foreign policy

Nationalism for All, Not Globalism - Here's Why by John Lilley

by Curt Doolittle

I do universal nationalism. (Note from John Mark - what Curt means by this is that the optimum order in the world is for each people group to be nationalistic in their own nations - no globalism.)

Why? Because natural law judges it as the only not-immoral means of cooperation. But that doesn't tell you much. Instead it's because "all men are distant relations cooperating to raise their people by the production of commons information, goods, and services, best suited to doing so despite our differences in rate of development bias in temperament and bias in distribution of abilities."

And if we construct states as extensions of the family, household, clan, tribe, and nation, we have elites who serve the interests of their people on their terms, and the smallest proximity-to-influence-and power that is possible. And we ameliorate our differences not through politics, power, and commons, but through trade of information, goods, and services.

If we do otherwise, under globalism, we put those people into competition, where there is one small global elite with interest in one another, and a host of common people suffering their rule.

So there is no system of rule superior to universal nationalism, with tolerance for migration of elites for trade purposes - but prohibiting them from local political enfranchise and social involvement, and public speech.