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

[cesiumfrog]

Thats just it, in the system you are describing my taxes are not being spent where I care. They would be spent where my government cared. In a world government the decision would be so far away from me that I would have little say where it would be spent. My tax rate is not the issue although it is something that I am concerned with. Right now the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world due to our less socialized system. Of course that will change soon enough. Free trade can be detrimental to my local economy if you outsource all of our jobs. This is fairly obvious if you just look at the current trends in the US. While I am in favor of participating in the world economy, I don't feel we should dive in without any regard to the affects that will be felt by our nation's citizens.

The issue of excessive patriotism/nationalism doesn't really need to be related to the concept of some hypothetical world government.

I know an old man who was raised in Japan but has lived elsewhere for the rest of his life and he journeys right around the world every six months (and has done for decades). His main base now is in the US, his most influential work (not to mention family) is probably in Australia, but he also has large roles in Belgium, Malaysia, .. That is the kind of person "citizen of the world" traditionally describes. A person with no allegiance to a single country against all others, but rather, with strong connections transcending national borders. Demonstrating there is no need for every person to be labelled with a nationality.

Whereas, you seem to be a patriot. You extend concern for all of your nation's citizens, and your concern stops at the border. (Your feelings of connection with your compatriots seem purely financially based, so maybe you could be persuaded if you were shown to benefit more from the global than national economy.) Anyway, I find it curious that you do not feel you should have the freedom, if you start your own business, to choose the better priced labour and the most efficient suppliers of materials. (Rather, you prefer to be forced to employ your fellow citizens even if they do a worse job at an outragous rate, so that the paycheck you write can be used to congest your roads with slightly bigger cars laden with slightly flatter TVs instead of lifting fellow human beings out of true poverty?)

 

[heusdens]

Is it possible for the developed nations to prop up all the undeveloped nations in the world? Is there any desire to do so?

Maybe not a vivid "desire" , but yes a neccessity, and also (in the broader sense) something that fits our best interest in the long run. The reason for that, I will explain briefly.
If underdeveloped nations can not develop in due time, we all face a time bomb, which is the rising population growth, caused mainly because poor nations and people procreate faster then in developed countries. More mouth to feed, more energy and resources needed to sustain their living. If we do not solve that problem, their numbers will even grow faster.
The quicker they can match our levels of economy and levels of social services, education and health care, the better we are all off, since this will reduce population growth.
So, our long time interests is that they can match up, become more developed and prosperous, so that this will reduce population growth. If not, we will face desperate conditions for millions and millions of people.

 

[brainstorm]

But the US and Mexico are separate nations. I have a policy on not playing the 'hypothetical' game. Let's stick to what are the given facts of a situation. Answering this will lead down speculation path of no return.

Nationalist realism ignores the fact that nationalism is an artificial, although elaborate, institutional superstructure. Saying the US and Mexico are separate nations is like saying that left and right are separate political leanings. They are insofar as political parties are defined relative to each other, but in reality politics is just people talking with each other. If the CSA had won the US civil war, the US would be at least two nations instead of one. If Germany would de-federalize like the former USSR, it could be numerous ethnic republics instead of one. If Basque separatists succeed in whatever they are trying to achieve, the EU might have more member states and the UN buildings have to move chairs in between rooms.

No - they're not. Illegals are not citizens. Your analysis is fundamentally wrong here.

And alcohol wasn't legal after the 18th amendment was passed. What's your point?

I see no explanation in this answer as to what is sensible about Gandhi's nonsense views on living a peasant lifestyle. Now, Ghandi did effectively eliminate the Untouchable class in the Indian class system, but that does not excuse his other positions. You state that if more people used their own labor instead of relying on others this would reduce class-conflict. This is a statement of fact, with no evidence on your part to support it - I don't buy it.

But you provide no grounds to think otherwise. I know for a fact that if kids pick up their own toys and clothes off the floor, their parents are less likely to attack them or take away privileges. Ever heard the parental expression, "I'm not your slave." That's because people don't like being other people's slave (usually at least - we'll leave my harem of love slaves out of the discussion)

Your analogy is improper: You've taken one of the longest extremes as the basis for comparison: New Yorkers can't really take a weekend-trip to LA but Parisians can take a weekend-trip to one of half a dozen different countries. The fact that they can't also take a weekend-trip to Moscow doesn't alter that reality.

My point is that cultural "distance" is imagined as more important than physical distance. Otherwise, the EU could be easily integrated into a single nation on the basis of geographical size. Instead people bicker over cultural differences and ethnic autonomy. Meanwhile, people give away practically all their cultural and economic autonomy at the individual level in favor of institutional conformity.

Heck, I have a girlfriend in Florida (I live just south of New York) and visit her once a month. The flight is 2:30 each way and costs about $200 round trip. The cheapest flight I see to Paris is about $750 and takes more than 7 hours. From Paris, 2:30 by plane covers almost all of Western Europe and part of Northern Africa - probably 2 dozen countries!

It seems like flights to EU used to cost around $300 but that may have been with student discount. Flights from New England to FL used to take longer, too, I believe. The travel times are relative to technology. In a few years, you might be able to get from NY to Paris in 2:30.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In a few years, you might be able to get from NY to Paris in 2:30.

Put some hard numbers on that and I might be willing to bet the princely sum of $1 against it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It seems like flights to EU used to cost around $300 but that may have been with student discount.

I can't figure out what "it seems" is supposed to mean here. Is this something you thought was true but aren't sure about, or what?

Flights from New England to FL used to take longer, too, I believe. The travel times are relative to technology. In a few years, you might be able to get from NY to Paris in 2:30.

On the basis of what? They tried supersonic planes, it didn't work. Flight times are pretty much exactly the same as they were thirty years ago, at least for transoceanic flights; the Boeing 747 went .9 mach in the 70's and it still does so today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications

Compare the 747-100 (released 1966) and the 747-8 (released 2005)

 

[brainstorm]

Put some hard numbers on that and I might be willing to bet the princely sum of $1 against it.

Only $1? Sounds like you're pretty sure I'm right. Of course, by that time $1 may buy a reasonable condominium.

I can't figure out what "it seems" is supposed to mean here. Is this something you thought was true but aren't sure about, or what?

It means I didn't save my receipts.

 

[Cyrus]

Nationalist realism ignores the fact that nationalism is an artificial, although elaborate, institutional superstructure. Saying the US and Mexico are separate nations is like saying that left and right are separate political leanings.

The US and Mexico are separate nations, whether you choose to accept this or not. They have different people, different cultures, legal systems, and constitutional laws. You keep playing this 'nationalism' card as if it's some Illuminati separatist cult.

