NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering the evolution of the nation state, the various pros and cons of such, and taking into account our global and local realities, what role do you think the nation state should play in this early part of the 21st century?

Basically, I think that a state should exist to serve the will of people, no more no less.

Basically, I think that a state should exist to serve the will of people, no more no less.

Thank you for being incredibly vague.

No nations state is homogenous...are you speaking of the 'majority' or are you speaking of ALL its citizens concerns?

How should a nation state balance competing needs and desires? Should the nation state focus on creating consensus, appeasement, national unity, international integration...what? What should the nation state aspire to? Who will decide that agenda, and how?

Basically, I think that a state should exist to serve the will of people, no more no less.

And if the will of the majority is to exterminate all black people...?

And of the will of the majority is to exterminate all black people...?


I doubt that situation would ever arise. And if that happens then I don't know, I'm just glad I'll never be in a position where I am obligated to do that (then again I don't think anyone would willing want to commit mass murder)

(then again I don't think anyone would willing want to commit mass murder)

History, and current events prove you so wrong on that.

then again I don't think anyone would willing want to commit mass murder

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp)

I doubt that situation would ever arise. And if that happens then I don't know, I'm just glad I'll never be in a position where I am obligated to do that (then again I don't think anyone would willing want to commit mass murder)

Why should the majority will be an obligation to follow?

Basically, I think that a state should exist to serve the will of people, no more no less.

Poltergeist Alexis de Tocqueville whacks you round the head with kitchen utensils for completely ignoring the risks of tyranny of the majority inherent in that statement.

Thank you for being incredibly vague.

No nations state is homogenous...are you speaking of the 'majority' or are you speaking of ALL its citizens concerns?

How should a nation state balance competing needs and desires? Should the nation state focus on creating consensus, appeasement, national unity, international integration...what? What should the nation state aspire to? Who will decide that agenda, and how?


Well the nation should aspire to serve the public, as in through doing what the majority of the population wants while taking into account the needs and wants of others.
The nation should also be charged with defending its people, providing them with safety, security, a health service. Basic things like a postal service, cleaning sewage - simple services.
The ideal nation would have a working direct democracy, rather than say representative democracy (which really does look like an Oligarchy of the wealthy/powerful in Britain)

Poltergeist Alexis de Tocqueville whacks you round the head with kitchen utensils for completely ignoring the risks of tyranny of the majority inherent in that statement.

Read my last reply.

Everyone should be able to do whatever the Hell they want to do, as long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others. Government role is to make sure the rights are not infringed.

*waits for someone to twist his words like Taffy*

Read my last reply.

Consider it read.

Why should the majority will be an obligation to follow?

Because the head of state and various other government members are there to serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

Poltergeist Alexis de Tocqueville whacks you round the head with kitchen utensils for completely ignoring the risks of tyranny of the majority inherent in that statement.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.. Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp)

Oh come on, that was soooooo like, half a century ago.

Everyone should be able to do whatever the Hell they want to do, as long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others. Government role is to make sure the rights are not infringed.

*waits for someone to twist his words like Taffy*

a great idea were it not ofr the problem that we still have yet to define what those rights actually are

Everyone should be able to do whatever the Hell they want to do, as long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others. Government role is to make sure the rights are not infringed.

*waits for someone to twist his words like Taffy*

Would you have basic laws as well as human rights? Your post seems like there would be no laws other than those protecting human rights.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.. Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Bloody peasant!

Because the head of state and various other government members are there to serve the will of the people

In your opinion. Why should this be the case?

Oh come on, that was soooooo like, half a century ago.

I know! I mean, we've evolved so much since then. It's not like anyone is left alive from those times or anything....

a great idea were it not ofr the problem that we still have yet to define what those rights actually are

The first ten are pretty well established.

Bloody peasant!

Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.. Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Commie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434)

a great idea were it not ofr the problem that we still have yet to define what those rights actually are

agree, that where everything falls apart.

Would you have basic laws as well as human rights? Your post seems like there would be no laws other than those protecting human rights.

I'm in favor of as small of a government as possible, in both power and physical size. There would be basic law for the citizens and laws that restrict the government as well.

The first ten are pretty well established.

:rolleyes:

Your country is not the world.

The first ten are pretty well established.

And they are?

:rolleyes:

Your country is not the world.

Better than most.

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp)

Well that was then, and if you look at modern western society it is well established that any kind of mass murder or infringement of humans rights is totally unacceptable and nobody is willing to let that happen again if they can help it.

agree, that where everything falls apart.

Don't give up so easily.



I'm in favor of as small of a government as possible, in both power and physical size. There would be basic law for the citizens and laws that restrict the government as well.That sounds like something less than the nation state.

I'll return to this...how important is national unity?

agree, that where everything falls apart.



I'm in favor of as small of a government as possible, in both power and physical size. There would be basic law for the citizens and laws that restrict the government as well.

Sounds good to me, but would you have say the water mains, electricity and that sort of thing in the hands of the government or corporations?

And they are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Well that was then

Oh come on, that was soooooo like, half a century ago.


Fucking called it. I owe you a cookie.

Better than most.

According to whom?

What 'rights' you believe are 'settled' in your own nation are not necessarily something that will translate well into other contexts. Particularly your spurious 'right to bear arms'.

According to whom?

What 'rights' you believe are 'settled' in your own nation are not necessarily something that will translate well into other contexts. Particularly your spurious 'right to bear arms'.

