Nationalism

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Are you seriously arguing that the United States went to war with Iraq out of racism?

That may have been part of it.
Nationalism is furthered by categorising people; THEM vs US perspectives, demonising the perceived enemy, developing a fear in the citizens of those that seek to harm US. NAtionalism is furthered by an ideology of if we make THEM more like US it would serve to protect out interests, our society, furthering our ambitions, our authority.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Segnosaur:

I'll support it if you make me president.

Right, your name's got a circle round it. Let me have men around who are unambitious. Power should never be given to those who desire it. That's why I'm taking on the major burden myself. No: make that the supreme burden.

from Shane Costello:

You might find that the common people of said sovereign nations have something to say on the matter too.

The opinion of the common people is a reflection of the culture created by the uncommon people (Murdoch's Law.) If there are good arguments against nationalism they are good whatever the opinion of the common people. Facts on the ground are created by movers and shakers, not the common people. In short, screw the opinion of the common people. We'll design that at the same time as we design the new model.

Examples? [of environmental problems]

Global warming is the most obvious. The US will pursue policies that serve what it perceives as its national interests, if the US government is to be believed (in this case I think it can be), and the interests of the Texan on the Rio Grande will be the same interests as the Alaskan's (implied). And bollocks to the world.

(Here I've referred to the US as if it's a nation, and it does have this blurry superposition of nation/post-nation about it. The Civil War is right there on top, but the Constitution comes through in the weave. Perhaps South Carolina's imminent secession will collapse the wave function.)

I know, how long are we waiting for the first draft of the human genome? Oh, hang on a minute..........

There are other scientific projects. The fact that one didn't get impeded hardly implies that others aren't. Please try to be substantive in your posts, I've got a lot on my plate here.

I've a feeling that national borders are irrelevant. Barriers to trade, investment and employment are the problem.

Different laws apply across the border, different tax systems, different utility suppliers, there are tariffs, immigration controls (the nation is for its nationals, after all - but the US national experience looks post-national from that angle), delays and discontinuities of all sorts. In the post-national world there will be free trade and free movement just as there is within nations now.

Don't assume that does of us who feel patriotic about our respective countries engage in irrational and destructive behaviour as a result.

But patriotism is irrational in itself. It doesn't have to be destructive to be irrational - look at Buddhism. (Yeah, I know, Korean monks have been killing other monks over control of the Temple funds, but that's an exception.) You were born somewhere - so what? I was born in Wales, it's a great place, I've seen other great places. I'm back here by chance, not nostalgia or patriotism (although its nice to watch rugby in a pub where England supporters are in the minority). I have no pride in an accident of birth. I can't claim credit for anything another Welshman might have done in the past. Their triumphs and tribulations were there own; I'm interested in them, but no more than in other people's stories. That, to me, is rational.

And Islam? I've noticed people doing very strange things lately in the name of Islam.

I will happily consign religion to the dustbin of history as well.

Probably the last thing we need is a "new political model", considering the harm wrought by "new political models" like fascism and communism.

For some reason I'm put in mind of the Simpsons episode when the comet that's going to hit Springfield boils away. At the end Moe gathers a mob and says "Now let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again". We can see what the current national model is doing for the world right now. To pluck one out of the air: the nation of Congo (Democratic Republic Of), which is about 1500km wide and bears no relation to anything but the marching range of a bunch of Belgians, is in a bit of a state. People are suffering and dying - but the sanctity of the Congo as a nation, all of 50 years antiquity, is the primary concern of the political world. There's got to be an alternative.

Would I be right in saying that in theory, so was the soviet block?

The USSR was a similar experiment, the Soviet Bloc was more of an empire.

What would happen in the event of their being a conflict between the local and the central as to what makes sense, what is rational, or to the exact demarcation of rights between the two entities?

What happens when this kind of conflict occurs in the US? Only one Civil War in over two centuries, that's a good record. Europe isn't in the same league. The US experience has to have a lot to teach us - after all, that's what an experiment is for.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

If one is going to be an anti-nationalist crusader, wouldn't it be best to start with a nation that has the least to lose by giving up its national identity?

