How isn't Globalism entirely anti-American?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tothetenthpower

No, it was founded by Classical Liberals, not progressives. If it had been founded by progressives, there would be no need for a progressive movement today.

Progressivism is relative. It literally deals with progressing beyond what's already in place. Advocating for new technologies and increased opportunities are "progressive" qualities which will never have an expiration date, because every generation can progress/improve upon what already exists.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Then advocating for collectivism is not "progress." Collectivism is an old idea that has failed all over. So I fail to see where the progress is there. Indeed forcing people to collectivize actually holds individuals back from being able to progress because they are tied to the collective and not free to advance on their own under their own initiative.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Both.
Like it or not one day we will have a global government it is inevitable but I think it will not happen for 100 or so years.
Globalisation is happening and has been for decades. You can still love your country and support globalisation.

It is not inevitable at all.

Identifiable people's and their cultures will rebel against this utopian ideal, when it becomes clear that their values and perspectives are not represented or respected in whatever foreign overarching structure is set up to govern (ie. impose on) them. And/or the more affluent and hard-working precincts will eventually rebel against the idea of using the spoils of their labours to prop up the peoples/cultures who expect the same standards of living as everyone else...but are not prepared to work for it.

Just whose cultural and political model do you suggest is the one that all nations will embrace? The American one? The Chinese one? The Russian one? The Greek, Cuban or Venezuelan one? The UN one?

This Progressive/Globalist pipe-dream has about as much chance of working in the real world as the pie-in-the-sky writings of Karl Marx.

Everything about these philosophies all so Kum Ba ya wonderful, until you insert actual human beings into the equation (not some saintly ideal of what humanity should be). Real people/cultures/religions/political systems are going to have ambitions...are going to want to have more money/power/resources/influence than the next guy.

The EU is a pretty good example of a Globalist notion that is doomed to failure. England is already getting out...Greece has threatened to leave multiple times...Sweden, Norway and Denmark have their doubts about staying in...Germany is sick and tired of propping up the economies of Greece, Spain and others...many nations are openly rebelling against the "open border" dictates, that have led to them being overrun by Muslim (many openly hostile) "migrants" from the Middle-East, Africa and Asia.

About the only way this would ever come to pass...and it would be time-limited (think Roman, British or Ottoman Empires)...would be if one superpower decided to go to war, won the battle, and decided to impose a single world government on whatever was left of humanity. Even so, over time, pockets of resistance would eventually bubble up, the overlords would be fought until they were forced out, or compromised on Governance to let people have more local autonomy (kind of like how the British Empire eventually became the British Commonwealth, and now has virtually no control over the Countries it had once conquered and tried to assimilate).

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Then advocating for collectivism is not "progress." Collectivism is an old idea that has failed all over. So I fail to see where the progress is there. Indeed forcing people to collectivize actually holds individuals back from being able to progress because they are tied to the collective and not free to advance on their own under their own initiative.

You're not making sense.

We're pushing for equal rights as per the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. We're pushing for clean & renewable technologies. We want advances in our health care system to benefit all citizens and not just the wealthy. We push for living wages so American citizens can live decent lives when only working one full time job. We push for equal voting rights, clean waterways, less air pollution, and much more.

So of course you and the other conservatives in this thread ignore that and spout your own ideas of what you think we want. But when actual progressives explain our actual positions, you can't even address them because the answer is so different from you're indoctrinated to believe we want.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

it is. Thats the point. It favors a world order as supreme over a soverign individual one.

Funny too as it says its here to save us....from ourselves...while financially screwing us over.

Its basically a colonial hold over from when trading companies operated like pirates.

When all you needed was royal permission to enslave and exploit the world.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

It's like a bunch of nosy, old ladies from the local Bingo game sitting around talking about how the hip hop culture thinks and feels. Kind of pointless.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Globalism is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances. That is one characterization of Globalism that is widely accepted.

Another definition would be A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence. The development of social, cultural, technological, or economic networks that transcend national boundaries.

Your characterization of it seems like it is only accepted in your small circle of peers.

Market globalists include the ideology of neoliberalism, but I don't see how progressivism fits in like you claim.

The things you are talking about don't make any sense to me because you seem to be trying to redefine things that already have solidified meanings so your rant reads like jibberish to me. Unless you are just trying to falsely label people which may work out for you here.

The United States of America was founded on the idea that the People are greater than any Government. Power comes from the People.

Legislators are entrusted with the power from the People.

States are an extension of the People in them.

It's the Executive's job to make sure the States deal fairly with each other, as well as to deal with foreign powers.

It's the Judiciary's job to make sure new laws do not trample existing laws or the Constitution.

Pretty simple.

Progressivism (and any other Big Government for that matter) turns all that on its head.