They are insofar as political parties are defined relative to each other, but in reality politics is just people talking with each other. If the CSA had won the US civil war, the US would be at least two nations instead of one. If Germany would de-federalize like the former USSR, it could be numerous ethnic republics instead of one. If Basque separatists succeed in whatever they are trying to achieve, the EU might have more member states and the UN buildings have to move chairs in between rooms.

Okay...but we're not talking about any of those hypothetical situations, nor does it apply to what I said. Again - no hypotheticals.

And alcohol wasn't legal after the 18th amendment was passed. What's your point?

I don't know why you choose to ignore my complaint about your factually incorrect statement by bringing up alcohol and the 18th amendment - not particularly relevant. So again, please address my objection specifically, as my point was a fairly obvious one.

But you provide no grounds to think otherwise. I know for a fact that if kids pick up their own toys and clothes off the floor, their parents are less likely to attack them or take away privileges. Ever heard the parental expression, "I'm not your slave." That's because people don't like being other people's slave (usually at least - we'll leave my harem of love slaves out of the discussion)

Because I made no claims about living a peasant lifestyle - Gandhi did, and you supported it. Therefore, it is on you to support why you think this nonsensical viewpoint is true, not me to disprove it. Again, you're analogy to a child proves nothing here.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Only $1? Sounds like you're pretty sure I'm right.

Or I'm just poor.

 

[Cyrus]

Only $1? Sounds like you're pretty sure I'm right. Of course, by that time $1 may buy a reasonable condominium.

But you're not, and he just showed you why.

 

[wittgenstein]

There are no nations.

 

[Pattonias]

The issue of excessive patriotism/nationalism doesn't really need to be related to the concept of some hypothetical world government.

I know an old man who was raised in Japan but has lived elsewhere for the rest of his life and he journeys right around the world every six months (and has done for decades). His main base now is in the US, his most influential work (not to mention family) is probably in Australia, but he also has large roles in Belgium, Malaysia, .. That is the kind of person "citizen of the world" traditionally describes. A person with no allegiance to a single country against all others, but rather, with strong connections transcending national borders. Demonstrating there is no need for every person to be labelled with a nationality.

Whereas, you seem to be a patriot. You extend concern for all of your nation's citizens, and your concern stops at the border. (Your feelings of connection with your compatriots seem purely financially based, so maybe you could be persuaded if you were shown to benefit more from the global than national economy.) Anyway, I find it curious that you do not feel you should have the freedom, if you start your own business, to choose the better priced labour and the most efficient suppliers of materials. (Rather, you prefer to be forced to employ your fellow citizens even if they do a worse job at an outragous rate, so that the paycheck you write can be used to congest your roads with slightly bigger cars laden with slightly flatter TVs instead of lifting fellow human beings out of true poverty?)

You are attempting to paint me as someone who is merely concerned with my own well being but you don't have any idea. My concern is with maintaining the quality of life that my country has developed and earned, not merely with maintaining my own tv's flatness.
You make it sound rediculous that I am concerned with whether or not my neighbor can find a job or whether or my government chooses to spend my tax dollars where I and my fellow citizens feel it should be spent.


Your idealized Japanese man hypothetical or real doesn't really qualify in this discussion because a world citizen apparently requires the income level of his nation's elite to maintain the lifestyle that you have described. I enjoy travel and one day will be able to afford to travel around the world, but today as a college student 1,500 dollars on average just to get to Europe and back is a bit out of my reach. Perhaps you can afford to be a world citizen, but most of the world's citizens can not. You also take many stabs at the lifestyle of the average American, but I challenge you to look at which countries provide the most foreign aid to the most foreign places.

 

[brainstorm]

The US and Mexico are separate nations, whether you choose to accept this or not. They have different people, different cultures, legal systems, and constitutional laws. You keep playing this 'nationalism' card as if it's some Illuminati separatist cult.

You have your own set of annoyingly predictable "cards" you play such as the "no hypotheticals to drag irrationality out of the shadows" and the "anyone who criticizes anything is just playing a card to avoid submitting to norms of ruling class ideologies." You don't actually discuss things in discussions - you just try to twist the discussion in the direction that normalizes your beliefs and then insist that they are right because they're normal. In the game of truth, majority doesn't rule - truth does. The truth is that nations are only institutionalized as nations as a cultural-legal tradition. There is nothing inherently valid about them any more than any other arbitrary social tradition.

I don't know why you choose to ignore my complaint about your factually incorrect statement by bringing up alcohol and the 18th amendment - not particularly relevant. So again, please address my objection specifically, as my point was a fairly obvious one.

Because you talk about being "illegal" as if it was a physiological condition. It is a status attributed by current laws. Laws change. Therefore making arguments about the reason so-called "illegals" should be viewed as "illegal" is naturalizing the law in terms of the law, which is circular. If we were discussing slavery, you would say that escaped slaves have to be returned to their masters because "they are slaves." The logic is circular and undermines the whole abolitionist view that slaves should be allowed to escape because no person should be a slave in the first place. This is the same with anti-nationalism. Why should anyone be "illegal" to start with? If border-control is unethical to start with, no laws regulating it are ethical. Remember the Nuremberg defense was disallowed following WWII. "Just following orders" was not an excuse for violating ethics. The assumption is that the law must be ethical to be valid and if it isn't, it will (eventually) be revised to a more ethical standard and those who followed it when it was unethical will be held accountable for their (lack of) ethics.

Because I made no claims about living a peasant lifestyle - Gandhi did, and you supported it. Therefore, it is on you to support why you think this nonsensical viewpoint is true, not me to disprove it. Again, you're analogy to a child proves nothing here.

I don't have to prove or disprove anything. I was just telling you why Gandhi's view made sense. You're the one who will do any amount of rhetorical gymnastics to avoid seeing Gandhi's point. If you disagree, fine, that's you're prerogative. But don't sit there are pretend it's because of more than your own interest in maintaining a certain way of life and class-standards.

 

[brainstorm]

But you're not, and he just showed you why.

How could he show me why I'm wrong about the future possibility that NY-Paris will be possible in 2:30? How can you be proven wrong about a future prediction over an unspecified period of time? Even if it is the year 3000 before it happens, I'm pretty sure there will be people at some point getting between NY-Paris in less than 3 hours, maybe in under an hour.

 

[Cyrus]

You have your own set of annoyingly predictable "cards" you play such as the "no hypotheticals to drag irrationality out of the shadows" and the "anyone who criticizes anything is just playing a card to avoid submitting to norms of ruling class ideologies."

No, I don't waste my time on hypothetical: the fact that you must resort to them to try and make a point indicates to me that you cannot provide precise and exact evidence to support your nationalism claims. I have no problem with you criticizing something, provided you back it up with some good solid evidence.

