Might it be time for the tea-soaked Libertarian-minded Real American to re-examine the horror or advantage of Globalism? The 1770’s-wishitwas reactionaries resist the functional reality that today the states are only another redundant layer of the national bureaucracy. Fretting about states rights and secession when we have national and world problems is very provincial and backward thinking, honorable and rootintootin as it may be.
Globalism, like global warming, is a fact, not a theory or an option. Every day our media shows us that the world is a single inter-related place, and the globe has no borders across it. Our live-time knowledge of the world gives us common individuals the ability to communicate personally with almost anyone, anywhere, instantly. You can buy a car, order a BigMac, anywhere on earth. Certain things become clear.All countries trade in the same marketplace, friends and enemies alike. The world’s money is already global, and the securities of all are traded alike. With the advent of digital money, a central system of accounting for banks and markets worldwide is now possible. That fact alone makes it inevitable that a centralization of banking power will occur, and with it the ability to establish a centralized body of political control. There will be a centralized One World Order of some kind, simply because it is possible. Hopefully, that will be the kind of free and civilized society we Libertarians champion for our own country.
To take the fundamental position that the US must not take part in any such democratic global state is hardly different from the boys in Georgia and Texas fighting for their states’ rights in the One Nation Indivisible. Whatever issues they might be arguing, or how deeply they take their local pride, it is backward looking, and a simple denial of the realities of 21st Century life. It is provincial, deliberately making oneself a hick in a time of explosive world sophistication.The One World Order, in some shape or other, is quite certain to happen. If making the United States into one America was a good thing, and the laws by which we established it are good laws, then what is wrong with trying to make that new world alliance a regime based on our Constitution, and subject to our ability to police anywhere with our UAVs? What is wrong with the US taking control of that New World Order, and making it happen, rather than resisting it?
If some kind of central power is inevitable, then is not the correct position to insure that it will be based on the Constitution of the United States, which we hold to be the best possible way to organize a just and free state? I would miss the sovereign golden age of 20th Century America, grand time that it was, but I can see that already slipping into history. In the long run, I wouldn’t have a problem with all nations including the USA agreeing to be subject to an elected Congress, and all nations participating in a combined military force no single nation could defeat, even if it was unquestioningly dominated by the US. I would happily support, even fight for a World Order that promised to respect and enforce The Bill Of Rights, making it the law of all the lands. Wouldn’t you?Perhaps the correct move is to quit limiting our desire to see the Libertarian principles we treasure made available only to Americans, and to start thinking about how to propagate that ideology globally to a world coming to recognize itself as above the abstract limitations of national identities and borders. If the question is not whether we will have a New World Order, but only how it shall be defined, what is wrong with an American-led World Libertarian Revolution, using the power of our military machine, liberating all the peoples of the world from their present leaders and laws, issuing a new world dollar, and establishing absolute control of newly freed populations until they are ready to assume their full liberties as defined in the Bill Of Rights? What would be wrong with The United States Of Earth, one world indivisible, with freedom and justice for all?
James Nathan PostAlbuquerque NM
Re: IS GLOBALISM BAD?
ReplyDeleteJames the issue I have with the one world government is that if you take what is happening today, that means less than 1% of the world will be in charge, since currently that is what is currently happening in the US. It is those with money writing the rules, by controlling the assets. I don't believe that one world currency is the solution...yet, because we still we do not have the peace necessary for the OWG (one world government).
I realize that we - the Good 'Ole USA is bailing out many nations now, but this is unsustainable, unless we continue to tax the middle class or actually decrease/cut funding to those on Medicare/Welfare/WIC/Food stamps...need I go on with all of the programs that we continue to fund? Is it inevitable? Not as long as their are religious differences. Read Leon Uris' the 'Haj'. You will see that these religions will continue to break hate and contempt. Look at the Southern Baptists (I know, I live in a bible belt). They are almost as bad, however since they don't believe that killing yourself leads to heaven...they aren't about to go about blowing themselves up. Then you have to take into consideration China....hmm, a country who's motto is to eat rice 100 years with their enemy...meaning play nice until you get what YOU want. As you can see by their human right violations (not that we are doing much better on some on this), that they thumb their noses at the rest of the world and say, 'kiss our asses' or is that assets? They will not play by having the US...the great imperial, last standing super power bully, as their guide to success, no they prefer their way. And India, is no small fry to deal with, nor Russia, the Saudi's. There is too much difference yet.
Comments which I feel are relative to spreading our belief system. If you go to a delivery ward in Germany, Greece, France, even Great Britain, you will find that the majority of the children being born now are to Muslim parents, what does this hold for the future beliefs and values of the EU? Where does this put Europe in 20 years from now when we move closer to a OWG? Which belief system becomes the majority view?