What is "Globalism"

[BaalChatzaf]

I say globalism is none other than international trade between firms and or individuals   with nations and across nation borders with as few restrictions  (tariffs and import quotas) as possible.  Foreign ships coming into our harbors should charged their fair share of  the costs of piers,  harbor navigation and dredging.  This should amount to a very low percentage increase over the market prices. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I say globalism is none other...

Bob,

They got you at hello.

Globalism is many others...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

They got you at hello.

Globalism is many others...

Michael

Do tell.  What others. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Do tell.  What others.

Minority elite class--class, not just isolated individuals and their cronies--ruling the majority of all people all over the globe.

That's one.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Minority elite class--class, not just isolated individuals and their cronies--ruling the majority of all people all over the globe.

That's one.

Michael

I thought globalism was an international commerce and trade arrangement.

The more exact statement of your point is that the nations of the world are ruled/governed by oligarchies,  which has been the usual state of affairs  since God invented dirt.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

55 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I thought globalism was an international commerce and trade arrangement.

Bob,

It is.

But those trade arrangements are ruled by insiders. Oligarchies of insiders.

56 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The more exact statement of your point is that the nations of the world are ruled/governed by oligarchies,  which has been the usual state of affairs  since God invented dirt.

Yup.

For nations and for a rather new development since the 20th century, the across-borders crony government+corporation entities. Used to was, only banks did that (as some still do). Now all areas of commerce get involved if they can get the right political connections.

btw - Don't forget the combinations of the oligarchies into factions. It's quite a party.

But out in the rust belt where abandoned factory buildings are now used for growing weeds, they are not amused...

Michael

[studiodekadent]

I'm going to have to somewhat agree with MSK here.

"Globalism" isn't necessarily "global free trade." Rather, it seems to me to ultimately be a belief in supranational, multilateral institutions. This is why Globalism supports things like the EU and the UN. 

Globalists these days are often aligned with the "left" but if Globalism were about free trade, how do you explain the fact that the EU is basically a mixed-economy/social-democratic bloc rather than a laissez-faire bloc? How do you explain the fact that the EU itself creates one giant overarching supranational layer of bureaucracy on top of the already large national bureaucracies in Europe? 

Globalists are equally against American noninterventionism (because it represents a withdrawal from multilateral, supranational institutions) as they are against American unilateral interventionism (because it represents non-cooperation with multilateral, supranational institutions). Globalists are okay with multilateral interventionism because it represents more decisions being made by multilateral, supranational institutions. 

If Globalists were about free trade, why have so few free trade agreements actually been free trade? Granted most of these agreements are net-liberalizing but they also include substantial levels of cronyism (the TPP, for example, demanded that non-US countries enforce US-style intellectual property and copyright laws; this was seen as a handout to big media and to some degree big tech). And why would Globalists be so uniformly on the left? Why would all these large, supranational, multilateral institutions be pushing anti-classical-liberal agendas?

[anthony]

18 hours ago, studiodekadent said:

I'm going to have to somewhat agree with MSK here.

"Globalism" isn't necessarily "global free trade." Rather, it seems to me to ultimately be a belief in supranational, multilateral institutions. This is why Globalism supports things like the EU and the UN. 

Globalists these days are often aligned with the "left" but if Globalism were about free trade, how do you explain the fact that the EU is basically a mixed-economy/social-democratic bloc rather than a laissez-faire bloc? How do you explain the fact that the EU itself creates one giant overarching supranational layer of bureaucracy on top of the already large national bureaucracies in Europe? 

Globalists are equally against American noninterventionism (because it represents a withdrawal from multilateral, supranational institutions) as they are against American unilateral interventionism (because it represents non-cooperation with multilateral, supranational institutions). Globalists are okay with multilateral interventionism because it represents more decisions being made by multilateral, supranational institutions. 

If Globalists were about free trade, why have so few free trade agreements actually been free trade? Granted most of these agreements are net-liberalizing but they also include substantial levels of cronyism (the TPP, for example, demanded that non-US countries enforce US-style intellectual property and copyright laws; this was seen as a handout to big media and to some degree big tech). And why would Globalists be so uniformly on the left? Why would all these large, supranational, multilateral institutions be pushing anti-classical-liberal agendas?

