It is the abolishment of the power of the individual. Take school boards as an example of a local seat of power. Parents can show up to face those making the decisions, can realistically run for office themselves, and as such they have a greater voice. If school boards were abolished and all control was at the federal level by administrators appointed by the President then local parents would effectively have zero input over local decisions. Globalism is removing the seat of power one step further than federal to seat the power internationally.
Maybe a global government ruling on all issues from afar is the answer and maybe it is a recipe for civil war. Maybe a mix where some things are decided internationally, some federally, some on the province level, and some on the neighborhood level is the answer. Where to draw the line of where power is located is in a nutshell the issue with globalism but in having that debate we should not be so naive as to believe giving control over to a global government would mean the end of exploitation, oppression or discrimination. That is rainbow-unicorn talk.
I think you are right in the specifics of the politics of today, generally.
I am a globalist. LOL. Let's see the little crew scramble over that one. But it is true.
Some of the comments above even begin to aporoximate my own view.
Most "Christians" are globalists. Come, Lord Jesus. But we don't have that variety represented much in this discussion. I think even Marxism drew upon that construct, building a kind of dream world, or trying to, without invoking God, and in fact taking the whole idea of "God" as a direct competitor to the "cause".
Several of our contributors here deny being Marxist or Communist, and trend to run in all directions around what "Conservatives" assume they are.
David Rockefeller was a globalist. The Queen of England is a globalist. Most remnants of former monarchies are globalists today. Socialists are globalists. I already mentioned some grand political categories.
The American Constitution could be a basis for global government, in fact the UN Charter mimics in words, not deeds, some of those ideas. In Utah, in the Mormon Church, in the Bush League (RINO), there is a kind of globalism that rhetorically claims the mantle "Rule of Law", and then tries to do a top-down tap dance to make it their way. This might be termed "Crony Capitalism" or Chamber of Commerce capitalism. A lot of business has been done historically among common-cause friends (conspirators???) operating essentially off of the social networks of Masonic groups, Committees on Foreign Relations or the parent organization the Council on Foreign Relations. Outside of this country there are comparable national or local groupings, sometimes but not always political parties or the support network for various kinds of tyrants
The Brookings Institution is an example among hundreds of similar organizations with political bearings on developments ongoing in our world. I think I could name one person often in here with a mentor from that outfit. I think I could name three who have mentors or guides or influences from the Chinese Communist Party, and two with their feet in the local Committee on Foreign Relations. As a proverbial "Fly on the Wall" in places like these, I do see a bit of what is going on.
My version of "globalism" would consider corporate ties, or appointments to any kind of regulatory or policy-making political body ineligible on grounds of conflicts of interest. It would require all officers or legislators to be elecdted by voters, essentially all citizens bearing residence in the relevant political district. It would stipulate standards of election procedures that eliminates all kinds, every conceivable kind, of falsification of the vote count. The law would criminalize corporate contributions, and contributions in excess of ten standard deviations of the average contribution by single voters. thus, if the average voter contributes $100, and the standard deviation is $50, a political candidate cannot himself contribute nor take any contribution more than $500.
I'm sure there are ways we can work out a good, non-corrupt system that eliminates the power grabbing and the corruption of our government by "interests" and eliminates lawmakers creating favored interests.
There would need to be a kind of "electoral college" that helps ensure local governments are not just overwhelmed by voters from far and beyond, in large numbers, eliminating the local decision making. But stuff that is truly global in scope would be decided by legilators, elecdted, representative lawmakers, in a world legislature. There would need to be protec5tion against overbearing accumulations of unnecessary power.
My globalism would have absolutely inviolable human rights, limited government powers but appropriate powers to address issues on appropriate scales. And no Crony Capitalistts.
I would hope for legislation favorable to more "Cooperative3" businesses or other organizations so long as they were run on charters, either based on paid in investment or raw membership status, or a charte3r specifying governance a principle of liberally benefitting members.
Lots of stuff we can talk about.
A UN with no elected officers, all corporate or government (tyrannical governments mostly), and no effective protection of human rights just isn't acceptable.
), Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation, anti LGBT, even anti-Mormon legislation was all passed by local and state leaders. Just look at what "local" leaders are doing across the country right now:
