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

[ThomasT]

First, thanks for the link(s) apeiron. I'm in Florida now. LOTS of sunshine here. What a shame to allow it to go to waste. I think that the development of PV technology is in its infancy.

And to reply to Cyrus (keeping in mind that the OP of this thread is about patriotism and nationalism -- and I don't want to derail it):

Their (patriotism and nationalism) 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 ...

Ok. It's just one of many possible sets of assumptions. Can we, however, assume that things will get more complicated, and solutions more difficult, with the addition of hundreds of millions (billions on the global scale) of (mostly unskilled) people, increasing scarcity of fossil fuels, and deterioration of existing infrastructures, etc., unless we, collectively as a species, begin to actually deal with these things now? That is, assuming that the USA implements the necessary programs to provide a more or less comfortable life (basically what virtually all Americans have access to now) for the, projected, 500 million Americans of 2100. What about current Third World countries whose populations will most likely increase at a faster rate than the USA? The patriotic and nationalistic attitude is that, well, it's their problem, and, if they have resources that we need, then we'll take them. I'm thinking that, at some point, that attitude can become self injurious to the species. But maybe not. I don't know.

... competition is always a good thing and it drives innovation ...

I agree that competition drives innovation. But competition with what? With the problems that face humanity as a whole, or just with each other?

Does cooperation ever trump competition?

... and, there is no reason why countries can't and don't already work together - they do, on a daily basis.

I agree, to a certain extent. But, I ask myself whether or not we could, collectively, raise the standard of living of everyone if we weren't so polarized by these notions of patriotism and nationalism and ethnocentrism, etc.? And I think that, yes, the world would be a better place if these notions weren't so predictable and necessary a part of our upbringing.

But they are of course. Should we consider the deaths resulting from the conflicts that these divisions give rise to as a sort of necessary 'trimming of the herd'?

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?

I agree that it's very unlikely. And, things don't have to get worse. However, will extreme patriotism and nationalism help things to get better? I don't think so.

It's also possible that the world will become less polarized via patriotic and nationalistic orientations as our collective problems become more accute.

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.

Of course they're 'addressing' it. A study, a conference, a symposium, here and there. Corporate execs and politicians do get together and seriously discuss the profitability and doability of this or that nuclear project. But the scale at which this has to be undertaken is staggering. I just don't see it happening. I see a large scale dependence on fossil fuels in the next few decades, with a few nuclear plants being built, and a concomitant increase in the cost of operating a vehicle and providing electricity for homes and businesses. Which means that, for most of us, disposable income and buying power decreases.

What current indicators lead you to believe that by, say, 2050, enough nuclear facilities would be functioning so that the relative cost of electricity hasn't drastically increased?

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.

Solar cell, fuel cell, and battery technologies (with augmentation from wind and nuclear technologies) can free us from our dependence on fossil fuels. Of all these, nuclear energy is the least clean, the most dangerous, and the most expensive to implement.

I agree with you that nuclear energy is a viable (if it were sufficiently funded) alternative to fossil fuels. But, as you've indicated, it's a hard sell. Also, insofar as it's based on a nonrenewable resource, whereas the others aren't, then, to me, it makes sense to focus on the solar, water, and air sources of energy.

How much money do we spend annually on the development of these technologies? How much money do we spend annually just occupying Europe with our military via patriotic and nationalistic interests? How much money have we spent on our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

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.

We are also, and, in imo, in much more important ways, very much like other people and cultures. Do you think that's a bad way of looking at things?

I went through a decidedly patriotic and ethnocentric phase in my development as a human being. (I grew up in the South.) I generally refer to it as my 'idiotic' phase. I'm well aware that we are, after all, animals, and that it's natural to feel the sorts of feelings that lead to racism, ethnocentrism, patriotism and nationalism. However, just as we have developed, and can continue to develop, technologies that can free us from our current dependence on fossil fuels, we have developed, and can continue to develop, ways of thinking that can minimize our natural tendency toward patriotic and nationalistic behavior.

And here's the point. Once one gets somewhat past those patriotic and nationalistic tendencies, then one can begin to be a good citizen -- of the world.

 

[apeiron]

I agree that competition drives innovation. But competition with what? With the problems that face humanity as a whole, or just with each other?

Does cooperation ever trump competition?

Well put. Competition unconstrained leads to destruction. Co-operation unconstrained is also bad too as it leads to rigidity, a lack of innovation. It is all about the proper balance.