Andrew, this helps a lot. I have had a hard time getting a grip on the concept "globalism". May it be because it's not actually a concept, more of a notion, a meme, and an anti-concept - floating abstractly in peoples' heads? Now, I am more certain that it is not synonymous with laissez-faire, free trade - nor even a pretention to it. By free trade, one can only mean an individual dealing and trading only with other individuals, wherever they and their companies are located - without any intervention or help by governments, nor by State-driven transnational trade treaties, etc. And then, certainly we'll see more of 'global' capitalism. But "Globalism" as such, is anti-Capitalist and totalitarian, I think, insinuating ultimate power and control.

When the logical end result of decades of central planning and wealth redistribution moves well beyond good-ole, simple 'crony capitalism', to the point of gigantic corporations melding seamlessly with gigantic state power - let me call this new entity Corporo-Statism - we will see (in the view of Globalists) these mega-bodies forming monopolies among themselves, eventually to gain their objective, which I believe, they believe will be the foundation of a One World Utopia. The fantasy of its proponents is the eradication of distinctions, autonomy and independence. One, in order to create borderless nations, (ie. world peace, forever...!) and two, the blurring of individual mankind, world-wide, into one 'equal', obediently-content mass. (ie. harmony and love...) That's when and how altruism-collectivism will achieve its supremacy, helping to explain why Globalism is darling of the Progressive-left..

[BaalChatzaf]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

Andrew, this helps a lot. I have had a hard time getting a grip on the concept "globalism". May it be because it's not actually a concept, more of a notion, a meme, an anti-concept - floating abstractly in peoples' heads? I am pretty sure however that it is not synonomous with laissez-faire, free trade. By free trade, one can only mean an individual dealing and trading only with other individuals, where ever they and their companies are based - without any intervention or help by governments, nor State-driven transnational trade treaties, etc. And then, certainly we'll see 'global' capitalism. But "globalism" as such, is anti-Capitalist and totalitarian, I think.

When the logical end result of decades of central planning and wealth redistribution moves well beyond good-ole, simple crony capitalism, to the point of gigantic corporations melding with gigantic state power - let me call this new entity Corporo-Statism - we will see (in the view of Globalists) these mega-bodies forming unions among themselves, eventually to gain their objective, which I believe, they believe, will be a One World Utopia. The fantasy of its proponents is the eradication of distinctions, autonomy and independence. One, in order to create borderless nations, (ie. world peace, forever...!) and two, the blurring of individual mankind world-wide, into one 'equal', obediently content mass. That's when and how altruism-collectivism achieves its supremacy.

This was the vision formulated  by H. G. Wells in his alternate time line novel "The Shape of Things to Come". 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

This was the vision formulated  by H. G. Wells in his alternate time line novel "The Shape of Things to Come". 

Oh yes? Those frigging authors, always beating me to it.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Oh yes? Those frigging authors, always beating me to it.

Yeah.  He beat you by a bit.  It was published in 1933. 

[anthony]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Yeah.  He beat you by a bit.  It was published in 1933. 

Interesting looking 'Utopian'(/Dystopian) novel, but probably it would bore me. It seems too blandly impersonal and universal for my tastes in fiction and sci-fi. I think I must have read War of the Worlds and The Time Machine and they haven't stuck at all. HGW is apparently famed for his prediction of a Second WW in The Shape of Things... but not much else did he get right about it. A World Order is not a new theme.

[BaalChatzaf]

15 hours ago, anthony said:

Interesting looking 'Utopian'(/Dystopian) novel, but probably it would bore me. It seems too blandly impersonal and universal for my tastes in fiction and sci-fi. I think I must have read War of the Worlds and The Time Machine and they haven't stuck at all. HGW is apparently famed for his prediction of a Second WW in The Shape of Things... but not much else did he get right about it. A World Order is not a new theme.

That is true,  but he got one thing right.  The shift from species money to fiat money.  In H.G.Wells  "world order"  or has he called it "the Modern State"  money supply is controlled keep prices from plummeting too rapidly.  Price stability of common "shopping basket" items is maintained at a steady level.  

