Can anyone on this board actually give an argument against globalism? Trade liberalization has greatly improved the standard of living for people the world over and led to the development of technologies that never could have existed otherwise.
As far as I can tell this is just a reactionary meme after trump made his little nationalism spiel during that foreign policy speech. Globalism works by the same organizational principle that makes a nation stronger than a tribe or a city state, it's just a matter of growing pains.
I am legitimately curious though.
So convince me that nationalism > globalism /pol/
Languages and cultures other than english will disappear or become americanized.
So globalism is bad if you are into that stuff.
>>74957057
Eggs in one basket.
>>74957234
You make an interesting point, though I'm mostly interested in the macroeconomic impact.
Also countries like S Korea have benefitted enormously from international commerce without losing their own culture. I'm American so of course I can't say for sure, but I don't think the miracle on the Han river also caused any kind of social crisis there
Global diversity is important. Tradition, preservation and progress are rooted in Nationalism. If the current elite globalize, the world will simply become like Brazil, invested with poverty, crime and diseased brown people that play the perfect role as capitalist consumers, debtors and being oblivious to their destitution.
We are not capable of global cooperation for good if we have no goals other than lazy compromise and complacency.
https://youtu.be/XVkTcGcPLW8?t=1h20m15s
This discussion with Le Pen covers a lot of these topics related to globalism and immigration. She makes great points.
https://youtu.be/XVkTcGcPLW8?t=1h20m15s
The Q&A goes for about half an hour and there are answers on integration vs assimilation, multicultralism, mass immigration, muslims etc.
>>74957057
power can be abused
If it's a single serial killer psychopath he might get like 10-20 people on average, luckily this is very rare and it is relatively easy to stop in self defense compared to any other option
If it's a leader of a tribe commanding a couple warriors and the commander wants to pull some shit he can still do a lot of damage but it's not impossible to overthrow him
If it's the leaders of a nation commanding a huge fraction of its population as an army gets out of control corrupt, at least there might be an option for the citizens to try to escape the country to another one, or for the other countries to subdue it in self defense
If it's the corrupt leaders who want to have a one world government, they have absolute power and there is no where to run, no one to compete with when they abuse their power
>>74957870
How's is the political crisis in Brazil not a domestic issue though? Aside from maybe motivating petrobras it doesn't seem like globalism vs nationalism is really at play here
And surely the irony of saying that nationalism spurs progress over the INTERNET is not lost on you, anon.
>>74958073
Dunno anon seems like you just halted your line of reasoning, surely the same disenfranchised citizens who overthrow a national government would take such actions on a larger scale, though I'll grant that such a system opens itself up to abuse of powers that are different than those held by national entities. My problem is that its entirely likely that a global government would use the American model of federalism, leaving nations more powerful than the confederacy that's binding them, specifically to avoid such abuse
>>74958465
a corrupt global government would be much much harder to overthrow, and it could become much much more corrupt as a result.
If your argument is "well more government is ok because we can still overthow it when it gets bad enough, besides a global government wouldn't even equal more government to avoid abuse" then that's inconsistent, why not just say more government = more potential for abuse = dangerous and wrong?
>>74957057
If globalism comes with ISDS for example, I see it as a hinderance, every country should have the right to keep its independance and trade is basically liberated now so i dont think we need any more tearing down of the barriers of trade.
>>74958887
Because that argument would stop humans at tribal levels of self organization.
If more government structure is more easily corruptible then why have any at all?
It's just a matter of ensuring the government is only allowed to address the correct issues, which is in essence the same balancing of powers that happens at every level of government. To say somehow the step nationalism -> globalism is different from the tribalism -> nationalism seems to me to just be a failure of abstraction.
>>74959385
you're right, I don't support nations either
I don't support any organization of society that relies on use of force except in self defense. That includes states, who exist only because they steal wealth (taxes and inflation).
I'm not against free association or tribes, city or society organizations as long as they rely on voluntary participation for their existence.
>>74958106
Brazil is an example because they are failing with multiculturalism and have great economic disparity yet the majority of them are happy or apathetic until it is shoved in their face. The Favelas are a picture of the future that current capitalists will watch from their gated communities with armed guards. The world will stagnate but at least the global economy gets its jewgolds.
In opposition, some nations and people care more about space than jewgolds. Some would rather forge the forests for a mate. I appreciate these differences and despise mediocrity and complacency. How will your descendants ascend class when they are of such little value to the overpopulated and stagnant global society?
Competition has benefited humanity more than cooperation.
Trending towards globalism leads to even more standardization which will eventually cut down on your choices as an individual.
I like the option of being able to move elsewhere if the place
>>74959662
>I don't support any organization of society that relies on use of force except in self defense.
You articulated that very well, I think I get a sense, philosophically anyhow, of what you mean. I'm not sure I agree but I see your position.
>That includes states, who exist only because they steal wealth (taxes and inflation).
I think the term stealing is misapplied here. Almost any wealth generated under the stewardship of a state couldn't have existed without the states support (ie infrastructure to support the business you started, and a managed floating currency to handle transactions with), so the source of wealth is not purely it's legal owner.
