The alt/far-right "globalist" obsession is truly annoying to those of us libertarians who believe in the universal recognition of fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and property: not State-conferred rights. (Every time I hear Locke's trinity of unalienable rights, I wince at Jefferson's substitution of "pursuit of happiness" for property. In fact, Locke coined the construct in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" and calls it "the foundation of liberty". So I personally believe the constructs are conflated. Note the Fifth Amendment falls back on the Lockean trinity:
There are a couple of concepts going on here: globalization and globalism. Basically, globalization refer to the growing voluntary integration of the world's economies and cultures, through technological advances in communications, transportation and production, progress in science, etc. Globalism is more of a (trans-national) political integration in which local sovereignty is subordinated to the hypothetical political elite; perhaps the most relevant example is the current European union. Brexit was in part motivated by Brussels' rulemaking over the British economy, trade pacts held hostage by other countries' special interests, etc. Furthermore, it is alleged that globalists owe allegiance to a more cosmopolitan vs. national/local perspective.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ]
Almost all libertarians, including myself, embrace an open economy and society. To give a minor example, seasonal weather patterns make it more efficient and cheaper to import vegetables and fruits from warmer climates. Interior regions do not have ready access to plentiful fish and other edible sea products. And we tend to support the right of businesses not just to purchase goods and services across borders, but to employ labor resources (often restricted by arbitrary immigration or temporary worker permits).
Again, almost all libertarians are apprehensive over any concentration of central authority; we prefer more radical decentralization of authority. Whereas we admire the relatively free open market of the European common market and the ability to move between constituent states, the trend towards political/bureaucratic centralization is contrary to the principle of Subsidiarity.
Of course, in real life, the lines become blurred. Ron and Rand Paul argue against open immigration based on private property interests and perhaps a variation of the free association principle. They also reject "free trade" pacts, which of course are loaded with all sorts of mercantalist/protectionist clauses. I, on the other hand, reject both positions; I may have authority to enforce property rights, but only on my own property. Who am I to say who my neighbor sell his land to or which people a private employer hires? And while I would prefer unilateral free trade, I am enough of a pragmatist to embrace any improvement over the status quo, including TPP.
The alt-right anti-globalists come close to an autarchy (self-reliant economy) and a traditional nativist-centered culture. The fact is that America is the original melting pot. Many third- or fourth-generation Latino-Americans don't even speak Spanish; similarly, other than me, the first-born, none of my siblings grew up speaking French. The idea that we would be overrun by immigrants is wildly exaggerated; in fact, the number of unauthorized immigrants peaked in 2007.
Am I a globalist? I don't live in a prison. In many ways the US government has failed in its core mission to protect individual rights. I'm angry that under the Trump regime we have government intervening in private voluntary transactions. But, no, I'm not a gullible conspiracy theorist who imagines some Wall Street banker elitists pulling the federal (or global) government's strings.