As you'll notice, our Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Fucking called it. I owe you a cookie.

I'd prefer a spanking, but the intent is appreciated :D

Sounds good to me, but would you have say the water mains, electricity and that sort of thing in the hands of the government or corporations?

I think most utilities can be provided by corporations.

As you'll notice, our Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Excuse me?

What the fuck does your Supreme Court have to do with determining what is appropriate in other...national or international...contexts?

I think most utilities can be provided by corporations.

which is fine, as long as you're willing to let a bunch of people freeze to death because it's not profitable to give them heat.

As you'll notice, our Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Your constitution is a joke, and the Supreme Court its punchline:p

In your opinion. Why should this be the case?

I answered like that because that's how I think it should be, but as for why it should be is because governments shouldn't force its will on the general public, I don't think it is right for the general masses to be slaves to a whim of the government.
Though I do think the people should have to respect basic laws, like those forcing them to respect other peoples rights and the like.

Excuse me?

What the fuck does your Supreme Court have to do with determining what is appropriate in other...national or international...contexts?

I was...more than a bit confused by that one myself.

Excuse me?

What the fuck does your Supreme Court have to do with determining what is appropriate in other...national or international...contexts?

It's what we, and the Founding Fathers have agreed on.

You don't have to live here if you don't like it.

Maybe you should read up on why the Founding Fathers believed that we should possess the ability to curb the power of the state - by force of arms when necessary.

The alternative, in extremis, is to stay under tyranny forever.

Your constitution is a joke, and the Supreme Court the punchline:p

Actually, as far as superbly crafted statements of universal rights go, the US Bill of Rights is pretty top drawer.

which is fine, as long as you're willing to let a bunch of people freeze to death because it's not profitable to give them heat.

So I guess the fact that I get my propane from a corporation means nothing, right?

You don't have to live here if you don't like it.

. . . she doesn't.

You really have completely gone off your rocker, haven't you?

So I guess the fact that I get my propane from a corporation means nothing, right?

considering you're not the demographic I'm speaking of, no, you're right, it means nothing to my point.

Glad you could keep up.

I think most utilities can be provided by corporations.

I think they should be provided by the government, because if the government exists to serve the will of the people (in my scenario of course) then they can be trusted to give you a good, constant and reliable service for those utilities, whereas you may not be able to trust the corporations as much, that and these services are just another product to them and it doesn't matter so much to them as long as they get a profit. An example of this is how some British Water companies deliver a relatively terrible and inefficient service, but do not improve because the cost outweighs the profits.

I answered like that because that's how I think it should be, but as for why it should be is because governments shouldn't force its will on the general public, I don't think it is right for the general masses to be slaves to a whim of the government.

Why is it more right for the public to be slaves to a whim of the majority (which may be a very small majority)? You're still not answering my question, just rewording what you're saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_declaration_of_human_rights) a more relevant set. You see, since this is a discussion of nation states and their purpose, national laws are focussing on a smaller part of the big picture.

It's what we, and the Founding Fathers have agreed on.

You don't have to live here if you don't like it.

Maybe you should read up on why the Founding Fathers believed that we should possess the ability to curb the power of the state - by force of arms when necessary.

The alternative, in extremis, is to stay under tyranny forever.

None of which determines whether the 'right to bear arms' should be a universal one applying to all contexts.

The justifications and arguments behind this 'right' in your own nation may be more or less compelling depending on the regional context it is being translated into. I think there are other 'universal rights' which need less twisting to translate on a wider level.

It's what we, and the Founding Fathers have agreed on.

You don't have to live here if you don't like it.

Maybe you should read up on why the Founding Fathers believed that we should possess the ability to curb the power of the state - by force of arms when necessary.

The alternative, in extremis, is to stay under tyranny forever.It's a small world, isn't it?

Why is it more right for the public to be slaves to a whim of the majority (which may be a very small majority)? You're still not answering my question, just rewording what you're saying.

What I said was the government must serve the will of the majority while taking into account the will of the minority.

Well that was then, and if you look at modern western society it is well established that any kind of mass murder or infringement of humans rights is totally unacceptable and nobody is willing to let that happen again if they can help it.

Unless it's a bunch of darkies on a different continent. Then it's perfectly okay to let that happen.

So I guess the fact that I get my propane from a corporation means nothing, right?

It has no inherent meaning, no.

I think they should be provided by the government, because if the government exists to serve the will of the people (in my scenario of course) then they can be trusted to give you a good, constant and reliable service for those utilities, whereas you may not be able to trust the corporations as much, that and these services are just another product to them and it doesn't matter so much to them as long as they get a profit. An example of this is how some British Water companies deliver a relatively terrible and inefficient service, but do not improve because the cost outweighs the profits.

At least with corporations, you know they're just for profit, you know where they stand and where you stand. With government, one minute they're on their knees giving you Fellatio, and the next they stab you in the back.

Unless it's a bunch of darkies on a different continent. Then it's perfectly okay to let that happen.
Since this is on the interwebs, it be true.

It's what we, and the Founding Fathers have agreed on.

You don't have to live here if you don't like it.

Maybe you should read up on why the Founding Fathers believed that we should possess the ability to curb the power of the state - by force of arms when necessary.

The alternative, in extremis, is to stay under tyranny forever.

How is that relevant to the rest of the world?

What I said was the government must serve the will of the majority while taking into account the will of the minority.

