Concept of a nation.

[jedi rat]

Over Christmas break I had some time to think about "things" and I was just wondering what others think about the concept of a nation.

Over past centuries humans fought for territory, money, religion, woman (yes there are freaks among us-hehe just a joke), just a sick ambition to dominate or race. All of above were nicely put by leaders as a war for your country. Of course all those young, innocent and jobless boys who died serving their country never knew or wanted to know the real reason.

I was just thinking if we eliminate a concept of a nation we would loose - soccer World Cup , olympics etc, but we would take from leaders the cover which they have used to enter wars.

Of course it is foolish to think that many countries would give up theirs "independence and all this other crap", but what really annoyes me that instead of trying to minimise differences among nations we try to make them bigger. The only way to have peace is to uderstand that we are all equal. Statements like: "we ... the best nation" etc will never ensure peace.

How long are we going to ignore the fact that a strong feeling of being a patriot does not gurantee peace but only war?

Any comments?

 

[DinoDoc]

The Eurocoms don't want Australia in the EU. Get over it.

 

[PinkyGen]

One reason we have nations is because humans feel a need to belong to a group. There are such longstanding groups such as family, ethnic group, religion, and now modern day mundame examples, such as rivals in High School and among proffessional football teams (ex. Cleveland fans rioting over an instant replay snafu).

However, nations and other groups, provide benefits. Nations help protect you from criminals, from foreigners, from providing running water and ensuring electricity, providing a suitable enviroment to promote trade (the way America was founded), and of course, giving you the spoils of anything another your nation can take from another.

 

[jedi rat]

That is what I was talking about – “we do not want you”. As long as there is US and THEM that long all of us will have to face wars, terrorism, trade discriminations etc…

As for the “evolution” of the way we live it is quite logical: first family, next step were villages, cities, states, countries, unions of countries, and the last step is one big family – citizens of planet Earth.

I repeat again nations attempt, (repeatedly failing) protect us from what the concept of a nation creates – terrorists, enemies, trade competition etc.
Eliminate nations – eliminate 80% of our problems.

It is in our nature to compete, but competition is only good as long as it does not hurt others. A concept of a nation makes it impossible.

 

[allan]

I've said it before: the problem with a "one world government" is that it does not ensure a person's liberty the way a nation can.

The last resort of dissidents of any nation is that they can migrate to another and try for a better life, or at least a life less oppressed as they may see it. Sure such migrations are often difficult and in some cases illegal or frought with other danger, but as I said they are a LAST resort (well, that or civil war if they can find enough fellow dissidents).

Establish a one-world government and by definition, such migrations would be impossible--you would never be able to escape a government you may oppose or feel oppressed by. That alone is reason enough for me to want to keep nations as they are--distinct expressions of various diverse cultures. Arguably we humans have NOT found the "perfect" society, and we definitely can't even agree on what the nature of such a society would be. One person's "perfection" is another person's tyranny.... Therefore nations in a way act as competing "experiments" where differing peoples manifest their ideas of an "ideal" society and present them on the world marketplace. Nations that have relatively good ideas do well--nations that don't can see (if they look) other examples of how they might do better.

I have no problem with treaties, including a potentially worldwide one, that may set down some rules for how nations conduct themselves with other nations, with the effect of discouraging international aggression. So long as such rules are clear and applied the same to every nation.

But nations themselves should remain fully sovereign and independent, to protect the interests of their peoples, and to ensure that no ONE person or group's ideologies (ideas of a "perfect" society) have a monopoly everywhere....

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The Eurocoms don't want Australia in the EU. Get over it.

This obviously passes for humour at some sites.

Anyway, why would Aussies want to lower their quality of life and democracy by coming under a corrupt bureaucracy?

Jedi rat, if you don't like the nation state, what are you proposing as an alternative?

 

[Sixchan]

The USA has state AND federal governments, right? We could add another level to it, making a third level world wide, thus eliminating nations. But they would be more or less independant in everything but name, and a few basic rules, like those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So each Region would have to abide by human rights under law, instead of just pretending they will. Any other laws could be made by the regions, and thus, you could move somewhere else from opression, unless you're in the KKK and the the right to practise any religion is wrong, of course.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by andycapp
Anyway, why would Aussies want to lower their quality of life

Heh, considering you'd be in a free trade area with the world's 3rd, 4th, and 5th biggest economies, I doubt that.

