News Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

[Cyrus]

Immigration is an obvious issue; ignoring the decreasing rate of latin american immigration (and the increasing rate from elsewhere), the nationalistic idea that the US should be a closed-borders, "American"-only society is idiotic. This issue was hammered to death in another locked thread, so I'll leave immigration for now though I hope that it is apparent that nationalism acts only as a detriment.

You're right, it is idiotic to argue a straw man that no one said. Good job.

This is leading nowhere. Your nationalists will carry you nowhere.Your ultra nationalists will make things worse.

Who are you talking to here, or are you talking out loud in general?

How do we fix it? Remove the emphasis on nationalism. Stop calling the military valiant heroes. Take out the moral fluff when it is quite honestly not necessary. Improve the education system. Provide wide-ranging social benefit programs. Use the lowest-tier of society as a benchmark. Anger the hell out of the wealthiest citizens. Let the highest tier corporations leave should conditions suggest they should. Reform the country by rebuilding it. This time around, avoid nationalistic leaders that, whether for an ostensible or real reason, rouse the deep-seated nation-loving emotions too many people share.

(1) The people in the military are serving valiantly - I'm not sure if you're trying to imply otherwise.
(2) Educational funding - nothing wrong with that.
(3) Wide-Ranging social benefits programs? - Um...no. Not with my tax dollars.
(4) Anger the hell out of the wealthiest citizens? For what reason, and what is this going to accomplish. Sounds pretty stupid, and childish, to me.
(5) "Reform the country while rebuilding it" sounds like a nice talking point. Let's throw in "save the environment" and "no child left behind" while were at it.

Ah, and another important part: remove the Democracy for a temporary period of time, or else replace it with something more efficient.

...andddd...you've just discredited yourself.

Get the picture?

Got it, comrade. Think your ideas through more before posting next time.

 

[lompocus]

Cyrus, you seem to have zoned in on the similarities between what I suggest and communism. Terrible syllogism!

I used the United States as my example. In the US, it just so happens to be a major inspirational point - one to the point of irrationality, as you yourself are victim of (you mentioned "comrade"?).

A highly educated voting population can allow for a very speedy, efficient democracy. That is not what the case is in the United States.

As consequences of that major change, the government will be reformed (I used a limited example, sorry, I'll provide a 300-page exposition next time :P). Other things typically associated with an egalitarian society, at least the one I am suggesting, include significant nationalization of many industries - I don't mean to go as far as the Soviet Union went.

The issue is complex, but the end-goal should be an egalitarian society with a government designed to promote equal living. This is done by using the lowest group of society as the "benchmark" of success - this does not mean spending on such programs as No Child Left Behind at the expense of educational quality. A dictatorship is efficient. Should it be the transitional government? I can't say for sure now as independent qualities of the dictator are prime factors in this kind of rule.

You, however, should suggest a proper alternative instead of attacking an (admittedly, unoganized - hey, it was midnight :P) argument you fail to understand.

 

[Cyrus]

I used the United States as my example. In the US, it just so happens to be a major inspirational point - one to the point of irrationality, as you yourself are victim of (you mentioned "comrade"?).

Excuse me?

A highly educated voting population can allow for a very speedy, efficient democracy. That is not what the case is in the United States.

Okayyyy...

As consequences of that major change, the government will be reformed (I used a limited example, sorry, I'll provide a 300-page exposition next time :P). Other things typically associated with an egalitarian society, at least the one I am suggesting, include significant nationalization of many industries - I don't mean to go as far as the Soviet Union went.

Rightttttttttt, the government is the best person to run industries. Oooookayyyyyy.

The issue is complex, but the end-goal should be an egalitarian society with a government designed to promote equal living. This is done by using the lowest group of society as the "benchmark" of success - this does not mean spending on such programs as No Child Left Behind at the expense of educational quality. A dictatorship is efficient. Should it be the transitional government? I can't say for sure now as independent qualities of the dictator are prime factors in this kind of rule.

Okayyyy

You, however, should suggest a proper alternative instead of attacking an (admittedly, unoganized - hey, it was midnight :P) argument you fail to understand.

No, not really. I don't have to suggest jack squat to you. I'm not the one coming up with half-brained moronic ideas. BTW, I understand your argument - and I'm saying its stupid.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Cyrus, you seem to have zoned in on the similarities between what I suggest and communism. Terrible syllogism!

Syllogism? Analogy, perhaps?

 

[brainstorm]

Not true, as I stated, if people in another country are in pursuit of technological development that is beneficial to both countries, then such a partnership is perfectly fine.

Why should something have to be beneficial to anyone except the person/firm engaging in trade? What do their respective countries have to do with it?

Ummmm, ...because they typically paid for it...

But you're assuming that the trade relationship that allowed them to pay for it wasn't a favored relationship to start with.

They do have to take care of their own problems, don't expect others to solve all your woes. Apparently, you think everyone should be given handouts and free passes. That's your opinion, we are all entitled to one; however, don't think that makes you some sort of moral champion.

Then why shouldn't everyone have to build their own appliances from scratch, no matter where they live? Why should some people get privileged access to consume technology and other people have to "take care of their own problems?" Who's really getting the handout? The person who gets access to technology through national projects to forge relationships between innovators and consumers; or those who have to make due with neglect from technological innovators?

 

[Cyrus]

Why should something have to be beneficial to anyone except the person/firm engaging in trade? What do their respective countries have to do with it?

I think you are misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying anything about private parties. They can obviously do whatever they want. I'm talking about a government-government level using tax dollars.

But you're assuming that the trade relationship that allowed them to pay for it wasn't a favored relationship to start with.

I have no idea what this means. Americans pay taxes, which go to national labs that do scientific research. That research belongs to the country, and serves to benefit its people - who paid for it. If others want access to it, they can buy it (if its available for sale).

Then why shouldn't everyone have to build their own appliances from scratch, no matter where they live? Why should some people get privileged access to consume technology and other people have to "take care of their own problems?" Who's really getting the handout? The person who gets access to technology through national projects to forge relationships between innovators and consumers; or those who have to make due with neglect from technological innovators?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'get privileged access to consume technology'. I can buy a computer here in the USA, or that same computer in Europe, or Asia, or the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. You are arguing a straw man that simply doesn't exist. It's not about who can 'access' technology, it's about who can afford to buy it. Countries with no national investment can't afford to develop and 'buy' their own scientific research - stinks for them. They should get their act together and fix it, if they really care. It's easily doable, provided they have any form of industry to build it on. Got oil? Invest in scientific research for oil exploration. Use the profits to build up other areas of science. Got Ethanol? do the same. Got wind, ditto. Solar? You got it. Wanna sit back and twiddle your thumbs expecting me to bail your country out of the stone age? Don't count on it. And hey, guess what? Do a good job and we'll buy your technology.

Fundamentally, there is a finite amount of resources available to a (person, company, government, society). Of those resources, a fraction can be set aside for projects that involve helping other countries. It should be apparently obvious, then, that every dime invested should, ideally, yield the largest return. Both to the person investing, and the person receiving the money. I will happily invest in 3rd world country if it means they can build an infrastructure and produce a good or service. The people and government get a higher quality of living, with (ideally) fair wages, hours, and labor laws. In turn, I get to buy their product cheap because their relative economic dollar is low. Over time, their dollar can gain strength. Everyone wins. On the other hand, it would be quite moronic and irresponsible to entertain the notion handing out money like it grows on trees with no strings attached.