By take into account, do you mean that sometimes you will follow the will of the minority, even though it may be counter to the will of the majority?

Unless it's a bunch of darkies on a different continent. Then it's perfectly okay to let that happen.

So according to you its okay to mass murder black people if they live on another continent?

At least with corporations, you know they're just for profit, you know where they stand and where you stand. With government, one minute they're on their knees giving you Fellatio, and the next they stab you in the back.

Well in my scenario the government doesn't do that - yes it is a fantasy world in deed ^^

By take into account, do you mean that sometimes you will follow the will of the minority, even though it may be counter to the will of the majority?

No you compromise as best you can, you create a compromise that suits both groups as best as possible and the public is happy to accept.

It's what we, and the Founding Fathers have agreed on.

You don't have to live here if you don't like it.

Actually, yes I do. Or are you volunteering to pay the expenses for me to move to Canada?

Well in my scenario the government doesn't do that - yes it is a fantasy world in deed ^^

You're an Obama supporter, aren't ya?

What I said was the government must serve the will of the majority while taking into account the will of the minority.
How exactly should that work in practice?

Let's take Canada for example. We have two major groups of people who are a 'minority' in the national context, the Quebecois and aboriginal peoples (First Nations, Inuit and Metis). These two groups each are fighting for more power to self-govern, which would have the effect of removing certain powers from the majority.

How does one balance the will of the majority with the will of the minority? That is going to come down to the focus of the nation state itself. Again, that could be national unity, in which case, the desires of these minorities will be subsumed...it could be consensus building, where the needs of the minority would be given somewhat equal weighting to those of the majority and a national dialogue would be actively pursued...or it could be some other goal. What should the goal be, and how should it be chosen?

At least with corporations, you know they're just for profit, you know where they stand and where you stand. With government, one minute they're on their knees giving you Fellatio, and the next they stab you in the back.

Whereas if its profitable for a corporation to do so, they'll just repeatedly stab you in the back without giving you any pleasure first:p

You're an Obama supporter, aren't ya?

No, not at all.


Wow this is getting really weird .. today I've been mistaken for a Democrat, a libertarian and now an Obama supporter. I'm scared and confused! :confused: :'(

How exactly should that work in practice?

Let's take Canada for example. We have two major groups of people who are a 'minority' in the national context, the Quebecois and aboriginal peoples (First Nations, Inuit and Metis). These two groups each are fighting for more power to self-govern, which would have the effect of removing certain powers from the majority.

How does one balance the will of the majority with the will of the minority? That is going to come down to the focus of the nation state itself. Again, that could be national unity, in which case, the desires of these minorities will be subsumed...it could be consensus building, where the needs of the minority would be given somewhat equal weighting to those of the majority and a national dialogue would be actively pursued...or it could be some other goal. What should the goal be, and how should it be chosen?

I don't know how they are to maintain a balance other than through compromise.

So according to you its okay to mass murder black people if they live on another continent?

No. It's okay according to modern western society. I'm disputing your claims that "any kind of mass murder or infringement of humans rights is totally unacceptable and nobody is willing to let that happen again if they can help it". That is clearly false. It's happening right now, and modern western society is allowing it.

Whereas if its profitable for a corporation to do so, they'll just repeatedly stab you in the back without giving you any pleasure first:p

Hey, at least their isn't any false hope.

Basically, I think that a state should exist to serve the will of people, no more no less.
Terrible idea. People make bad decisions.

I don't know how they are to maintain a balance other than through compromise.

so the role you believe the government should play is...a fantasy one?

Well if we're playing THAT game, the government should hand out gumdrops and ponies!

I'm scared and confused! :confused: :'(

Welcome to my world. The only way to cope is to drink. *passes a bottle of Jack Daniels*

No. It's okay according to modern western society. I'm disputing your claims that "any kind of mass murder or infringement of humans rights is totally unacceptable and nobody is willing to let that happen again if they can help it". That is clearly false. It's happening right now, and modern western society is allowing it.

What I meant through that was the general population seem to believe strongly that it is wrong and shouldn't happen. I know that it does happen, but then we don't live in a fantasy world where everything is right.

And how is western society supposed to stop the infringement of human rights or to stop mass murder?

I don't know how they are to maintain a balance other than through compromise.

You haven't actually thought this out very far, have you.

You can't begin to compromise until you know what you are willing to negotiate on, and what is non-negotiable. This is going to be directly related to the underlying purpose of the nation state, which is more complex than simply 'the will of the majority taking into accounts the interests of the minority'.

I don't know how they are to maintain a balance other than through compromise.
So they compromise, and then no one gets what they want.

How is that better?

so the role you believe the government should play is...a fantasy one?

Well if we're playing THAT game, the government should hand out gumdrops and ponies!

Nu-uh, they should hand out edible body paint and floggers.

*nods*

Welcome to my world. The only way to cope is to drink. *passes a bottle of Jack Daniels*

Its the only thing that makes the pain go away :(

Nu-uh, they should hand out edible body paint and floggers.

*nods*

I like your version better

So they compromise, and then no one gets what they want.

How is that better?

They compromise in a way that all the people get some of what they want.

Hey, at least their isn't any false hope.

And when you run out of money, there isn't any hope at all.

You haven't actually thought this out very far, have you.

You can't begin to compromise until you know what you are willing to negotiate on, and what is non-negotiable. This is going to be directly related to the underlying purpose of the nation state, which is more complex than simply 'the will of the majority taking into accounts the interests of the minority'.

