A repulsive idea that should be extinguished

[manrush]

I'm talking, of course, about nationalism. It is the greatest evil to ever befall mankind. It has been responsible for two world wars and countless civil wars. Nationalism brings naught but suffering. It should be wiped out, permanently. It's time that the nation-state gets knocked down a few notches.

[h2orowe]

To be honest, I plan on giving a speech this year through this little program I'm a part of at school, talking about Darfur, and other situations where petty things like race, religion, etc turn people against each other. I am going to emphasize a message of internationalism. I kinda consider myself a citizen of Earth before I do a citizen of the US ;p

[PopCulturePooka]

Wow. I've never heard teenagers make these comments before. =D

[Mechs]

I'm talking, of course, about nationalism. It is the greatest evil to ever befall mankind. It has been responsible for two world wars and countless civil wars. Nationalism brings naught but suffering. It should be wiped out, permanently. It's time that the nation-state gets knocked down a few notches.

Whatever hippy. GO USA :D!

[MEGA SATAN 3000]

Violence existed long before the nation-state did, and to blame things like world war 2 on nationalism alone is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

The fatal flaw in the idea of a world government or other forms of international governance is that it transfers more power to bureaucrats from everyone else. I already have to compete with over 200 million people (in the US) to decide how to live my life, what benefit is there in spreading that out to 6 billion+ people?

[h2orowe]

Wow. I've never heard teenagers make these comments before. =D
Wow, I've never heard Pooka be a complete ass before.

[Kaji]

I think that might have been mild admiration, man.

And personally, I'm all for keeping governments on the lowest level possible, hence I'm generally in agreement with the next poster up. If something needs to be dealt with on a national level, then so be it, but the nation shouldn't be saddling itself with the responsibilities of state and local governments. Likewise to international governance.

[Kusoyaro]

"nationalism/patriotism is the last refuge of a coward and teh first of a tyrant," right?
most people are afraid of outsiders. people who don't believe the fundemntal things they believe, who don't dress and act and eat the same way. people who subscribe to it though are much needed, as they perpetuate the hate-machine that most societies are (western society too folks), and allow the status quo to remain unchanged. that is a good thing if only for the fact that if any change were to occur in this stage of "development" (the formation of global-minded people, international coalitions, megacorps, the forming of blocs etc that will eventually bring about a one-world gov't) billions of people would die.

nationalism is fundementally a grotesque concept, yes, but one that is needed for a variety of reasons (which themselves are rather pathetic), such as safety, contentment in the familiar, and the ability to allow certain people more power over the rest of us.

also, megasatan3000, while you are right, you assume that a one-world government would operate on realist principles. the very notyion of a one-world gov't, however, is impossible to maintain on such grounds. not to say neoliberalist principles need be emplyed. also, when the time comes that a unified government would be feasible and desirable, the world would be a rather different place (if simply because of the evolution of capitalism)

[Arctic_Slicer]

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment here. You always have people telling you that you should be patriotic and that you should take pride in you culture of whatever but is that really right? Sure remembering positive things about you country and culture is a good thing but that doesn't mean you should blindly follow tradition without giving thought to it.

Pride is said to be one of the seven deadly sins and if you look at history you can see why. Pride seems to be the root of fascism and bigotry and the fact that pride is more often than not portrayed as a positive thing is actually kind of frightening.

[PiccoloNamek]

I was just thinking about this very notion today. As I was reading the talk page on Wikipedia's Gdańsk (or was it Danzig? It's a long story... most Wikipedians have probably heard of this particular edit war) article, the amount of completely unnecessary and childish hatred and spite the users from different countries had for each other was really, truly disheartening. It was almost as if they didn't even view each other as being human. As long as this kind of mentality exists, nothing will ever change.

Edit: This particular edit war is still ongoing even to this day and has been active ever since there was a Wikipedia.

[xinster]

I'm talking, of course, about nationalism. It is the greatest evil to ever befall mankind. It has been responsible for two world wars and countless civil wars. Nationalism brings naught but suffering. It should be wiped out, permanently. It's time that the nation-state gets knocked down a few notches.