You don't actually discuss things in discussions - you just try to twist the discussion in the direction that normalizes your beliefs and then insist that they are right because they're normal.

Again, no. I generally roll my eyes when I read stuff that comes off as crackpot.

In the game of truth, majority doesn't rule - truth does. The truth is that nations are only institutionalized as nations as a cultural-legal tradition. There is nothing inherently valid about them any more than any other arbitrary social tradition.

If you are going to make a statement like this, which from what I read here you are recognizing that nations are both culturally and legally different from other nations, then this does not jive with your earlier statements in this thread:

The simple fact is that national territorialism is maintained to ensure higher levels of privilege for some people and exclusion and relegation of others elsewhere for others.

Let's not say outlandish nonsense, and then try to backpedal later.

Because you talk about being "illegal" as if it was a physiological condition.

Being legal means just that, coming to this country via legal immigration means. What part of this don't you understand?

It is a status attributed by current laws. Laws change.

And currently, they are...illegal

Therefore making arguments about the reason so-called "illegals" should be viewed as "illegal" is naturalizing the law in terms of the law, which is circular.

What do you mean "so-called" - brainstorm, say this with me: "They are here illegally" this is not a 'so-called', it is a FACT. This is an absurd amount of liberal spin on your part.

If we were discussing slavery, you would say that escaped slaves have to be returned to their masters because "they are slaves."

Were not discussing slavery.

The logic is circular and undermines the whole abolitionist view that slaves should be allowed to escape because no person should be a slave in the first place. This is the same with anti-nationalism.

No one is talking about slaves: this is not even a comparable analogy here. - let's get back on topic.

Why should anyone be "illegal" to start with? If border-control is unethical to start with, no laws regulating it are ethical. Remember the Nuremberg defense was disallowed following WWII. "Just following orders" was not an excuse for violating ethics. The assumption is that the law must be ethical to be valid and if it isn't, it will (eventually) be revised to a more ethical standard and those who followed it when it was unethical will be held accountable for their (lack of) ethics.

Who said it is unethical, other than you? It is not unethical, and the fact that you are asking why anyone should be illegal to start with is beyond me. People and goods have to be regulated when moving across boarders - I can't imagine you not being able to see why this is so, you're not that stupid. (bringing up Nuremberg and WWII...really? Yet another wild tangent trying to play on the emotions for a lack of a cogent argument )

I don't have to prove or disprove anything. I was just telling you why Gandhi's view made sense. You're the one who will do any amount of rhetorical gymnastics to avoid seeing Gandhi's point. If you disagree, fine, that's you're prerogative. But don't sit there are pretend it's because of more than your own interest in maintaining a certain way of life and class-standards.

You made a claim about his point of view, then back it up - otherwise, don't bring it up. Again with this class-standards nonsense . You should try moving to North Korea, they like your radical views there.

 

[Cyrus]

How could he show me why I'm wrong about the future possibility that NY-Paris will be possible in 2:30? How can you be proven wrong about a future prediction over an unspecified period of time? Even if it is the year 3000 before it happens, I'm pretty sure there will be people at some point getting between NY-Paris in less than 3 hours, maybe in under an hour.

I love how you got it even down to the half hour - Great job Nostradamus!

Again, let's stop speculating. Want to say the travel time will be reduced, sure fine: but don't start giving me a time down to the half hour.

 

[brainstorm]

No, I don't waste my time on hypothetical: the fact that you must resort to them to try and make a point indicates to me that you cannot provide precise and exact evidence to support your nationalism claims. I have no problem with you criticizing something, provided you back it up with some good solid evidence.

You don't have a strong grasp of all forms of thinking. Hypothetical examples provide an unbiased comparison for evaluating something biased in an unbiased way. Patriotism biases people emotionally and cognitively in favor of national realism. If as many brainwashing techniques were devote to installing loyalty and faith in Mother Gaya as national institutions, people would cling just as dearly to that ideology. You are trying to exploit the normalization of nationalism in modern hegemony by refusing to compare hypotheticals.

Again, no. I generally roll my eyes when I read stuff that comes off as crackpot.

Again, nationalist realism. You are so obsessed with elevating the status of nationalism that you will call anyone who wants to regard it as just another social institution as crazy. If I was questioning the reality of fiscal stimulus programs or racial discrimination, would you call me crazy?

If you are going to make a statement like this, which from what I read here you are recognizing that nations are both culturally and legally different from other nations, then this does not jive with your earlier statements in this thread:

It's not that they aren't different. It's that it is irrelevant that they are. States can be compared and contrasted as well, as can businesses, families, individuals, books, etc. Just because two books are different doesn't mean they're not both books or that they both don't say similar things. To a chemistry teacher, two different chemistry books are probably worlds apart whereas a student probably couldn't tell the difference. Oh, sorry, I forgot you can't comprehend analogies. What I'm saying is that difference is relative and subjective.

Being legal means just that, coming to this country via legal immigration means. What part of this don't you understand?

The part where migration controls are constitutional. Slavery was legal too, for many years, but was eventually found to be inconsistent with the founding principles. Instead of bickering over existing laws, we should be discussing the fundamentals of why the US was created as an independent republic in the first place. Was it to create a protected global elite who could enjoy the privileges of international trade while limiting access to new citizens or was it for people to go someplace to live free and survive by their own labor?

And currently, they are...illegal

The same way escaped slaves were illegal, along with anyone who harbored them, when laws required slaves to be returned to their rightful owners. Further, do you realize the emancipation proclamation was declared as an executive act? Ok, the congress created an amendment later, but who is to say it was ethical to take those slave owners' property away from them like that? Are you capable of reasoning about ethics without reference to the law or are you only capable of seeing something as right or wrong by its legal status?

What do you mean "so-called" - brainstorm, say this with me: "They are here illegally" this is not a 'so-called', it is a FACT. This is an absurd amount of liberal spin on your part.

Half the republican party is so liberally spun at this point they think Lincoln and abolitionists were democrats.

Were not discussing slavery.

Migration control has nothing to do with labor rights?

Who said it is unethical, other than you? It is not unethical, and the fact that you are asking why anyone should be illegal to start with is beyond me. People and goods have to be regulated when moving across boarders - I can't imagine you not being able to see why this is so, your not that stupid. (bringing up Nuremberg and WWII...really? Yet another wild tangent trying to play on the emotions for a lack of a cogent argument )

Your only argument against any of my very relevant examples it to call them tangents. The question is if you're really interested in border regulation for constructive reasons, why don't you put those on the table instead of just making vague reference to them to try to prove you're right that nationalism is good? It's like you're more interested in winning than backing up your opinions with reason.

