Do You Support The Nation-State?

[Shadow Wolf]

But we do still see the powerful states dominating the least powerful in these groups; the US actually does better at regulating this kind of behaviour than the EU does. A lot of people see the EU as a German project, which it has often seemed to be. This still breeds resentment. I can see the idea in principle, but in theory there will always be a dominating force. I also don't like the protectionism of the EU.

Yes, there will be those who are looked upon as a leader and those who insist on the role. But I believe we've hit a point where instead of Greecs fighting Greeks, Celts fighting Celts or whatnot, we've become stuck on East vs West, Christian vs Muslim or trying to hang onto nationalism and isolationism even though the world we live in today has rendered those last two the political equivalent of social withdrawal.

 

[We Never Know]

Would higher % funding have more say or would all have equal say?

Top 10 Contributors (% of UN budget)

United States	22.000%
China	12.005%
Japan	8.564%
Germany	6.090%
United Kingdom	4.567%
France	4.427%
Italy	3.307%
Brazil	2.948%
Canada	2.734%
Russia	2.405%

United Nations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Secret Chief]

"A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent. It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant national or ethnic group."

- Nation state - Wikipedia

Ugh, no.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Back in 1991, Robert Reich authored a book called "The Work of Nations," a play on "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Reich's argument was that modern nation-states provided a certain kind of work in the world's economy, specifically that it provided a generally stable platform for the investment in infrastructure and innovation through capitalistic entrepreneurial activity through the creation of stable institutions of the rule of law--as opposed to autocracies, which generally become wholly driven by the personality of the autocrat involved.

Nation-states also provide a more-or-less stable international order, which allows both the nations and entrepreneurs to seek and gain agreements and alliances that also contribute to the generation and accumulation of wealth.

Reich suggested that the era of the nation-states was coming to an end...that is, that they have outlived their usefulness in many ways.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the nation-state is the worst of all possible institutions...except for all the others.

 

[Heyo]

But we do still see the powerful states dominating the least powerful in these groups; the US actually does better at regulating this kind of behaviour than the EU does.

With wars, invasions and coup d'etas?

A lot of people see the EU as a German project, which it has often seemed to be. This still breeds resentment. I can see the idea in principle, but in theory there will always be a dominating force. I also don't like the protectionism of the EU.

We agree on that one. (Although I see it more as a German/French joint operation and we dominate by outspending the rest.)

 

[Estro Felino]

"A nation-state is a political unit where the state, a centralized political organization ruling over a population within a territory, and the nation, a community based on a common identity, are congruent. It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant national or ethnic group."

- Nation state - Wikipedia

Ugh, no.

It's a concept that exists in Europe, mainly.
The words nation and state are of European origin...so I guess it is normal that they don't apply to the Americas, for example...which have been colonized by the other continents...basically.

 

[Estro Felino]

So is this what we must accept, that there will always be wealthy countries and poorer ones, and that these poorer ones should simply accept this? Isn't this a bit immoral - given that the wealthy countries often seem to treat the less wealthy countries as cheaper means to produce what they consume - without much actual transfer of wealth?

With all due respect...but we live in an overpopulated world with finite resources.
Back when I was born...1985, the world population was 4 billion people.
Now it has almost doubled...and I am still young.
European population has remained the same. 704,000,000 in the eighties; 745,000,000 now, also considering the massive immigration from Asia and Africa. It's other continents which made the that number double.

So to conclude: we Europeans who have entire childless generations cannot be overwhelmed by other populations with incredibly high fertility rates. Europe is small.
Of course we can help other continents prosper, but it's also up to their will to prosper. First, by not multiplying the problem.

 

[Augustus]

Groups tend to be more conservative than individuals.

Groups of like minded people can be more extreme than any member individually though.

 

[exchemist]

Groups of like minded people can be more extreme than any member individually though.

They can. However they tend not to be entirely like minded, so collective decisions tend to have elements of compromise.

 

[Mock Turtle]

With all due respect...but we live in an overpopulated world with finite resources.
Back when I was born...1985, the world population was 4 billion people.
Now it has almost doubled...and I am still young.
European population has remained the same. 704,000,000 in the eighties; 745,000,000 now, also considering the massive immigration from Asia and Africa. It's other continents which made the that number double.

So to conclude: we Europeans who have entire childless generations cannot be overwhelmed by other populations with incredibly high fertility rates. Europe is small.
Of course we can help other continents prosper, but it's also up to their will to prosper. First, by not multiplying the problem.