I guess so should human spirit and instinct :duh:

[xinster]

Wow. I've never heard teenagers make these comments before. =D

forums ftl

[Kusoyaro]

I guess so should human spirit and instinct

why's that?
instinct is the subconcious reaction envoked by external sensory stimuli.
the "human spirit" is some vague shit that makes humanity sound noble and divine. pls don't use vague retadrd terms like that.
they both have one thing in common though; they both have nothing the hell to do with this topic. stay on the ball, man.
so tell me why nationalism, a concept many greater minds than myself has long since condemned, is so fucking great. what is the reason that whenever someone brings up the perfectly rational stance that nationalism/patriotism can go suck a leper-dick, someone just pops out of nowhere and starts bashing. you realize that nationalism fosters violence and animosity towards other nation-states, and causes xenophobic traits to emerge within society, right?
it's not like you can safeguard against this shit, it's like social evolution; so slow you're hardly aware it's taking place until it's there.


and if you were being sarcastic, go buy a new sense of humour, yours is broken (i think if you hurry to wal-mart they have a sale on. 20% off).

[Trump]

What?? What are you guys smoking? Patriotism and Nationalism are not inherently evil. To say that is to say being proud of something is evil. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, to be proud of your neighbor, and proud of your home. I cannot deny that nationalism has been used as an excuse for many atrocities, but hatred and nationalism are not related. Bias and prejudice do not stem from nationalism and patriotism, but from some other part of human nature. I can see how people might connect the two, but you must realize that one is not caused by the other, just that one takes advantage of the other. So to say nationalism and patriotism is evil is misguided at best.

[ruaidhri]

Interesting! What's the alternative to nationalism, anarchism? Nations provide rules of civilization and security both internally and from potential external enemies.

The U.S. has many layers of government from local to county to state to federal. Many argue that the federal should provide external security while the states and local governments should provide internal protection of people and property. That's not a new argument. State rights were, of course, the justification for segregation in the old South. But, if the U.S. is to be one nation then how far should the federal government go to accomplish that end?

People around the world are not the same. We, certainly know that the U.S. government and its modern army can't bring security to Iraq even if the majority of the people truly desire peace. So, local governments are necessary and many don't offer democratic freedoms. When it comes to a one world government I guess you could wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first.

The problem is fear, hatred and jealousy and how nations and people use those emotions for personal gain. What we're talking about is blindly following your nation right or wrong or the old "love it or leave it" mentality. I honestly don't see anything changing there either.

Oh, and let's not forget religions. Haven't they also been the perpetrators of great evils? Haven't they also caused great wars and suffering all in the name of God?

Perhaps one of the good things we have is sports teams. They offer us the opportunity for bloodless battles between local and national favorites. People choose sides, are very loyal to their teams and revel in how they destroyed their enemy, the opposing team.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

"nationalism/patriotism is the last refuge of a coward and teh first of a tyrant," right?
most people are afraid of outsiders. people who don't believe the fundemntal things they believe, who don't dress and act and eat the same way. people who subscribe to it though are much needed, as they perpetuate the hate-machine that most societies are (western society too folks), and allow the status quo to remain unchanged. that is a good thing if only for the fact that if any change were to occur in this stage of "development" (the formation of global-minded people, international coalitions, megacorps, the forming of blocs etc that will eventually bring about a one-world gov't) billions of people would die.

nationalism is fundementally a grotesque concept, yes, but one that is needed for a variety of reasons (which themselves are rather pathetic), such as safety, contentment in the familiar, and the ability to allow certain people more power over the rest of us.

also, megasatan3000, while you are right, you assume that a one-world government would operate on realist principles. the very notyion of a one-world gov't, however, is impossible to maintain on such grounds. not to say neoliberalist principles need be emplyed. also, when the time comes that a unified government would be feasible and desirable, the world would be a rather different place (if simply because of the evolution of capitalism)


Nationalism is its own form of racism, really. It is meant to include one group, and exclude another. It has also become its own form of religion. to die for your country is brave, to die for your religion is fundamentalist.

[ミュー]

Wow. I've never heard teenagers make these comments before. =D
Nope... no siree!
I wonder if anyone's going to chime in with the great social strides we can make in combating this great evil with Socialism?

[Campion]

Nope... no siree!
I wonder if anyone's going to chime in with the great social strides we can make in combating this great evil with Socialism?