I think it's best to start with all of them. Otherwise someone'll be going on about being the first, and then somebody else will claim that they were, and it all kicks off again somewhere down the line. We get everything prepped, work like hell over the weekend, and bring the new system on-line on Monday morning.

That CD feels that Zionism is a "particularly egregious" form of nationalism among all the various forms of nationalism that have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions in the 20th century illustrates the narrowness of his point of view.

As to narrowness of mind, I rest on my record. Israel is a particularly egregious example of nationalism's results because it is so artificial - even more than the nebulous Balkan nations. I will deal with this further in my response to Cleopatra tomorrow.

It seems to me that if one wants to speak against nationalism, one should be able to offer an alternative. There is in the Middle East another nation that very recently lost a government and is in the process of figuring out how to replace it. At the moment the consensus seems to be towards some sort of democracy, but we could, just as an intellectual exercise, discuss how CD's anti-nationalism could be used towards its benefit.

I seem to have addressed that in passing.

from Abdul Alhazred:

Yet I believe I have nothing in common with those nationalists of any type who define nationality in terms of 'race'. And in Europe, that seems to be what is meant by nationalist.

The US experience of nationalism is not at all like the European experience. The European experience of immigration involves hooligans on horses to a traumatic extent. Not so for the US (but so for the Aztecs and Incas). (If the Sioux had had a few hundred years to work on it, they could have filled the role, but history is full of disappointments.) In Europe, nations either grew naturally in stable, peripheral places (Britain, Spain, France) or they were created by design, as in Italy, Germany and Serbia, with the whole ethnicity element, which quickly translated to racism. The US of today just happened, when you come right down to it, and made itself a new nation in retrospect every few years. People flooded in from all over and just spread. There could be no element of ethnicity in the national picture. There are even different national pictures - the South's idea of nation today is not identical to the average Illinois take on the subject, but their experience of immigration (voluntary/involuntary) is also diferent. Ethnicity and race have featured a great deal on the local scale, but the national cliche has been "Melting Pot" for a long time.

Hi Cleopatra:

Huh? In Europe nobody discusses about races ...

You haven't been in the UK recently, have you? It's an issue over here. The European elections are highlighting it just now, but it's worrying. The right-wing press - Daily Mail, Torygraph, Sun and Express in particular - have been working the race seam for a couple of years, to significant effect. Even in Celtic regions. It may be time to get my hard-hat out again ...

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
If there are good arguments against nationalism they are good whatever the opinion of the common people. Facts on the ground are created by movers and shakers, not the common people. In short, screw the opinion of the common people. We'll design that at the same time as we design the new model.

What was it Churchill said about democracy being the least perfect form of government, save for all those other forms tried? Edmund Burke also said something along the lines that when comparing the faults of government by elites and oligarchies to the faults of government by the common man, the benefit of the doubt had to go to the common man.

Global warming is the most obvious. The US will pursue policies that serve what it perceives as its national interests, if the US government is to be believed (in this case I think it can be), and the interests of the Texan on the Rio Grande will be the same interests as the Alaskan's (implied). And bollocks to the world.

There's nothing "obvious" about global warming. Nor are those nations who clamoured loudest for Kyoto necessarily living up to their obligations.

Different laws apply across the border, different tax systems, different utility suppliers, there are tariffs, immigration controls (the nation is for its nationals, after all - but the US national experience looks post-national from that angle), delays and discontinuities of all sorts. In the post-national world there will be free trade and free movement just as there is within nations now.

But there could also be restrictive labour laws, punitive taxation and vested interests, indeed the same things plaguing the pan-european economy at the moment. And for all the talk about a united Europe citizens of the accession states aren't going to enjoy full freedom of movement for sometime.

There are other scientific projects. The fact that one didn't get impeded hardly implies that others aren't. Please try to be substantive in your posts, I've got a lot on my plate here.

Well if it's self evident that national sovreignty is impeding scientific progress then it shouldn't be too much trouble to give a few examples, now should it?