Now I'll admit participation in such a system isn't wholly voluntary, since you're born in a country, but still, describing this as theft seems overly reductive.
>>74960022
Either rewrite that without buzzwords or go post in trump general, I have no idea what you're even trying to say mate
>>74957057
>keep things national
>coperations are forced to make things with the people they have and the resrouces they have
>don't bother with rushing to the most advanced /lowest quality everything all the time etc etc
>stop the jewish Federal Reserve from printing money
>the usa never descends into the hell we are currently in
>people learn to be happy with thier hourse, car, and nice manufacturing jobs etc
>make no excuses to let in 3rd worlders
>the usa remains the 1950s forever
>>74957057
I dont want more brown people
>>74957057
Yes. The people who are consuming the widget or gizmo must also get a piece of the pie from its sale. This is necessary for a healthy economy.
Not everyone can be doctors, lawyers, etc. No one should have to live off a burger flipping shit job. If you want to sell your shit products in a country, then the people of that country must make your shit product at a decent wage.
Prices will probably increase without the use of third world slave labor, but everyone who wants to work will be better off because they will have better jobs. Only the laziest pieces of shit will suffer, and that's also a good thing. Life is fucking work. Whoever told them it was for fun is a god damn liar.
>>74960342
yes you're right we should call it extortion instead
>>74960342
You're right that people currently in a state wouldn't be able to generate as much wealth as they do without structures already in place that the government had a hand in building. But how did the government build those things? Did a giant entity called government simply materialize roads, currency, harbors, etc. out of nowhere to us for free? No, PEOPLE who were contractors built them, they came about by stealing ("taxing") wealth in the first place to build them (inefficiently at that), you can recurse this argument back to the founding of any state and see that all states start through force and theft.
If I designed a drug that allowed all humans to never need sleep again, and this made people 30% more productive, and then offered it to everyone in my geographical area for free, would I then be morally justified in taking a portion of all the wealth they generate using force and threats to get the money from them since "hurr they wouldn't be as productive without my service I forced on them"?
>>74960732
Again a little harsh. I want to make the point that many goods could never have existed in any form without large scale human organization. For example, no individual could EVER create an entire computer, moreover the thousands that it took to do so only did so because they had access to a network of information and resources that existed before they were born, and so those people relied on the ones before them. It seems ridiculous therefore, to argue in any context that a single person is entitled to anything other that food they find on the ground and anything else they accomplish wholly unassisted.
So, in my view, government is the abstract third party that mediates that transaction.
At this point individualism becomes an emotional argument, you don't get a choice anon. Humans have been hyper interdependent more or less since we discovered fire.
>>74960514
Get a load of this kike, desperate to take over the world for his jewgolds yet apparently, you all are the pathetic ones for caring for your cultures, sovereignty and goals beyond money.
>>74961165
Yes you absolutely would be. This is why intellectual property law exists, this is why patents exist, thus is why artists get royalty checks. What are you even on about anon?
>>74957057
>Can anyone on this board actually give an argument against globalism?
Most of the worlds wealth is inherited, in ends up in the hands of incapable faggots by the end and by now in America a few hundred people have more wealth than the collective 340 million Americans together.
To have this much control, power through sheer wealth while being in the hands of total faggots is a disgrace.
You've seen the result, less jobs, lower wages but 5 times the budget for CEO bonusses and so forth.
The rich profit
The middle classes fight and blame the poorfags
Meanwhile the lower classes starve
>>74961653
Excellent point, but what does that have to do with globalism?
>>74961431
System A:
A smart, hard working person or team of people develop a new drug that makes sleep unnecessary for the rest of your life. They offer to sell it to anyone who wants it for a one time price. Anyone who wants to buy the drug and can afford to buys it, productivity of the society skyrockets, all parties were never coerced at any point in time.
System B:
A group of people (congress) hire mercenaries (police/military) who threaten you for a significant fraction of your income every year. A fraction of this stolen money is given to the mercenaries as payment for their services, a fraction is given to the group of people who hired them, and a fraction is spent on drug development among other things. Finally after a much longer time due to inefficient organization and spending, a drug is developed that removes the need for sleep. They make it available for use to the citizens, but then say they are now justified in increasing the amount of money they take from any citizen regardless of if or how they use the drug by an arbitrary yet significant amount from now till the end of time.
Which one sounds better to you?
>>74960647
This. It should be a fundamental principle of economics.
>>74957057
It hurts my countrymen to enrich an elite few and benefit foreigners with which I share nothing but a species.
>>74957057
>>74962383
Well ignoring the point that about enriching the wrong people, why do you think 'countrymen' is a meaningful distinction? You're a lot closer to a scotsman than a dung beetle, is being human not a more fundamental distinction than nationality?
>>74957057
The reason for the boom in living standards is because we sold our nations wealth. States sold all of their publicly owned businesses/assets which enabled governments to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy and businesses in the short term. These current trends will absolutely not last, and instead of just a single nation collapsing in the future, with economies so connected the whole world collapses along with a decent sized nation. It's madness.