So then how do you suppose we make democracy work without it being a tyranny by majority?

They compromise in a way that all the people get some of what they want.

and what if "what they want" is not reducible? What if what they want is fundamentally at odds? What if I want a hydro electric dam built over a waterfall and you don't? How do we compromise on that? Either it gets built, or it does not.

Moreoever, how do you even begin to process of evaluating?

So then how do you suppose we make democracy work without it being a tyranny by majority?

some countries had this radical idea of taking a piece of paper and writing down all the things they promise not to do, even if the majority wants them to.

What I meant through that was the general population seem to believe strongly that it is wrong and shouldn't happen. I know that it does happen, but then we don't live in a fantasy world where everything is right.

According to the way our governments are set up...if the majority of the population truly believed that mass murder was something that should never ever be allowed to occur, then our foreign policy would reflect this.

The fact that our foreign policy does NOT reflect this overwhelming belief suggests that the general population is actually fairly indifferent to atrocities committed half a world away. I do not believe this is an indication that our systems aren't working right...I think if the system is set up to reflect the priorities of the majority, then it might be disturbing in the extreme to discover that those priorities are self-interested and even puerile...but nonethelee, they are accurately represented.

And how is western society supposed to stop the infringement of human rights or to stop mass murder?

I'll turn that around and ask you the same thing.

How would our focus need to change in order to intervene in such situations, and how might that look in terms of a nation's personal identity?

and what if "what they want" is not reducible? What if what they want is fundamentally at odds? What if I want a hydro electric dam built over a waterfall and you don't? How do we compromise on that? Either it gets built, or it does not.

Moreoever, how do you even begin to process of evaluating?

As I've said I really don't know, and compromise seems to be the best way to try and solve the issues between the wants of the majority and the wants of the minority.
Though it doesn't work when there is no form of middle ground.

According to the way our governments are set up...if the majority of the population truly believed that mass murder was something that should never ever be allowed to occur, then our foreign policy would reflect this.

See, I love it when people are under the mass dillusion that somehow the people REALLY REALLY want something, and it's just the mean politicians who stand in the way.

If the vast bulk of people really wanted to forcibly prevent genocide, where are the politicians advocating this? If the majority supported it, why don't they elect people who agree?

some countries had this radical idea of taking a piece of paper and writing down all the things they promise not to do, even if the majority wants them to.

Yes but how does that stop the minority from being oppressed on certain decisions and issues? (And I said the government should have set of laws that are indisputable and designed to protect the rights and needs of everyone)

Though it doesn't work when there is no form of middle ground.

You're learning.

some countries had this radical idea of taking a piece of paper and writing down all the things they promise not to do, even if the majority wants them to.

This.

Checks and balances. Those checks and balances of course will be shaped by shifts in national focus.

If national unity is the priority, then whatever the issue, the balancing of majority and minority needs will be decided within that context.

So change the context. It's not that hard to imagine how decisions would be made differently even with a set group of unavoidable principles.

See, I love it when people are under the mass dillusion that somehow the people REALLY REALLY want something, and it's just the mean politicians who stand in the way. It's much easier to believe this, and to believe that the system itself is inherently corrupt and that no one can change it, and it's just a fact of life we need to accept.

It's much harder to look in the mirror and say, 'you know, I'm going to be honest here...rising gas prices is more important to me than Darfur. I'm sorry, that's terrible, but it's true.'



If the vast bulk of people really wanted to forcibly prevent genocide, where are the politicians advocating this? If the majority supported it, why don't they elect people who agree?

I think the answer is that our politicans are doing pretty much what we want them to do.

According to the way our governments are set up...if the majority of the population truly believed that mass murder was something that should never ever be allowed to occur, then our foreign policy would reflect this.

The fact that our foreign policy does NOT reflect this overwhelming belief suggests that the general population is actually fairly indifferent to atrocities committed half a world away. I do not believe this is an indication that our systems aren't working right...I think if the system is set up to reflect the priorities of the majority, then it might be disturbing in the extreme to discover that those priorities are self-interested and even puerile...but nonethelee, they are accurately represented.


I'll turn that around and ask you the same thing.

How would our focus need to change in order to intervene in such situations, and how might that look in terms of a nation's personal identity?

Well I'm sure if you asked most people they'd believe that mass murder is wrong, whether or not the government reflects that I do not know. But in Britain we are a representative government, that means we elect people to make decisions for us, so whether or not we think its right or wrong it depends on what the individual wants. Although that can be circumvented through things like a re election and the person cannot break the law in anyway.

And the most obvious way to try and stop mass murder and the infringement of rights is to either stop the people who are doing it by force or to give them incentives to stop. As for the best solution I do not know since I have never tested all the possible solutions.

You're learning.

I already new that, but in most situations there is some form of compromise or middle ground available.

Yes but how does that stop the minority from being oppressed on certain decisions and issues? (And I said the government should have set of laws that are indisputable and designed to protect the rights and needs of everyone)

Those indisputable laws you speak of, designed to protect the rights and needs of everyone...well those are exactly what Neo Art was referencing. Constitutional limits on governmental power, exercised by an independent judiciary.

The majority might desire a certain outcome, but if that outcome fundamentally violates constitutional principles, then ideally, that outcome will not be allowed.

Now here you have a dilemna. Should the will of the majority be supreme in all cases? Should there actually be such limits on the people?

