The underlying debate in economics is really pretty simple. Either the economy is something that can be centrally managed and controlled effectively, or it is not. If the economy can be centrally controlled effectively, then it would be absurd not to have central planning. Letting the economy run itself would, under this assumption, be like letting your dog run free. Eventually Fido will get hit by a car.
If on the other hand it is impossible to effectively plan and manage an economy centrally, then the economy becomes nothing more than the aggregate of human behavior – each of us working to better our individual lives. If your view is that we ARE the economy, then the economy is organic and there is no ‘it’ to centrally plan. All government can do under this assumption is to force people to produce goods and services other people do not want at the expense of goods and services people do want. Letting government run the economy under this assumption is like asking Hellen Keller to walk a large pack of hunting dogs through the woods.
To both sides of the debate, the other side sounds absurd.
You hear the absurdity in the debates people have with each other on economics. Someone who believes the economy can be controlled will generally think it is controlled – if not by government, then by someone else. They debate on the basis of ‘who’ should control the economy, and they have a constant focus on the ‘1%’ as they believe that the ‘1%’ are constantly trying to take control of the economy, to the detriment of the rest of us.
Those who believe that the economy is organic and thus that it cannot be controlled without ruining it look at the ‘1%’ as nothing more than an assembly of people who, either by hard work, ingenuity, luck, or a combination of those things, happened to either create more value for society than did others, or were fortunate enough to be the offspring of those who created more value than did others. We look on government with suspicion because we believe that only through government can the ‘1%’ (or any other group) have any control over anything. We also note that the ‘1%’ is not a static group. People move in and out of it all the time over the course of their lives.
If the economy is organic, then the producer controls nothing more than his or her ability to produce. The demand for that being produced (along with the supply of it) is what controls its value, and the demand is controlled by consumers.
The more government does to try and control the economy, the less voice consumers have and the poorer the nation gets. That is the free market view.
Conversely, the central plan view assumes that there is no such thing as an organic market. They even say as much: “There is no such thing as a free market” is their rallying cry.
There are two kinds of power.
One involves the ability to give people options they would otherwise not have. As an example, a rich person may be able to offer someone who is not rich a job.
The other type of power involves the ability to take options away. As an example, government can decide not to license you to work in a specific field, leaving you with fewer jobs you can legally take. This kind of power is sometimes called ‘coercive power’.
The first type of power does not harm you.
The fact is that rich people cannot harm you unless they have coercive power, and unless they use their wealth to buy or become government, they have no means of using coercive power.
As such, the only legitimate role of government is to prevent people – no matter how rich – from using coercive power on other people.
The flip side of the coin is that without government, rich people could pay other people to work in a militia, and then use coercive power over those who live in the areas they control. Without government, rich people become warlords. Without legitimate government, you get illegitimate government.
Nationalism is the belief that nations are good things to have and that the people in a nation are the best people to determine what their nation should look like from a cultural and legal perspective. Globalists believe that the entire world should be one nation, and that some moral and intellectual elite should determine what the entire world looks like, not only legally and culturally, but in all respects.
Globalism is not the opposite of nationalism so much as it is the opposite of freedom.
People talk about nationalism today as if it is a bad word. Globalists say that ‘nationalism entails superiority,’ but if people choose to live in a particular nation, that implies only that a particular nation is preferable for that person. Superiority is not implied, and what is preferable for some people may not be preferable for others. The concept of a ‘moral and intellectual elite’ on the other hand DOES imply superiority.
Nationalism is the belief that America is for Americans, and that those who immigrate here (we are a nation of immigrants) should generally aspire to being Americans rather than aspiring to make Americans something else. Nationalists believe that Germany is for Germans, Norway is for Norwegians, Poland is for Polish people, Japan is for the Japanese, Libya is for Libyans, and so on. Nationalists do not believe that any nation is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than any other, but that all nations are different and that the people who live in a given nation are the people who should decide what they want their nation to be. Those who visit or who choose to move to a different country should enjoy experiencing a different and unique culture and should try and fit in while they are there.
Globalists hate nationalism based, primarily, on the notion that nations sometimes want to conquer other nations. It is somewhat curious that the same people believe it would be preferable for them to conquer the entire planet. Globalists are not any different than everything they hate about nationalists; they are rather all of those things on steroids.
Globalists would like to think that if they reason with a given nation, that nation will freely agree not to be that nation anymore. What people need to understand is that should any people disagree, force is implied. The whole concept of a ‘moral and intellectual elite’ is to claim to have the authority to force your will upon others.
There have been a lot of globalists throughout history: Genghis Kahn, Napoleon, Hitler – really anyone who believes that the entire world would be better off if they ruled over it. Every one of them believed they were a part of a ‘moral and intellectual elite’.
Globalists argue that Hitler was a nationalist and thus not like them at all, but though Hitler called himself a ‘national socialist,’ Hitler wanted to take over the rest of the Earth, just as Angela Markel and Hillary Clinton want to do today. The term ‘globalist’ is nothing more than a play on words. Globalists have exactly the same views as Hitler, minus the racism.
Why should we give control of our lives to one so-called elite over another? Many people with very different beliefs have considered themselves ‘a moral and intellectual elite’. The only thing they all have in common is that they want to control others, and though they cannot all be right they can all be evil.
Colonialism was born out of globalism. The British Empire, Roman Empire, and every other empire ever created were all attempts to bring as much of the world as possible under the control of a few who considered themselves to be some kind of elite.
How are today’s progressives not just like every other so-called elite in history?
It is laughable that globalists call nationalists ‘evil’.
Be a nationalist, and be proud of it. It does not make you xenophobic or any other phobic. It means that you believe in letting the people who live in a nation control it, and that you reject letting others who call themselves a ‘moral and intellectual elite’ have totalitarian control over every life on the planet.
Globalists are evil. Do not let them shame you into being evil too.