Sorry, I don't quite see your point, Socialism and Nationalism aren't by definition mutually exclusive. The French Revolution of 1830 for example (as far as I understand it) was both a socialist and nationalist movement. I admit I may have misinterpreted your comment here, so could you elucidate for me please?



Campion.

[manrush]

Interesting! What's the alternative to nationalism, anarchism? Nations provide rules of civilization and security both internally and from potential external enemies.

The U.S. has many layers of government from local to county to state to federal. Many argue that the federal should provide external security while the states and local governments should provide internal protection of people and property. That's not a new argument. State rights were, of course, the justification for segregation in the old South. But, if the U.S. is to be one nation then how far should the federal government go to accomplish that end?

People around the world are not the same. We, certainly know that the U.S. government and its modern army can't bring security to Iraq even if the majority of the people truly desire peace. So, local governments are necessary and many don't offer democratic freedoms. When it comes to a one world government I guess you could wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first.

The problem is fear, hatred and jealousy and how nations and people use those emotions for personal gain. What we're talking about is blindly following your nation right or wrong or the old "love it or leave it" mentality. I honestly don't see anything changing there either.

Oh, and let's not forget religions. Haven't they also been the perpetrators of great evils? Haven't they also caused great wars and suffering all in the name of God?

Perhaps one of the good things we have is sports teams. They offer us the opportunity for bloodless battles between local and national favorites. People choose sides, are very loyal to their teams and revel in how they destroyed their enemy, the opposing team.

What about regionalism and globalism? Those are good alternatives to nationalism.

[Kwiz]

While we really can't do without the political structure of the nation-state, I'd really like to see nationalism get toned down. It's important to make a distinction between the two. Even the most hardcore libertarians in favor of total socio-economic freedom will acknowledge that you need to have national governments for the sake of stability.

On the other hand, why should it really matter which set of borders you're within? If Albert Einstein cared first and foremost about being a German, we'd be several decades behind in theoretical physics right now. He saw his world convulsed by two amazingly destructive wars, absolutely hated warfare throughout his life, and, if his writings are any indication, didn't preoccupy himself with the state he lived in. For all the man cared, he could have published his famous papers after emigrating to England or Canada. I think he was on to something.

[manrush]

I want devolution of power. The nation-state needs to be less powerful and have little control over what its citizens can and cannot do

[Jetsetlemming]

Nationalism is the "greatest evil to ever befall mankind"? :rofl:
"Hey everybody! Let's get angry over abstract terms with multiple usages! That'll distract us from our real problems! YEAH!"

[smokingmonkee]

Pinko bastards!! :innocent:

[Ozero]

Yay Canadadada! We're throwing a barbecue, and everyone's invited. We have some sweet lakes, bring your trunks. We have lots of beer, and a pretty good stash of wine on the west side, but if ya wanna bring anything special from your country, bring it. After we're done grilling the hot dogs n burgers, we're gonna start throwing politicians on.

[Chris]

I want devolution of power. The nation-state needs to be less powerful and have little control over what its citizens can and cannot do

In what ways? You can't just make a vague statement like this, it makes no sense.

In one sense in the US we're pretty good already with being able to make a lot of personal choices on our own as long as it doesn't cause harm or a reasonable amount of emotional pain to anyone else around us. What other freedoms do you want?

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

I want devolution of power. The nation-state needs to be less powerful and have little control over what its citizens can and cannot do

*Ok, I'm going to speaking theoretically here, so please, no one try to argue about how different forms of government don't apply, and blah blah blah.

Ever read Foucault? He discusses how the nation state evolved from the principality. In a principality, the nation was formed by its prince and its borders. The people were of little importance - what defined a country was the land itself and the prince who ruled it. The prince derived his power from birth - he was the ruler because he was mean to be the ruler.

Then we saw a shift from the principality to the nation state. The nation state derives its power from the people. The government is not outside the population, it is of the population. What defines the country is the people, not the prince.

In order to have this power, the government has taken certain "rights" away from the people. We make a contract of sorts - "We give you the power to protect us and lead us, and in return we will obey laws which will keep us from doing harm to others."

The less power the nation state has, the less it can do to protect its people. So you say you want a "devolution of power." Where will the power go? To the individuals who can obtain it. Those individuals will be able to do more of what they want regardless of how it affects other people. This will lead to anarchy, and then we'll end up back to where the leaders are chosen because they have taken the most power, not because it was given willingly.