Those indisputable laws you speak of, designed to protect the rights and needs of everyone...well those are exactly what Neo Art was referencing. Constitutional limits on governmental power, exercised by an independent judiciary.

The majority might desire a certain outcome, but if that outcome fundamentally violates constitutional principles, then ideally, that outcome will not be allowed.

Now here you have a dilemna. Should the will of the majority be supreme in all cases? Should there actually be such limits on the people?

As I pointed out earlier there should be a set of laws created designed to serve the best interests of every and they must be indisputable regardless of what the people want.
And the will of the people must have limit in the sense that they cannot do certain things that break the law.

Well I'm sure if you asked most people they'd believe that mass murder is wrong, whether or not the government reflects that I do not know.
It's one thing to say that something is wrong...you're right, I believe that ultimately, mass murder is unacceptable to the majority on a very fundamental level. It is quite another to say that on a personal level, something like genocide is as important as the rising cost of living, especially if one directly impacts you and the other does not.

This is what I was talking about when I brought up national focus. If your focus as a nation is fairly inward looking...balancing resources in order to meet the needs of its citizens, then your efforts are going to reflect that focus. If your focus as a nation is instead attempting to integrate into an international community, then what happens half a world away actually matters on a more immediate level, and once again, your efforts will reflect that.

Historically, the nation state has been fairly inward looking, with a focus on national unity. My original question basically asks you to consider whether or not this focus is as necessary now as it was even fifty years ago. Do we need fear expansionism to the same extent, is national defence and cohesion as important...and if not, then what should replace these concerns?

So I'm asking you to look at the nation state in the global context. How should nation states interact with one another, and what would that interaction look like at the regional (national) level? Understanding that we live in an intensely connected and interdependent context...whose concerns should be paramount?

It's one thing to say that something is wrong...you're right, I believe that ultimately, mass murder is unacceptable to the majority on a very fundamental level. It is quite another to say that on a personal level, something like genocide is as important as the rising cost of living, especially if one directly impacts you and the other does not.

This is what I was talking about when I brought up national focus. If your focus as a nation is fairly inward looking...balancing resources in order to meet the needs of its citizens, then your efforts are going to reflect that focus. If your focus as a nation is instead attempting to integrate into an international community, then what happens half a world away actually matters on a more immediate level, and once again, your efforts will reflect that.

Historically, the nation state has been fairly inward looking, with a focus on national unity. My original question basically asks you to consider whether or not this focus is as necessary now as it was even fifty years ago. Do we need fear expansionism to the same extent, is national defence and cohesion as important...and if not, then what should replace these concerns?

So I'm asking you to look at the nation state in the global context. How should nation states interact with one another, and what would that interaction look like at the regional (national) level? Understanding that we live in an intensely connected and interdependent context...whose concerns should be paramount?

Genocide does indeed keep populations down, but then things like a limit on how many children you can have will slow this down. and if the population get to high to be sustained then things like starvation will be prominent. Though I agree that while mass murder is extremely wrong on pretty much every level the only way in which is could possibly be right is if you put it into context of trying to keep a manageable and sustainable population. But even then in practice it shouldn't really be done.

In western society the fear of foreign forces and threats from other nations seem to be quiet low. It would seem that war is not as bigger thing as it used to be, nor is it used extensively for the wants or needs of a nation (as I said not on the scale that it used to be at least)

I think that a nation should integrate into the global community in the sense that it focuses more on cooperation rather than holding a selfish agenda. The nation must put some degree of priority on the wants and needs of others outside there nation too.
Sorry if I am being to vague.

Hmm looks like its just me and Neesika left in this discussion.

Hmm looks like its just me and Neesika left in this discussion.

Don't worry, it'll pick up.

I think the biggest thing you should take away from this is realising that if you really want to develop a sustainable position, you have to be willing to go beyond the vague, and actually determine what it is that you fundamentally support and why. Part of doing that is thinking about the ramifications of your beliefs.

If the nation state were focused more on international cooperation and integration, how might that play out nationally? What needs would necessarily be subsumed by this agenda, and how could that negatively impact the inhabitants of said nation? What benefits might flow from this?

It's all about balancing competing interests.

In my own case, I don't think that national unity need be such a priority. Not in the international context, where interdependence is an everyday reality. Political cohesion is important when it comes to large national works or programs, but I believe in decentralising power as much as possible in order to reflect the regional aspirations of different populations within the country. I think that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms adequately addresses the human rights based conflicts that might ensue. The ability of small, self-governing regions to meet the needs of their people will be limited by resources, obviously. A small aboriginal community on the west coast will not be able to marshall the resources or political weight to secure a comprehensive and separate health care/social welfare/educational system...but in cooperation with other similarily situated communities, it could become more possible. As well, the focus will still more likely meet the needs of the communities involved than would a nationally administered, cookie-cutter approach where the decision making is going on thousands of kilometres away.

Nationstates nowadays seem to follow the orders of large corporations (multinationals in most cases). Governments have learned that to keep the masses happy, you need some middle class wealth and piles of consumer goods.

China seems to follow this pattern, and so do most Western nations (even Russia is doing this). Regardless of political bent, this is the way large nations are going.

Everything else is fluff - bullshit to keep individuals preoccupied with the War On "X" and to keep the malls full.

Making people "happy" doesn't seem to involve giving people all the rights that some philosophy student would be happy with - it's more about giving them iPods and cars and air conditioning.