You made a claim about his point of view, then back it up - otherwise, don't bring it up. Again with this class-standards nonsense . You should try moving to North Korea, they like your radical views there.

"Love it or leave it," huh, Nationalist? People who think like you make me laugh because when you finally win the argument, which is of course pre-determined by the amount of inertia behind nationalism, then you insist that the point of the US nation is democracy and having a free republic. In reality, you just want the US to be a national-socialist totalitarian regime with zero-tolerance for democracy or any kind of freedom unless you're rich enough to live without being employed. The constitution is wasted protecting views like yours.

 

[brainstorm]

I love how you got it even down to the half hour - Great job Nostradamus!

Again, let's stop speculating. Want to say the travel time will be reduced, sure fine: but don't start giving me a time down to the half hour.

Speculating would be if I said, "maybe at some point faster planes will be developed." What I am saying here is that it is more than likely that air travel times will decrease in the future based on historical trends of technological progress. Besides, the point is not about transit times - it is about using geography as a logic for drawing national boundaries. Like I said, if that was the case then the EU could fuse into a single nation. When that was attempted, it was exceedingly unpopular.

 

[Cyrus]

You don't have a strong grasp of all forms of thinking. Hypothetical examples provide an unbiased comparison for evaluating something biased in an unbiased way.

• You - claim: nationalism is really just there to separate people and maintain a standard of living
• Me - ok, provide me some evidence as to how you have arrived at this conclusion.
• You - well, let's make up a bunch of hypothetical senarios

I'm sorry, brainstorm, but it just doest work this way.

Patriotism biases people emotionally and cognitively in favor of national realism. If as many brainwashing techniques were devote to installing loyalty and faith in Mother Gaya as national institutions, people would cling just as dearly to that ideology. You are trying to exploit the normalization of nationalism in modern hegemony by refusing to compare hypotheticals.

I'm not refusing anything, I've simply said (for the millionth time now), for you to provide evidence of this without your hypothetical arguments.

Again, nationalist realism. You are so obsessed with elevating the status of nationalism that you will call anyone who wants to regard it as just another social institution as crazy. If I was questioning the reality of fiscal stimulus programs or racial discrimination, would you call me crazy?

No, I'm calling your posts crazy and nonsense. If someone else wants to argue your very same position with better evidence, I will be more than willing to listen. No one is questioning the reality of fiscal stimulus or racial discrimination -stop trying to shift focus.

It's not that they aren't different. It's that it is irrelevant that they are. States can be compared and contrasted as well, as can businesses, families, individuals, books, etc. Just because two books are different doesn't mean they're not both books or that they both don't say similar things.

But its not irrelevant that they are different - you just think they are. This is incorrect from a legal standpoint.

To a chemistry teacher, two different chemistry books are probably worlds apart whereas a student probably couldn't tell the difference. Oh, sorry, I forgot you can't comprehend analogies. What I'm saying is that difference is relative and subjective.

Two chemistry books are not worlds apart if they both explain the same theory. Your analogy is horribly wrong. Le Chatelier's principle is Le Chatelier's principle, no matter who the author of the book is.

The part where migration controls are constitutional. Slavery was legal too, for many years, but was eventually found to be inconsistent with the founding principles. Instead of bickering over existing laws, we should be discussing the fundamentals of why the US was created as an independent republic in the first place. Was it to create a protected global elite who could enjoy the privileges of international trade while limiting access to new citizens or was it for people to go someplace to live free and survive by their own labor?

Ugh, again with this slavery nonsense? Look - stop. Slavery was perfectly legal until it was eradicated by constitutional amendment. The way you described it is dishonest, at best. The US is not, and never was, created to be a place where anyone and anything could openly flow through its boarders. Pick up a history book, and read it.

The same way escaped slaves were illegal, along with anyone who harbored them, when laws required slaves to be returned to their rightful owners. Further, do you realize the emancipation proclamation was declared as an executive act? Ok, the congress created an amendment later, but who is to say it was ethical to take those slave owners' property away from them like that? Are you capable of reasoning about ethics without reference to the law or are you only capable of seeing something as right or wrong by its legal status?

I wasn't aware 100 year old dead slaves were coming back to life in zombie form and crossing our boarders to do day labor.

Half the republican party is so liberally spun at this point they think Lincoln and abolitionists were democrats.

Why is this relevant?

Migration control has nothing to do with labor rights?

We're not talking about slavery.

Your only argument against any of my very relevant examples it to call them tangents. The question is if you're really interested in border regulation for constructive reasons, why don't you put those on the table instead of just making vague reference to them to try to prove you're right that nationalism is good? It's like you're more interested in winning than backing up your opinions with reason.

Please, do tell me what opinions I've stated thus far (Look closely, you'll find I've actually made none, only complained about yours!)

"Love it or leave it," huh, Nationalist? People who think like you make me laugh because when you finally win the argument, which is of course pre-determined by the amount of inertia behind nationalism, then you insist that the point of the US nation is democracy and having a free republic. In reality, you just want the US to be a national-socialist totalitarian regime with zero-tolerance for democracy or any kind of freedom unless you're rich enough to live without being employed. The constitution is wasted protecting views like yours.

Actually, I am quite a big fan of the constitution, which thanks to the 1st amendment, allow even the crackpots to voice their opinions. However, that doesn't mean the rest of us don't just roll our eyes in the process. Come back and play when you have an argument, and not an agenda.

 

[brainstorm]

• You - claim: nationalism is really just there to separate people and maintain a standard of living
• Me - ok, provide me some evidence as to how you have arrived at this conclusion.
• You - well, let's make up a bunch of hypothetical senarios

I'm sorry, brainstorm, but it just doest work this way.

What other purpose does nationalism have then? To create a social bond among people? Why not have a single global nation then so everyone can bond? What else? A common language? Why not have a national language instead of freedom of speech and culture then? What kind of "evidence" do you expect?

No, I'm calling your posts crazy and nonsense. If someone else wants to argue your very same position with better evidence, I will be more than willing to listen. No one is questioning the reality of fiscal stimulus or racial discrimination -stop trying to shift focus.

But you're not giving any grounds for refuting anything I say. All you're doing is rejecting things I say and claiming the burden of reason is on me. You're basically exploiting the fact that nationalism goes relatively unquestioned by trying to discredit any questioning of it. That's different than validating it. You are basically trying to avoid validating it by normalizing it. That's not a strategy based in any kind of reason.

But its not irrelevant that they are different - you just think they are. This is incorrect from a legal standpoint.