And the OP is about the largest scale of co-operation.

At the moment, we have strong nation-level institutions. Co-operation - in the form of laws, customs, national purposes, national identity, and other constraints on individual and group action - is strongly enforced.

But what happens above that scale or organisation? Should nations be in unfettered competition? Or should we have again another strong level of enforced co-operation - international laws, a planetary sense of identity, etc - at the world scale of human organisation?

Clearly, nationalism and unfettered competition will lead to planetary destruction. In the past, we have recognised this when it comes to nuclear weapons, or pandemic diseases. And when we have seen the threat as game-changing enough, we do create that international framework even if it means nationhood becomes subsumed.

We just have not taken that step with energy and green house gases and population - the big three threats of the next 50 years.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok. It's just one of many possible sets of assumptions. Can we, however, assume that things will get more complicated, and solutions more difficult, with the addition of hundreds of millions (billions on the global scale) of (mostly unskilled) people, increasing scarcity of fossil fuels, and deterioration of existing infrastructures, etc., unless we, collectively as a species, begin to actually deal with these things now?

And why do you believe that this can't be solved at local levels?

What about current Third World countries whose populations will most likely increase at a faster rate than the USA? The patriotic and nationalistic attitude is that, well, it's their problem, and, if they have resources that we need, then we'll take them. I'm thinking that, at some point, that attitude can become self injurious to the species. But maybe not. I don't know.

I'm not loosing sleep over what happens in 3rd world countries, they have to deal with their problems, and I deal with mine. When there is an overlap on our needs, our governments can work together. You have no basis to believe that this behavior is self injurious to the species.

I agree that competition drives innovation. But competition with what? With the problems that face humanity as a whole, or just with each other?

Competition for energy, resources, policy, human rights, etc.

Does cooperation ever trump competition?

Competition does not mean a lack of cooperation.

I agree, to a certain extent. But, I ask myself whether or not we could, collectively, raise the standard of living of everyone if we weren't so polarized by these notions of patriotism and nationalism and ethnocentrism, etc.?

On what evidence do you think the standard of living is low because of Nationalism and Patriotism? I see no evidence as to why this statement is true.

And I think that, yes, the world would be a better place if these notions weren't so predictable and necessary a part of our upbringing.

You can think that, but that doesn't mean its true.

But they are of course. Should we consider the deaths resulting from the conflicts that these divisions give rise to as a sort of necessary 'trimming of the herd'?

I don't know what you mean by this.

I agree that it's very unlikely.

Then why did you make this statement?

And, things don't have to get worse. However, will extreme patriotism and nationalism help things to get better? I don't think so.

I feel like a broken record here, and your basis for this belief is...?

It's also possible that the world will become less polarized via patriotic and nationalistic orientations as our collective problems become more accute.

Possibly, it's impossible to predict the future.

Of course they're 'addressing' it. A study, a conference, a symposium, here and there. Corporate execs and politicians do get together and seriously discuss the profitability and doability of this or that nuclear project. But the scale at which this has to be undertaken is staggering. I just don't see it happening. I see a large scale dependence on fossil fuels in the next few decades, with a few nuclear plants being built, and a concomitant increase in the cost of operating a vehicle and providing electricity for homes and businesses. Which means that, for most of us, disposable income and buying power decreases.

What is so staggering about building more nuclear power plants that we already know how to build, and have been using for decades, versus your claim about using this magical solar power that is still new and not at an energy density to even be comparable to nuclear?

What current indicators lead you to believe that by, say, 2050, enough nuclear facilities would be functioning so that the relative cost of electricity hasn't drastically increased?

The price of any technology can be related to is usage. Building one nuclear power plant is expensive, building hundreds of them across the country drives the costs down.

Solar cell, fuel cell, and battery technologies (with augmentation from wind and nuclear technologies) can free us from our dependence on fossil fuels. Of all these, nuclear energy is the least clean, the most dangerous, and the most expensive to implement.

What is "dangerous" about nuclear power? I'm curious about this statement. Batteries require energy to charge, they are only energy storage devices. Of all these, nuclear is proven, and works - and works safely.

I agree with you that nuclear energy is a viable (if it were sufficiently funded) alternative to fossil fuels. But, as you've indicated, it's a hard sell. Also, insofar as it's based on a nonrenewable resource, whereas the others aren't, then, to me, it makes sense to focus on the solar, water, and air sources of energy.

