The double standard on artifical loyalties and borders

[JBeukema]

Can someone explain to me why the U.S. is good but the NAU/world government would be evil?

I live closer to someone in Northern Mexico than I do to someone in Maine. Others live closer to someone in Montreal than to someone in Las Angeles.

And yet we are told that we are to hold an artificial sense of camaraderie and lfellowship with those further away and consider them to be within out 'national' ingroup and to consider those fellow humans who live near to us as 'other' and alien to us.

We are taught that, because of some imaginary line in the sand drawn by rich men who command men with guns, our community is not the man nearer to me with whom I might have much more in common, but those further away whom I will likely never meet and with whom I have little to nothing in common.

If the NAU or a world government would be 'bad', 'evil', or otherwise objectionable as an artificial system of loyalty on control imposed upon us and overruling via the veto power of the gun those organic communities and associations which spring forth from human nature and interaction, then should not the United States (or any other such nation-state), too, be subject to those exact same criticisms and complaints?

Why, then, other than familiarity and -i-n-d-o-c-t-r-i-n-a-t-i-o-n- education, do men accept one with religious zeal and moral conviction and reject the other?

 

[Dr.Drock]

If or when it comes I don't think it'll make much difference.


The richest men with the most resources will run this world no matter what boundaries are where or what we call the land within those boundaries.

 

[JBeukema]

So nobody can tell me why 'Globalism' is bad but 'Nationalism' is good?

 

[Ringel05]

So nobody can tell me why 'Globalism' is bad but 'Nationalism' is good?

Depends on who's version of "globalism government" you want.

 

[idb]

It's an interesting question.
I live in a country that's thousands of miles from any other country.
And our nearest neighbour is pretty much like us.
About 25% of our population is outside our country at any one time.

I'm not sure what you mean by globalism exactly...whether that be opening up borders to trade, or immigration, but we depend hugely on trade and we are regularly told that both are good for us.

Also, there is frequently internal criticism that we aren't nationalistic enough when it comes to expressing pride in our country - and its' true, we are pretty understated when it comes to patriotic expression.
I suppose that comes from never having to beat our chests to frighten possible enemies, we're just too remote.

 

[editec]

So nobody can tell me why 'Globalism' is bad but 'Nationalism' is good?

That is an excellent question.

I don't really think its necessarily better in principle, I just think, given where we are now, protectionist nationalism makes better sense for most Americans than globalism.

Right now, since we've liberated CAPITAL from national constraints and responsibilities, but not the people, working people world wide are mostly taking it on the neck.

 

[konradv]

Can someone explain to me why the U.S. is good but the NAU/world government would be evil?

I live closer to someone in Northern Mexico than I do to someone in Maine. Others live closer to someone in Montreal than to someone in Las Angeles.

And yet we are told that we are to hold an artificial sense of camaraderie and lfellowship with those further away and consider them to be within out 'national' ingroup and to consider those fellow humans who live near to us as 'other' and alien to us.

We are taught that, because of some imaginary line in the sand drawn by rich men who command men with guns, our community is not the man nearer to me with whom I might have much more in common, but those further away whom I will likely never meet and with whom I have little to nothing in common.

If the NAU or a world government would be 'bad', 'evil', or otherwise objectionable as an artificial system of loyalty on control imposed upon us and overruling via the veto power of the gun those organic communities and associations which spring forth from human nature and interaction, then should not the United States (or any other such nation-state), too, be subject to those exact same criticisms and complaints?

Why, then, other than familiarity and -i-n-d-o-c-t-r-i-n-a-t-i-o-n- education, do men accept one with religious zeal and moral conviction and reject the other?

It always gets me when self-described libertarians or Randroids complain about illegal immigration!!!