4 ms·

Belgian too, but would personally never join the army. I would however, find a way to relocate myself + loved ones to a more safer place. I would totally give

Belgian too, but would personally never join the army. I would however, find a way to relocate myself + loved ones to a more safer place. I would totally give up on this country. Home is where you hang your hat, and being with the people you care about (and knowing that they are safe) matters a lot more than some border on a map.

lorenzfx 9y ago
I am very glad that your and a lot of other people's ancestors didn't think like that or we would probably all live under a fascist regime. edit: a word
- charlesdm 9y ago
  Definitely grateful for the sacrifices that have been made in the past, but I'm looking at things based on how the world is set up today. It has become a much smaller place -- people and capital can move around more easily. I've personally never had a very strong national identity (others do seem to have that), and I think in part it's because it has become so easy to move around. And if you travel a bit, you realise people are actually not all that different. A lot of them have similar priorities: build out a good life, raise children, care for their friends and loved ones, have fun, etc.
  - lorenzfx 9y ago
    I'm not saying that you are wrong (and I really hope you are right), but the European elites had exactly the same perception before the outbreak of World War I. Google "first globalization".
- markvdb 9y ago
  Somewhat related, I have noticed there seems to be an abstraction that is often easier for Belgians to make. One can at the same time make a stand for $GOOD_THING/against $BAD_THING ánd have zero country loyalty/patriotism. It's easier and more efficient even, because unbound by country loyalty, one is less limited in how to make a stand. Do you have difficulties imagining this? Imagine yourself in the era that shall not be named for fear of Godwin's law. Think of ways to make a difference back then.
CalRobert 9y ago
" loved ones to a more safer place." The trouble arises when there are no more safe places, or when you along with millions of other people are desperately trying to get to said safer place (note the refugees currently in limbo in Turkey and elsewhere) Where would you go when Western Europe is invaded? New Zealand? North Africa? The former is hard to get to, and any trouble befalling Europe could spread to the latter. With Pax Americana coming to an end I think a lot of people who've had the luxury of forgetting that power and force are a thing will be cruelly reminded of it. It's hard to maintain a liberal democratic utopia when your neighbor's tanks are rolling through.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  South Africa? South America? Australia? Hell, even Greenland could work. They might not all be optimal choices, but anything is better than war. Guess it would depend on the situation, and where the conflict is. Part of it is making sure you have resources to pay for stuff if something goes wrong, e.g. don't hold all of your money in a local bank account. In such a situation, if all your funds are held in local bank accounts, since they'll likely get frozen to some extent, you're essentially fucked. All in all, given the bank bailout rules introduced by the EU a few years ago (look at what happened in Cyprus), it's probably not a bad idea to keep some funds in separate accounts... healthy paranoia?
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > South Africa? South America? Australia? While as a Belgian you'd be able to enter there and stay for a short while, you'd still have to comply with their residence visa process or hope that their refugee provision is generous.
    - charlesdm 9y ago
      I guess the logical country to go to would be one which allows access through investment, hence another reason to have a rainy day fund. Money, while unfair, essentially buys residency in many countries. This sounds extremely selfish, just writing this.

lorenzfx 9y ago

I am very glad that your and a lot of other people's ancestors didn't think like that or we would probably all live under a fascist regime. edit: a word

charlesdm 9y ago
Definitely grateful for the sacrifices that have been made in the past, but I'm looking at things based on how the world is set up today. It has become a much smaller place -- people and capital can move around more easily. I've personally never had a very strong national identity (others do seem to have that), and I think in part it's because it has become so easy to move around. And if you travel a bit, you realise people are actually not all that different. A lot of them have similar priorities: build out a good life, raise children, care for their friends and loved ones, have fun, etc.
- lorenzfx 9y ago
  I'm not saying that you are wrong (and I really hope you are right), but the European elites had exactly the same perception before the outbreak of World War I. Google "first globalization".
markvdb 9y ago
Somewhat related, I have noticed there seems to be an abstraction that is often easier for Belgians to make. One can at the same time make a stand for $GOOD_THING/against $BAD_THING ánd have zero country loyalty/patriotism. It's easier and more efficient even, because unbound by country loyalty, one is less limited in how to make a stand. Do you have difficulties imagining this? Imagine yourself in the era that shall not be named for fear of Godwin's law. Think of ways to make a difference back then.

CalRobert 9y ago

" loved ones to a more safer place." The trouble arises when there are no more safe places, or when you along with millions of other people are desperately trying to get to said safer place (note the refugees currently in limbo in Turkey and elsewhere) Where would you go when Western Europe is invaded? New Zealand? North Africa? The former is hard to get to, and any trouble befalling Europe could spread to the latter. With Pax Americana coming to an end I think a lot of people who've had the luxury of forgetting that power and force are a thing will be cruelly reminded of it. It's hard to maintain a liberal democratic utopia when your neighbor's tanks are rolling through.

charlesdm 9y ago
South Africa? South America? Australia? Hell, even Greenland could work. They might not all be optimal choices, but anything is better than war. Guess it would depend on the situation, and where the conflict is. Part of it is making sure you have resources to pay for stuff if something goes wrong, e.g. don't hold all of your money in a local bank account. In such a situation, if all your funds are held in local bank accounts, since they'll likely get frozen to some extent, you're essentially fucked. All in all, given the bank bailout rules introduced by the EU a few years ago (look at what happened in Cyprus), it's probably not a bad idea to keep some funds in separate accounts... healthy paranoia?
- pjc50 9y ago
  > South Africa? South America? Australia? While as a Belgian you'd be able to enter there and stay for a short while, you'd still have to comply with their residence visa process or hope that their refugee provision is generous.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    I guess the logical country to go to would be one which allows access through investment, hence another reason to have a rainy day fund. Money, while unfair, essentially buys residency in many countries. This sounds extremely selfish, just writing this.