But patriotism is irrational in itself. It doesn't have to be destructive to be irrational - look at Buddhism. (Yeah, I know, Korean monks have been killing other monks over control of the Temple funds, but that's an exception.) You were born somewhere - so what? I was born in Wales, it's a great place, I've seen other great places. I'm back here by chance, not nostalgia or patriotism (although its nice to watch rugby in a pub where England supporters are in the minority). I have no pride in an accident of birth. I can't claim credit for anything another Welshman might have done in the past. Their triumphs and tribulations were there own; I'm interested in them, but no more than in other people's stories. That, to me, is rational.

So what? Just because something lacks a rational basis is that reason for it's elimination. Should art galleries be closed or deprived of public funding, because there is little rational basis for their existance?

For some reason I'm put in mind of the Simpsons episode when the comet that's going to hit Springfield boils away. At the end Moe gathers a mob and says "Now let's burn down the observatory so this never happens again". We can see what the current national model is doing for the world right now. To pluck one out of the air: the nation of Congo (Democratic Republic Of), which is about 1500km wide and bears no relation to anything but the marching range of a bunch of Belgians, is in a bit of a state. People are suffering and dying - but the sanctity of the Congo as a nation, all of 50 years antiquity, is the primary concern of the political world. There's got to be an alternative.

Some of us are doing quite well out of the current national model. Ireland, for instance. Norway and Switzerland would be two more. Nor would I accept that the Congo is an indictment of the nation state. An indictment of colonialism perhaps, but not of national sovreignty.

The USSR was a similar experiment, the Soviet Bloc was more of an empire.

Not in theory, though.

What happens when this kind of conflict occurs in the US?

The US separates from the empire, if we take the example of the revolutionary war. Ireland seperates from the British Empire could be considered another example.

The US experience has to have a lot to teach us - after all, that's what an experiment is for.

People were prepared to fight and die for states' rights and the preservation of the Union. Personally I think we've a bit to much to lose for the sake of an experiment.

 

[RPG Advocate]

Your arguments are contradicting each other:

Organisations like the League of Nations and the UN have been attempts to move on from this model, and (not coincidentally) have been created after major conflicts in which nationalism played a major part. But they are fundamentally flawed since they are composed of sovereign nations, and the rulers of sovereign nations are not well-disposed to seeing that sovereignty diluted. If the US decides to act unilaterally against another sovereign nation (which may happen, who knows) the UN is powerless and nations that oppose the action are left with only two options - put up with, or good old military action. Is this where we are in the 21stCE? Must it always be this way - nations lavishing blood and treasure on warfare and living in fear of everybody else's weapons?

and

What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

First you say that the problem is that the UN are fundamentally flawed because they are composed of sovereign states, but in then you go on to say that we should have a central authority that sets forth certain standards for its member states. Doesn't this sound like the UN to you? The UN charter and resolutions purport to set forth standards and procedures for resolving conflicts between member states, but look at something like the ICC or UN peacekeeping operations and notice the pattern of dismal failure.

The reason our Constitutional Republic in the US works fairly well is because each state is reasonably equal in its level of social and economic development. Not so on the world stage. In terms of social development, you have developed countries like the US standing in the general assembly with African dictatorships. Economically, you have stagnant nations and prosperous nations. The level of tension between states with such large differences in development is much greater than the level of tension between two neighboring states in the US.

To summarize, this "new political model" won't work unless the world's level of development becomes more uniform.

Nationalism leads to patriotism, which ranks with religion as a means of persuading people to behaviour they would never contemplate in their private lives. While it's an easy trick to persuade young men into "righteous" violence (and there will always be people around who want to do that), why make it easier by regarding patriotism as righteous? It should be consigned to the dustbin of history, like racism and sexism.

Patriotism by itself is benign, but you're right that it's easy to manipulate people using patriotism. Trying to remove such benign patriotism is pointless, in my opinion. I do hope social evolution causes a steady decline in its importance, though.

I'll mention Israel because it is a particularly egregious example of the damage nationism does, and because I expect to use this thread to absorb a continuing but intermittent debate with the esteemed Cleopatra over the nature of the zionist project. My contention is that the Jewish State was conceived as a nationalist project; Cleopatra feels otherwise.