It's a hard sell because of widespread public paranoia and ignorance due to 3 mile island. Why do you think nuclear is nonrenewable? - you can use it all you want.

How much money do we spend annually on the development of these technologies? How much money do we spend annually just occupying Europe with our military via patriotic and nationalistic interests? How much money have we spent on our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Why is the invasion of Iraq relevant here?

We are also, and, in imo, in much more important ways, very much like other people and cultures. Do you think that's a bad way of looking at things?

Ummm, no - were not. I am not, and do not want to be, like a highly religious culture of a middle eastern country that justifies the rape of women. If you wan't to be part of this global 'community' knock yourself out.

However, just as we have developed, and can continue to develop, technologies that can free us from our current dependence on fossil fuels, we have developed, and can continue to develop, ways of thinking that can minimize our natural tendency toward patriotic and nationalistic behavior.

...why?

And here's the point. Once one gets somewhat past those patriotic and nationalistic tendencies, then one can begin to be a good citizen -- of the world.

Baseless, unsupported nonsense.

 

[ThomasT]

But what happens above that scale or organisation? Should nations be in unfettered competition? Or should we have again another strong level of enforced co-operation - international laws, a planetary sense of identity, etc - at the world scale of human organisation?

Clearly, nationalism and unfettered competition will lead to planetary destruction. In the past, we have recognised this when it comes to nuclear weapons, or pandemic diseases. And when we have seen the threat as game-changing enough, we do create that international framework even if it means nationhood becomes subsumed.

We just have not taken that step with energy and green house gases and population - the big three threats of the next 50 years.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Now, I want to pin you down a bit on the energy alternatives. I respect your opinion, and assume that you might well be more familiar with certain technologies than I am.

So, what should we be concentrating on? Nuclear? Solar? Or something else? Or what combination in what ratios?

And, if you haven't gotten to the point where you feel confident in answering this yet, then I understand.

 

[apeiron]

So, what should we be concentrating on? Nuclear? Solar? Or something else? Or what combination in what ratios?

Actually wind would seem to be first cab off the rank. Along with tidal, geothermal and more hydro. Europe is already going that way fast.

PV would be nice, but (despite that study) I have the impression that it is at least 15 years from being big. Whereas wind can be big now.

Though what may accelerate PV hugely would be an actual energy crisis. As soon as people feel insecure, they will pay over the odds for some homescale system. A powerplant of their own. Price won't matter. So there could be a surge in PV just because it is perhaps the most straightforward personal energy scheme.

Nuclear makes me dubious. Yes, a baseload supply is needed. And the greenhouse gas argument is another factor in its favour. But who would trust the industry on waste disposal? The economics are also untrustworthy (too much entanglement with military reasons for having nuclear). So a big trust gap still. However nuclear will be built.

As to ratios, that's too detailed a question for me. This Shell study gives some views...

http://www-static.shell.com/static/public/downloads/brochures/corporate_pkg/scenarios/shell_energy_scenarios_2050.pdf

See p17 for example. They give nuclear a small share and biofuels a large one (suprise!).

I forgot to mention biofuels. Brazil's sugarcane shows something of the potential. Algae and other crops like jerusalem artichokes will have promise elsewhere.

 

[ThomasT]

Thanks, apeiron, for your reply. Comments and link(s) duly noted. A bit surprising that you would say wind is the leading non-nuclear alternative to fossil. Nuclear will happen of course, but not sufficiently I think, and it's so much more complicated than the others. Anyway, I'm pushing solar. I don't want to take this thread away from its OP focus any more than I have, so I won't post here any more. At least not about energy. Maybe a new thread with some energy alternative questions when I've done some more reading on it.

Cyrus, thanks for your input, and kumbaya.

And, cesiumfrog, I liked some of your comments. Was going to complicate them a bit, but have decided not to.

 

[brainstorm]

I'm not loosing sleep over what happens in 3rd world countries, they have to deal with their problems, and I deal with mine. When there is an overlap on our needs, our governments can work together. You have no basis to believe that this behavior is self injurious to the species.