In H.G.Wells future the Modern State promotes science, technology and learning heavily so that virtually everyone of normal intelligence is heavily educated and trained. Think of a world filled with savants and Phd.s in the various disciplines,  especially physics, biology,  agriculture.  In H.G. Wells vision the world is in superb shape materially.  No starvation, no major areas of illness.  There is also population control.  Lots of coitus, but fewer children.  Life spans are extended to the 80 and 90 years range.  It is a very pretty fantasy.  There is only one trouble.  There is no easy way of getting from Here to There.  The current power elites are not going to give up their commanding position just to improve the  health and prosperity of Mankind. 

[anthony]

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 

In H.G.Wells future the Modern State promotes science, technology and learning heavily so that virtually everyone of normal intelligence is heavily educated and trained. Think of a world filled with savants and Phd.s in the various disciplines,  especially physics, biology,  agriculture.  In H.G. Wells vision the world is in superb shape materially.  No starvation, no major areas of illness.  There is also population control.  Lots of coitus, but fewer children.  Life spans are extended to the 80 and 90 years range.  It is a very pretty fantasy.  There is only one trouble.  There is no easy way of getting from Here to There.  The current power elites are not going to give up their commanding position just to improve the  health and prosperity of Mankind. 

Wells' perfect, designed world. My image of hell on Earth.

[Ellen Stuttle]

On February 2, 2017 at 11:13 PM, studiodekadent said:

[....]

Andrew, applause for your analysis.

Brief-form statement:  One world for one noose.

I think that many prominent Objectivists, and I suppose libertarians more widely, too, are beguiled by the label, thinking of "globalist" as meaning genuine international free trade.

I've encountered some people, both in Holland and Vienna, who have connections with the European Globalist drive.  They think of the U.S. as needing to be subdued and made docile.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Wells' perfect, designed world. My image of hell on Earth.

In Well's "perfect" world  everyone was aboard on The Modern State.  It was unanimous collectivism but agreed to voluntarily.  

No crime, no sickness, no war.  

Sounds like a great system, but there is no practical way to get to it.

[studiodekadent]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Andrew, applause for your analysis.

Brief-form statement:  One world for one noose.

I think that many prominent Objectivists, and I suppose libertarians more widely, too, are beguiled by the label, thinking of "globalist" as meaning genuine international free trade.

I've encountered some people, both in Holland and Vienna, who have connections with the European Globalist drive.  They think of the U.S. as needing to be subdued and made docile.

Ellen

Ellen,

Thank you very much.

I agree that many Objectivists and also Libertarians/Classical Liberals seem to think of "globalism" in terms of international free trade as well as cosmopolitanism and cultural exchange, and from this they come to associate positive things with the label "globalism" and presume that the opposite to "globalism" is a parochial protectionist ethno-nationalism. Frankly the alternative right (the most common critics of "globalism") haven't done anything to dispel this false dichotomy.

If my definition of globalism (as the empowerment of supranational institutions) is the correct one, then Classical Liberals (of any kind) SHOULD be the primary critics of globalism, because globalism represents the centralization of power which is anathema to liberty. Decentralization of power is a bulwark against tyranny.

My definition of globalism has a particular advantage; it explains the paradoxical association of free trade with a position that is almost universally held by progressive leftists. If globalism is really about centralizing power within large supranational institutions, then it is basically the Progressive project on an international scale. Classical Liberals are effectively duped into supporting these institutions by the promise of "free trade" ("less unfree trade" would be more accurate). 

[Ellen Stuttle]

5 hours ago, studiodekadent said:

[M]y definition of globalism (as the empowerment of supranational institutions) [...] has a particular advantage; it explains the paradoxical association of free trade with a position that is almost universally held by progressive leftists. If globalism is really about centralizing power within large supranational institutions, then it is basically the Progressive project on an international scale.

Yes, "basically the Progressive project on an international scale," with an additional strand in the weave from old aristocracies, families that want to regain some of their former power and see modern business alignments as a way to do that.

Ellen

[anthony]

12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In Well's "perfect" world  everyone was aboard on The Modern State.  It was unanimous collectivism but agreed to voluntarily.  

No crime, no sickness, no war.  

Sounds like a great system, but there is no practical way to get to it.