In my view we need to be a bit more imaginative - if we are actually to succeed as a species and not just eliminate ourselves by our thoughtless actions. Many of the problems in the world are the results of nationalism and/or wealth inequalities, besides some of the other obvious ones, and I think we need to look at our past histories more honestly in this regard. Expecting to deal with any current issues by carrying on as normal will not solve anything.

The fact that many nations have grown to be the more wealthy ones, and where expectations as to such continuing is more an inertia affect - who actually wants to be less well off than their parents or past generations? But we know that the Earth cannot sustain, as to resources, a world where all have the same living standards as the USA, or some similar countries. So where is the morality of those who still expect to live a particular lifestyle but where others are seemingly prohibited from such? I think that we should accept that the wealthy countries mostly came about as to how they became so from their geographical position than much else, and being so, this should be taken into account. Hence we should redistribute wealth so as to level up rather than continue or exacerbate current wealth differences.

That is, if we actually want a stable world rather than one that had the prospects of decaying or even becoming extinct.

And the world population has tripled since I was born. Perhaps we do need to reduce the population to a more reasonable level, but the birth rates in the poorer countries does seem to be more about poverty and ensuring that some offspring survive. If they were better off perhaps the population issue might solve itself.

 

[Estro Felino]

In my view we need to be a bit more imaginative - if we are actually to succeed as a species and not just eliminate ourselves by our thoughtless actions. Many of the problems in the world are the results of nationalism and/or wealth inequalities, besides some of the other obvious ones, and I think we need to look at our past histories more honestly in this regard. Expecting to deal with any current issues by carrying on as normal will not solve anything.

Exactly. The banking system that impoverish nations.
But we are all victims to it. First World, Second World, Third World.

The fact that many nations have grown to be the more wealthy ones, and where expectations as to such continuing is more an inertia affect - who actually wants to be less well off than their parents or past generations? But we know that the Earth cannot sustain, as to resources, a world where all have the same living standards as the USA, or some similar countries. So where is the morality of those who still expect to live a particular lifestyle but where others are seemingly prohibited from such? I think that we should accept that the wealthy countries mostly came about as to how they became so from their geographical position than much else, and being so, this should be taken into account. Hence we should redistribute wealth so as to level up rather than continue or exacerbate current wealth differences.

With all due respect, but this reasoning is not that credible.
It really doesn't add up...logically.
Because in order to add up, it would have mentioned that the solution is to help African countries prosper so they can have a level of welfare and social justice that is similar to that of the First World.

It seems to me that your solution is to empty Africa and to move all its inhabitants either to North America or Europe?
It's not doable. Europe is too small.
Africa is gigantic with enormous, borderless spaces.

That is, if we actually want a stable world rather than one that had the prospects of decaying or even becoming extinct.

Being an overpopulated world...speaking of extinction...it's hazardous.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Exactly. The banking system that impoverish nations.
But we are all victims to it. First World, Second World, Third World.

With all due respect, but this reasoning is not that credible.
It really doesn't add up...logically.
Because in order to add up, it would have mentioned that the solution is to help African countries prosper so they can have a level of welfare and social justice that is similar to that of the First World.

It seems to me that your solution is to empty Africa and to move all its inhabitants either to North America or Europe?
It's not doable. Europe is too small.
Africa is gigantic with enormous, borderless spaces.



Being an overpopulated world...speaking of extinction...it's hazardous.

I didn't say anything about emigration, quite the opposite, given that much of the immigration into Europe and all the other wealthy countries comes about mostly from their wealth attraction. If we did redistribute wealth more then there might be less emigration and population growth. A solution where there is still so much wealth disparity is hardly a solution - but seemingly is the path we are on, until perhaps conflicts overturn this.

 

[Estro Felino]

I didn't say anything about emigration, quite the opposite, given that much of the immigration into Europe and all the other wealthy countries comes about mostly from their wealth attraction. If we did redistribute wealth more then there might be less emigration and population growth. A solution where there is still so much wealth disparity is hardly a solution - but seemingly is the path we are on, until perhaps conflicts overturn this.

It seems to me we were on the right track after WW2. Great socialist flair...decolonization, so many rights given to these new countries.
But our parents distracted themselves....they became obsessed with progress (sorry, but I need to point that out...it was a pretty carefree generation).
The banking and financial élites took advantage of their distraction and regained power and influence, by bringing social injustice and exploitation in those countries.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It seems to me we were on the right track after WW2. Great socialist flair...decolonization, so many rights given to these new countries.
But our parents distracted themselves....they became obsessed with progress (sorry, but I need to point that out...it was a pretty carefree generation).
The banking and financial élites took advantage of their distraction and regained power and influence, by bringing social injustice and exploitation in those countries.