This statement illustrates a major problem with nationalism. It promotes the assumption that some people are more natural subsidiaries of progress (scientific, technological, and economic) than others. Why would you assume that random people are natural subsidiaries of progress in the developed world just because they have been recognized as having the same nationality as other people who developed the science, technologies, and economic institutions that benefit them? Imagine that a person living in the mountains or a rural undeveloped community in the 19th century had been denied access to developing urban regions and education. If that had happened, there would be even more underdeveloped individuals in developed nations than there already are. For this reason, it seems quite arrogant to me whenever people say that people in developing countries have to take care of their own problems. I wonder if they realize how they would be living if they had been caged inside a bounded undeveloped region and withheld access to education, technology, and economic means of development.

 

[lompocus]

Let's steer this thread back into the realm of sensibility and order (Impossible on the Internet, everyone knows that :P)...

brainstorm brings up part of a view that I share, generalized into seeing nationalistic ideas as utterly irrelevant. It limits social mobility both within a country and between nations, obviously effecting the economic conditions in every nation that adopts this kind of fortress-<country> mentality. As this grows, your nationalists become more irrational, eventually violent (or otherwise stagnant and therefore irrational in a postmodern, hi tech, etc., blah blah blah world - we all know how fast-paced current society is).

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.

All of the negatives have been discussed and rediscussed; the positives? What's anyone's ideal society? An egalitarian one, of course (I'm assuming this is one important "end-game" goal, though I think it could function today in the US... that's for another thread). Oh, but wait. "We must protect the Meritocracy," or else something very similar to that, is spouted out nonsensically by your ultra-nationalists (Tea Party, Libertarians, Neocons, Conservatives, occasionally Liberals, anyone?). Being the backbone of the US (a Meritocracy, I mean), any sort of equality/social programs are difficult to pass through any level of government. Technological progress can move forward. The funding, application, and mass utilization of that tech isn't exactly forthcoming, however (i.e. renewable energy).

Another assumed positive: Democracy. Rule by the majority. You have your nice, tiered centralized government all across the US (which I'll continue to use as our main example). Ah, but here lies another problem: How easy is it to manipulate a majority? You can fright people into not exercising their rights (A problem up until the 1960s in voting, in some ways even today it remains one though almost as a non-issue). You can keep them uneducated and them suggest that an uneducated life isn't a terrible one (and this is terribly difficult to resolve). You could always solve these seemingly obvious problems through increased funding: Take away from fluff (a portion of the military, which I hope someone covers later on as I won't, as well as other excesses and inefficiencies) and refunnel it to places that need it. This is primarily the education system. Coming from California... it's not happening soon.

Would you like you know the astonishing answer as to why? After all, it's a big problem: education translates into a validation of a Meritocracy (our nation, the focus of nationalism). Here it is: People don't care. More importantly, the majority doesn't care enough to sacrifice some of x program (plug your favorite one in) to benefit education.

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

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

Now, all of this nonsensical stuff will no longer appear:

Why is the invasion of Iraq relevant here?

Envision an America circa 2100 with 100 million people living in shantytowns with no electricity.

Nuclear power. Ridiculous. It's not going to happen.

Get the picture?But this is TL;DR AND IS THEREFORE A GIANT WALL OF DEADLY TEXT. IT is too late over here, so I leave it up to you guys to eat this post alive. Maybe I'll have thrown in a good idea or two. Just read this:

There are plenty of holes here (particularly problems with motivating members of an egalitarian society to strive above and beyond, and all of that jazz). The entire patriotism/nationalism problem is very general, so reshape societal organization (at least change government, throw it out and start from scratch), and only then will it be realistic to consider implementing large-scale solutions to those very general problems facing us today: Energy use, Pollution, Climate change, Poverty, 3rd-world distress and war, bickering low-tier nationalistic leaders (I'm pointing at Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, etc.). Move on to the specifics. Ultimately this won't just redirect where the money flows, but most importantly where the public attention is locked onto.

Now here is the real question: How the hell do you go about doing all of this, even gradually (but I prefer: violently :D)?

Just my 2c and overly-long post.

 

[brainstorm]

I agree with your basic perspective that nationalism hinders more than it helps (for most people in most situations globally, anyway, although not exclusively). Still, I think you are misunderstanding some aspects:

As this grows, your nationalists become more irrational, eventually violent (or otherwise stagnant and therefore irrational in a postmodern, hi tech, etc., blah blah blah world - we all know how fast-paced current society is).