Should there be a better balance of power? Perhaps in some states that is needed. But there is a reason governments have power in the first place.

[manrush]

*Ok, I'm going to speaking theoretically here, so please, no one try to argue about how different forms of government don't apply, and blah blah blah.

Ever read Foucault? He discusses how the nation state evolved from the principality. In a principality, the nation was formed by its prince and its borders. The people were of little importance - what defined a country was the land itself and the prince who ruled it. The prince derived his power from birth - he was the ruler because he was mean to be the ruler.

Then we saw a shift from the principality to the nation state. The nation state derives its power from the people. The government is not outside the population, it is of the population. What defines the country is the people, not the prince.

In order to have this power, the government has taken certain "rights" away from the people. We make a contract of sorts - "We give you the power to protect us and lead us, and in return we will obey laws which will keep us from doing harm to others."

The less power the nation state has, the less it can do to protect its people. So you say you want a "devolution of power." Where will the power go? To the individuals who can obtain it. Those individuals will be able to do more of what they want regardless of how it affects other people. This will lead to anarchy, and then we'll end up back to where the leaders are chosen because they have taken the most power, not because it was given willingly.

Should there be a better balance of power? Perhaps in some states that is needed. But there is a reason governments have power in the first place.


And the same thing cannot be done via regionalism? It's better if the sub-entities of the nation made the laws rather than some capital city that is miles away from you.

Let's say, hypothetically, that Florida wanted to trade with Cuba. The feds say that due to the embargo, trade between Cuba and Florida cannot be allowed. Why should the people of Florida obey the directives of Washington D.C., which is further away from them than Cuba? It just makes no sense.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

But those sub-entities you are talking about are the government, too. They also derive their power from the people.

[manrush]

But is a strong, central government concentrated in one capital region really going to protect a vast country of 300 million people?

[xinster]

and if you were being sarcastic, go buy a new sense of humour, yours is broken (i think if you hurry to wal-mart they have a sale on. 20% off).

i just got served

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

:bored: Like I said, this is all theoretical - don't go trying to make this specific. You made a comment about the nation state in general, so I responded in the like. If you REALLY just want to rant about the U.S., then do so.

In response, then, what you are even arguing has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You said governments should have less power, and that is what I was arguing against. Then you said that local governments should have more power, to which I responded. Now you are saying, again, that local governments should have more power but in different words.



Ok, so basically now you're saying that states should have more power than the central government. What if Florida got attacked by Cuba? Florida made its own decision to trade with Cuba, it should be able to defend itself, right?

This is what I meant by the "contract" that is signed by people and governments in nation states. Florida (or an individual) gives up the right to do whatever the hell it wants, and the government will in return protect it with the power it has obtained from the people.

[Mechs]

But is a strong, central government concentrated in one capital region really going to protect a vast country of 300 million people?

500 Billion in defense spending says yes.

[Plekto]

On of my favorite quotes(though I don't know who it was from in my life first):

Say no to "isms".

[Kusoyaro]

Patriotism and Nationalism are not inherently evil. To say that is to say being proud of something is evil. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, to be proud of your neighbor, and proud of your home. I cannot deny that nationalism has been used as an excuse for many atrocities, but hatred and nationalism are not related. Bias and prejudice do not stem from nationalism and patriotism, but from some other part of human nature. I can see how people might connect the two, but you must realize that one is not caused by the other, just that one takes advantage of the other. So to say nationalism and patriotism is evil is misguided at best.

I dislike the concept of pride because it will always (not almost always, always) lead to segregationism. Being proud of something is to base your thoughts and opinions and beliefs around whatever you feel is most beneficial towards you. Individually, this is harmless, however when you gather hundreds, thousands, millions of people together who have the same idea, what the fuck do you think happens? There's a lot more to be said, but words hardly ever sway thought so fuck it (but then wtf am I even doing there, then? hrmm).