Laws are institutionalized beliefs. Again, you're trying to use the law to justify the belief it institutionalizes. You can't say that taxes are the law, therefore it makes sense for the government to expect people to give a certain amount of their income. There has to be an antecedent reason to justify the belief the law institutionalizes. Otherwise it's just circular logic.

Ugh, again with this slavery nonsense? Look - stop. Slavery was perfectly legal until it was eradicated by constitutional amendment. The way you described it is dishonest, at best. The US is not, and never was, created to be a place where anyone and anything could openly flow through its boarders. Pick up a history book, and read it.

It was not dishonest at worst. It was total usurpation of the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. If colonial rulers had treated the colonists that way, they would have claimed it to be in violation of their inalienable rights. The same is true of westward expansion. If people living in the west had required following legal procedures to move west, people would not have accepted it. Americans have always migrated wherever they wanted and what right do they have from excluding other people from doing the same?

Actually, I am quite a big fan of the constitution, which thanks to the 1st amendment, allow even the crackpots to voice their opinions. However, that doesn't mean the rest of us don't just roll our eyes in the process. Come back and play when you have an argument, and not an agenda.

How's this: separating the global economy into separate national regions with different labor laws and currencies allows people living in some national regions to attain a material standard of living higher than people living in others. It also promotes social and cultural separation and control that reduces individual freedom to go and do where they please.

 

[Cyrus]

What other purpose does nationalism have then?

Nationalism functions based on a social contract between the people and the government. The people put their trust in the government; thereby giving up some of their free-will, for the return of security and protection. This is a Government 101 question you've asked me, I can't imagine you're not being facetious here.

To create a social bond among people? Why not have a single global nation then so everyone can bond?

Because not all people share the same language, religion, or cultural values. For what reason do we need to be a 'global nation'. You need to think the ramifications of this through a little more, at a more serious level. Put all the cultural nonsense aside, how will you do this from a legal standpoint (Hint: you can't, and wont).

What else? A common language? Why not have a national language instead of freedom of speech and culture then? What kind of "evidence" do you expect?

...Why not have a national language instead of freedom of speech and culture... Oyi, where to begin. First, there is no such thing as freedom of 'culture'. Furthermore, a national language has no bearing, nor is even related to, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and a national language are apples and oranges.

But you're not giving any grounds for refuting anything I say. All you're doing is rejecting things I say and claiming the burden of reason is on me.

Because it's all baseless. You claimed nationalism is to inherently exploit other people, so back it up. It's not my problem if you cant. Next time, hopefully, you won't make such a statement.

You're basically exploiting the fact that nationalism goes relatively unquestioned by trying to discredit any questioning of it. That's different than validating it. You are basically trying to avoid validating it by normalizing it. That's not a strategy based in any kind of reason.

Honestly, enough with the conspiracy theory stuff. Like I said, you want to question it - fine, by all means knock yourself out. But please have the information to support it. I suggest you spend half the time and effort replying to me about my probing you for information, and use that to produce some actual evidence. What is the point of 'questioning' something, if you are not going to take the time to find the answers? Seems to me you just want to put your idea out there and hope it popularizes without doing any of the legwork.

Laws are institutionalized beliefs. Again, you're trying to use the law to justify the belief it institutionalizes.

You don't like a law, change it. But don't pick and choose which laws you want to view as legitimate - you won't win this argument because its a wrong one to hold.

You can't say that taxes are the law, therefore it makes sense for the government to expect people to give a certain amount of their income.

Did I say taxes are the law? Did I mention taxes anywhere, at any point prior to this post? It makes sense if you have any basic understanding of the function and relationship between the government and its citizens (I outlined this at the very start of this post, I suggest you go back and reread it at this point).

There has to be an antecedent reason to justify the belief the law institutionalizes. Otherwise it's just circular logic.

It's called the will of the people, we elect representatives to institute laws, provided said law falls within the guidelines of the US constitution.

It was not dishonest at worst. It was total usurpation of the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. If colonial rulers had treated the colonists that way, they would have claimed it to be in violation of their inalienable rights. The same is true of westward expansion. If people living in the west had required following legal procedures to move west, people would not have accepted it. Americans have always migrated wherever they wanted and what right do they have from excluding other people from doing the same?

I am holding back from answering your question on life, liberty, and happiness, because I am not going to make this thread go off topic about past American history. Moving forward, Americans migrated where they wanted to, by force. Now, if the day laborers want to try and rebel against the government for citizenship and win, then that's their prerogative. But to sit here and make it sound as if Americans took a horse and buggy and just went out west, has no historical basis. Heck, some of it was purchased thanks to Jefferson, and Johnson.

How's this: separating the global economy into separate national regions with different labor laws and currencies allows people living in some national regions to attain a material standard of living higher than people living in others. It also promotes social and cultural separation and control that reduces individual freedom to go and do where they please.

That is a claim. What are you basing this on? Why are you ignoring internal factors, such as type of government, possible religious or ethnic oppression, level of industrialization, education, cost of living, and the list goes on...again, there's just no basis to anything you say.

 

[cesiumfrog]

You are attempting to paint me as someone who is merely concerned with my own well being but you don't have any idea.

I'm sorry, I don't intend to polarise our discussion in that way.

My concern is with maintaining the quality of life that my country has developed and earned, not merely with maintaining my own tv's flatness.

How can you possibly say your country has "earned" such a higher state of development? I suspect your higher state actually has more to do with a history of prodigious utilisation of fossil power reserves than it has with the work ethic of the populace. But even if I'm wrong about that, it wasn't you who earned it, you were just lucky to have inherited it (rather than to have been born to somewhere else so to say, it certainly wasn't you who advised your ancestors migration).

The more important philosophical question is: why do you mostly say you are concerned with the quality of life of your "country"?? Why don't you say "suburb" instead of country? I think almost nobody does, whether we move suburbs or not, we never emblazen ourselves with the symbols of our suburb. Why don't you say "planet" (or even "race" or "gender") instead of country? Actually, "district/electorate" would be a good choice according to the justification you've suggested, since it has an exclusive representative in government (analogous to how each nation's interests are represented on the international stage), yet most people vote on the basis of preferred national-scale party affiliation (indicating concern for the interests of the nation foremost) rather than seriously considering which candidate might better serve the sole interests of the smaller electorate region alone. (Does anyone even know where the borders of their electorate are?)

You make it sound rediculous that I am concerned with whether or not my neighbor can find a job or whether or my government chooses to spend my tax dollars where I and my fellow citizens feel it should be spent.

