaration of Independence" by newspapers at the time.
Libertarians are losing me quickly with this stance of globalization. Open unrestricted free trade is a terrible idea and only benefits the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor while undermining national sovereignty and liberty. Open unrestricted free trade only drags the American economy down towards the level of poorer countries ran by dictators and communism. Why should we completely open up our economy those countries? So the rich in America can get richer? So the international corporations can grow and grow and grow?
Please, somebody explain why Libertarians are for economic globalism.
I understand the peace that is desired from globalism, and I am also for peace. It is a fearful thought with unknown consequences and uncharted waters, especially with outsourcing of jobs and a declining economy in the US. I am not afraid of people or cultures from other countries, nor am I afraid of people as a whole benefitting from trade, and I hope that peace will be what the future holds.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