Ruaidhri
No, I'm not an adherent to Anarchism, at least not on a large-scale application. I am not entirely sure which is the best method of government; my grief lies within whether or not my sociopolitics focus on global unity or not. The problem lies in population, to me. It seems trivial and inconsequential, yet is is the cause of so many of our social problems. We have so many people that any radical change to our social form would be disastrous for many many people.
Cultural relativism plays a large part in global-oriented politics, and I am certain that a one-world gov't would be horrifically catastrophic if implemented today. The only way to ensure that cultural relativism doesn't get trampled on under the rule of a single power is to vanquish all socioeconomic problems prior to its installment. Which would change the shape of IR, and negate the principles under which realist dogma operates under.
So I guess I am globally-oriented, for a unified world government is the logical conclusion to the rapid spread of globalization and the spread of democracy.

EDIT: lol just read my sig (the ovid quote, not the lame death one), you'll get the gist of where i'm coming from

[PopCulturePooka]

Honestly, I'm all for nationalism as it applies to MY country.

We don't have population mass to support smaller regionalism, and larger regionalism means grouping with some very unstable, very corrupt countries.

So no.

[manrush]

:bored: Like I said, this is all theoretical - don't go trying to make this specific. You made a comment about the nation state in general, so I responded in the like. If you REALLY just want to rant about the U.S., then do so.

In response, then, what you are even arguing has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You said governments should have less power, and that is what I was arguing against. Then you said that local governments should have more power, to which I responded. Now you are saying, again, that local governments should have more power but in different words.



Ok, so basically now you're saying that states should have more power than the central government. What if Florida got attacked by Cuba? Florida made its own decision to trade with Cuba, it should be able to defend itself, right?

This is what I meant by the "contract" that is signed by people and governments in nation states. Florida (or an individual) gives up the right to do whatever the hell it wants, and the government will in return protect it with the power it has obtained from the people.


Yes, that's what I'm saying. States/provinces/regions should have more power than the central government.

Here is a blog that puts forward the case for regionalism
http://skaneland.blogspot.com/

Here is a website about regionalism in EU and the movement away from the traditional centralised European nation-state.
http://www.a-e-r.org/publications/aer-declaration-on-regionalism/

[manrush]

Honestly, I'm all for nationalism as it applies to MY country.

We don't have population mass to support smaller regionalism, and larger regionalism means grouping with some very unstable, very corrupt countries.

So no.

But isn't Australia already de-centralised?

[Chris]

But is a strong, central government concentrated in one capital region really going to protect a vast country of 300 million people?

It does a pretty good job. When was the last time someone invaded America and was actually able to stay for a long time?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. States/provinces/regions should have more power than the central government.

Sure, but there has to be a limit or else you're not longer have a unified country, thus drastically reducing the effectiveness of any countries' government to defend its population. Imagine if North Dakota laws were so different from Montana's that if Canada invaded Montana said "Hey, fuck that shit, ND's on its own."

Do you see what I'm getting at here? States have to retain reasonable control over their populations/regions, but the central government that they themselves belong to has to be able to invoke some form of control over them to keep things stable.

Regionalism doesn't really seem to help either, unless I'm looking at this from a wrong prospective. Going by the definition provided by wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalism_%28international%29) it states that nation-states will work closely together to help maintain peace and economic prosperity, yet you're arguing for smaller states within those nation-states to have more control?

If you have too many independent entities in a small area like that you run into a lot of problems, hell, look at Europe history stretching back to when people started populating it. That's been a pretty volatile region.

[Druid]

Wow, I've never heard Pooka be a complete ass before.
Dirty, dirty liar.

[Psychochink]

But isn't Australia already de-centralised?

Sort of, not really.

In theory, the States have an awful lot of power to do things independantly and are seperate from one another (e.g. each State has its own Constitution). You know, just like in theory the Queen is the Head of State of both Australia and Canada.

In practice, you're only going to find very minor differences between the States. Also, and this is the big thing, the Federal government controls the money. They gather it up and then distribute it to the States, and are able to specify what it is used for. This is usually general, not specific - so the State will receive $X for their Health budget - although sometimes there will be specific conditions. All universities are funded directly by the Federal government, for example (doesn't even hit the State coffers on the way through).

Local government in the way that Americans are used to thinking about it is effectively powerless. Police, as an obvious example, are entirely the province of the State government (also, none of our law enforcement officials are elected - thank god).

[Of course, on the other hand, our Federal law enforcement bodies are pretty unobtrusive and don't get involved in day-to-day activity (i.e. doing something across State lines doesn't automatically make it a 'Federal' matter).]

