Slag, being one of those few evil-doing elitist globalists, I disagree with <nationalism, the natural enemy of globalism. >
There is nothing incompatible with globalism and nationalism. On the contrary, in my Libertarian version of globalism, nationalism would be protected rather than suppressed.
If you think of globalism in Big Brother terms, with central command and control like a monstrous KGB-run Kremlin-based Soviet Union where individuals and whole countries are just serf chattels of the state, with no self-determination, property or identity, then of course you are right.
But that's not what globalism means. If you imagined the USA as being the whole world, with no externality. Say all other countries just disappeared, which quite a few Americans would think is no bad thing, then the USA would be the world.
It would be a globalized world, made up of a bunch of semi-autonomous states. Presumably you would think it a terrible thing. Which means, ipso facto, that you think the USA is a terrible thing as it is.
And, remember that the USA is highly centralized, with Washington DC running a great deal of the country and in very intrusive ways within individual states.
I would not dream of having such a hideously intrusive World Government bossing me and my country around.
If you support the USA constitution, then you are already in favour of a far more globalized intrusiveness than I would find acceptable.
At present, the international system is one of Big Boy anarchy. Little more than an international mafia system. The democratic process used is one in which the absurdities abound such as Fiji has a vote like India. Japan is no more than New Zealand. And why should countries appoint a representative rather than have people vote directly within a country for their own representative and for the World Chairman.
Mqurice |