I've heard similar before... Oh yes - then, it was: "Communism is a perfect system but men aren't good enough for it". Remember?

What you say in this version, is the perfect world is desirable, but not practically implementable. Then the second nullifies the former since reality (the nature of man in there) will have to be subverted in order to create the perfect world, and renders the whole thing immorally irrational, not to add, impossible. For force would be needed to start the initiative ("unanimous collectivism", notwithstanding) and more force to sustain it into the next generations. And to be consistent, expect the call for a eugenics program to promote this vision of Perfection. Science to the rescue! Not to forget that man will forever be 'man' - one on one or group on group, he will be as adversarial as always - which does not bode well for the ideal of 'universal peace'. If each individual can't learn to be rationally moral, there is no 'system' which can save him from himself. And that morality is exactly what the Progressivists today wish to bypass. As with the first Communists, for them the System will make the people. Yes we can. ;)

[BaalChatzaf]

12 minutes ago, anthony said:

I've heard similar before... Oh yes - then, it was: "Communism is a perfect system but men aren't good enough for it". Remember?

What you say in this version, is the perfect world is desirable, but not practically implementable. Then the second nullifies the former since reality (the nature of man in there) will have to be subverted in order to create the perfect world, and renders the whole thing immorally irrational, not to add, impossible. For force would be needed to start the initiative, and more force to sustain it into the next generations. And to be consistent, expect the call for a eugenics program to promote this vision of Perfection. Science to the rescue! Not to forget that man will always be man - one on one or group on group, he will be as adversarial as always - which does not bode well for the ideal of 'universal peace'. If each individual can't learn to be rationally moral, there is no 'system' which can save him from himself. And that, is exactly what the Progressivists today wish to bypass. As with the first Communists, for them the System will make the people. Yes we can. ;)

How would you like to live in a world with no disease, no war, no mortal conflict,  with prosperity for all, and where people are free to choose what work they wish to do  (for they must work to maintain themselves and the political state which affords them their opportunities)?  Since there is no political repression, no state sponsored violence, no jails and no gulags  it sounds pretty good to me.  It also sounds like science fiction.

What part of this sounds bad in principle?  

[anthony]

30 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How would you like to live in a world with no disease, no war, no mortal conflict,  with prosperity for all, and where people are free to choose what work they wish to do  (for they must work to maintain themselves and the political state which affords them their opportunities)?  Since there is no political repression, no state sponsored violence, no jails and no gulags  it sounds pretty good to me.  It also sounds like science fiction.

What part of this sounds bad in principle?  

Sounds like individualism and laissez-faire Capitalism to me. Not science fiction.

If this comes about, it will and must come about by freedom from others and individual choice, not by a Utopian dream and its required forceful intervention. That IS wholly possible, and sustainable. You disregard man's nature, it seems, and treat this all like a frozen abstraction: once implemented, not challenged or opposed by anyone, ever. Mankind (thank god) are not like that.

"Utopia". Gr. "ou" - not; "topos" - place. No place. 

The road to hell has always been paved with good intentions, Bob. Study the history.

[BaalChatzaf]

35 minutes ago, anthony said:

Sounds like individualism and laissez-faire Capitalism to me. Not science fiction.

If this comes about, it will and must come about by freedom from others and individual choice, not by a Utopian dream and its required forceful intervention. That IS wholly possible, and sustainable. You disregard man's nature, it seems, and treat this all like a frozen abstraction: once implemented, not challenged or opposed by anyone, ever. Mankind (thank god) are not like that.

"Utopia". Gr. "ou" - not; "topos" - place. No place. 

The road to hell has always been paved with good intentions, Bob. Study the history.

however we get there, if we get there is fine by me.  I see no good in living in a world filled with disease, war, violence, poverty, tyranny.  I prefer a world where we can live in peace with each other, pursue or rightful goals,  and have a damned good time doing it. 

[william.scherk]

I don't have a single, simple, satisfying definition of Globalism ... nor one broad enough to cover and fit everybody's conception.

One way I tried to figure out satisfying conceptual boundaries for Globalism/Not Globalism, was by segmenting aspects of human practical ingenuity that are more or less global in effect and consequence. It is just a sketch, however.  

