Course
Instructor’s name
Date
Nationalism Versus Cosmopolitanism
In recent discussions of globalization, a controversial issue has been whether cosmopolitanism or nationalism. To understand this controversy, it is important to know what we mean by these two terms. Cosmopolitanism is the act of integrating people from different countries to be part of the country they reside in, and it is at times used to refer to transnationalism. Nationalism refers to a person’s commitment and loyalty to his or her states that surpasses their individual interest and is devoted to the interest of their nation. There are some who believe that nationalism is important and superior to cosmopolitanism while one the other hand others believe that cosmopolitanism is key and important for the globalization and the communal living of a society. Cosmopolitanism has gained popularity as it has ensured ethical accordance is of the highest standards in regards to the benefits of globalization. The main cause of cosmopolitanism has proved to be immigration, as citizens of other countries move to reside in other countries for various reasons. People immigrate to other nations for work, marriage, trade, as refugees and other personal factors known to them. They work and gain a piece of the cake that would have otherwise belonged to the citizens of that country. This at times sprouts a problem when it comes to definition of the rights of immigrant and their incorporation in to the society of the country they live in. on the other had their strong believers of nationalism who are patriots that are skeptical about multinationals and cospolitanism. They argue that the presence of other citizens of other nations take and use the resources that would have been allocated to them. The contamination of their culture and beliefs by foreign ways of doing things stain the hard worked value and cultures of a nation.
The right to political liberation for the immigrants is not welcomed by the nationalists who feel that the foreigners who gain citizenships do not have pure interests of the nation and the mission of the forefathers of the nation. This view is reasonable as illustrated by Robert Nozick theory of holdings when he says that state should have powers to control activities of all citizens and redistribute wealth to ensure equality at the same time ensuring that social goods are availed to all citizens of a nation. This concludes that the incorporation of both nationalist and cosmopolitanism is vital to having a democratic globalized nation. While some would disagree by saying that liberal politics are unattainable, this is because there is no instance where cosmopolitans can have pure unwavering interest of the land over their own personal interests.
I hope to convince that the more reasonable position is cosmopolitanism. My argument is that it will be fair to incorporate other cultures and give liberal rights to persons who reside in a nation. This is because they contribute to the way of life of the country and to the economic growth of the country through their taxation contribution that is utilized to the development of the country. In further support of this John Rawls illustrates how liberalism contributes to the political culture that contribute to a democratic society where there is justice and the rights of individuals are met where all citizens have access of public goods and distribution of income is attained. Some may disagree to my arguments on the ground of the individuals can utilize the resources from their countries of origin. More critically their argument would be that the other nations where these citizens originate from do not contribute to their residing nation to enable the sustsainance and resource development. This translates to the host county having to source for fund to operate their enormous annual budgets to sustain the other citizens cultures and wellbeing. For example, funding a section of the budget would see citizens of other nation access basic rights like education. I reply to this by saying that the citizens contribute to the GDP of their residing country by offering human capital that drive wealth creation. In sum, my argument still stands because equality of a nations citizens is paramount to a peaceful coexistence living.