4 ms·

>Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. I interpret history as "nationalism used to trump economic interest

by nawitus 13y ago

>Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. I interpret history as "nationalism used to trump economic interests". A lot of has changed since. Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. Tribes are subcultures these days[1]. The internet connects me to my subcultures (like Hacker News), and it matters less every year what country I happen to physically live in. There's also the argument that the world is more united these days (particularly thanks to the European Union and somewhat because of United Nations). 1. http://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20Society http://www.gwern.net/The%20Melancholy%20of%20Subculture%20So...

npt4279 13y ago
>Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. I agree representative democracies are far less likely to go to war. I also don't think war is likely anytime in the present era. On the other hand, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are not representative democracies. They represent a fair portion of earth's landmass, population, and potential destructive power. I'd say the trend towards democracy has already peaked, and authoritarian governments are on the rise. >As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. I think we have very different worldviews on this subject, so a debate isn't going to be productive. But from where I'm coming from, it's easy to be idealistic when we're living in a golden age of peace and prosperity (despite the great recession). I'm more pessimistic about humanity in times of scarcity, disasters, and conflict. > There's also the argument that the world is more united these days (particularly thanks to the European Union and somewhat because of United Nations). I truly hope post-WWII institutions like these continue to have force for as long as possible. I think the world is safe from major war as long as this continues. But eventually, be it 50 years or 500 hundred years, they will fall.
- olefoo 13y ago
  You could make a fairly strong argument that these days the US is not much of a representative democracy; and that it is more of an elite oligarchy which performs a theater of democracy for public consumption. When overt criminal activity by elite institutions goes unpunished (see NSA, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, etc.) and popular movements for reform are crushed (Occupy) or coopted (Tea Party); it's hard to claim the moral high ground for our form of governance.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You could make a fairly strong argument that these days the US is not much of a representative democracy; and that it is more of an elite oligarchy which performs a theater of democracy for public consumption. To the extent that you could make such an argument "these days", you could make an even stronger argument for the same thing at almost any time in the past history of the U.S.
    - olefoo 13y ago
      Well, you could, but there are ebbs and flows. And right now the party of money seems to be riding roughshod over the party of the people.
userulluipeste 13y ago
"Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war." That maybe was true before, when the "democracy" craftsmanship wasn't mastered well enough. Now, I'll never bet against a government's ability to sway, at least for a while, the public perception in whatever direction, no matter how misplaced it might be. And to start a war, "for a while" is all it takes! ...Saddam's WMD? "I think the "nation state" is dying." Reality check - ask the Palestinians why do they want so bad a "palestinian" state when there already is an Israeli one in place? Or for that matter ask a Jew the the same question - is it that important to have an Israeli state?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. There's not really a lot of evidence that representative democracies are any less likely to go to war than otherwise similarly-situated nations with different government forms.

by nawitus 13y ago

npt4279 13y ago

>Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. I agree representative democracies are far less likely to go to war. I also don't think war is likely anytime in the present era. On the other hand, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are not representative democracies. They represent a fair portion of earth's landmass, population, and potential destructive power. I'd say the trend towards democracy has already peaked, and authoritarian governments are on the rise. >As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. I think we have very different worldviews on this subject, so a debate isn't going to be productive. But from where I'm coming from, it's easy to be idealistic when we're living in a golden age of peace and prosperity (despite the great recession). I'm more pessimistic about humanity in times of scarcity, disasters, and conflict. > There's also the argument that the world is more united these days (particularly thanks to the European Union and somewhat because of United Nations). I truly hope post-WWII institutions like these continue to have force for as long as possible. I think the world is safe from major war as long as this continues. But eventually, be it 50 years or 500 hundred years, they will fall.

olefoo 13y ago
You could make a fairly strong argument that these days the US is not much of a representative democracy; and that it is more of an elite oligarchy which performs a theater of democracy for public consumption. When overt criminal activity by elite institutions goes unpunished (see NSA, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, etc.) and popular movements for reform are crushed (Occupy) or coopted (Tea Party); it's hard to claim the moral high ground for our form of governance.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You could make a fairly strong argument that these days the US is not much of a representative democracy; and that it is more of an elite oligarchy which performs a theater of democracy for public consumption. To the extent that you could make such an argument "these days", you could make an even stronger argument for the same thing at almost any time in the past history of the U.S.
  - olefoo 13y ago
    Well, you could, but there are ebbs and flows. And right now the party of money seems to be riding roughshod over the party of the people.

userulluipeste 13y ago

"Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war." That maybe was true before, when the "democracy" craftsmanship wasn't mastered well enough. Now, I'll never bet against a government's ability to sway, at least for a while, the public perception in whatever direction, no matter how misplaced it might be. And to start a war, "for a while" is all it takes! ...Saddam's WMD? "I think the "nation state" is dying." Reality check - ask the Palestinians why do they want so bad a "palestinian" state when there already is an Israeli one in place? Or for that matter ask a Jew the the same question - is it that important to have an Israeli state?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. There's not really a lot of evidence that representative democracies are any less likely to go to war than otherwise similarly-situated nations with different government forms.