I agree that the creation of Israel was a bad idea, but Israel is hardly the only state that has a dominant ethnic identity Take Japan, for instance, one of the most ethnically homogenious states in the world. Racism is rampant in Japan. I really hope that globalization causes ethnic majorities in all states to dissapate. You mention Israel. With an ethnically Jewish state, others can simply label Jews as "THEM". That's much harder when your next door neighbor is a Jew. An ethnically unsegregated world is the best way to build tolerance and understanding.

 

[CapelDodger]

from RPG Advocate:

First you say that the problem is that the UN are fundamentally flawed because they are composed of sovereign states, but in then you go on to say that we should have a central authority that sets forth certain standards for its member states. Doesn't this sound like the UN to you? The UN charter and resolutions purport to set forth standards and procedures for resolving conflicts between member states, but look at something like the ICC or UN peacekeeping operations and notice the pattern of dismal failure.

My proposal doesn't sound like the UN. The UN was created by sovereign states and explicitly has no effect on sovereignty unless there are trans-national implications in sovereign actions. It doesn't have the authority that, say, the US Federal government has to interfere when states contravene the Constitution. We all knew what was going on in Iraq, and what still goes on in Burma, but the UN cannot become involved because of sovereignty. The UN was a good vision but it could only be implemented by compromising it into impotence. Thus the many failures in the Balkans, Rwanda, Congo and so on . (But there have been UN successes in health and education where international politics aren't so involved.)

The reason our Constitutional Republic in the US works fairly well is because each state is reasonably equal in its level of social and economic development.

Might it be that the reasonably equal development is a result of the Constitutional Republic? Most of the states didn't exist when the Republic was formed. When you consider their very different experiences, economies, climates and resources it would be an amazing coincidence if they converged without some levelling influences. The absence of internal boundaries to trade and movement and a common legal structure are likely candidates (among others), and those could act on a global scale. A levelling of development across the world would go a long way to reducing conflicts, and seems to me a moral aim itself.

To summarize, this "new political model" won't work unless the world's level of development becomes more uniform.

It's a chicken and egg question, isn't it?

Take Japan, for instance, one of the most ethnically homogenious states in the world. Racism is rampant in Japan.

Japan is fundamentally bloody weird. Let's not go straight to the hard cases and devilish details. But it is one of the natural "nations", and like the others has been sufficiently peripheral to have a simple ethnic make-up and cultural homogeneity. Its geographical boundaries are also well-defined. It is indeed racist in the extreme, but nationalism and racism have a demonstrated affinity for each other. (Nationalism and gangsterism also crop up together quite frequently.)

An ethnically unsegregated world is the best way to build tolerance and understanding.

Absolutely, but nationalism works against that.

 

[Skeptic]

As to narrowness of mind, I rest on my record. Israel is a particularly egregious example of nationalism's results because it is so artificial

Yes, the silly idea that jews have any connection to the land of israel. Preposterous!

How artificial, CP? More artificial than all the Arab states with their completely straight borders, all drawn up on a map by the British? More artificial than the plethora of 1960s-established African nations that were cobbled together from the end of colonialism? If "artificial states" is a problem, I'd say you have quite a few countries in the world who are a bit more artificial than israel.

Your problem is that you, like many idealists, focus on israel as a bogeyman--as the anti-ideal of whatever ideal you are proposing. The "human rights" idealists on this forum have israel pegged as the supreme "anti-human-rights" nation; you, the anti-nation idealist, consider israel as the supreme "nationalist" state; the "anti-racists" (who oppose racism against anybody--except jews) have israel as the ultimate "racist" country, and so on. If there was someone in this forum calling attention to discrimination against midgests, and who saw that as the core of the world problems, no doubt he'd post hearbreaking stories from that #1 midget-opressing nation, israel.

None of these descriptions has much relation to reality (not that you would know--like most of the israeli critics in this forum, you'd probably never been to the middle east, let alone israel). It is merely an unconscious re-shaping of the jew as the "other", the negation of everything the idealist holds dear, only this time morphed into treating the jewish state as the "other" instead of the individual jews.