How big is Australia's economy, by the way?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Big enough, and there is a lot of potential for many things here.
We have resources, space, and generally good people. All we need is leadership, purpose and a vision for making this country great.

As to patriotism only causing war, I cannot agree. war is caused by many things, and even if we removed patriotism and the idea of the nation, there would still be conflict. Such is the way of this world, and the way to prepare against is not to weaken the nation, but to strengthen it. It seems these days patriotism and nationalism are naughty words.

I am proud of my country, would and will fight for it, believe in it, believe in making it better and stronger. It was bad enough scrapping State of Origin footy, but if they try and take my country, I will be more than miffed

I for one would be quite uninterested in joining the Eurocom EU , as the Australian Reich would be far more to my tastes .

I disagree that it is bad or wrong to believe that we are better than others. I believe we are the best country in the world, and that we can get even better. This is not racism or anything, just love of one's own country. If that is a crime, then you can chain me, but history will absolve me.

But enough of my cryptofascist ramblings for the moment, must be off to throw another shrimp on the barbie

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
potential

Bulgaria has potential.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

How witty, and evident of the strength of your argument to highlight one word as a joke. How quaint. Sorry, won't take the bait and get into a peeing match with Bulgaria, Europe or any other place. My stand is clear.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
How witty, and evident of the strength of your argument to highlight one word as a joke.

It was to highlight your point as nonsense, actually- every country in the world has "potential".

Will that potential be always unlocked? No.

Pardon me if I fail to see the imminent emergence as Australia as a major global compeitor. Strange also how you shout about Australia is the best country in your mind, yet provide no proof that anything it does could qualify it as such.

If my post came across as a joke, then it was only continuing in the spirit of your original post, which came across as so laughable to me that I was unsure as to which manner I should procede in.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

You misunderstand me, but you are young, so I will be patient.

In saying that I believe that my country is the best in the world, I was simply saying what so many others from all the myriad countries of the world would: That they love their country the most, that they believe it is the best to live in, that above all others they prefer it, and that they believe in it. Simple patriotism and love of one's homeland, not a proclamation of superpower status which you seem to have taken it as.

I believe that my country can and will unlock its potential. Again, a simple statement of belief in one's nation. Would you prefer me to say that "I don't believe we will ever get anywhere. We suck. Get rid of us asap." Of course I am not going to say that. I am simply expressing my belief in a positive future for my country, as any good patriot will.
I am not announcing that we will dominate the world, as there is not point in doing this, but rather that we will be a good nation for our people. To me, this is very hard to misinterpret.

This is not nonsense, and it was erroneous to label it as such.

I am not shouting, I am merely expressing why I believe in the future of my nation as compared to the Aussie who started the thread who seems to prefer a future without nations.


"If my post came across as a joke, then it was only continuing in the spirit of your original post, which came across as so laughable to me that I was unsure as to which manner I should procede in."

Please point out what is laughable about loving your country and believing in it. What is so laughable about the facts that we do have resources (if we don't please explain), that we do have space and generally good people. What is so outrageous about these points. very little, I would think.

Next, what is so laughable or outrageous about stating that I BELIEVE we need leadership, purpose and a vision for making the country great.
Nothing, unless you misinterpret the use of great, as you seem to have done.

I see no need to prove my beliefs to myself, and therefore, do not need to justify them to any others either. Loving a country that you were born in, that you have travelled and seen and experienced is not something that is easily explained or put into words. I could list myriad reasons, but to do so would seem shallow, and compromise the truth of what one feels.

Therefore, I reiterate that I was not acting as the harbinger of a future Australian play for superpowerdom, nor do I believe such a thing will happen. I am saying that I believe in, am loyal to, and love my nation, my home. If that is such a ridiculous notion, then I cannot understand why.

Hamlet, you seem to be trying to read inferences from my post that were not there, and never will be there. Hopefully this will clear up your confusion on the matter.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
You misunderstand me, but you are young, so I will be patient.

I'm two years younger than you - hardly room for partonising me.

However, I understand you better now you have laid out your position in full. No hard feelings. I misinterpreted your words.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

My dear fellow, I patronize everybody. It comes with the job "Evil Person", and also by what in British terms is a public school education, and an aristocratic background. Add to this a general contempt for bipeds, and there is the basis and room for me patronizing you.



