by TerryWalstrom 143 Replies latest jw friends
It's nothing to do with the poxy BNP.
The BNP does not have a monopoly on the idea of the nation state.
You cannot just point at my post and say "BNP!"
You're gonna have to do better than that.
It'd be better if you actually engaged with the points I made ...
The Democrats and the Republicans are Both parties of WAR.
Hopefully one day we'll have a Libertarian in the White House.
The nation state gives us stability, it puts a lid on tribalism and has allowed e.g. us Brits to advance culturally, economically and advance our technology and knowledge ...what I want is for nations to have mutually beneficial relationships and business deals. - LUHE
This is beyond sensible dispute.
That sounds religious or from spending too much time on a bnp site - Ruby
This is outrageous.
Ruby do some research on levels of violence and in pre-state societies.
Hopefully one day we'll have a Libertarian in the White House.
Hopefully not the ones that ran in the last election, they were almost as terrible politicians as Clinton!
This is outrageous
I agree. Save your non-argument insulting attacks for someplace else, it's not welcome here.
In short, the nation state is the best arrangement we've come up with.
Of course each nation looks after itself but what I want is for nations to have mutually beneficial relationships and business deals.
If you think there is a better arrangement than the nation state, please describe and give an example.
The conversation is really thought provoking. For a while at work l am going to reflect on this statement, luhe.
I agree with the initial remark that nation states are the best we’ve come up with...at least they are what dominates in the power play of humans.
But -and l do not want to derail the thread- Brexit represents the struggle of a people to declare a limit to being absorbed into ( essentially) a larger nation/state, the EU. The idea of sovereignty within a workable area, one that has a sense of self, one that resists being absorbed by powers distant and even ignorant if not uncaring of their unique lives seems good to me.
Size counts. And that may be the problem we are really dealing with in the propaganda mills that grind out The narratives for the good guys and the bad. Edit:Having good news ported in from vast distances allows for a lot of “creations”
The US is a huge nation state that is struggling to hold its people together yet it clearly has been interfering with the autonomy of other nations. And in the midst if this Britain remarkably, to my off shore understanding, has filed for her human independence from “bigness” She wants to sort out intra-national problems such as cultural/racial/religious norms within her region. She is simply limiting the interference from abroad. I am a Yank and may be way off base but there it is my thought.
I submit that go finding a way to limit the geo/political regions of concerns allows any person a greater degree of voice in his/her life. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the sovereign will of a people is vastly diminished as each voice gets shrunk into parts per million?
Frankly, the US is struggling with the mechanics of 50 states growing within a nation. The population has mushroomed so that the work of democratic rule is clogging up. And it has been so easy in this growing chaos of government for the Big Money to slide in, grease the palms and run the country—and as much of the world as it can buy.
Now to Yemen. It is a civil war. It IS even more complex than the complex story you told , luhe. But here is one observation made that is over all true:of the US sticking its big fingers into too much of the Middle East with the result it has overextended itself and is messing up it every direction. And it often is at cross-purposes with any supposed goal because of the complexity. Unfortunately it’s motives are not complex. It wants power and money. In this what you state
what I want is for nations to have mutually beneficial relationships and business deals.
now this l think maybe every one who has posted will agree upon.
As for the rest of your comment- what other better arrangement than the nation state? -I am watching Brexit for some of that answer.
Big may be better....but how big. And why?
Brexit represents the struggle of a people to declare a limit to being absorbed into a large nation/state, the EU
It's a vote FOR the nation state and against the tyranny of a supranational bureaucracy.
Everyone has loyalty to a circle surrounding them - family, street, neighbourhood, town, city, region, country, continent and, if we were attacked form space, probably planet. But the larger and wider that circle is, the less the rest of the people in it really care about you and the people closest to you so it's a constant balance to have the protection that size brings with the control and accountability that a smaller circle delivers.
It is what provides some stability - there are always barbarians at the gate who don't want to work for what they have but want to take it instead. You need an army to defend yourself even if you are the most peaceful people on earth because without it you simply wouldn't be.
A great society keeps it's own military in check and uses them sparingly and purposefully, only when required and necessary. The west isn't perfect in this regard - I would like to see more leaders in prison for the lies that result in military action. But we're the best at controlling things through a democratic process.
It's a vote FOR the nation state and against the tyranny of a supranational bureaucracy.—cofty
l could not agree more. It is a brave thing to declare a limit to size in this world of predators
Frankly l envy this bloodless secession.
Good luck.
Edit: You need an army to defend yourself even if you are the most peaceful people on earth because without it you simply wouldn't be.—Simon
l agree with this.
Well at least Macron agrees with me
and that a nice tangent Simon - bravo
Apropos of the problem of bigness in a nationstate – I heard an interview yesterday with a guy named John Dickerson who had written a book The Hardest Job in the World. It’s about the growing, massive responsibilities of the US presidency. Is it safe to rely on one overgrown nationstate to supply the Big Stick for smaller nation states?
Maybe we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Does anybody think the U.N. could be that big stick?
But I have understood that the US exercises most control in this body. Is this good? If we would get out from under the control of any one single powerful nation it would seem so much better.
So, this sort of addresses luhe ‘s : what other better arrangement than the nationstate?
I am all for nation states—but I think they tend to look for (love)economic /military support in all the wrong places. By not putting the burden of maintaining an army big enough to fight off the big selfish interest a happy little country could maintain itself without crawling under the umbrella of that supranational bureaucracy.
?
lt simply does not seem that small nationstates can hold their own if either Russia, China, the US or any single other nation state is in charge of policing the world.
This thought may be silly but tell me why.