(Is that the American spelling of ridiculous? .. lol, just googled it: how-to-spell-ridiculous.com rants "why do so many people spell it rediculous? Subtle, maybe even unconscious, communist sympathies? ..")
Look, your neighbour is fine. She lives in a land of opportunity. The police will protect here from threat of violence. Social welfare will protect her from homelessness and starvation, and treat her sicknesses. Even if she loses her job, and has to forgo a few luxuries while she learns a skill that is more useful to the community, she is comfortable and far from danger. Your concern for her is unnecessary. But we can't say this for all of your fellow human beings.

Now, you don't object to your tax dollars being spent outside of your own small district. So why are you obsessed with whether they serve the sole interests of your countrymen rather than the common interests of your continent?

Why are you preoccupied with the wishes of your countrymen, rather than of mankind (or exclusively your local neighbourhood)? Why do you feel national borders should be where you draw the line?

And have you considered the consequences of choosing to draw the line there? It isn't a zero sum game. For example, the rest of the world is starting to benefit from the development of China. Another example, we have seen time and again that birth rates drop after child mortality is addressed, so dealing with world poverty is the solution to the world population crisis (which otherwise stands to hurt your country, because they all share the same environment). Third, do you understand "comparative advantage" in economics (that perhaps contrary to intuition, both sides benefit from trade interaction)? A rising tide lifts all boats. Fourth: I hear the cost of the war (can we call it that if war hasn't been declared?) in Afghanistan is equivalent to a quarter century of their GDP. Imagine how effective that money might of been if they were viewed as fellow men rather than competitors to your nation. If someone were willing to give half as much as I expect to earn in my whole lifetime, just to win my "heart and mind", I reckon I'd be listening to them pretty sympathetically provided they didn't just spend it all on force..

Your idealized Japanese man hypothetical or real doesn't really qualify in this discussion because a world citizen apparently requires the income level of his nation's elite to maintain the lifestyle that you have described. I enjoy travel and one day will be able to afford to travel around the world, but today as a college student 1,500 dollars on average just to get to Europe and back is a bit out of my reach. Perhaps you can afford to be a world citizen, but most of the world's citizens can not.

Did you deliberately write "his nation"? Which nation would that be? My whole point was the fallacy of ascribing a single country to each person. Anyway, he isn't what you would consider wealthy (though of course he is an exceptional individual). It might be fairly expensive to travel the world as a tourist (though I think you are exagerating since my "below the national poverty line" student stipend was able to take me as far as Japan and back) but I recommend you instead go and find work overseas for six months or so (this pays for itself, and is far more likely than superficial tourism to build true personal connections that transcend national boundaries).

You also take many stabs at the lifestyle of the average American, but I challenge you to look at which countries provide the most foreign aid to the most foreign places.

Go look up the stats, per capita (or as a percentage of GDP).

 

[ThomasT]

The fallacy here is to try to identify some optimal scale of organisation when what actually matters is things are organised across all scales.

Societies are organised on the principle of competition~co-operation.

From the bottom-up comes the individuating or differentiating tendency. The expression of freedoms to do things that are perceived of local benefit. People are in competition, towns are in competition, nations are in competition, and this can be good - enterprising and creative. It produces the necessary variety which allows adaptive learning in a system.

Then from the top-down comes the collectivising or integrating tendency. This is also good when it works. People work together, towns work together, nations work together. There emerge common constraints, general laws, that act downwards to produce co-operation. What gets locally invented can become generally practiced as an adaptive habit.

So an organised society, or organised world, would find this balance between competition and co-operation across all scales. They would be in dynamic equilibrium.

This is the general principle. Both tendencies are necessary, even if they appear mutually opposed. (In fact, they are synergistic - oppositions that produce a complex adaptive system.)

Patriotism and nationalism are just a particular scale of competition that arose once human societies became large enough to bump into their neighbours. And co-operation also needs to be negotiated at this scale. Trade is as old as warfare. The exchange of ideas just as old as the rejection of them.

The evolution of the adaptive system at this level has not been smooth. We have been through a lot of competition-dominated times - all those world wars. And with globalisation, the EU, human rights charter, and other trends, some could say there is now too much co-operation going on.

But anyway, it is essential to see that you have two tendencies that need to strike a balance at any scale of social organisation. And it is a dynamic pragamatic balance, not some absolute one.

Which then leads to another bigger issue - is the system stable or growing? You can have stable equilibriums and also growing or accelerating ones.

An example of a society with a strong stability ethic was confucian China. Confucianism is explicitly a systems philosophy (the locally good, in the terms of smart and inventive scholars, can rise to the top of ths system, while those at the top had great responsibility to look after their subjects - not that they always did, but we are talking about the philosophy).

An example of a society with a strong growth ethic is the anglo-saxon one. Growth was unlocked by technology. First coal, then oil, were harnessed by technology to create a new growth based social system.

The same general competition~co-operation dynamic applied. But the settings were subtly different. Well, not so subtly I guess.

But anyway, when asking about patriotism and nationalism (the proper place for competition, and thus proper place for co-operation at this scale of social organisation) we then have to consider the further question of should the system ideally be steady-state or freely growing?

If you feel there are no limits to energy and resources, then free growth can be the goal (and you can set your competition~co-operation settings accordingly). Otherwise...you can't.

As usual, this reply of yours seems deeper and broader in scope than anything I could come up with. So, assuming that you've identified some pertinent corollaries to the OP, then also assuming that patriotism and nationalism will remain relevant, then how do we minimize the possible negative effects of those natural and predictable orientations and maximize the involvement in a more cooperative internationalistic agenda? That is, what do you see as the primary problem confronting humanity? And, how should we address it?

Of course, it follows that if we, all of us humans, are working toward a common goal, then our patriotic and nationalistic 'tendencies' will be necessarily minimized for at least as long as it takes to, collectively, reach that goal.

I think the answer lies in the collective exploitation of solar energy. What do you think, apeiron?

Wrt to the OP, are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world? Of course. Is that necessarily a good thing? Of course not.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Using just government foreign aid numbers is silly. Private donations can account for a large amount of cash, and also is more likely to be spent on actual charity. As an example

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.

Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation typically through the charity of individual people and organizations can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

* International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
* Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
* American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
* Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
* US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
* Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000

And then it goes on to breakdown how in 2004 private giving had raised to 71 billion dollars

 

[Cyrus]

As usual, this reply of yours seems deeper and broader in scope than anything I could come up with. So, assuming that you've identified some pertinent corollaries to the OP, then also assuming that patriotism and nationalism will remain relevant, then how do we minimize the possible negative effects of those natural and predictable orientations and maximize the involvement in a more cooperative internationalistic agenda?

First false assumption: Why do you assume out of the gate that they are predictive and negative cooperations?

That is, what do you see as the primary problem confronting humanity? And, how should we address it?