So, CarpelDoger, you've got a). a wonderful plan that will save the world, and b). you believe the jewish state, in particular, exemplifies all the bad things about the world, those things which your plan will eradicate? Join the crowd. I think there might be a few empty seats between the Islamists in the third row and the Communists on the fourth, to name just two of the myriad movements which believe the same thing.

 

[Tony]

What the world needs is a new political model. The United States was an experiment in this direction (the Constitution is actually a treaty between sovereign states). The Constitution provides guarantees of certain rights and minimum democratic standards but within those limits states have sovereignty. Citizens of the states can appeal to the centre for protection of their rights and the centre can enforce its decisions. I would like to see a global equivalent, a central authority which enforces standards of human rights but leaves local decisions to local people. This local control could be exercised in nations, where that makes sense, or regions or cities or whatever is rational.

Your idea is too ahead of it's time.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Cleo :
Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon. It didn't spring from the necessity to describe an identity.

I hate these conversations but.....................

Do You even hear yourself Cleo?

Skeptic ,as large a proponent of all things Israel as one would ever encounter : "only this time morphed into treating the Jewish state as the "other" instead of the individual Jews. "

"Skeptic" as maladroit and contrary a nom de plume as any could be.
That's what Israel is a .......... "Jewish state for Jews".

Damn it don't you see that the rationalization for that country's behavior mimic every justification of ill behavior from ancient Rome to Bush's attempt at prolonging Pax Americana ( via war ironic , no ? ) and more barbaric modes of conduct from all tribal entities from the Hutus to the Serbs to the idiot Palestinian "martyrs"?

That's the deal tho, unconscionable behavior by everyone else but you ( general sense ) is dis-allowed because your's is the exceptional case. This is founded on a model that gives excuse to the most egregious behavior by Nation/States and even individuals, it is appalling and wrong. You will not see it, none of the armies of the self-convinced and fanatics will see it

A Man for All Seasons, Moore to son in law Roper:

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

All the extremists on all sides disgust me Your constant claims and counter claims based of some stretched historical or religious imperative is almost as offensive as your appetites for destruction. I wish all your respective gods would vanquish you to Gehenom and let the rest of humanity exist in a peace that is devoid of a 2000 yr. old canker sore that has been the middle east.

Have a nice day.

.

 

[Chaos]

Re: Re: Nationalism

Your idea is too ahead of it's time.

I think the same could have been said of the Constitution some 200-odd years ago. ("A nation without a hereditary ruler? Oh, come on, you can´t be serious...")

There´s a nice proverb about this - not sure where or when it from: "It is not true that we do not try things because they are impossible. Instead, things are impossible because do not try."

Personally, I think that a world without nationalism would be such a good thing that it is worth trying, however bad the odds might be.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Nationalism

I think the same could have been said of the Constitution some 200-odd years ago. ("A nation without a hereditary ruler? Oh, come on, you can´t be serious...")

Ah, but the brilliance of the US Constitution is that it does NOT try to change human nature or bring forth some utopia. It is essentially a document LIMITING what the government could do, while the utopian anti-nationalists dream of GIVING a world government power to rule over everybody else, in the name of an unrealizable ideal.

There´s a nice proverb about this - not sure where or when it from: "It is not true that we do not try things because they are impossible. Instead, things are impossible because do not try."

Oh, I dunno. I think someone should put in a good word for the guy who doesn't try and says that an idea is stupid and impossible. He gets all the bad press, but at least doesn't make any trouble. On the other hand, they tried Communism, Fascism, and Islamism, too. These wonderful ideas for a new, perfect world succeeded well enough to ruin the lives of billions of people, in the most literal sense of the world, but that's about it. If only people considered nice but impossible fantasies...

Personally, I think that a world without nationalism would be such a good thing that it is worth trying, however bad the odds might be.

Yes, but again--you first. When your country gives up its national identity, flag, history, capital, etc., etc., etc., in the name of anti-nationalism, and it all works out just fine, then you'd have a case. No fair being generous and trying to give the benefits of non-nationalism to others before you do it yourself.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nationalism

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, but again--you first. When your country gives up its national identity, flag, history, capital, etc., etc., etc., in the name of anti-nationalism, and it all works out just fine, then you'd have a case. No fair being generous and trying to give the benefits of non-nationalism to others before you do it yourself.