Don't worry, it'll pick up.

I think the biggest thing you should take away from this is realising that if you really want to develop a sustainable position, you have to be willing to go beyond the vague, and actually determine what it is that you fundamentally support and why. Part of doing that is thinking about the ramifications of your beliefs.

If the nation state were focused more on international cooperation and integration, how might that play out nationally? What needs would necessarily be subsumed by this agenda, and how could that negatively impact the inhabitants of said nation? What benefits might flow from this?

It's all about balancing competing interests.

In my own case, I don't think that national unity need be such a priority. Not in the international context, where interdependence is an everyday reality. Political cohesion is important when it comes to large national works or programs, but I believe in decentralising power as much as possible in order to reflect the regional aspirations of different populations within the country. I think that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms adequately addresses the human rights based conflicts that might ensue. The ability of small, self-governing regions to meet the needs of their people will be limited by resources, obviously. A small aboriginal community on the west coast will not be able to marshall the resources or political weight to secure a comprehensive and separate health care/social welfare/educational system...but in cooperation with other similarily situated communities, it could become more possible. As well, the focus will still more likely meet the needs of the communities involved than would a nationally administered, cookie-cutter approach where the decision making is going on thousands of kilometres away.

It feels like your my soon to be politics teacher ^^

Well in terms of governance balance is key things don't rend to work out if you do not get it right. when a nation looks to deeply into its own affairs it becomes "rotten at the core" because things tend to fictionalize when we only look at what is in front of us and not the bigger picture.
I also believe that the need for central unity and rule is counter productive for the wants and needs of everyone. It should be more decentralized/localized if it is to every become an effective ruling body for everyone.

Nationstates nowadays seem to follow the orders of large corporations (multinationals in most cases). Governments have learned that to keep the masses happy, you need some middle class wealth and piles of consumer goods.

China seems to follow this pattern, and so do most Western nations (even Russia is doing this). Regardless of political bent, this is the way large nations are going.

Everything else is fluff - bullshit to keep individuals preoccupied with the War On "X" and to keep the malls full.

Making people "happy" doesn't seem to involve giving people all the rights that some philosophy student would be happy with - it's more about giving them iPods and cars and air conditioning.

Nations today seem to mainly work to keep the masses quiet through things like consumerism - with this many people do not care for politics, what do politics matter to them when they know people will always need them to do jobs and services. The public cares more about its material possessions than its governance in a sense, but then again you don't truly have a choice when it comes to modern democracies like this, you have to vote for people in one party and another and that is basically all the choice you get.

So long as the populace is happy with their material possessions they won't bother themselves about distant nations or "boring political debates". That is what the trend seems to be at least.

Prettymuch what its playing now...world governmentsll never really work, the UN is as close as its getting, IMO....

The United Nations.

Open not that can of worms!

I personally think the UN is a terrible idea.

I personally think the UN is a terrible idea.



Why? .......

Why? .......

Because it has presided over more massacres since WWII than any single nation state.

Because it has presided over more massacres since WWII than any single nation state.

That doesn't even make sense.

You're comparing the UN to a nation state? Based on what criteria?

And what do you mean by 'presided over', and how is that comparable to the way a nation could possibly 'preside over'?

That doesn't even make sense.

You're comparing the UN to a nation state? Based on what criteria?

And what do you mean by 'presided over', and how is that comparable to the way a nation could possibly 'preside over'?

They've had "peacekeepers" present at a lot of massacres since the UN was started. And none of them stopped them - they just sat there and watched.

How would our focus need to change in order to intervene in such situations, and how might that look in terms of a nation's personal identity?

If we look at it from the persepctive of 'what do we as a nation want to avoid?' rather than 'what do we want?', then the question gets a little clearer. So, the thing that a nation state would most want to avoid would be its demise. The easiest way for a nation-state to do this would be to adapt itself to the changing needs of the nation's society, so we would have to identify which things will affect a change, and what change will they bring.

Some things will affect what we decide are situations requiring change. Part of this will be culturally based, and part of it will be more 'practical'. Some people belive that this will create two different entities: the first would be some global minimalist government that oversees the implementation of some sort of global free trade deal and market. In our world of globalised finance, this is not hard to imagine. The second entity would be like Neesika's (un beso rapido, querida) regionalised and localised community that looks after sociocultural needs. There would, of course, be a plethora of these second entities. Neal Stephenson wrote a sci-fi novel based on nanotech that place in such a world. However, Neesika's groups would have a tie to the land that is not addressed by the world of which I spoke.

And this is important because of two reasons: one, we live in an interconnected biosphere, and two: wars are almost always for control over resources.

I think environmental priorities are going to become more central to all nation-states in today's interconnected society.

I would write more, but I have to pick up the kids.

They've had "peacekeepers" present at a lot of massacres since the UN was started. And none of them stopped them - they just sat there and watched.

As compared to....nation's peacekeepers non-affiliated with the UN:confused:

I can understand your complaints about the UN, I simply cannot understand your original phrasing. Does not compute.

I can understand your complaints about the UN, I simply cannot understand your original phrasing. Does not compute.

Mayhaps I can help him out thusly:

Because it has presided over more massacres since WWII than any single nation state.

Compared with:

They've had "peacekeepers" present at a lot of massacres since the UN was started. And none of them stopped them - they just sat there and watched.