But in practice, Federal government has the power. Hell, every State government is in the control of the Opposition at the moment - but that doesn't mean they're getting a huge amount of policies through that they'd like.

Plus, despite our size/natural resources/etc, Australia's population is just a million or two more than that of New York State. Centralised, for the win.

Of course, I'm not opposed to Regionalism as a concept - that is, if Australia (being it's own continent) is classified as a region all by itself. Particularly in light of the massive cultural/political differences between us and the rest of Southeast Asia.

[Trump]

Seriously, what is the differenct between "regionalism" and "nationalism" ???

Nothing at all. A nation is just a region.

Regardless, Ruaidhri's comment about sports teams is great. You can see the same thing. For the most part, people are supporting their team. They are proud of their team and want to see them do well. They like what their team represents and want to have fun watching them compete. But sometimes people take it too far and fights break out and people get hurt. How is this any different from nationalism? Are the sports teams responsible for the fights? No, not at all. It is the few people who don't know how to separate what is important from what is less important. To some people their sports team is more important than their life? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard but it seems to be true. So it isn't the sports team, it is the misguided individuals who have no common sense or self control that are the problem.

The same applies to nationalism, it isn't nationalism that is the problem, it is the stupid people who don't know how to live in the real world that create this problem.

[manrush]

Nationalism means subverting your individual will towards the state. Everyone for the state, no-one against it.

[SlickWilly440]

Yeah it would be nice if the whole world what United under one Nation. And by one nation I mean the U.S.A.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Nationalism means subverting your individual will towards the state. Everyone for the state, no-one against it.

What you're describing isn't nationalism, it's call living in a society and NOT anarchy. However far down you want to break the central government, humans are societal, and we generally "subvert our individual will towards the state." If we didn't, there'd be no laws to protect us, no tax money for public works, no health care...

Extreme nationalism causes many ills, but you are using the term incorrectly to cover whatever you see wrong with modern, especially American, government.

[Chris]

Well, in that case, then what is so wrong with the American government (aside from our shitty politicians at the moment) that requires a fundamental change in structure?

[Dennis nist]

A nation is an kinda boring organism. either it kills, eats and get larger. Or it gets eaten. As any organism it can be a fascinating study. But to feel any connection to it is kinda... stupid.

we are social creatures. That is true. To feel that you belong is as natural as sex. BUT just as sex, you can choose. You have a choise between just going out and raping somebody or abide the social code of courting.
Well, I think nationalism(race) and rape kinda leans in the same direction.

[MEGA SATAN 3000]

What you're describing isn't nationalism, it's call living in a society and NOT anarchy. However far down you want to break the central government, humans are societal, and we generally "subvert our individual will towards the state." If we didn't, there'd be no laws to protect us, no tax money for public works, no health care...

I think this is a bit of a straw man. We can protect ourselves from murder (including delegating our right to defense to police) without subverting ourselves to the state (since most people aren't murderers). "Public works" is a pretty vague term, but there's plenty of literature and lots of people (mostly economists) arguing that lots of things the government provides can be paid for by voluntary donators/customers. And of course, health care is provided by doctors, not politicians.

[Alphonse v.2]

I think what rushin' means is that nationalism is a reason why people go to war, while that may be true, if it weren't for nationalism, people will always find a reason to fight just because they consider themselves better. I think it will always be that way, you can wish for World Peace, or even Empathy for the world, people will still be looking through the eyes of their own body, not necessarily putting more self-worth on themselves, just not having the complete capacity to completely understand another person's views and thoughts.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

I think this is a bit of a straw man. We can protect ourselves from murder (including delegating our right to defense to police) without subverting ourselves to the state (since most people aren't murderers). "Public works" is a pretty vague term, but there's plenty of literature and lots of people (mostly economists) arguing that lots of things the government provides can be paid for by voluntary donators/customers. And of course, health care is provided by doctors, not politicians.

Oh? You think people would just out of the goodness of their hearts contribute money to better roads in places they don't go? Without tax breaks for voluntary contributions to charities and the like, do you really think that there would be a lot of donations towards, well, anything? And that childless couples would give money to a school for more teachers? And that people wouldn't steal from others, rape, or murder because they're just "naturally" good people? And if somebody does commit a crime, who's around to ensure they are fairly jugded and prosecuted? Just yesterday, a mob attacked and killed a man who was a passenger in a car that accidentally hit a two-year old kid. It wasn't even a hit and run, the car stopped to see if the child was ok and they were attacked. And what about free clinics? How many doctors would seriously choose not to be paid for ALL their work?