• Finance, investment, capital markets ...
• Military force, in reach and power
• Social institutions such as schools, associations, political institutions and religious bodies of faith
• Commercial trade in goods and services
• International agreements, treaties, institutions, law and jurisprudence
• Communication media, infrastructure and penetration
• Technological advancement
• Scientific norms and praxis
• Ideological 'power' in competition across the bounds of human knowledge
• International movements of individuals 

I also tried to segment out historical eras and the scope of any globalist impulse or pressure.

This is just to set out my idiosyncratic means of understanding the largest scope of what others call "globalism."  For example, if I take Finance, Investment, Capital markets, I can segment out former great international powers like the British Empire, and see what 'force of globalism' attends the Empire in its spread and its denouement, and how the other aspects were in play. 

The thin thread that connects these areas is probably reach.  A globalist (whether of Comintern or the Imperial Office or a modern US military planner) intends the reach to be broad, across borders, in fantasy all-encompassing, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

I think the achievements of the British Empire show both 'downsides' ("Globalism is a plot to subjugate Marxist Man to Capitalism," "Globalism is Joo Banker Dream," "Globalism wants to achieve a Single Government" and 'upsides' ...

I won't bore the list with more thinking out loud, but just expose my ignorance and how I intend to dispel it as much as possible. The British Empire example shows me in some ways the great Scottish talents for engineering, shipping, exploration, commerce and trade, along with the larger English impulse to bring order and control to far distant lands, lands of potential utility to Empire. 

So, off the top of my head, a few other entrainments or entailments of figuring out "Globalism."  It is not just advanced industrial democracies that have attempted to reach out and 'pull in under' more of the world to a common set of understandings.  The most successful 'globalist' achievement next to unfettered trade is in Scientific norms. "Internationalism" is in some ways an over-lap with Globalist concerns, as with projects of 'opening up markets' or 'opening' closed societies. The 'law of the sea' is such an international/global item of note.   A polity without effective democracy stands outside many Western norms, and yet may be made a global power through the weight of its trading economy.  A global 'policeman' like the United States can have broad policies that survive contractions and expansions of the 'will to power.'

On 2/3/2017 at 8:36 AM, anthony said:

The fantasy of its proponents is the eradication of distinctions, autonomy and independence.

This makes me think of the first Black Bloc anarchist riot against the evils of Globalization. And how their stance and tactics propagated around the (Westernized) globe. In an effort to repel 'late capitalism' they borrowed from every book of spells. Incantations. These forces of global 'contraction' show up at the G-8 and G-20 conferences.

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How would you like to live in a world with no disease, no war, no mortal conflict,  with prosperity for all, and where people are free to choose what work they wish to do  (for they must work to maintain themselves and the political state which affords them their opportunities)?

I'd like to live in the part of the world that is fully industrialized and part of the Western alliance. I'd settle for 'lowest disease incidence' and 'not involved in war for a hundred years,' and no internal mortal conflict, where prosperity is achievable by individual and concerted effort. And a political state that offers me the fullest operational space for my political opinions and my free expression.

Which kind of sounds like Sweden, at this point not all that attractive ...

4 hours ago, anthony said:

You disregard man's nature, it seems, and treat this all like a frozen abstraction: once implemented, not challenged or opposed by anyone, ever. Mankind (thank god) are not like that.

I think that might be one problem with understanding 'Globalism' as a fixed principle or internally-coherent body of practice and policy.  A frozen abstraction seems to have no real-world names or entities attached to it, no processes that can be understood other than by another fixed body of belief. 

I look around at the society I live in.  What have the many flavours of globalism done for me? What has 'anti-globalism' meant for me and my family?  Has it made my life more pinched and decoupled from the 'globe'?

What I like about the Randian project is that it is not ultimately parochial.   I still haven't fully processed the concepts and entailments from Rand's "Global Balkanization," but I think that essay provides some Objectivish criteria for exploring and judging of local/regional/national/international 'fetters and freedoms.' 

The appeal of Objectivism is ultimately global, perhaps?

Here is a chart of global trade flows in fertilizer. I expect one of the OL wags has a suitable rejoinder ...

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by william.scherk
Grrrrrrammar

[anthony]

I'll pay that more attention William. There's some fresh thoughts and material you have there, and I'm limited in this area.