It's not the federal government's job to promote green energy or high speed rail. It's not the federal government's job to assign benefits or duties to the People. It's not the federal government's job to worry about safety nets or education.

If the People come up with any of those ideas on their own and they become popular enough to implement on grande scale, so be it. Those are the business of the People and their States.

If you think the above agendas are the purview of progressivsm for the USA, then yes they are anti-American.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

I'm completely listening to your ideas. I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

You're talking about a "one world government", not globalism.

I'll forgive that faux pas...



What's wrong with trying to globalise beyond the western world...

What's wrong with wanting Turkey to stop cracking down on dissidents...
What's wrong with wanting Saudi Arabia to stop beheading people...
What's wrong with wanting China to do away with slave labour...
What's wrong with wanting to put an end to Corporate tax havens...


To be honest even if we were to have a "one world government"...
What's wrong with having the whole planet live under COTUS rule...

I think that'd be amazing.



Anyways, it will never happen.
But if you feel the need to take jabs at "progressives" don't let me interfere...
You clearly need a safe space from which to vent.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

I say the same thing when non-conservatives tell me how I think and feel.

But I don't want to use government to shut them up, or PC thoughtcrime to silence them, nor call them sexist/racist/homophobe, etc.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

I'm completely listening to your ideas. I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

Me: Hey, let's make solar power generation cheaper so all households can generate their own electricity.

You: Nope, that's clearly central planning, big govt, utopian stuff.

Me: Hey, wealthy corporations should share their profits by paying their workers more!

You: Nope, that's clearly big govt and central planning utopian stuff.

Me: Hey ladies, I may not agree with abortion but it's not my body. So I think you should be the ones to decide, since you're the ones who can die from childbirth.

You: See! That's clearly central planning and big govt, even though progressives are trying to decentralize abortion decisions by allowing individuals to make that decision instead of letting govt panels & legislatures make the decision for all women. Hmm...

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
To be honest even if we were to have a "one world government"...
What's wrong with having the whole planet live under COTUS rule...

I think that'd be amazing.

I agree, but a few things would have to happen:

1) We actually follow the COTUS and stop progressives from running around it with Judicial Activism and Executive overreach. Follow the COTUS as written, not as a 'living document' subject to the whims of "penumbras and emanations."
2) The nations in question would have to apply for acceptance into the USA.
3) The People in those countries would have to accept and ratify the COTUS *on their own*

Globalism is the innocent sounding catchphrase which really means the "have" countries have to give away their edge in business, standard of living ect to the "have nots" countries. It's wrapped up in altruistic words but it generally means the First and even Second Worlds need to give what they built and earned to the Third world so that everyone is even. There is no talk of building up those countries without a corosponding lowering of quality of life in the have states. it's not a rising tides lifts everyone, it's more the boat the First and Second world has gets drilled with many holes so as they are even with the third world. To be a successful and thriving country implies that you should feel guild for your success

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From a progressive standpoint, I could not have said it better.

Don't you love it when conservatives and non-progressives on this thread try to tell us how we feel and think?

Exactly. They love to talk about us and to talk at us. But when they make a thread claiming they want to talk to us and get our perspectives, they ignore our answers in favor of their own ideas of what they think we stand for.

I'm completely listening to your ideas. I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

What does any of that have to do with the points in my posts? How is wanting all Americans to have equal rights a "big govt, central planning, utopian fiasco"?

Me: Hey, let's make solar power generation cheaper so all households can generate their own electricity.

You: Nope, that's clearly central planning, big govt, utopian stuff.

Nothing is wrong with Americans having those thing. The problem is with a central government mandating it. Kinda like telling us we all have to have health insurance. It's a utopian fiasco.

Then you added this:

Me: Hey ladies, I may not agree with abortion but it's not my body. So I think you should be the ones to decide, since you're the ones who can die from childbirth.

You: See! That's clearly central planning and big govt, even though progressives are trying to decentralize abortion decisions by allowing individuals to make that decision instead of letting govt panels & legislatures make the decision for all women. Hmm...

Never mind the human it kills in the process. They can't vote. They obviously aren't worth the effort yet. They must not be human.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I simply disagree with them as a Big Government, central planning, utopian fiasco.

You could literally use this argument against any and every policy ever made.
Including your beloved conservatism.

It's not an argument from logic, it is a stagnant emotional ploy.


You're basically saying "it can't happen, because I believe it's fantasy" without even an attempt at making it into reality.


And you're smarter than that to be honest.
It's a lazy argument.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I agree it would take a lot of work...

But it's funny in a way, that you presented an argument instead of labelling it a "utopian fiasco".
Hopefully you see the point of my above post now.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I get what you're saying, but Classical Liberal wasn't a phrase used at the time, they would have just been considered liberals/progressives.

~Tenth