So nationalists love to rant and rave about the dangers of “globalism,” which seems odd to me for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the meaning of “globalism” seems pretty unclear, considering how different people define it. If it is used to mean global “government,” then I oppose it – not because it’s global, but because it’s authoritarian. But some people use the term to just mean thinking that we should kind of care about everyone on the planet, without regard to politician-created lines and borders. If that’s the definition, then I – and all voluntaryists – would be “globalists.”
But often those who scream about “globalism” are scared of it compared to nationalism, which, as I’ve pointed out before, is a fairly useless complaint. The size of the plantation of the slave master (local, national, global, whatever) matters a hell of a lot less than what the slave master does, or whether there is a slave master. Are we really supposed to be proud to be the property of the crooks in DC, because somehow that’s better than being the property of crooks from somewhere else? Unlike nationalists, I would rather choose freedom over slavery, rather than bitching about which slave masters should own us.