Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This seems to be the current Battle of the Modern Power bases that people seem to be striving for.

Which do you Prefer and WHY?

Globalism when it comes to free trade. Comparative advantage, most economic production, type thing.

Nationalism when it comes to making policy people have to deal with. I think power should be closer to the people. Something like the EU is an entire degree of magnitude too far removed from the influence of the people who actually have to live under its laws.

Nationalism is a bit of a loaded term, can have several different meanings from simply 'putting the priorities of your country first' to 'thinking people from your country are superior to those from other countries'. And there's often a lot of bleed through between the two.

Originally posted by BackFire
Nationalism is a bit of a loaded term, can have several different meanings from simply 'putting the priorities of your country first' to 'thinking people from your country are superior to those from other countries'. And there's often a lot of bleed through between the two. Eventually shared values should prevail, some people are backward and ritualistic, the success of popularist candidates world wide shows this.

Originally posted by BackFire
Nationalism is a bit of a loaded term, can have several different meanings from simply 'putting the priorities of your country first' to 'thinking people from your country are superior to those from other countries'. And there's often a lot of bleed through between the two.
Here's the context I think of it in.

All people have equal worth under the eyes of God.

Government constitutes a social contract between the citizens of a nation and their government. On the premise that the citizens of a country sacrifice some of their property and liberty to a government that is supposed to represent them, though all people have a fundamental equal worth, the government has something of a contractual obligation to its own citizens that it doesn't bear towards non-citizens.

In much the same way that if I'm hired to do a job, I don't believe that whoever is paying me is superior in fundamental worth as a human to someone whose not paying me, but because they're paying me I have a specific obligation to them that I don't hold to someone who is not paying me.

This has it's limits though, just like it's not ethical for me to get paid by someone to kill someone else, it's not ethical for a government to do absolutely anything that is in its own national interest if it crosses some obvious lines.

I'm a fan of international diplomacy and agreements, but I'm not a fan of something like the European union. Bringing a bunch of nations under the fold of international governance is something that I think creates more of a disconnect between the people and the laws they live under. Whereas a person under authority at the national level only has to compete with other people in their nation for their interests to be represented, a person under authority at an international level has to compete with other people across numerous nations for their interests to be represented.

Additionally I could be described as a nationalist in a cultural sense. One of the reasons I'm a fan of the sovereignty of the US government is because I prefer the political attitude of the US populace to that of Europe, which is more left-wing economically, more wedded to the idea that it is the job of the government to manage their lives than primarily to protect their rights, embroiled in anti-free speech stuff like hate speech laws, as well as some questionable decisions from the EU to say the least (article 13). That's to make no mention of non-western nations who share even less values in common.

Consequentially I'm uncomfortable sacrificing US national sovereignty to international organizations, as well as bringing in too many immigrants at once, because I hold a preference for the values of my nation over those of the rest of the world. I'm not a fan of closed borders either, I'm just not a fan of immigration at such a rate that it has a significant impact on the values and attitudes held within a nation.

Someone might try and namecall me for this, but I'd ask them if they'd truly think the laws we live under would be better if we lived under a single worldwide democratic system.


With something like free trade though, I think that's just beneficial for everyone across the board, and I'm a huge fan of it. I'm not a fan of protectionist trade policy that protects a US industry at the expense of the consumer, other industries, the national economy, and consumers in other countries.

A country that embraces globalist trade policies will be more wealthy at the top end and have more geopolitical power and influence, but with a weaker middle class.

A country that embraces nationalism and protectionist policies will be less wealthy at the top end and have less geopolitical power and influence, but will have a stronger middle class.

Generally speaking.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
A country that embraces globalism will have be more wealthy at the top end and have more geopolitical power and influence, but with a weaker middle class.

A country that embraces nationalism and protectionist policies will be less wealthy at the top end and have less geopolitical power and influence, but will have a stronger middle class.

Generally speaking. Probably true as an eventual outcome for first world countries.

Most third world or emerging countries have tiny middle classes anyway, and tiny an upper class with ALL the money. The poor on the other hand have very high numbers and no power.

I should specified that this mostly applies to first-world countries, yeah. Impoverished countries have so many problems with their infrastructures that the dynamics are different.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I should specified that this mostly applies to first-world countries, yeah. Impoverished countries have so many problems with their infrastructures that the dynamics are different.