Imagine a modern refugee seeking a new home where s/he can be free of oppression and to pursue his dreams. If all the world becomes homogenized, where would s/he go that would be different?
Hello again,
People, people, people..
A few years ago, the tribe was all there was to govern.. Then it was a village. Then it was a kingdom. Then it was continent, and now it's gonna be the world... There's nothing new here.. It's been progressing towards that end for around 100,000 years.
Do I like it?? Not particularly.. Does the world care? I don't think so.
excon
Bingo!
Presactly.
There are different aspects of "globalism". Political, economic, hegemonic, humanitarian, social, etc. There has always been some tendency in mankind towards globalism, whether to explore, to trade or to conquer. Today we have a global economy, a global marketplace, and thanks to the internet, we have global outreach between people all over the world.
Travel and trade make some sort of agreements between nations necessary. National sovereignty has long bred alliances for mutual protection. There are vast expanses that are open to all and we do need some agreement as to how we use them without stepping on each other's toes.
Since time immemorial men have dreamed of world domination. In the past that has been attempted by force. Since the end of WWI, men have been attempting to use cooperation to that end. They have certainly come a long way since the creation of the UN after WWII. The UN uses good and even noble concepts to achieve consent.
We are far more interconnected today than ever. We do need to find a way to coexist without constant wars. Trade is beneficial to all. We do need to take care of the environment. We do need to take care of each other. And while the concept may have merit, theory doesn't often translate well into practice. And while many truly believe the UN to be a benevolent organization working to unite the world in peace and cooperation, I see it as a means for control and theft. The only difference between the empires of the past and the growing power of the UN is that in the past force was used, whereas now people and governments are convinced or coerced into giving their consent.
So to answer your questions, globalization is, that bell cannot be unrung. We need some way to agree, disagree and settle disputes. I do not believe a "world government" is the answer, however. No matter how well-intentioned, no matter how noble the goals, if men are put into positions of power over others, corruption and abuses will ensue. The greater the power, the greater the corruptions and abuses.
I do not ever envision the people of the world willingly becoming homogenous.
Old, he is kind of fun, this guy. You have probably already seen his light heart and his light knowledge of what he deems I mean. Or you. Or anyone but himself at the moment.
"Libertarian"
He is also found of using these long ass initials to tell me he finds my statements disdainful and laughable.
ROFLMOTHAFKEE or something of that length.
LOL should suffice.
At least he is not a jerk who takes himself and anyone else that seriously. He is NOT a usual suspect*
Nimitz *usual suspect is a phrase we all kind of coined from Old School as a nod to the movie and a middle finger to the one's on here who are extreme anti-Obama, global warming, total Christian and totally Trump as a rule.
Pro gun too
So, you are not one of them. That is a compliment. ROUOPIJPJWWEJRLAMO
Mmm'kay. First things first. ROTFLMAO is not meant as a pejorative. It's meant to indicate that I found something you said extremely funny.
Second, SKOS has already pronounced me guilty...of what I have no idea, but his opinions regarding me and anything I have to say are set. Yours, on the other hand, are not--or at least don't seem to be.
Third, yes, I'm a libertarian (notice no big 'L'). That means, among other things, that I oppose the first use of force in any facet of human interaction. The ONLY legitimate use of force is by the individual in defense of his or her person or in defense of his or her family. So yeah, I'm pro gun. Prolly much moreso than most libertarians. (I do not personally own firearms.)
I am also a Christian. As a Christian libertarian, I a) take the Lord's Prayer literally, and b) do not use a proxy to 'vote' myself a piece of another person's life. I am a conscientious abstainer. You'll never hear of me trying to tell you how to live your life, on what to spend your money, whom to marry, what kind of weapons you may own, what you can and cannot take into/remove from your body, etc.
Global warming (climate change) is a complex issue but, in general, I believe ANY kind of pollution is an unjust imposition of one person's garbage upon another. I am thus an environmentalist. As for the new secular religion, I have no use for it whatsoever. I'm content to believe that human activity is having a negative impact on the earth's environment, and leave it at that. Unlike global warming nutters, I do not require lockstep agreement with me.
Fantastic answer!!
