A thought on Collectivism/Globalism

[Teenforpaul08]

It's been very interesting to me to hear Dr. Paul speak about these terms (and others) and how they relate to racism and big government. I have been supporting Ron Paul and reading about him for the past 6 months. To my knowledge so far, he has been straight on. But after I heard him speak about racism and whatnot; it got me thinking...and researching. Dr. Paul uses the term "collectivism" to describe how governments adress people by race, gender etc. instead of adressing them as individuals.

But...He has also talked about Globalism and his stance against it. For those who don't know: 'Globalization can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces' according to Wikipedia. As Dr. paul has already stated that he is for national sovereignty...it begs the question:

Isn't national sovereignty a form of collectivism?

If you think in context of Countries representing different groups, being separated by borders, rights, governments culture and other things. It's Collectivism that encourages racism, prejudice, and war. If the world was one single society and everyone is seen as an individual, we wouldn't have to worry about so many things like racism, war, and collectivism.

Please comment.

P.S. I'm just trying to make something clear. This doesn't reflect my opinion.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

It's been very interesting to me to hear Dr. Paul speak about these terms (and others) and how they relate to racism and big government. I have been supporting Ron Paul and reading about him for the past 6 months. To my knowledge so far, he has been straight on. But after I heard him speak about racism and whatnot; it got me thinking...and researching. Dr. Paul uses the term "collectivism" to describe how governments adress people by race, gender etc. instead of adressing them as individuals.

But...He has also talked about Globalism and his stance against it. For those who don't know: 'Globalization can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces' according to Wikipedia. As Dr. paul has already stated that he is for national sovereignty...it begs the question:

Isn't national sovereignty a form of collectivism?

If you think in context of Countries representing different groups, being separated by borders, rights, governments culture and other things. It's Collectivism that encourages racism, prejudice, and war. If the world was one single society and everyone is seen as an individual, we wouldn't have to worry about so many things like racism, war, and collectivism.

Please comment.

P.S. I'm just trying to make something clear. This doesn't reflect my opinion.

If the world were united under a system like the US Constitution outlines that would be one thing. But the world united under a socialist / collectivist system is a different animal altogether.

[celticsman7]

Collectivism, I think, is necessary in some way, shape or form. It's, in the form of government, a necessary evil. But, we need some kind of government to control things or else oyu have anarchy. Globalization though is the worst kind of collectivism. It's the extreme kind. It puts way too much power in the hands of too few. But what many of us support is a limited federal government that minimizes collectivism and promotes a lot of individualism.

And while I agree with you that national sovereignty could be considered a form of collectivisim, if we take an individualistic stance in terms of treatment of countries, with all countries being equal and no country bullying another and so forth and so on, you create a much better world. We kind of have a collectivist world in terms of the countries. Pakistan, Israel, and other countries are kind of like servants to the U.S. They must be sacrificed for the greater good of the Western World and the U.S. That's a different look at it, but I think it sounds valid.

[NYgs23]

For me, it's more about decentralization and the principle of subsidiarity: the powers should be invested in the SMALLEST authority possible. Globalism means big global government having the power. This also shuts out competition between countries just like big corporations shut out their competitors. In order to have a world government, that government would need to be IDEAL for EVERYONE, an impossibility. I say just the opposite: the more decentralization, the more variety between nation-states, the better.

[gerryb]

A speech about collectivism and individualism by G Edward Griffin (Author of The Creature From Jekyll Island)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958&q=g+edward+griffin&total=214&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[EvilNight]

Globalism is an inevitable consequence of the communications revolution. Nothing can stop it, and we should not want to stop it.

The fight is about HOW we become globalized. The proper outcome is open borders and open free trade with all nations, and everyone in the world free to move between them. All nations must retain their own rights to govern themselves and they must retain their culture. Culture is the most important thing - it's what brings joy to life.

The NWO model of economic interdependence and wage slavery to big corporations is not a desirable way to achieve globalism because their emphasis is on the wrong aspects of life, culture, and economics. It must be fought at every opportunity. They are not interested in freedom, culture, or individual rights or even a country's own sovereignty. They are only interested in money and war, and care not for the damage they do in their rush to carve up the world amongst themselves.