Twere a jest, twere a jest

 

[OneFootInThe...]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The Eurocoms don't want Australia in the EU. Get over it.

poly is down eh

btw... that is true... down with nationalism, but than in the same way you would have this same traits of human personality come out in a different and very likely even more horrible way. Like a one dictatorship over the whole world.

we just can't escape being human that's all...

 

[CornMaster]

I agree with Jedi Rat.

Under a world government.....each currrent nation would still be a state....and thus have their own government looking out for it's own best interest. Just like States of the US do now...and Counties in these states, and cities in these counties.

There is always someone looking out for the best interests of the people they govern (or at least they are supposed to)

A World government wouldn't really change how the map looks, and how the people would act from day to day. It would just be a much larger problem solving agency, and a watchdog so countries like Afghastan and Saudi Araiba, etc....can't preform terriost acts on the US and other countries.

Since terriosm itself is bad, the world government would be opposed to it, and since everyone is under the same roof, it would be much more effective in fighting it. 9/11 would have never have happened under a world government. But not just terriosm....but hunger, medical aid, scientific research, etc....could all be managed and distrubuted much better.

I'm all for this globization.....but unfortunatally people hate losing the status quo......and thus oppose it. No system is perfect...but I think we should continue to try new things until we do find a perfect system....or near perfect system.

 

[Knowltok 2]

Before we all jump on the idea of copying what the US did when it bound the states into a Union, lets consider the early 1860's. In the end it worked out okay, but it was a close run thing that brought much devastation. If the same thing were to happen in modern times and be between nations the effects could dwarf WWII.

The twentieth century may well have taught us that wars aren't about nations anymore. The nation can be a great force for uniting people and looking out for their colective interests. The problem with one world government is that there is no outside. There is no compelling reason to act for the good of the whole. We have enough problems along these lines with nations, but to an extent this is taken care of by the fact that if the nation isn't doing well compared to other nations, all citizens of that nation suffer. There would be no such concept in a one government world. There also wouldn't be an arena for testing new ideas.

IMHO one world government will come only when there is sufficient danger to all of us collectively to bind us together.

 

[allan]

Originally posted by CornMaster
I agree with Jedi Rat.

Under a world government.....each currrent nation would still be a state....and thus have their own government looking out for it's own best interest. Just like States of the US do now...and Counties in these states, and cities in these counties."

Hah! States are HARDLY autonomous in the US, at least to the extent they were intended to be. Generally it has been a continuing saga of the federal government grabbing more and more power, constitution or no, that rightfully belongs on lower levels but was usurped for various "needs of the moment".

A World Government would act the same way, over time. Think of how addicting such power could be! Such seats of power invariably do NOT attract the best of men either, do they.

"Since terriosm itself is bad, the world government would be opposed to it, and since everyone is under the same roof, it would be much more effective in fighting it. 9/11 would have never have happened under a world government."

Never say never. The world is a big place, and 9/11 could have happened with a LOT less infrastructural support than it had.

Also, a World Government would probably be subject to millions of people in various places in armed guerilla conflict with it. I cannot see all nations or all 5 billion people consenting to such a thing overnight, and so naturally part of its formation would be by conquest. There are many people here in the US who would oppose it, and many of them would be armed in the hills if it came to pass. Ditto in a lot of other countries.

"I'm all for this globization.....but unfortunatally people hate losing the status quo......and thus oppose it. No system is perfect...but I think we should continue to try new things until we do find a perfect system....or near perfect system.

"

The whole point of my post above is that no system will ever be perfect for EVERYONE. And since this World Government you speak of will necessarily have to adapt ONE system, you will have many dissenters who cannot flee, only fight....

And I refuse to accept that there IS one perfect system, just as I refuse to accept fundamentalists who say that there is only one "right" spiritual path.... One idealism in a worldwide monopoly is dangerous.

 

[allan]

Sixchan: "Any other laws could be made by the regions, and thus, you could move somewhere else from opression, unless you're in the KKK and the the right to practise any religion is wrong, of course."

So your World Government wouldn't have the equivalent of the First Amendment, and would in fact make laws to forbid the speech of the KKK, or the practice of religion ("of course", as you said)?

You have just proven my point as to the danger of such a government.

Plus if you outlaw religious practice, you would be in civil war with about 4 out of the 5 or so billion "world citizens". I'll take what we have now over that, thank you....