You should understand that having "fast paced society" is really more in-line with nationalism than it is opposed to it. Technological progress makes economic processes more efficient, meaning you can do more for more people in less time. Why, then, does 'society' become more fast-paced instead of less demanding, which would be logical with more efficient and mechanized production processes? The reason, oversimplified perhaps, is that social complexity allows for more forms of interaction through more network channels, because larger numbers of people are integrated in multiple networks.

National unification originally facilitated this kind of social bustle by promoting standardized language, regulation, cultural norms, scheduling/time, etc. In this sense, nationalism was a form (part) of globalization that created the idea of homogeneity in translocalism.

You shouldn't think that it is not possible to increase the self-sustainability and relative independence of localities without isolating and insulating them against interaction, including intermigration with other relatively self-sustaining localities. In my view, the US republic was always meant to allow free movement among localities, but people were always supposed to operate as independently as possible in doing, as good stewards of natural and social resources. People were free to migrate and harness the bounty of nature, but they were not supposed to pillage or leave resources depleted for those who came after them. Why should this not be true of the world globally?

), the nationalistic idea that the US should be a closed-borders, "American"-only society is idiotic.

national identity is not a logical basis for regulating migration. ability to steward resources is a better one. Still, you cannot evict people from everywhere because of their short-comings, or channel them to 'dump' regions - so you're left with the rights of the inept that have to be respected, of which some form of "homeland" may play a role. I.e. people should really not be clinging ethnically, but in reality venturing into the cosmopolitan diaspora exposes people to ethnic violence and/or economic discrimination and so it makes sense for them to have an economy to retreat to rather than become casualties of diaspora. But how can diaspora and homeland be balanced to promote both parts of people's lives, i.e. the venturing out as well as the seeking refuge?

"We must protect the Meritocracy," or else something very similar to that, is spouted out nonsensically by your ultra-nationalists (Tea Party, Libertarians, Neocons, Conservatives, occasionally Liberals, anyone?). Being the backbone of the US (a Meritocracy, I mean), any sort of equality/social programs are difficult to pass through any level of government.

Meritocracy is a simulation of an imagined free market situation in which people with better skills fare better economically. It is a simulation because the skills learned are not utilized directly, but rather tested and translated into credentials that are rewarded with money, i.e. the means to consume what is mostly produced by others. People defend this as division of labor in a complex modern economy, but at the individual level it translates into relatively litte control over one's own economic productivity.

Another assumed positive: Democracy. Rule by the majority. You have your nice, tiered centralized government all across the US (which I'll continue to use as our main example). Ah, but here lies another problem: How easy is it to manipulate a majority?not happening soon.

A lot of people misunderstand democracy as centralized representative government that represents the majority and exercises domination over non-majority, but this is just one part of democracy - i..e the part that checks minority autonomy. Minorities also have the ability to check majority power through courts and lobbying, as well as simply through free speech and public critique. Bush was strongly majority-endorsed initially, but became a critic of majoritarianism by the latter part of his presidency. Both functions are part of democracy.

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

What could you possibly replace democracy with that would liberate people from nationalism or some other form of oppression? Don't assume that democracy promotes nationalism just because the US national ideology is about democracy and freedom. It does occur that people usurp the ideals of democracy and freedom to promote relative forms of authoritarianism BUT it's important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The US is really nothing more than a fairly elaborate and successful ideological project to promote republic, democracy, etc. in practical application. People can construe the US as being about a "people" or specific economic practices, but who the people have become and the economic practices they engage in are really just the latest expression of the freedom promoted by US ideology. So democracy and freedom should be able to be carried forward in a way that doesn't sacrifice some people's work and opportunities to promote others. But people who have "attained the dream" should also not forget how freedom and democracy facilitated it and continue to facilitate their freedom to construct their own way of life, and support this for others as well, imo.

 

[Cyrus]

This statement illustrates a major problem with nationalism. It promotes the assumption that some people are more natural subsidiaries of progress (scientific, technological, and economic) than others.

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 would you assume that random people are natural subsidiaries of progress in the developed world just because they have been recognized as having the same nationality as other people who developed the science, technologies, and economic institutions that benefit them?

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

Imagine that a person living in the mountains or a rural undeveloped community in the 19th century had been denied access to developing urban regions and education. If that had happened, there would be even more underdeveloped individuals in developed nations than there already are. For this reason, it seems quite arrogant to me whenever people say that people in developing countries have to take care of their own problems. I wonder if they realize how they would be living if they had been caged inside a bounded undeveloped region and withheld access to education, technology, and economic means of development.

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.

 

[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.