I think CD makes a good point when he talks about the United States as an example of this anti-Nationalism. We have fifty states all of whom have given their individual sovereignty for the benefits of free and unrestricted trade and immigration between states.

Given the success of this model, maybe trying to get out of Iraq is the wrong way to go. Maybe instead we should be thinking about making it state # 51, then we would only have about another 149 to go before realizing this utopian ideal.

The United States of Earth has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

Being born in Wales Capel Dodger you have never felt a pariah in your society.

You don't think I've always lived here, do you? I may not have got about as much as you, but being born in Wales isn't much to do with who I am. You might not think so when I'm watching Wales play rugby, but that's my way of getting inside the nationalist experience (you gotta love the adrenaline, the highs, the lows, the way none of my own blood is getting spilled). I'm fiercely ant-racist, but I make an exception for Serbs so I can share the experience without offending anyone that matters.

Jewish Nationalism though is different as a phaenomenon.

Excellent, we start on common ground.

However much it shocks you Capel Dodger, Jews and Israelites all around the world are above all Jews.

I don't want to be shocking myself, but that is not my experience.

Jewish Nationalism did not spring from the need to define an identity but from the need for security.
...
the Holocaust came to justify Herzl and his basic idea that the Jews will never become citizens of the western countries and they needed a country of their own.
...
The Jews didn't create a country in order to learn who they were but in order to live their lives in safety.

And so we come to it.

If zionism had a manifesto it was surely Herzl's The Jewish State . In it Herzl did not predict the Holocaust or anything like it. Nor did he claim that Jews would never become European citizens. To quote from the book:

At the same time, the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded.

So Herzl wasn't justified by the Holocaust, he was actually proven wrong. What he claimed could not happen happened in Germany-Austria. Herzl made his claim because the most common response to zionism amongst Jews was to accuse zionism of endangering the Jews of Europe by disallowing them nationality of the states they actually lived in (and wished to continue living in). If there was a state that was declared to be Jewish, anti-semitic Europeans could use that to accuse Jews of owing allegiance to a foreign power, of being a fifth column whose primary loyalty was to Israel. Herzl didn't want that to be so (since it argued so strongly against his dream) so he said it wasn't. No argument is given, no reasoning, just "No they won't". He was wrong, of course, but the risk of endangering actual Jews was far less important to him than his transcendent Jewish State. Arguments against zionism weren't to be considered on their merits but were to be dismissed as impediments.

Herzl actually argues that if the Jews had their own nation they would gain the respect of other Europeans and so anti-semitism would vanish just like that. Those who rejected that nation "...would be able to assimilate in peace, because the present Anti- Semitism would have been stopped for ever. They would certainly be credited with being assimilated to the very depths of their souls, if they stayed where they were after the new Jewish State, with its superior institutions, had become a reality." The idea that anyone would say "Right, you've got your own nation and that's where you belong" is simply dismissed as unwelcome. Any rational person realises that that would happen, and does.

Herzl had bought into the European idea that nationhood puts a people a cut above peoples without a nation. This is not a Jewish idea and it is not a Middle Eastern idea. It was not welcomed by the Jews of Western Europe and had absolutely nothing to say to (or about) the Jews of Muslim world. If,as you claim, zionism was born from a need for security for European Jews, why was it so unpopular? Why did it come to prominence in the 1880's when there had been a long period - since the days of Revolutionary France - of increasing emancipation, prosperity and security for European Jews (with a backward step in Russia, which was backward anyway, in 1881)? Is it not likely that the arrival of nationalism and imperialism as mature ideologies about this time was the reason?

Where Herzl is concerned, as for many nationalists, his own glorification was a significant factor. When the state was formed there'd be statues to him, Father of the Jewish State, all over it. A lacklustre journalist and, frankly, terribly tedious writer would not die in the obscurity he deserved but would be clebrated through the ages. A strong motivation. The same egotism can be seen in Weizmann, ben Gurion and Sharon (who adds sociopathic tendencies to the mix). Providence protect us from the dreams of Great Men ...