I suggest DK that you look up the meaning of the word "preside". Despite what you seem to think, it does not mean "to be present"

Because it has presided over more massacres since WWII than any single nation state.
Considering that the UN consists of a hundred or so member states, it isn't exactly surprising that a hundered or so states have commited more massacres after the Second World War than a single pre Second World War state.

If we look at it from the persepctive of 'what do we as a nation want to avoid?' rather than 'what do we want?', then the question gets a little clearer. So, the thing that a nation state would most want to avoid would be its demise.
Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for...a stated focus. A nation state clearly is focused on maintaining itself...whether that is done through encouraging 'national unity' (incorporating various styles of assimilationist versus multicultural policies etc) or some other means (or combination thereof).

So some nations fear cultural demise...and react accordingly. Others fear a loss of power due to enlarging spheres of influence in the region. But to figure out what a nation wishes to avoid in the sense of wishing to avoid its own demise, there has to be a dialogue about what would actually constitute 'demise'.

Until fairly recently, the concept of a separate Quebec was touted as a national demise in waiting...a physical rending that would irrepably damage the nation state of Canada. I think there has been a shift in that regard...even though separation isn't as seriously considered as it once was, it is still an important undercurrent, but it has become less threatening. In a way I think this is because people recognise that we would still have a relationship with Quebec, there would still be a national context, and the nation state is more than loose regional cohesion.


The easiest way for a nation-state to do this would be to adapt itself to the changing needs of the nation's society, so we would have to identify which things will affect a change, and what change will they bring.

Some things will affect what we decide are situations requiring change. Part of this will be culturally based, and part of it will be more 'practical'. Some people belive that this will create two different entities: the first would be some global minimalist government that oversees the implementation of some sort of global free trade deal and market. In our world of globalised finance, this is not hard to imagine. The second entity would be like Neesika's (un beso rapido, querida) regionalised and localised community that looks after sociocultural needs. There would, of course, be a plethora of these second entities. Neal Stephenson wrote a sci-fi novel based on nanotech that place in such a world. However, Neesika's groups would have a tie to the land that is not addressed by the world of which I spoke.

And this is important because of two reasons: one, we live in an interconnected biosphere, and two: wars are almost always for control over resources.

I think environmental priorities are going to become more central to all nation-states in today's interconnected society.

I would write more, but I have to pick up the kids.
I know we've discussed this a bit before (te amo con todo el corazon), but I wanted to flesh it out a bit more to see what other people have to say on the matter. Historically, the battle over resources has been fought in a sort of 'to the winner go the spoils' fashion, with little regard to the impact this would have on the 'losers'...I mean, other than the gloating it might trigger.

I think more and more though, the direct impact resource plunder is having on us forces us to take seriously the events in even the most distant areas of the world. When natural disasters in one area of the world have real, tangible effects on say, the supply and price of a staple food in your own neighbourhood, suddenly the world seems to 'shrink'.

It's natural, and easy I think to be less concerned with what goes on in places that seem incredibly distant and unconnected to our present reality. That perspective is less viable in these days however. I think just even looking at it from a selfish perspective, nations will have to concern themselves more with the manner of resource extraction (in addition to the obvious, like oil) in areas of the world where we don't necessarily have any direct political power. That means that citizens will have to reorganise their thoughts as well...if the failure of rice-crops five thousand kilometers away has an appreciable affect on the price of food in your local supermarket, then it's not incomprehensible that national policies in your own country could be having a detrimental affect on other nation states. That latter issue might be less pressing in the mind of an average person, but not if they can see the ripple effect in some tangible sense.

If nation states were to consider 'demise' from an environmental perspective, realising that the environment is not self-contained within national boundaries, then what might this national focus do to the way we organise ourselves within the nation, and how we end up setting priorities?

For example...we have constitutionally entrenched human rights...but these are individual, human rights...could we envision a situation where we would wish to entrench collective rights, or environmental rights?

Mayhaps I can help him out thusly


Compared with:

I suggest DK that you look up the meaning of the word "preside". Despite what you seem to think, it does not mean "to be present"

Conflating the two words might explain it, yes.

It's much harder to look in the mirror and say, 'you know, I'm going to be honest here...rising gas prices is more important to me than Darfur. I'm sorry, that's terrible, but it's true.'
I just don't think that occurs to most people. In general, people aren't that introspective. They're no self-critical. They don't examine their own opinions closely enough to notice that they hold contradictory opinions simultaneously.

I'd like to point out that I supported Talisman Energy (a Canadian company) that had interests in the Sudanese oilfields, even though public pressure eventually forced them to sell their stake in those fields to avoid profiting from the events in Sudan (even though the only buyer turned out to be the Chinese government, and nothing about Sudan was affected).

Really, if the atrocities in Sudan are going to happen anyway, why wasn't Talisman allowed to make some money from it? I don't understand the outcry. Either they make the money, or China does. Why does it have to be China?

Anyway, I think society would fall apart if people had to reconcile their own opinions. Much of social norms is based on things that people "know" to be true, even though they should be able to figure out that it doesn't with only a moment's thought.

Oh, and I don't really care about Darfur. People I don't know die every day.

