Originally posted by googlefudgeHey I'm from South African man [swagger].
I am sorry have you ever been to the places where people all walk around armed?
I was being facetious in my post: armed citizens are NOT a good idea (esp. when you can pick up a serviceable Chinese handgun for next to nothing). Then again--the police are also outnumbered and outgunned; should we call in the army? It is an overwhelmingly depressing subject--best studiously avoided.
Originally posted by stockenI don't think we are dividing into groups.
Is it a good idea? Do we really need to divide into groups like that? I mean, every nation (not a single one is above this) has internal problems with people not really wanting to be part of their nation; not feeling properly represented by their nation.
In a time when transport was less easy, people formed themselves into small groups/clans/tribes for protection, strength, etc.
Naturally they fought or merged with neighbours who wanted the same land or game.
As transport became easier and larger areas could be controlled, these groups became larger and had larger properties.
Eventually these formed into countries and nations.
Nowadays, transport is incredibly easy and we have super-nations and possibly in the future a completely united Earth.
But of course, there will still be regional differences.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stockenhow about 'the Culture' ?
I don't know how it works in your specific country, but here we have like little governments handling local affairs. It would be like one nation, only a large one. Patriots aside, what's the problem?
I like Bosse's point of view on this one. There would still be cultural groupings. I'd like to add that they would live under the same democratic laws as any ...[text shortened]... aliens at some point in time and we wouldn't want to act all discriminating and stuff. 🙂
Originally posted by stockenNot surprisingly, I am a proponent of nationalism. Without it, rule by a despot is oh-so-easy. Nationalism is capitalism, is what keeps us safe.
Is it a good idea? Do we really need to divide into groups like that? I mean, every nation (not a single one is above this) has internal problems with people not really wanting to be part of their nation; not feeling properly represented by their nation.
Is a society only based on the fragile ideal that the majority of it's citisens desire in life? How ca ...[text shortened]... en fighting for peace in this world. The national pride and patriotic stupidity.
Debate me!
Compartmentalized ships at sea are more inclinced to continue sailing.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHnationalism allowed hitler, and nationalism and capitalism are totaly independent of each other, the russians were very nationalistic. basically what I am trying to say is that you those statments couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Not surprisingly, I am a proponent of nationalism. Without it, rule by a despot is oh-so-easy. Nationalism is capitalism, is what keeps us safe.
Compartmentalized ships at sea are more inclinced to continue sailing.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNationalism, on a global scale, is an exact model of capitalism. Each nation need not be capitalist in its governing; as long as there exists nations, the model follows suit.
nationalism allowed hitler, and nationalism and capitalism are totaly independent of each other, the russians were very nationalistic. basically what I am trying to say is that you those statments couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHno, capitalisum is an economic ideal, nationalism is the love of ones country. they are mutually independent. a world wide comunist state could be nationalistic (in fact to work it would probably have to be nationalistic) and not capitalist. in fact as capitalism is effectively the love of material wealth at the expense of anything else capitalism and nationalism could be at odd with each other, how many people betray there country (and anyhting else) for profit?
Nationalism, on a global scale, is an exact model of capitalism. Each nation need not be capitalist in its governing; as long as there exists nations, the model follows suit.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAgain, gf, we are speaking of nationalism on a global scale irrespective of economic standards. Nationalism--- wherein every country vies for its own best interests--- is the very picture of capitalism.
no, capitalisum is an economic ideal, nationalism is the love of ones country. they are mutually independent. a world wide comunist state could be nationalistic (in fact to work it would probably have to be nationalistic) and not capitalist. in fact as capitalism is effectively the love of material wealth at the expense of anything else capitalism and na ...[text shortened]... be at odd with each other, how many people betray there country (and anyhting else) for profit?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn other words, with a non-nationality world, there would be no capitalism because there are no nations.
Again, gf, we are speaking of nationalism on a global scale irrespective of economic standards. Nationalism--- wherein every country vies for its own best interests--- is the very picture of capitalism.
