Some people may like the unlimited movement of goods across borders, while disliking the unlimited movement of people across borders: and vice versa. But that is not a choice given us: we are told that we must accept the entire package.
There is uncertainty as to whether or not President-Elect Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, or even if he is a citizen at all. But according to the zeitgeist of Globalism, this is not even an issue: the right to vote or stand for election, according to this theory, ought to be open to all. If this controversy is sent to the Supreme Court for decision, I am confident that the Justices would decide in favor of the spirt of the times and declare the relevant sections of the Constitution unconstitutional.
This may delight some and outrage others, but also realize that the same spirit demands economic centralization, and the loss of good private sector jobs in competition with foreign markets, as well as the loss of small local business in favor of large international ones. Walmart-haters may consider that this company could easily become absorbed into an even larger international corporation, due to market forces.
These forces then drive many to the arms of government to ensure a good income, and we see this particularly in teachers' and government workers unions, healthcare, and military contractors. But Globalism ultimately cannot tolerate this either: perhaps bureaucrats or contractors in poorer countries could provide similar services at a lower cost.
Under Globalism, entire nations become subject to the whim of popular fashion, being flooded by immigrants during times of prosperity, and then having its culture changed haphazardly; but only to be abandoned to poverty when fashions change.
Globalism seems to be all about freedom, but instead it is about the centralization of power. Most critically, it denies us the freedom to regulate ourselves.
Catholic social teaching, which is mainly based on philosophy and reason, emphasizes the concepts of solidarity — people ought to self-organize for mutual benefit and the greater good; and subsidiarity — power ought to be reserved to the lowest levels of society. Globalism denies both. Consider the organization of the Church: although great authority rests in the Vatican, money and actual control overwhelmingly remains at the parish and diocesan level. A church does not apply for a grant from Rome or the USCCB in order to make repairs to its stained glass windows.
whew! Mark, so you are worried that Obama may be a globalist. Were you were equally worried when George HW Bush spoke of a new world order? I think you suffer from "bitter boy" syndrome!
ReplyDeleteBased on Catholic Social teachings you should be a union supporting, mutual insurance owning, credit union member in solidarity with the common man, but you find yourself in loose federation with Newt Gingrich!
Mark, without accusing me of advocating "globalism", would you consider the possibility that this one is just a trifle off the deep end?
ReplyDelete"Globalism" is not one movement -- there is no central head or coordination; in other words, no conspiracy. Rather, it is simply another manifestation good old-fashioned human greed, implemented by the usual ruling oligarchy. Capitalists seek to maximize their profit, and the baleful effects you describe all follow naturally.
By the way, Wikipedia says Mr. Obama's mother was an American citizen and he was born on American soil.
"and he was born on American soil."
ReplyDeleteIrene, that's yet to be proven. He will not submit a birth certificate. All that exists is a dodgy online certificate of live birth.
Puma,
ReplyDeleteBy no means am I a supporter of the "New World Order". So-called 'neoconservatives' were once called Trotskyites, and I am not in support of exporting the American Revolution to other countries via warfare.
As it so happens, I do get my insurance through a mutal, and do my banking at a credit union. Both have a great deal of stability and basic honesty compared to their competitors.
Regarding unions, certainly the Church is in favor of them and supports them, and the bulk of historical union membership in the U.S. was Catholic. But this is missing the point.
Many, or even most union members I've met have an underlying attitude of anger and dependence, such as most white collar workers these days seem to quite depressed. This isn't good. Rather, the Church overwhelmingly encourages family self-sufficiency and family ownership of the means of production.
The quintessential Catholic institution of the organization of work is the trade guild: these were largely made illegal throughout the West in favor of modern corporations and unions. Please consider the professions that still have a guild organization, such as physicians and lawyers, and also consider that Globalism is attempting to break these guilds. Real Estate had a guild structure, and strong efforts have been made in recent decades to break it, to the detriment of local stability in the market. Catholics, like Jews, have long held the professions in high esteem. Guild professions are quite limited these days, but I would think that social justice would demand its expansion as the best way to ensure a family wage and stability and order in society. But as far as I can tell, nearly no one supports this, although this clearly implements the Catholic principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.
Guilds have existed so long that probably they predate written history, and so it can be argued that they are a part of the Natural Law.
It is interesting to consider that many modern industries, such as aircraft and shipbuilding, were originally implemented in some Asians countries under variants of the old guild system: a giant centralized corporation with union workers is definitely not needed to produce such items. Computer software is an industry that definitely could be improved by a system that enforces Apprentice-to-Master rank advancement, instead of awarding contracts to the lowest-cost bidder, with coding being done by fresh graduates with no work experience.
If you have to put me into a political pigeon-hole, I could best be described as a 'paleoconservative'. However, I think that I try to avoid the common paleo error of assuming that the traditions of men are a surer guide to knowledge than reason; however, I definitely reject the contemporary idea that 'new' is necessarily better. Rather, I think that traditions must be deeply considered before rejecting them. Likewise, the new ought to be deeply considered before accepting it.
Also, I think that unlike most paleos, I do not hold the Founding Fathers as infallible guides to government, although I do reject attempts to reinterpret the Constitution and Common Law according to the spirit of the age.
Irene,
Consider the European Union, NAFTA, WTO, World Bank, and so forth. They have a two-pronged Globalist strategy as I stated: encouraging both the movement of goods and persons across borders, with coordinated laws among the nations.
And just so I can be very clear, I think that both Libertarianism and Socialism are:
ReplyDelete- Untrue;
- Gravely immoral; and
- Ugly.