(11-26-2022 08:02 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  But I don't think any modern country actually has fully open borders with no restrictions on immigration, to do so would virtually ensure chaos and that country ceasing to be a functioning nation-state.

(11-26-2022 09:35 PM)banker Wrote:  Game, I think you are conflating globalism and operating in a global economy. Globalism essentially means a common currency with a global “Fed” setting economic policy - the EU on steroids. It means that economic activity is controlled and contributed to benefit the world as are environmental policies, wage policies, labor laws, and on down the line. It sets a hierarchy where a very small group controls everything and if your country resists they could be closed off from the rest of the world. Basically a social credit score for countries.

You can not have globalism and individual country rights. Therefore there is no defense of globalism in any country where the people desire freedom of choice.

(11-26-2022 09:35 PM)banker Wrote:  Game, I think you are conflating globalism and operating in a global economy. Globalism essentially means a common currency with a global “Fed” setting economic policy - the EU on steroids. It means that economic activity is controlled and contributed to benefit the world as are environmental policies, wage policies, labor laws, and on down the line. It sets a hierarchy where a very small group controls everything and if your country resists they could be closed off from the rest of the world. Basically a social credit score for countries.

You can not have globalism and individual country rights. Therefore there is no defense of globalism in any country where the people desire freedom of choice.

(11-27-2022 10:59 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Short answer: No.

(11-26-2022 09:35 PM)banker Wrote:  Globalism essentially means a common currency with a global “Fed” setting economic policy - the EU on steroids.

(11-27-2022 10:56 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-26-2022 09:35 PM)banker Wrote:  Game, I think you are conflating globalism and operating in a global economy. Globalism essentially means a common currency with a global “Fed” setting economic policy - the EU on steroids. It means that economic activity is controlled and contributed to benefit the world as are environmental policies, wage policies, labor laws, and on down the line. It sets a hierarchy where a very small group controls everything and if your country resists they could be closed off from the rest of the world. Basically a social credit score for countries.

You can not have globalism and individual country rights. Therefore there is no defense of globalism in any country where the people desire freedom of choice.

I think you're equating the basic term globalism with some features of extreme globalism that have made the word a pejorative on the right. Accepting some international rules in order to operate in a global economy IS globalism, just as a universal currency would be. But they are different degrees of the same thing, with different levels of the surrender of sovereign choices required.

Globalism is a broad term and every country who belongs to the UN, the Universal Postal Union, the World Trade Organization, etc. has signed up for some level of it. The key is striking the balance between international cooperation that makes your country more peaceful and prosperous, and surrendering so much sovereignty that your country is no longer able to make decisions that are in its best interest.

(11-27-2022 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-26-2022 09:35 PM)banker Wrote:  Globalism essentially means a common currency with a global “Fed” setting economic policy - the EU on steroids.

Banker, would agree on some, disagree on others.

Globalism *does* mean an overarching 'super legislature' that dictates the means and methods of economic activity --- the EU on steroids.

I would disagree to a small extent on the common currency aspect.

For much of the time since Bretton Woods, the overarching global reserve currency has been the US dollar. Making the Fed as close to a de facto 'global Fed'.

I dont have an issue with the Fed, as administrator of the US dollar, being a de facto world 'Fed' since the US dollar is, and has been, the global reserve currency for my lifetime + 20 years.

I do have an issue with the other aspects (i.e. the 'world economic legislator') that are inherent in the idea of globalism.

And, the IMF *has* shown various instances of positive utility -- mainly in dealing with localized economic emergencies and as a tool when more than just localized issues pop up.

(11-27-2022 10:56 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-26-2022 09:35 PM)banker Wrote:  Game, I think you are conflating globalism and operating in a global economy. Globalism essentially means a common currency with a global “Fed” setting economic policy - the EU on steroids. It means that economic activity is controlled and contributed to benefit the world as are environmental policies, wage policies, labor laws, and on down the line. It sets a hierarchy where a very small group controls everything and if your country resists they could be closed off from the rest of the world. Basically a social credit score for countries.

You can not have globalism and individual country rights. Therefore there is no defense of globalism in any country where the people desire freedom of choice.

I think you're equating the basic term globalism with some features of extreme globalism that have made the word a pejorative on the right. Accepting some international rules in order to operate in a global economy IS globalism, just as a universal currency would be. But they are different degrees of the same thing, with different levels of the surrender of sovereign choices required.

Globalism is a broad term and every country who belongs to the UN, the Universal Postal Union, the World Trade Organization, etc. has signed up for some level of it. The key is striking the balance between international cooperation that makes your country more peaceful and prosperous, and surrendering so much sovereignty that your country is no longer able to make decisions that are in its best interest.

(11-28-2022 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As a libertarian populist pragmatic conservative, my foreign policy would be based around the libertarian perfecta of free trade, nonintervention, and nuclear nonproliferation.

For free trade to be truly free with fair and balanced trading arrangements, the USA would need to implement a national consumption tax (VAT/GST). There is just no other way to resolve that.

Nonintervention is not isolation. Switzerland is noninterventionist, North Korea is isolationist. Be Switzerland.

I'm not sure we can ever achieve nuclear nonproliferation. I think my policy would be if you really, really want nuke weapons we probably cannot stop you. But if you ever use one, or attempt to use one, or allow one to enter the hands of a rogue state or terror organization, we reserve the right to treat that as a nuke attack on the USA and respond in kind. And unless you want to bear the brunt of the entire USA nuclear arsenal, you need to behave.

And as far as nationalism versus globalism, nationalism all the way.

(11-28-2022 11:18 PM)banker Wrote:  Hears Nationalism is bad - sees all countries display national pride during World Cup and Olympics.