Having a government in place protects people from each other, by creating and enforcing laws, collecting taxes, etc. Those are the benefits from living in a society where we have a government.

Take a look at the current international system. Sure, we have organizations like the U.N., but in reality there is no governing system for the nations themselves as they interact with each other. Instead, the most powerful countries rule over the others, with little or no consequence for their actions. Of course we don't necessarily run rampant and crush everyone in our path, but there is NO ONE who can "prosecute" the U.S. and ensure that we are good world citizens for our neighbors.

What I am arguing is that for all the government's ills, having a government is still better than anarchy. I was arguing against not only mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n's idea that people shouldn't give up their rights to the state (and I don't mean all their rights, obviously), but also his use of the term nationalism.

[Beowulf]

Oh god in heaven it's the debates in my Political Science 101 course all over again... :bang:

Libertarianism doesn't work.

Anarchism doesn't work.

Communism doesn't work.

Nationalism is an important and necessary part of any (any) society. To say otherwise is ignorant. Before you go running off at the mouth trying your damndest to sound smart, why don't you wait till college, take courses in the subject, and then try to sound smart.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

Ah yes, because people who haven't been to college obviously aren't smart or entitled to their opinions...

[Campion]

I think regionalism, nationalism and globalization are all worthy subjects for debate, regardless of whether or not anyone personally can see any validity for one or the others.

I used to have a similar opinion to that of mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n, that nationalism was a bad thing, because all of the ills that are perpetrated in its name. I also used to berate religions, including my own for the exact same reason. My reasoning at such a young age was 'how can people kill in the name of an ideal and then call that ideal 'good'.

Admittedly I was very young and can now laugh at myself and the rather stunning naïveté of this over-emotive statement.This was long before I understood anything about social psychology or political economics.

My opinion now is that regardless of our political systems and their apparent aims, whether they be regional, national or global the need for politicians to justify their ability in the positions they hold to 'we the people' is primarily socio-economic, ie: they must be seen to be protecting us and our beliefs and ensure that our economic base is growing so that we might at the very least feel prosperous. This will be true regardless of where power is situated, be it ending at each governer's office, or ending at the president's.

Whilst it is true that you can more easily march to the office of the governor than you can the president if you live in (say) Florida, at the end of the day the socio-economic patterns will have to change based on where that power is situated. By devolving the economy to purely regional structures in somewhere like Australia or America the strength of the overall economic base will be seriously diminished as the regions start competing over the differing socio-economic policies that are put in place to placate the (now politically seperated) peoples of each region. This I imagine will do nothing to placate existing tensions, nor will it eliminate any fundamental 'isms', in fact it may create even more.

Of course it all depends on how you manage it, but whenever people have talked of regionalisation to me in the past, it has always been one of regionalisation of both borders and economy.


Campion.

[MEGA SATAN 3000]

Oh? You think people would just out of the goodness of their hearts contribute money to better roads in places they don't go? Without tax breaks for voluntary contributions to charities and the like, do you really think that there would be a lot of donations towards, well, anything? And that childless couples would give money to a school for more teachers? And that people wouldn't steal from others, rape, or murder because they're just "naturally" good people? And if somebody does commit a crime, who's around to ensure they are fairly jugded and prosecuted? Just yesterday, a mob attacked and killed a man who was a passenger in a car that accidentally hit a two-year old kid. It wasn't even a hit and run, the car stopped to see if the child was ok and they were attacked. And what about free clinics? How many doctors would seriously choose not to be paid for ALL their work?

Again, straw man. You're arguing against positions I never claimed to hold--and in the case of the murder/rape/etc example, positions I explicitly denied. I don't think there's much point in drawing this out.

[Knife-Fingered Sue Sanderson]

You were providing an argument, and I responded to what you were saying, but let me spell it out for you:

You said we can protect ourselves from murderers without being apart of a state, without "subverting ourselves." When we have a law, enforced by a state, it protects us from being murdered and we also give up the right to murder. Same with stealing, rape, and other crimes. If there was no law, and no one to enforce it, do you honestly believe we could protect ourselves from being murdered? If I was home alone and somebody came in with a gun to shoot me, I don't think I could protect myself without calling the police, which are paid for by taxes which by law we are required to pay by "subverting" our will and our money to the state. Do you think that less people, or even the same amount of people would become murderers? Of course not everyone is a murderer. But I bet law and retribution convince a lot of people not to become one, either.