 

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

What was it Churchill said about democracy being the least perfect form of government, save for all those other forms tried?

I would include as a basic right, protected by the centre, that all people have democratic rights. I would also like to see complete transparency in government, independent electoral commissions and an independent auditing body. These could be agencies of the centre - which would also have to be transparent - or separate entities. I'm not claiming to have all the answers and details, but I think there would be a wide consensus on what we would wish a governing system to provide - much of it is in the US Constitution, but we have to find ways of preventing the corruption and machine politics that have been endemic in the US.

Edmund Burke also said something along the lines that when comparing the faults of government by elites and oligarchies to the faults of government by the common man, the benefit of the doubt had to go to the common man.

I read Randi's Commentaries (amongst other things) and I wouldn't put a dog in the care of the common people. Burke was an idealist in a pre-Murdoch world.

There's nothing "obvious" about global warming. Nor are those nations who clamoured loudest for Kyoto necessarily living up to their obligations.

I had ripe strawberries last November and in mid-May; trust me. it's obvious. If nations aren't living up to their obligations it's likely to be because of national interests, which is the problem.

But there could also be restrictive labour laws, punitive taxation and vested interests, indeed the same things plaguing the pan-european economy at the moment. And for all the talk about a united Europe citizens of the accession states aren't going to enjoy full freedom of movement for sometime.

These things would have to be designed out, and I am talking about designing a new model. We don't want these things, so let's put that in the specification.

The European movement is an example of post-nationalism, and has made remarkable strides since WW2. We have actually seen leaders of sovereign nations compromising that sovereignty without a gun to the head, for the common good. There may be problems at the moment - we need someone to go postal at the ECB - because of nationalism and a worrying resurgence of racism but the accession will, I'm sure, prove itself beneficial within a decade. There's been a lot going on in the last 15 years - fall of The Wall, end of the Comintern, the break-up of the USSR, the Euro, expansion, developments in the Muslim communities, problems with the US - so a little quiet time is called for. But all in all the EU is a good example of what post-nationalism could achieve. If you'd known Spain and Portugal pre- and post-accession you'd know what I mean.

So what? Just because [patriotism] lacks a rational basis is that reason for it's elimination. Should art galleries be closed or deprived of public funding, because there is little rational basis for their existance?

Art galleries don't cause wars.

Some of us are doing quite well out of the current national model. Ireland, for instance. Norway and Switzerland would be two more.

Ireland and Norway are classic "peripheral" natural nations. Switzerland is a confederation of cantons, not a nation. It has three(?) official languages, apart from anything else. Like the US, it's an experiment that has a lot to teach us, and it's been running for a lot longer. Ireland, of course, has benefited greatly from membership of the post-national EU. It was a priest-ridden pit prior to that (but very pretty).

Nor would I accept that the Congo is an indictment of the nation state. An indictment of colonialism perhaps, but not of national sovreignty.

What do you see as the rationale behind the Congo? The borders were drawn up by imperialists with no reference to anything but other imperialists. There is no cultural, economic,tribal or linguistic homogeneity to it. The same is true all over Africa, where national boundaries and national structures have been imposed from offices in London and Paris and borders cut right through tribal, linguistic and cultural groups. As a result we have the Sudetan Syndrome over and over again. There's also little or no identification with the state by the people - or vice versa. The European idea of nation states simply does not work in places where there is a complex ethnic mix, as there is in much of the world.

The US separates from the empire, if we take the example of the revolutionary war. Ireland seperates from the British Empire could be considered another example.

I was asking what happens when conflicts arise between Federal and State institutions in the US. That has only led to (attempted) secession once, so there is clearly something else going on in the normal run of things. If we can understand why the US works we'll know better how to handle conflicts in the post-national new model.

People were prepared to fight and die for states' rights and the preservation of the Union. Personally I think we've a bit to much to lose for the sake of an experiment.

