James Leroy Wilson's blog

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Fighting Against Globalists of All Parties

One reason I pulled back a bit from the political blogging recently was that I didn't have a theme or direction, a purpose or a point, aside from a general promotion of "libertarianism."

But defining, discussing, and debating "libertarianism" as doctrine or dogma is something I've lost interest in. If I think one political course should be taken instead of another, I'd rather discuss the issue on its own terms without having to defend the consistency of my libertarianism.

I would describe my beliefs as libertarian because I generally favor individual freedom and control for both moral and utilitarian resons. But that's different from naming my beliefs libertarian in the sense of adhering to a philosophy called "libertarianism." And I'm not going to take sides on the question of whose or which libertarianism. Libertarian theory certainly informs, and you could say dominates, my own outlook. But libertarianism isn't my religion, and I'm not going to be bothered with questions as to which side of the, say, abortion question, or open borders question, is most consisistent with libertarianism. I'm not afraid of being a "heretic" in this regard, if my own sense and reason concludes that the right thing is not what someone else thinks is the "correct" libertarian doctrine.

Which is not to say that exploring the philosophy of Libertarianism, and the intellectual battle it wages against Statism, is unnecessary. Far from it! I hope that more people get exposed to it as I have.

But while we fight for liberty, it is also important to know what it is we are really fighting against. And I have concluded that the battle isn't against "the State," but something which in some ways encompasses the State, and in other ways is conceptually distinct from it. The battle I am inclined to fight is against Globalism. I believe globalists of all parties are the chief threat and real enemy.

And they are everywhere, exploiting libertarian sentiments favoring, say, free trade, freedom of movement (open borders), and social tolerance, in order to undermine national, state, and local sovereignty. They are behind the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, Political Correctness, and the loss of individual autonomy. They either supported the Iraqi invasion, or opposed it not because Iraq wasn't a threat, but because it lacked sufficient global support. They dismiss opponents of world policing and global government as unpatriotic, racist, and "isolationist."

While all globalists are statists, not all statists are globalists. Statists take things that should be the responsibility of individuals and could be accomplished through voluntary cooperation, and put them under government control. But many statists at least believe in limited government, local government, the Constitution, and national sovereignty. Globalists are much worse; they yank what once belonged to a local community (like public education) and make it a state responsibility, and what were once state responsibilites (like criminal legislation) and make them national, and take what were once national (like trade and immigration) and make them supranational.

I believe that globalists are the more immediate threat, and am more inclined to work with anti-globalists of any party in order to destroy the globalists of all parties. Even if I fail to conform to "libertarianism" all the time.


  1. you are welcome to help me form the party party whenever i get a round tuitt. its a very low prior since organization = coercion in today's political sphere. i remember arguing by-laws for months in trying to form a new party in Oregon, then having all that work be for naught when the perotbots came back and strongarmed their way back into control.
    more on this at the zone

  2. Can you give a brief idea of what you mean by Globalism and if it is different from what I've been hearing some people refer to as globalization?

  3. Can you give a brief idea of what you mean by Globalism

    If I may...

    Globalization refers to the opening of markets, since the end of the Cold War, facilitating worldwide trade. Individuals in Topeka, Kansas can now do business with people in Timbuktu, and so on. It's an economic phenomenon. A couple good books to read about globalization are "Adventure Capitalist", by Mike Rogers (I think) and "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", by Thomas Friedman.

    Globalism refers to a trend toward centralizing all worldly political power into a central government. In such a system, local sovereignty and control is lost because of the consolidation of power at higher and higher levels of government.

    How's that?

  4. Although I'd have to add the caveat that globalization isn't just about economics and free markets. It's also about gunboat diplomacy, subsidies to the export of capital, and a lot of other mercantilist stuff. There's currently a lot more globalization going on (in terms of the sheer volume of international trade) than would be the case in a free market, with TNCs fully internalizing all their own costs. As with anything else, you get a lot more foreign trade when somebody else (the taxpayer) foots the bill.