Public works is vague? Ok then, let me explain: roads, public schools, free clinics, and parks are all paid for when we "subvert" our will towards the state and pay taxes. When free will for things like donations is given to a group, the temptation to shirk responsibility is great. You state that "(mostly economists) arguing that lots of things the government provides can be paid for by voluntary donators/customers". First of all, who are these economists? And secondly, sure, economically speaking a few could provide the money in lieu of the government for these kinds of things. But would they?

And while doctors are physically providing the care, the governments provide the health care systems. They provide people who have no money to have the same access to medical attention to others (maybe not in some countries, but generally). And with laws, they prevent malpractice and greedy doctors from doing anything for a buck.



Happy now?

[MNJetter]

He said we can protect ourselves from murderers without subverting ourselves to the state by delegating that responsibility to the police. He never said anything about being apart from the state, just not being subverted by it, i.e., losing our individuality and opinions and personal freedom. Most people aren't murderers, so trusting that job to the police (i.e., the state) isn't generally going to affect our daily lives.

In other words, he was arguing the exact same point you are. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

I don't want to get too much into this argument, but I do feel that regionalization isn't going to accomplish anything. At best, it will turn a few large nation-states into a whole lot of tiny nation-states that are even more likely to squabble and fight than they were when they had some semblence of unity.

It does bother the hell out of me when my government tells me what I can and can't do when I feel that it's none of their business. I feel that the government should be as unintrusive as possible in piddly little matters like the age limit for alchohol and how many people we're allowed to marry. Those are cultural things, very much non-universal in terms of ethics. If you think it's wrong, say so, and encourage people to teach each other the right way to do things, but we don't need an actual law about it.
....anyway....

I don't know if nationalism is necessary. But I can say with fair certainty that it's a reality. You're not going to kill it just by rearranging government structures. It's there, for better or for worse, and the best we can do as individuals is to watch our governments and make sure they're not taking advantage of the power we gave them.

[ruaidhri]

Beowulf, you made me chuckle out loud. No beating around the bush; you addressed the issue straight on.

Actually, I understand the frustration of people over the "evils" of nationalism. I've shared them but with a long life and a lot of frustration over the actions of governments around the world I’ve sadly arrived at the conclusion, as I wrote in my earlier comment, that when it comes to a one-world government you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first. It just is not going to happen, at least, not during my lifetime nor during that of anyone on this board. There’s just too much hate, too little trust and very little cooperation.

In the U.S. if the states had more autonomy there would be no equality. The civil rights movement would have died in the South. States would battle with each other over minor issues. If our constitution didn’t prohibit it, I wouldn’t even be surprised if states imposed tariffs on products imported from other states. Heck, you wouldn’t have a better, safer world in which to live.

If you expanded borders to include a region, lets say North America to include Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, who do you believe would have the most influence and who would have the least? What would be the deciding factor? Money! Money is power. One things for certain, the rich would get richer. Would the poor get poorer?

Sports teams, as Trump seconded, are a good example of what would evolve. Like Pandaclair, I live in Wisconsin. We love football and we love our Packers. Our neighboring states have their own teams, Illinois the Bears and Minnesota, the Vikings. They are our enemies and we theirs. I believe it’s even worse in England with its local sports teams. At least with our federal government, and our self-identity as Americans first, our dislike of our neighbors only extends to their choice of football favorites.

edit - missing semicolon

[ミュー]

I think that people should be more transparent with their motives in this world. Nationalism is oftentimes disguised as patriotism or some sort of celebratory rite. Let's face it, we like to hate things that are different. No two countries are the same, which makes hating the people and governments of other countries piss easy. I do not see the 'pure dripping evil' in this, just the sly and deceptive means of presentation. If you want to be a supremacist dickhead like Uyoku, I want to see you on top of a black van making an arse out of yourself.

[Trump]

I think that people should be more transparent with their motives in this world.

hahahahah, I'm sorry.. that is really funny.