Sustaining 6 billion people at a middle class standard of living.

I think the answer lies in the collective exploitation of solar energy. What do you think, apeiron?

This is pure nonsense. Based on what, because its the cool word to throw around these days?

Wrt to the OP, are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world? Of course. Is that necessarily a good thing? Of course not.

Wrong answer, again. Why do you assume it's not a good thing?

 

[apeiron]

I think the answer lies in the collective exploitation of solar energy. What do you think, apeiron?

Wrt to the OP, are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world? Of course. Is that necessarily a good thing? Of course not.

Thanks Thomas. My general approach would be to "follow the money". To understand geopolitics, you look to the economic engine, and then to what fuels it. If energy is free and cheap (after externalities like pollution, etc, are taken into account), the world can be in a free growth mode. If energy becomes constrained and expensive, the world will enter some new state. Everything else we may believe is fixed about the world will in fact be shaped by the flow of energy through the system.

So globalisation has been a natural part of the growth phase. And if we go into energy descent - a constrained energy situation - then we can expect the reverse. Relocalisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns

If the contraction is stong, even national level organisation may begin to unravel. We could head back to provinces and city states as the prime level of affiliation and patriotism.

 

[Cyrus]

Thanks Thomas. My general approach would be to "follow the money". To understand geopolitics, you look to the economic engine, and then to what fuels it. If energy is free and cheap (after externalities like pollution, etc, are taken into account), the world can be in a free growth mode. If energy becomes constrained and expensive, the world will enter some new state. Everything else we may believe is fixed about the world will in fact be shaped by the flow of energy through the system.

So globalisation has been a natural part of the growth phase. And if we go into energy descent - a constrained energy situation - then we can expect the reverse. Relocalisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns

If the contraction is stong, even national level organisation may begin to unravel. We could head back to provinces and city states as the prime level of affiliation and patriotism.

There is plenty of clean energy for generations to come, namely, nuclear power (and it will be coming back as fossil fuels start to run low).

 

[ThomasT]

First false assumption: Why do you assume out of the gate that they are predictive and negative cooperations?

Their predictability seems self evident. Their negativity follows from their necessarily exclusive orientation -- which, I'm assuming, necessarily precipitates conflict with other exclusive entities. If we continue to emphasize our differences and artificial dividing lines rather than the common problems that we face as a species, then I think we are in for a very very difficult time in the not too distant future.

Sustaining 6 billion people at a middle class standard of living.

The problem will most assuredly get worse than this. Envision an America circa 2100 with 100 million people living in shantytowns with no electricity.

This is pure nonsense. Based on what, because its the cool word to throw around these days?

My guess is that the availability of electricity will be one of the primary differentiators between the haves and the have nots in the latter part of this century -- unless we begin to seriously address it now.

Nuclear power. Ridiculous. It's not going to happen. For god's sake, we have a virtually unlimited supply of absolutely clean energy impinging on us every day. I personally think that the technology will continue to advance to the extent that, maybe even in my lifetime, the average home will be able to supply all of its electrical needs via conversion of solar to electrical energy -- the virtual obsolescence of the current 'electrical grid(s)'.

This is where I think we should be putting large sums of money into research and development. There's lots of money to be made wrt this. Unfortunately it also puts some very big players, and their infrastructures, on the sideline. So, I'm not optimistic. I think that the likely scenario is that we'll put off seriously collectively dealing with the problem until it's effectively too late. And then it will just be too late. And you'll have hundreds of millions living in shantytowns. But of course the hundreds of millions not living in shantytowns won't give a s**t. Pretty much like it is today, except with much much more poverty and suffering.

Wrong answer, again. Why do you assume it's not a good thing?

Because it's simple minded and exclusionary. Am I really any different from somebody who happened to be born and is living in Nigeria or Romania or Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever? Don't we all have a common goal? Don't the masses of the world simply want to be left alone to do their work and raise their families? Who is it that interferes with what might be a wonderful common equilibrium among most human beings who just want to experience the simple joys of life?

 

[Cyrus]

Their predictability seems self evident. Their negativity follows from their necessarily exclusive orientation -- which, I'm assuming, necessarily precipitates conflict with other exclusive entities. If we continue to emphasize our differences and artificial dividing lines rather than the common problems that we face as a species, then I think we are in for a very very difficult time in the not too distant future.

I see no reason to support this assumption, competition is always a good thing and it drives innovation, and, there is no reason why countries can't and don't already work together - they do, on a daily basis.

The problem will most assuredly get worse than this. Envision an America circa 2100 with 100 million people living in shantytowns with no electricity.

Why would I imagine a nonsensical hypothetical such as this?

My guess is that the availability of electricity will be one of the primary differentiators between the haves and the have nots in the latter part of this century -- unless we begin to seriously address it now.

Ummm...what? Nuclear energy can provide all the power we need for a long time. Are you implying that people are not addressing it now? If so, you're wrong.

Nuclear power. Ridiculous. It's not going to happen. For god's sake, we have a virtually unlimited supply of absolutely clean energy impinging on us every day. I personally think that the technology will continue to advance to the extent that, maybe even in my lifetime, the average home will be able to supply all of its electrical needs via conversion of solar to electrical energy -- the virtual obsolescence of the current 'electrical grid(s)'.

Yes, we do. It's called nuclear energy and it is clean. Solar energy is not the panacea you make it out to be. The only thing that holds back nuclear power is people completely ignorant about the technology - hint.

This is where I think we should be putting large sums of money into research and development. There's lots of money to be made wrt this. Unfortunately it also puts some very big players, and their infrastructures, on the sideline. So, I'm not optimistic. I think that the likely scenario is that we'll put off seriously collectively dealing with the problem until it's effectively too late. And then it will just be too late. And you'll have hundreds of millions living in shantytowns. But of course the hundreds of millions not living in shantytowns won't give a s**t. Pretty much like it is today, except with much much more poverty and suffering.

This is moronic.

Because it's simple minded and exclusionary. Am I really any different from somebody who happened to be born and is living in Nigeria or Romania or Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever? Don't we all have a common goal? Don't the masses of the world simply want to be left alone to do their work and raise their families? Who is it that interferes with what might be a wonderful common equilibrium among most human beings who just want to experience the simple joys of life?

Let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Yes, you are very different from many other people and cultures - this isn't a bad thing.

 

[brainstorm]

Nationalism functions based on a social contract between the people and the government. The people put their trust in the government; thereby giving up some of their free-will, for the return of security and protection. This is a Government 101 question you've asked me, I can't imagine you're not being facetious here.

So you're saying the point of the US constitution is to provide a social contract to limit individual freedoms instead of protect them? Which parts should I re-read to get which freedoms are enumerated for sacrifice?

