Proponents of globalism say that it's freedom: The freedom to buy from whomever they want, to hire whomever they want, and to sell to whomever they want, anywhere in the world, all without any additional tax, tariff, or legal penalty.  In pure theory, this may sound like the epitome of liberty.  In practice, however, there are many deeper layers to the whole picture.

Peeling back a layer, globalism really is about getting around laws that protect human rights and safety, taking advantage of exploited labor, buying slave-made products in countries that incorporate slavery or exploitation of workers, and then turning around and selling those products in markets where such things are outlawed, all in the name of maximizing short-term profit. 

Freedom does not mean being free to buy stolen goods.  Nor does it mean being free to enslave or coercively exploit others, or to benefit indirectly by buying slave-made products and services.  Nor does it mean being free to usurp the rights of others to ones own benefit.  In this light, globalism is not about freedom.  Rather, it's about the opposite of freedom -- the brand of "liberty" that was demanded by the Confederate South prior to the American Civil War -- slavery.  

Stolen goods?  What do they have to do with globalism?

If you believe that all individuals are entitled to the full value of the fruits of their labor, then for an "employer" to exploit the worker by coercively appropriating most of that value to his or her own benefit is effectively stealing from that worker.  Slave owners confiscate the value of the fruits of the slave's labor.  The same goes for masters of indentured servants, debt-bondage, the workers of socialist states, sweatshop owners, etc. Since many countries either do not have laws against such practices, or those laws are not enforced, or wages are controlled by the state, such countries effectively condone the appropriation (read theft) of the worker's labor value to the "employer," or to the state.

In that light, if you buy products that were produced under such conditions, regardless of the price, you are buying stolen goods -- stolen from the exploited workers in the form of appropriated value.  Put another way -- for a free person to buy the product of non-free labor is tantamount to buying stolen goods, and antithetical to the notion of liberty for all.

What about free-trade with other free countries?

Although many other countries afford a fair amount freedom to individuals, this does not address the level to which those other countries are willing to derive benefit from the products of non-free countries.  For example, Canada imports sugar from Cuba, whereas Cuban imports are illegal in the United States.  While on the surface it would seem to be no problem to have a free-trade agreement between, say, the United States, and Canada, this would still be indirect globalism, and just as wrong.  Since Canada imports sugar from Cuba, which is a nation of state-slaves, and then uses that sugar to manufacture chocolate that is exported to the United States, it follows that under those circumstances, both Canada and the United States would be enabling Cuba to continue to exploit its people, by pumping Canadian dollars, converted from U.S. dollars, into Cuba.  This perpetuates the enslavement of the Cuban people.

The bottom line is that absent extremely comprehensive agreements with like-minded free countries, all of whom would be willing to provide transparent enforcement of their non-exploitation clauses (which would be nearly impossible when dealing with sovereign entities), free trade with any other country enables immorality.  Since such protections are not realistically feasible, it follows that such free-trade agreements are not feasible either.