3 ms·

I don't think he's being metaphysical. Much of what we now call China was other countries a couple of hundred years ago. Is the little core that we call ancient

by Hondor 10y ago

I don't think he's being metaphysical. Much of what we now call China was other countries a couple of hundred years ago. Is the little core that we call ancient China the true China or are all the newly added provinces just as real? If some land changes from being under control of one set of politicians (one country) to another set of politicians (another country), is that really bad for anyone? People usually feel the politicians that control their own place are somehow superior to all the others, but that's obviously nonsensical because they can't all be the best. If part of China was taken over by Russia, it's still just a place where people live, but with a different name and different laws. None are clearly better or worse than the others. If they were, then people from some poorly governed country would be clamoring to give their territory to another country so they can benefit from becoming part of the better one.

vlehto 10y ago
> If some land changes from being under control of one set of politicians (one country) to another set of politicians (another country), is that really bad for anyone? Some people would call that the definition of bad itself. And I can't blame them. You sound very american. Would you give U.S. governance to Mexico? No qualms about it?
- Hondor 10y ago
  The reverse worked out great for California. I think the US government does a better job of looking after it's people than the Mexican one. So no, I'd rather it go the other way. But I might be wrong since it's not easy to see the whole picture. I suspect the Mexicans who want to be Americans tend to take themselves to America and the remaining people are more concentrated as nationalists. So perhaps immigration is a natural damping force on "giving away your country". Actually the direction of immigration is probably a good indicator of which countries are genuinely better than which. Germany shouldn't give up control to Poland, but Poland should give itself up to Germany - the former Poles would probably enjoy a better life eventually.
  - vlehto 10y ago
    So "I like this principle as long as I get more power, and other people get less power". Thought that U.S. governance is somehow better than Mexican sounds nationalistic. Is it? Your ideology seemingly supports imperialism. The opposing idealism is called Subsidiarity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity U.S. is weird as it's currently one of the most imperialistic nations around. Yet it's organized (nominally) as federation. There are lots of people who think local governance is more or as important than democracy itself. It doesn't even require nationalist motivations. Simply government with fewer subjects and close by is likely to be more effective than government far away and with lots of subjects.
    - Hondor 10y ago
      I'm not an American and have never been there. I come from a small country and I would happily see that country gobbled up by one of its more successful neighbors so we can share the economic advantages they have. Ultimately that means cheaper stuff and higher wages. That would involve me getting more power, as you say. My new home country would now be slightly bigger and more powerful than before my old country joined it.
      - vlehto 10y ago
        >Ultimately that means cheaper stuff and higher wages. There are bunch of historical examples where this does not hold true. It has been relatively common that the "new colony" pays all the taxes while the mother country reaps all the rewards. This was the case with UK occupying Ireland, Soviet union occupying Estonia, Germany occupying France and northern Italy occupying kingdom of Sicily. Only exception that comes to mind is east Germany, but there is exceptionally strong cultural affiliation. You should be able to gain all the positives with free trade. Without any of the negatives.

by Hondor 10y ago

vlehto 10y ago

> If some land changes from being under control of one set of politicians (one country) to another set of politicians (another country), is that really bad for anyone? Some people would call that the definition of bad itself. And I can't blame them. You sound very american. Would you give U.S. governance to Mexico? No qualms about it?

Hondor 10y ago
The reverse worked out great for California. I think the US government does a better job of looking after it's people than the Mexican one. So no, I'd rather it go the other way. But I might be wrong since it's not easy to see the whole picture. I suspect the Mexicans who want to be Americans tend to take themselves to America and the remaining people are more concentrated as nationalists. So perhaps immigration is a natural damping force on "giving away your country". Actually the direction of immigration is probably a good indicator of which countries are genuinely better than which. Germany shouldn't give up control to Poland, but Poland should give itself up to Germany - the former Poles would probably enjoy a better life eventually.
- vlehto 10y ago
  So "I like this principle as long as I get more power, and other people get less power". Thought that U.S. governance is somehow better than Mexican sounds nationalistic. Is it? Your ideology seemingly supports imperialism. The opposing idealism is called Subsidiarity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity U.S. is weird as it's currently one of the most imperialistic nations around. Yet it's organized (nominally) as federation. There are lots of people who think local governance is more or as important than democracy itself. It doesn't even require nationalist motivations. Simply government with fewer subjects and close by is likely to be more effective than government far away and with lots of subjects.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    I'm not an American and have never been there. I come from a small country and I would happily see that country gobbled up by one of its more successful neighbors so we can share the economic advantages they have. Ultimately that means cheaper stuff and higher wages. That would involve me getting more power, as you say. My new home country would now be slightly bigger and more powerful than before my old country joined it.
    - vlehto 10y ago
      >Ultimately that means cheaper stuff and higher wages. There are bunch of historical examples where this does not hold true. It has been relatively common that the "new colony" pays all the taxes while the mother country reaps all the rewards. This was the case with UK occupying Ireland, Soviet union occupying Estonia, Germany occupying France and northern Italy occupying kingdom of Sicily. Only exception that comes to mind is east Germany, but there is exceptionally strong cultural affiliation. You should be able to gain all the positives with free trade. Without any of the negatives.