> "A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." and "Anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments)" do not 'match up'. It's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same game.

Is there a distinction to be made? Sure. Not in the same ballpark? Hardly. Power and influence are zero sum. If one state exerts its influence over the whole globe, the influence remaining to the other states is diminished. Is there a principled limit to the amount of influence to be exerted?

Are there not those who a for the end of immigration restrictions, for the free flow of goods and people between all parts of the globe, and for greater unity in combating poverty, injustice, and global climate change under the auspices of international agencies? Certainly this would involve at least the diminishing of the sovereignty of individual nations, and the accrual of power and influence to those uniting agencies? Understand that I'm not making a value judgement here, just talking about the practical implications of the power dynamics.

A smaller example: is not the logical end state of the EU more or less a single European nation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the EU was more or less modeled on the United States, which originally was a loose confederation of individual sovereign states - but has not been for quite some time.

As borders go down and trade and immigration increase, the desire for a single currency, a single language, and single set of laws and customs increases in order to decrease the friction of trade and increase legibility for policy makers.

> If you are keen on making up some political ideology full of people who are chomping at the bit to give up national sovereignty and culture, by all means.

How about people who desire to unite in common cause with other nations, and embrace multiculturalism? Again, I'm not passing judgement here. I'm just not sure how these policies don't necessarily entail the diminishing of national sovereignty and established local culture.

>> It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies.

> I don't know what any of that means. Misdescribing someone doesn't somehow become right or a virtue simply because you are 'rejecting binary politics and false dichotomies'. It's still plainly and factually wrong.

I was meaning that if your specific misdescription, if taken metaphorically, might be a tool for a Libertarian to explain to those only familiar with the two-party system what it means to be a Libertarian.

Listen, I've looked up globalism liked you ask. I think the distinction between "global influence for a state" and "world hegemony" is merely pragmatics, not principles. I've met many people who earnestly desire a world government. I'm not trying to posit the existence of some conspiracy, but rather talk through the natural endpoint of a highly-integrated global society.

And yet you still claim I'm mis-characterizing globalism without actually telling me what you think globalism is. If you have an actual definition they say it. I promise I won't get on your case. You can count on my reaction being one of three things:

1) I don't see how that differs from what I said
2) I see the distinction between our definitions, but I think mine is more accurate
3) I see that your definition is more accurate than the one I provided