Because not all people share the same language, religion, or cultural values. For what reason do we need to be a 'global nation'. You need to think the ramifications of this through a little more, at a more serious level. Put all the cultural nonsense aside, how will you do this from a legal standpoint (Hint: you can't, and wont).

You are right that separatist interests are powerful and there is always a great deal of resistance to any attempt to forge a merger between nationalized regional governments. The EU is supposed to be trying, along with other supernational entities, but the obstacle is ethnic identity and the propaganda that spreads fear of mixing with ethnic-national "others."

In practice, several developments are resulting in diminishing significance of nationalist separatism. The first is the fact that there is decreasing interest globally in challenging military hegemony. People would rather cooperate, for the most part, with a national government perceived as strong/dominant than to stand up against it with military force. So, in that sense, most national governments exercise power to harmonize their policies with the interests of other national governments, provided those don't conflict. This could, theoretically at least, lead to global consensus among national governments, which would be the same in practice as having a single global government.

Second, in a peaceful multinational global world, there becomes increasingly less reason to prevent intermigration among nationalized regions. Thus evolves the logic of multi-cultural or multi-national regions, depending on how much resistance and hostility there is to ethnic intermingling among the individuals involved. When hostile nationalist movements emerge in a region, this serves as a deterrent to voluntary migration to that area. To many nationalists, this probably seems positive, the way KKK supporters saw it as positive to create a hostile climate toward 'non-whites' in order to deter the development of multi-ethnic neighborhoods. However, there is also a global ideology forming that dislikes nationalist hostility toward "foreigners" and thus it is possible that regions where such hostilities are evident will become stigmatized the way discriminatory racism has become stigmatized.

...Why not have a national language instead of freedom of speech and culture... Oyi, where to begin. First, there is no such thing as freedom of 'culture'. Furthermore, a national language has no bearing, nor is even related to, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and a national language are apples and oranges.

Freedom of culture is fundamental in the concept of a republic, where the people are free to govern themselves. Freedom of religion (separation of church and state) is also cultural freedom. Freedom of speech (freedom from censorship) is also cultural freedom. Which form of culture do you presume is NOT protected by the US constitution? Also, why would you think that speech in any language wouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment?

Because it's all baseless. You claimed nationalism is to inherently exploit other people, so back it up. It's not my problem if you cant. Next time, hopefully, you won't make such a statement.

I don't know that it's inherent. I think it's just what happens in practice, and it is part of the reason people seek strong national protection (i.e. to avoid exploitation), and it allows people to be segregated into separate labor markets, which promotes exploitation of one labor market while protecting workers in others from the same conditions. Unemployed people in the US and EU, for example, are prevented from seeking employment in Asia. Similarly, workers in Asia would would like to move to the US or EU to take advantage of better labor conditions, minimum wage, etc. are prevented from doing so. If people living in the US and EU are benefiting economically from oppressive labor conditions in Asia, how is this not nationalism facilitating labor exploitation?

Honestly, enough with the conspiracy theory stuff. Like I said, you want to question it - fine, by all means knock yourself out. But please have the information to support it. I suggest you spend half the time and effort replying to me about my probing you for information, and use that to produce some actual evidence. What is the point of 'questioning' something, if you are not going to take the time to find the answers? Seems to me you just want to put your idea out there and hope it popularizes without doing any of the legwork.

The evidence is common everyday knowledge. It's the interpretation of it you are fighting over. And what I don't understand is why you don't just discuss it openly and directly instead of resorting to posturing and put-downs. That only makes discussion more tedious.

You don't like a law, change it. But don't pick and choose which laws you want to view as legitimate - you won't win this argument because its a wrong one to hold.

You don't have to change the law to evaluate it as incorrect on various grounds. An unjust law may not change in your lifetime, but that doesn't magically make it just or ethical, does it? Sure, you can argue for pragmatism - i.e. it's not going to change so just accept it. Or you can say that whether it is going to change or not it is unacceptable. Some people can live with ethical consciousness while others have to put on blinders to live in the dream that corruption is absent. If you're one of the latter, there's no real point in engaging in political discussions. You'd be happier doing other things that don't involve conflicting points of view.

Did I say taxes are the law? Did I mention taxes anywhere, at any point prior to this post? It makes sense if you have any basic understanding of the function and relationship between the government and its citizens (I outlined this at the very start of this post, I suggest you go back and reread it at this point).

I used taxes to illustrate my point. Apparently, you want to block yourself from understanding my point enough to avoid understanding the illustration. That or you're just not capable of thinking on very many levels. The point was that you can't say that a tax is legitimate because it is the law. The tax has to have a purpose, a reason, etc. that you agree with. It's the same with any law. The fact that it is a law doesn't legitimate it. It has to be a just, ethical, etc. law - otherwise it makes no sense to defend it as being the law.

It's called the will of the people, we elect representatives to institute laws, provided said law falls within the guidelines of the US constitution.

The question is why it falls within the guidelines of the constitution to repress people's right to live in the US. Do state governments have the right to impose migration controls? If so, maybe international migration is a state issue. I don't know what the constitution says about any of this exactly, but I do know that it is supposed to check "the will of the people" where individual rights are being abridged. Sorry to bring up slavery again, since it seems to make you uncomfortable, but do you remember that the Kansas-Nebraska act made slavery allowable by majority vote at the state level (i.e. the will of the people) - and this is supposedly what instigated Lincoln to address slavery as a universal issue of inalienable rights?

Moving forward, Americans migrated where they wanted to, by force. Now, if the day laborers want to try and rebel against the government for citizenship and win, then that's their prerogative. But to sit here and make it sound as if Americans took a horse and buggy and just went out west, has no historical basis. Heck, some of it was purchased thanks to Jefferson, and Johnson.

But didn't many individuals simply pack up a covered wagon and trek west? Wasn't this validated by the ideology of "manifest destiny?" I should research the details of this because I just have a vague slogan in my memory - but couldn't you say that people globally have a "manifest destiny" to migrate wherever they please and live freely? What gives anyone globally the right to subjugate and exclude people on the basis of anything other than individual property rights?

 

[apeiron]

There is plenty of clean energy for generations to come, namely, nuclear power (and it will be coming back as fossil fuels start to run low).

In the light of solar vs nuclear arguments, this looks like an interesting read. Obviously it is a lobbying paper so needs critical reading, but then what research in this area doesn't?

http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

Solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily for decades. They are projected to fall even farther over the next 10 years. Meanwhile, projected costs for construction of new nuclear plants have risen steadily over the last decade, and they continue to rise. In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina. Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.