In the mean time, what modern global trade routes say to me is the same-old mixture: Statism/Corporatism. Just growing bigger and more powerful, hand in hand. I suspect "globalism" as the ambition of Progressivists to keep the golden eggs flowing in, to keep populations submissive and content with their goodies while the coming powers that-will-be determine the course of the world. I might go so far as to say that modern Capitalism is selling out to power. I might.

To you (and Bob), I'd mention that the end can never justify the means of getting there. We tread into utilitarianism.

I take delight in seeing (especially) huge engineering feats everywhere in the world. I know nearly all are the result of State initiatives and public money, but what I draw from them is that man's mind is forever irrepressible - under any circumstances. So much better and free-er would minds be without the State as player, methinks.

[william.scherk]

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I won't bore the list with more thinking out loud

Lies!

On 2/2/2017 at 8:13 PM, studiodekadent said:

"Globalism" isn't necessarily "global free trade." Rather, it seems to me to ultimately be a belief in supranational, multilateral institutions. This is why Globalism supports things like the EU and the UN. 

Globalists these days are often aligned with the "left" but if Globalism were about free trade, how do you explain the fact that the EU is basically a mixed-economy/social-democratic bloc rather than a laissez-faire bloc?

The biggest trade globalists in the world are Canadians. Global free trade is the distant shining horizon. We want to move our potash and Cirque de Soleil and airplanes and advanced technology to the four corners of the world. As for supranational, multilateral institutions, we are but slightly above the Western industrialized democratic norm. 

Consider the hierarchy of political institutions in our polity. The constitution makes the free individual the basic ingredient. From that person, to the closest possible representation of democracy: local municipal governance, to the varied layers above the municipal, at the very apex full membership in international deliberative bodies, the International Criminal Court, the UN. 

There are complicated relationships here, to be sure, and historical contingencies, and that is why I am taking small slices of globalism at a time, perhaps later to see where Objectivish theory supports and extends a philosophical reading of particulars.

I consider "Global Balkanization" in the framework of Quebec and the advent of official multiculturalism, to illustrate a particular. Some kind of 'globalism' in a cultural context became a fact reinforced each decade by our changing demographic. Canada at this point tends to represent the world's nationalities and ethnic groups in the portion of its foreign-born residents (like Australia, like the USA, the countries that most closely resemble each other vis a vis multiculturalism).

It is almost as if the globalist impulse prevailed on every single item of my list above, in Canada.  

To the question, "if Globalism were about free trade, how do you explain the fact that the EU is basically a mixed-economy/social-democratic bloc rather than a laissez-faire bloc?" ... I would answer that I cannot compare against a laissez-faire bloc, because one does not exist.  Every rich modern industrialized democracy is pretty much on the same shelf of "mixed-ness," with the poorest among us the least giving of social benefits.

Quote

How do you explain the fact that the EU itself creates one giant overarching supranational layer of bureaucracy on top of the already large national bureaucracies in Europe? 

I explain it by the Law of Hierarchies.  In layman terms, the polities surrounding human association are akin to a nervous system, at each level, where combined individual effort is managed. The Law's scope is the governance units in a hierarchy, and scales to inter-communal adhesions to higher relationships. When a 'cell' or cell-grouping interacts with another grouping of a separate hierarchy, a next  level of 'management' evolves to be a 'management' cortex, out of the initial chaos of connection.

Thus the Law ensures that when a nation state or smaller communality abuts with and trades with and/or has conflict with a commonality, and institution is built of human contrivance to 'manage' the relationship.

This explains each treaty, each alliance, each bloc, each supranational hand-shake and 'cabinet' ... each Yalta and Potsdam.

The Law also explains North Korea, the crypto-globalist Juche state. It has no truck with any but a select group of nations. It is a rogue on the international stage. It has a unified government and state and party without democracy or local autonomies of any kind.

To the EU, I take a historical-philosophical view, and watch its growth and development out of the need to bind together West Germany, the Lowlands and France together in economic alliance.  The European Coal and Steel Community. 1945.