My point is that the US was an experiment at its inception, and it's that experiment we should try to learn from. It was, after all, created with the best of intentions (by the standards of the day, which we've moved on from).

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Mycroft : "The United States of Earth has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?"

When I was a little kid I saw re-runs of a Sci-Fi show called the "Outer Limits". There was a particular episode that had the forces of "The United Earth " ( who's emblem was a strikingly familiar icon of an earth globe against a light blue back ground ala the UN ) engaged in an interstellar battle with aliens. Ya that's original. The story line was that the war had been ongoing for countless years. and the protagonist was captured. He escaped and gained control of the aliens base.

The punchline was when he confronted the leader of the aliens, the alien stated that they had been conquered by the UE forces long ago and that the reason that the "war" was still on going was because the humans need an outlet for their homicidal urges...... Rollerball ( first incarnation).

If anyone has a clue as to how to elevate man form an ape with car keys, I am all ears.

Bread and circuses man, bread and circuses.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:

How artificial, CP?

A language had to be invented for it. It wasn't created where its designers had ever lived but on a different continent, in a different climate, amongst people - Jewish, Chriatian and Muslim -who had no affinity with the designers. In a land where the olive has been the mainstay of life for five thousand years its determination is to grub up every last tree. Just how much more artificial could it be? It's supposed to be a Jewish State, but it was only made possible by Christian Zionists who want shot of Jews. It claims to be the saviour of Jewishness but it has corrupted Jewishness to fit a European secular ideology and calls believers in traditional Jewishness "self-hating" (a particularly vicious term, since it gives licence to zionists to hate them in turn.) It co-operated with the Nazis to break the world-wide boycott of German goods, then calls critics Nazis. It has created a new state religion based on nationalism to replace the religion is claims as its justification.

You have nothing to say and you're saying it too loud.

 

[CapelDodger]

TillEulenspiegel: There are still cabinet posts available - do you fancy Secretary of State for Interplanetary Affairs? It's a light work-load.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Chaos:

Personally, I think that a world without nationalism would be such a good thing that it is worth trying, however bad the odds might be.

If we're going to have a feast of aphorisms (and I'm all in favour), remember "This, too, will pass". I take the long view of history and recognise that there's nothing special about the time I live in. All of human history may have been leading up to this point, but it sure as hell is going to carry on past it. Nationalism as an ideology and dominant principle of international affairs is a recent phaenomenon, born in one part of a continent that was the arbiter of the world for a while. There will be something that comes after, just as there will be something that follows fading European global dominance. (I include the US in this use of European.) Whatever it is will probably come about by default - after all, the JREF Forum is unlikely to ever earn the iconic status of the Roman one - but if we can come up with something better at least we can take comfort in the aphorism "Told you so".

The sight of a book called "The End of History" cracked me up. Reaganomics as the culmination of cultural advance, oh dear, the tears ran down my trouser-leg. As a hobby I write unpublishable sci-fi, and never, ever, anything pre-2300 when I'll be long gone. But if just a couple of my ideas actually turn out, I'll be a prophet. (They may not be published, but they'll exist in silico.) Frances Fukiyama has a better chance of being remembered in a few hundred years, even if unfairly (Knut gets a bad press; Fukiyama deserves worse).

 

[peptoabysmal]

It sounds like what you are proposing here is a Socialist Super-State. This is the way that EU is headed right now. The International Court would require a super-state in order to be functional. Any real court needs a government to define it's jurisdiction.

If this is what you are proposing, you can have it. Not for America, thank you.

As with any socialist state, eventually a super state will crumble under the weight of it's own bureaucracy.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The punchline was when he confronted the leader of the aliens, the alien stated that they had been conquered by the UE forces long ago and that the reason that the "war" was still on going was because the humans need an outlet for their homicidal urges...... Rollerball ( first incarnation).

If you liked that one, Alan Dean Foster wrote a series of books where humans become involved in an intergalactic war. In this series, humans are valuable because other sentient species are really bad at war, the norm being to become violently ill at even the thought of bringing harm to another sentient species. It goes on and on about how even the most pacifist human is more capable of violence than a normal “civilized” alien.

But enough derailing of the thread.