Or, it would be just like it is within every country today. Everyone trying to get one step ahead. The difference being that there would be no parts of the world for the plundering, because it would all be protected by the same democratic government and the same basic laws.
I'm even more for this idea now.
Remove the nations! Remove the nations! Remove the nations! 😵
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI suppose I'm with Freaky. Separate nations (or tribes, whatever) allow for variation in government types. This allows for natural selection a la the free market or evolutionary theory leading to more efficient governments.
Again, gf, we are speaking of nationalism on a global scale irrespective of economic standards. Nationalism--- wherein every country vies for its own best interests--- is the very picture of capitalism.
Originally posted by stockenFrom an evolutionary perspective I think that the fact that nations still exist would imply that they are still needed.
Is it a good idea? Do we really need to divide into groups like that? I mean, every nation (not a single one is above this) has internal problems with people not really wanting to be part of their nation; not feeling properly represented by their nation.
Is a society only based on the fragile ideal that the majority of it's citisens desire in life? How ca ...[text shortened]... en fighting for peace in this world. The national pride and patriotic stupidity.
Debate me!
Eventually the stronger cultures will dominate the world and countries will unite. (This is happening in Europe) Or a dominant county will destroy the rest. (USA has been busy doing this) Or a combination of both, until then countries will continue to exist.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe point I was trying to make stems from listening to criticism levelled at the UN for years. That they are a gutless talkfest , a waste of time, that when the chips are down stand idly by as inhumane atrocities are committed. Or they are a rubber stamp for US policy and that they are a joke because while they appear to provide an international forum they instead provide a poorly camoflaged cheer squad for US imperialism.
The point is that there are a sizeable number of people that don't agree with those laws and don't want them 'enforced' on them (horrible use of English but anyway). Imposing laws on people who don't want them by use of force leads to resistance, and in this day and age what we call terrorism.
However when an alternate model is proposed that aims to actually empower the sovereignty of nation states by making them equally accountable under a law that needs to be ratified and agreed upon, then for some apparent reason that segueways into despotism and unpalatable obligation?
Why cant a universal law protect national self interest. It seems to me that much resentment in the world is created because countries like the US with overwhelming technical and economic superiority tend to get their way in most things. The US cannot forever play its tired old chorus of look how we preserved freedom for you, look how through the Marshall plan we rebuilt you, look , this was a role we did not ask for and we are doing the best we can. Trust us we believe and promote democracy.
Most ardent fans of Israel's right to nationhood are also appalled that in many ways their practice of statecraft has borrowed heavily on the practices of nationalist socialism as witnessed with their own persecution by Hitler's mob and as witnessed by the racial segregation as practised by the National Party's apartheid policies in South Africa.
Every society has laws. The concept of a society could not exist without them. From this perspective there must therefore be universal laws. This was the point. We need to identify and ratify these laws. They may coincide and resonate with current efforts such as the universal declaration of human rights, but where these rights are inadequate to protect and articulate the concerns of all then they should be modified.
Originally posted by stockenIn essence, the utopia you are describing would preclude capitalism, as homogeny would rule. With all now equal, everything is 'special,' so to speak, meaning, nothing is special. There is no reward possible for effort (or results), no punishment for lack of effort (or, conversely, poor or undesirable results).
In other words, with a non-nationality world, there would be no capitalism because there are no nations.
Or, it would be just like it is within every country today. Everyone trying to get one step ahead. The difference being that there would be no parts of the world for the plundering, because it would all be protected by the same democratic government an ...[text shortened]... even more for this idea now.
Remove the nations! Remove the nations! Remove the nations! 😵
The sole basis for such a society is a belief/trust in the basic goodness of man. No offense, but--- given my 'rathers'--- I'd rather have a republic-goverened, capitalistic nation... pushing and shoving, learning and yielding, competing at its best in the open market.