And probably more so after the USSR broke up, with just too many expecting the impossible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's a sacred notion, that nobody shall and can violate.

You're Catholic though?! Whereas this borders on heresy.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're Catholic though?! Whereas this borders on heresy.

I identify as a Christian, especially because the Vatican is so irredeemable...it has become an institution where only power matters.
That's unchristian.

 

[Estro Felino]

And probably more so after the USSR broke up, with just too many expecting the impossible.

That surely played a significant role.
I don't know how significant.

 

[Stevicus]

With all due respect...but we live in an overpopulated world with finite resources.
Back when I was born...1985, the world population was 4 billion people.
Now it has almost doubled...and I am still young.
European population has remained the same. 704,000,000 in the eighties; 745,000,000 now, also considering the massive immigration from Asia and Africa. It's other continents which made the that number double.

So to conclude: we Europeans who have entire childless generations cannot be overwhelmed by other populations with incredibly high fertility rates. Europe is small.
Of course we can help other continents prosper, but it's also up to their will to prosper. First, by not multiplying the problem.

I've seen a wide range of opinions regarding population growth. Back in the 70s, they used to talk about the "population bomb." Movies like "Soylent Green" depicted a future where overpopulation was so bad, along with massive shortages of food, that they had to implement a system of industrialized cannibalism just to be able to (barely) feed the masses. However, I've heard others say that world population growth is no big deal. In fact, a lot of talk lately is about how Western societies have had such low birth rates that they're below replacement rate, which is why many believe immigration is needed to supplement the population and labor force.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've seen a wide range of opinions regarding population growth. Back in the 70s, they used to talk about the "population bomb." Movies like "Soylent Green" depicted a future where overpopulation was so bad, along with massive shortages of food, that they had to implement a system of industrialized cannibalism just to be able to (barely) feed the masses. However, I've heard others say that world population growth is no big deal. In fact, a lot of talk lately is about how Western societies have had such low birth rates that they're below replacement rate, which is why many believe immigration is needed to supplement the population and labor force.

Those who say that overpopulation is not a problem and more and more workforce is needed are big capitalists that want more and more slaves to exploit. Because with very few people on Earth, there is more awareness of labor rights and people will demand fair treatment.
So they demand that the poor make more and more babies: future slaves to exploit.
Otherwise...with no population, they would have to start to farm the land themselves...and they don't want to get dirty.

So I believe that only the wealthy should make children. I am sorry...but that's my stance. Because they can assure their children a future.

Also because is a neverending, vicious cycle:
more need of workforce----- more births----- more and more production of goods and service is needed to support the new population----more need of workforce -----

PS: I am not speaking of first world countries where the birth rates are already very low.

 

[Stevicus]

It seems to me we were on the right track after WW2. Great socialist flair...decolonization, so many rights given to these new countries.
But our parents distracted themselves....they became obsessed with progress (sorry, but I need to point that out...it was a pretty carefree generation).
The banking and financial élites took advantage of their distraction and regained power and influence, by bringing social injustice and exploitation in those countries.

The Second World War was probably so devastating and so traumatic for the generations that lived through it that there seemed to be a major push towards establishing a world system so that such a devastating conflict and atrocities could never happen again.

I think of this line from the movie The Formula which suggests the possible thought processes at work:

Human beings, my friend, are a very complex paradox. Very, very dangerous. They don't wanna' be leaders, they wanna' be followers. I mean, they... they can't wait to find some nut, who they think is just wonderful, to tell them what to do. And they all wanna' be brought under control. And some of that awesome burden has fallen on my sagging shoulders. I didn't ask for it, and I don't enjoy it, but I accept it... because I have a strong sense of duty.


There is a grain of truth in this in that human beings are, for the most part, followers. "They can't wait to find some nut, who they think is just wonderful, to tell them what to do. And they all wanna be brought under control."

But I also recall in the aftermath of WW2, there were significant social changes, and this might have been reflected in the changing values and ideals which were in play while I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s. We were taught to think for ourselves and not let others tell us how or what to think. We were taught to not believe everything we read and to question authority. The perceived ideal was a society of equals, where there were no leaders or followers (but they might take turns at someone being an executive officer for the week).

I'm not sure what happened or why so many high-minded ideals started to fall by the wayside. Some might argue that human nature simply can't adjust to it and tend to revert back to older, more familiar ways. I sometimes wonder if humans are really cut out to have actual "freedom" and "democracy." Are we truly to fit to govern ourselves, or are we mostly followers who need to have a leader?