Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged]
DyslexicAtheist 10 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite



The amount of people who are not nationalistic, and essentially opinionless over globalism is large enough to be significant.

An extremely small number of people, however powerful, may be in favor of globalization, but that number is absolutely dwarfed by people who are either almost completely without preference or exclusively staunch nationalist hawks.

Based on this, such a "divide" isn't best characterized by such wording. This is not a polarizing territory of opinion or endorsement. Not to ordinary people.


It's not even a very meaningful divide; to a lot of people, globalism means furthering exploitation and imperialism through cheaper labour and more lax laws and moving natural resources away from peoples' countries abroad, and nationalism means tribal, exclusionary and potentially even fascist non-empancipatory politics. I'd say that there are a lot of people sharing my kind of anti-capitalist and anti-nationalist position, and the number is growing, by the looks of the growth of the DSA in the U.S. and Labour in the U.K. However right-wing nationalist politics seems to be gaining popularity in European countries.


The alternative to globalism is the endless wars that the human race suffered for thousands of years.


Its incredibly naive to think that the problem is one of government and not human nature. An infinitely powerful central government might mean an end to wars, but it would also mean an infinitely corrupt, authoritarian world. To avoid major conflicts we should move towards decentralizing power, rather than the opposite.


Why do you say that?


Since there is no global government every citizen on Earth votes for, the premise of this argument is unfounded.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: