Gladstone - the archetypal British Liberal PM
He defined liberalism.
He found himself at odds with the socialists singing the Internationale and the Roman Church preaching Ultramontanism. The Romans largely lost their Ultramontanist battle to establish / re-establish themselves as the arbiters of authority - subordinating all communities to the order deemed appropriate to the conclave. But the singers of the Internationale have found themselves in the ascendant since WW2.
Businesses, being what they are, will look for any opportunity to maximize profits. They are amoral.
In the world of the Internationale they will play the game by the rules extant. And thus Globalization - a term usually defined in economic terms but increasingly being used as a synonym for Internationalism. Another adopted synonym is Liberalism - a usage which, I am convinced, Gladstone would never have recognized.
He, the archetypal liberal, railed against imposed order and top down hierarchies. The Internationalists, the Globalists all preach management from the top. The Church replaced by bureaucrats and judges. Gladstone preached individuals rubbing along together, moderating themselves to reduce friction. He preached civility. Not imposition.
My problem is that philosophies can overlap. The are also hard to define and impossible to label.
Some people prefer top down governance because it relieves them of worrying about what to do. Others prefer freedom to act as they choose and take the consequences.
Some people will accept being constrained by family but will violently reject the same constraints imposed by foreigners.
It is not good enough to say that Globalization is Internationalism is Liberalism is Socialism. Although some can an do argue in those terms.
It has to be recognized that within any community, be it family, village, city, county, nation or other there are those that will have individualistic views and those that will have communitarian views and sometimes the same person will have different views depending on the situation.
This creates a randomness that is hard to distinguish from chaos. Chaos is frightening to some folks and they seek to impose order. But that order ends up having to be overarching to try and suppress all chaos. I don't believe that that perfect state can ever be found because all efforts to adjudicate differences between communities, between individuals, invariably results in the adjudicators becoming the enemy.
Far better to accept the chaos and keep, in the words of Tip O'Neill, all politics local. And if you can't convince your family to accept your decisions then you do what everybody else does. Move out of the house.
Personally, I think most people are quite comfortable with chaos because, for the vast majority of people life is what happens to them - and they have very little control over what friends, family, strangers, politicians, Gaia or God throws at them. They just deal.
Only politicians and priests are foolish enough to believe that order is possible.