Quote

Globalists are equally against American noninterventionism (because it represents a withdrawal from multilateral, supranational institutions) as they are against American unilateral interventionism (because it represents non-cooperation with multilateral, supranational institutions). Globalists are okay with multilateral interventionism because it represents more decisions being made by multilateral, supranational institutions.

I think that by this paragraph the word "Globalists" has taken on too much freight. I can think of  myself as a Globalist to the toenails just by virtue of being an MOR Canadian, so I can entertain the freight by inserting myself.

I am equally against American noninterventionism (because it represents a withdrawal from multilateral, supranational institutions) as I am against American unilateral interventionism (because it represents non-cooperation with multilateral, supranational institutions). I am okay with multilateral interventionism because it represents more decisions being made by multilateral, supranational institutions.

-- it needs rewriting to reference my own beliefs and opinions.

As a Canadian globalist, I believe that the larger the alliance, the better for my side. I see each policy suggestion of (military and diplomatic) 'intervention' by America as best accompanied by a calculation of 'international support' alongside a calculation of cost and benefit applied to the strategic goal. 

As for multilateral institutions, at various levels of the Law's hierarchy, each one can be a tool in achieving strategic national goals. As a globalist, I see multilateral ties as a 'company of friends' at best, and as a 'council of equals' at a summit of power. Supra-national institutions are in my globalist view a layer of management, sometimes fat and lazy, sometimes lean and on point. Such an institution has a purpose and an effect insofar as it has judicial or enforcement power delineated in its articles.

So here, this globalist tends to sort out which globalist-tinged institutions are useful and which are not, when a country butts up against another country in tension. For me there are cosmetic alliances and groupings or statistical agencies, like the OECD and the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. Each one costs something  to us, and each offers some benefits, if only an intangible good will or long-term intelligence value.

Multilateral interventionism in the sense of a military intervention by America almost always entails hard choices for Canada. We officially prefer conservative long-term relationships, and we are happy to join together with America as a NATO ally wherever NATO flies (as in Libya or Serbia). We stayed out of the Vietnam war, and stayed out of the second Gulf War. As a globalist Canadian, I calculate that the more nations flying with America on this mission or another, the more heft and moral purpose can be seen by enemies. I am thus almost always in favour of multilateral interventions because of their weight-to-justification ratio.

As should be apparent in context, the Law of Hierarchies is a jest.

Quote

If Globalists were about free trade, why have so few free trade agreements actually been free trade? [...] And why would Globalists be so uniformly on the left? Why would all these large, supranational, multilateral institutions be pushing anti-classical-liberal agendas?

The biggest globalists in Canada are some very conservative forces. The Free Trade deal that initiated a revolution in Canadian commerce was brought to fruition by Mulroney and Reagan.  The left was almost to-a-man still stuck in the Liberal fallback position in opposition. The next globalist/continentalist trade deal was also ushered in by conservatives here. 

I simplify the landscape a bit over the last forty free trade years, but I can point to a 'modern synthesis' in Canada, where global free trade is part of our 'brand.' 

Some dislocations are felt and criticized by both the left and the right, forcing some action in distant capitals. For example, in the last fifty years, Vancouver moved from being a basically boring and tedious mountain-fronted cousin of vibrant Seattle ... to being one of the most popular of the new "world cities," and with that popularity came investment and offshore money.

Long story short, the real-estate market is almost as insane as London's, subject to vast cash flows ramping up the commodity value of real estate holdings.  It was ultimately the conservative property-owning class that suffered most from crazy assessment increases and inability to purchase. The offshore money overwhelmingly but not entirely from China was inflating our locality like a bubble. Globalization!

Short denouement: the provincial government (a Liberal government, meaning the rightmost party here in British Columbia) imposed a hefty fee on foreign purchasers. And just lately, China's dictatorship imposed exit controls on currency exchanges which effectively forbid the purchase of foreign real-estate by those means. In other words, wads of Chinese dollars have been withdrawn from our future real-estate market. 

The effect of the provincial 'tariff' wall so far has stopped the bubble from expanding further and the effect of the currency controls in China will probably reduce the white hot heat of residential commodity investment. 

Dumpy, boring, rainy, parochial Vancouver, a port on global sea routes, yeah, but not bubbling with exuberance.

Bubbling with Globalization ... !

 

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by william.scherk
The China, not.