5 ms·

I don't buy this line of reasoning or thinking whatsoever. I personally think it is the eroding of national sovereignty via supranational oligarchical globalis

I don't buy this line of reasoning or thinking whatsoever. I personally think it is the eroding of national sovereignty via supranational oligarchical globalism falsely touted as utopic globalism that has created these situations in the first place via blow-back piled on blow-back over time. Just because the British empire changed it's name to the "commonwealth" doesn't make it less of an empire. It is the meddling in the affairs of state of national governments that has created this instability, so don't try to sell me on globalism as a solution, because it's the problem. Now, don't misunderstand me, we do need to encourage more internationally geared solutions, but only sovereign nation states can come to those agreements through diplomacy. If you erode national sovereignty like the west has been doing, it's no wonder the world is so destabalized. Of course, I have sneaking suspicion that destabalization is sorta the point, but I digress. Nationalism: Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

orf 10y ago
> The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. And how exactly does that make any sense in an international world. If every nation acted independently on their own goals then for example combating climate change has no hope whatsoever. An individual nation doesn't care if some random other one might have to bear the brunt of climate change in the future, they want to look out for their population with cheap dirty fuels right now. However that's pretty damn short sighted. Using arbitrary divisions of land carved up through seeming arbitrary medieval processes and systems that no longer exist to each come to a different conclusion on matters that effect the whole damn world doesn't make any sense anymore. The world needs more corporation and compromise than ever before.
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Has it ever crossed your mind that given the global nature of certain things such as climate change, rational actors in the sovereign nation states would then conclude it is indeed in their best interests to cooperate internationally on such issues while still maintaining their sovereignty? I see this trite argument brought up far too often, that national borders are so medieval... and don't make sense anymore. I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to curse here, and I say that because I want to convey how strongly I feel this line of thinking is foolish, naive, and a complete misunderstanding of the history of governmental structures throughout the modern history of the world and their impact on the progression of human rights and other advances. The American Revolution was and is a unique revolution throughout the ages, one which established a unique government based on natural rights. I in no way agree that such a structure, with rule of law based on those principles, is in any way, shape, or form, "short-sighted" or "nonsensical". As a matter of fact, if you were an American politician, the statement you have just made would qualify you for removal from office and imprisonment and/or a fine, under 5 U.S. Code § 7311. I see though, you may be from Spain. I really do get tired of being lectured on the dangers of nationalism by members of "constitutional" monarchies... really an anecdotal point but I find it's true often enough to make a point of it. Such governments have classically been opposed to nationalism for completely different reasons, ones I find more truthful even today than the proclaimed "we need to solve global issues" cliches. Such reasons usually being that if they allowed sovereignty of nation-states it undermines their global power positions! "The world needs more corporation" What an appropos freudian slip, for if we were to remove the nation-state from the world stage, more (mega-supranational-)corporation is exactly what we would get. Now, one point of agreement. Yes, I am not disputing that the world needs more cooperation on international issues, but to then turn around and use those issues to advocate overthrowing the idea of sovereignty is a logically fallacious reasoning, is callous and naive, and I can only imagine such touting comes from the ivory tower of intellectuals, academics and other insulated peoples who haven't experienced the stark reality of this world when the sovereignty of nation states is violated. In short, those who call for an end of nationalism fail to understand the proper and right role of sovereignty in the apllication of the rule of law, and in the ability for the people to affect their government. So tell me, what would you propose to replace the nation-state with once you toppled it down?

orf 10y ago

> The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. And how exactly does that make any sense in an international world. If every nation acted independently on their own goals then for example combating climate change has no hope whatsoever. An individual nation doesn't care if some random other one might have to bear the brunt of climate change in the future, they want to look out for their population with cheap dirty fuels right now. However that's pretty damn short sighted. Using arbitrary divisions of land carved up through seeming arbitrary medieval processes and systems that no longer exist to each come to a different conclusion on matters that effect the whole damn world doesn't make any sense anymore. The world needs more corporation and compromise than ever before.

arca_vorago 10y ago
Has it ever crossed your mind that given the global nature of certain things such as climate change, rational actors in the sovereign nation states would then conclude it is indeed in their best interests to cooperate internationally on such issues while still maintaining their sovereignty? I see this trite argument brought up far too often, that national borders are so medieval... and don't make sense anymore. I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to curse here, and I say that because I want to convey how strongly I feel this line of thinking is foolish, naive, and a complete misunderstanding of the history of governmental structures throughout the modern history of the world and their impact on the progression of human rights and other advances. The American Revolution was and is a unique revolution throughout the ages, one which established a unique government based on natural rights. I in no way agree that such a structure, with rule of law based on those principles, is in any way, shape, or form, "short-sighted" or "nonsensical". As a matter of fact, if you were an American politician, the statement you have just made would qualify you for removal from office and imprisonment and/or a fine, under 5 U.S. Code § 7311. I see though, you may be from Spain. I really do get tired of being lectured on the dangers of nationalism by members of "constitutional" monarchies... really an anecdotal point but I find it's true often enough to make a point of it. Such governments have classically been opposed to nationalism for completely different reasons, ones I find more truthful even today than the proclaimed "we need to solve global issues" cliches. Such reasons usually being that if they allowed sovereignty of nation-states it undermines their global power positions! "The world needs more corporation" What an appropos freudian slip, for if we were to remove the nation-state from the world stage, more (mega-supranational-)corporation is exactly what we would get. Now, one point of agreement. Yes, I am not disputing that the world needs more cooperation on international issues, but to then turn around and use those issues to advocate overthrowing the idea of sovereignty is a logically fallacious reasoning, is callous and naive, and I can only imagine such touting comes from the ivory tower of intellectuals, academics and other insulated peoples who haven't experienced the stark reality of this world when the sovereignty of nation states is violated. In short, those who call for an end of nationalism fail to understand the proper and right role of sovereignty in the apllication of the rule of law, and in the ability for the people to affect their government. So tell me, what would you propose to replace the nation-state with once you toppled it down?