It's natural, and easy I think to be less concerned with what goes on in places that seem incredibly distant and unconnected to our present reality. That perspective is less viable in these days however. I think just even looking at it from a selfish perspective, nations will have to concern themselves more with the manner of resource extraction (in addition to the obvious, like oil) in areas of the world where we don't necessarily have any direct political power. That means that citizens will have to reorganise their thoughts as well...if the failure of rice-crops five thousand kilometers away has an appreciable affect on the price of food in your local supermarket, then it's not incomprehensible that national policies in your own country could be having a detrimental affect on other nation states. That latter issue might be less pressing in the mind of an average person, but not if they can see the ripple effect in some tangible sense.
The obvious answer to that is wealth. The people who thrived during the Great Depression, for example, were the one's who had the money to buy what everyone else was selling.

So, by encouraging wealth creation in your nation state, you guard against these sorts of bottlenecks. If the price of rice goes up, the rice will find its way into the hands of the people paying the highest price.

I just don't think that occurs to most people. In general, people aren't that introspective. They're no self-critical. They don't examine their own opinions closely enough to notice that they hold contradictory opinions simultaneously.
That's what I said essentially...people aren't going to admit these things to themselves consciously...and if they do, they will always try to find a way to not feel bad about it, even though they recognise that they should feel badly.

I'd like to point out that I supported Talisman Energy (a Canadian company) that had interests in the Sudanese oilfields, even though public pressure eventually forced them to sell their stake in those fields to avoid profiting from the events in Sudan (even though the only buyer turned out to be the Chinese government, and nothing about Sudan was affected).

Really, if the atrocities in Sudan are going to happen anyway, why wasn't Talisman allowed to make some money from it? I don't understand the outcry. Either they make the money, or China does. Why does it have to be China?

Well in my mind, it's not a situation of 'it was going to happen anyway, might as well profit over some other country'. There is moral weight lent to such events when global powers not only fail to criticise these atrocities, but also seem content to aid and abet them as long as a profit can be made. In essence, that countries were willing to compete for profits despite human rights violations, sends the message that profits > human rights.

If this is true, then Canada, for one, is contradicting its own stance on the subject. If our stance is based on the desires of the majority, then this contradiction actually betrays the people...that alone should be cause for concern, if you are unable to empathise or care about what happens beyond our borders.



Anyway, I think society would fall apart if people had to reconcile their own opinions. Much of social norms is based on things that people "know" to be true, even though they should be able to figure out that it doesn't with only a moment's thought.

Oh, and I don't really care about Darfur. People I don't know die every day.
So for someone like you, there would actually have to be a direct impact (negative I'm assuming) on your life for you to care?

I believe in the main, this is true of many people. It's why I think environmental concerns will be the 'issue' to bridge that gap...I don't mean things like slashing and burning the rainforest...but rather environmental issues impacting our global food and energy supply. If what was going on in Darfur meant you had to pay a dollar more a litre for gas, or three dollars more for a pound of wheat, I believe that suddenly, it would 'matter'.

The obvious answer to that is wealth. The people who thrived during the Great Depression, for example, were the one's who had the money to buy what everyone else was selling.

So, by encouraging wealth creation in your nation state, you guard against these sorts of bottlenecks. If the price of rice goes up, the rice will find its way into the hands of the people paying the highest price.

I don't think this is any sort of answer at all.

Yes, if you create wealth in your nation, and are able to continue purchasing limited supplies of essential goods, you'll be better off than those nations who are unable to do so. Even ignoring that there will be citizens within your nation who despite higher levels of average wealth will be cut out of the market, this 'solution' is very short lived.

We are relying in absolutely incredible levels on food imported from other countries. The lessening in transportation subsidies means that yes, food prices will rise, but that increase is even less likely to translate into higher profits for exporting nations. Once the local food supply becomes too expensive for the local population to afford even with increased global prices, food production will decrease as it simply will no longer be economically viable...at which point, the supply will decrease once again, prices will rise and eventually, even the richest nations will be struggling. Not only with the cost...but the instability that hunger causes.

We're already seeing how events in distant lands have immediate impacts on the price of commodities in our own nations. Someone farts in Iraq and petroleum peaks again. Simply ignoring this, and working single-mindedly on the accumulation of wealth is a stop-gap measure and incredibly short-sighted.

I'm sorry, Llewdor, but 'survival of the fittest' isn't a viable option until you are much more self-sufficient than any western, industrialised nation is anymore.

We are relying in absolutely incredible levels on food imported from other countries. You - which specifically country? Because US for one is a big exporter.

Once the local food supply becomes too expensive for the local population to afford even with increased global prices, food production will decrease as it simply will no longer be economically viable...
No, that doesn't and can't happen. Local food supply becomes expensive because of high labor costs. And high labor costs mean... right, that people have a lot of money.
Local food production will only decrease if foreign producers offer cheaper food.

at which point, the supply will decrease once again, prices will rise and eventually, even the richest nations will be struggling. Not only with the cost...but the instability that hunger causes.
This is absolutely ridiculous and impossible scenario under a free market. If the global prices rise, it leads to an increase in local production. Price up, supply up.
There's no vicious circle you describe, what happens is the exact opposite.


I'm sorry, Llewdor, but 'survival of the fittest' isn't a viable option until you are much more self-sufficient than any western, industrialised nation is anymore.
Yes, but then you become a much poorer nation than the ones specializing in what they do best.

You - which specifically country? Because US for one is a big exporter.

Of certain foodstuffs. You certainly aren't a big exporter of rice, or bananas, etc. US tastes have changed and there is a higher demand for 'exotics', including beers and wine.

In fact, since 2005, the US has been a net importer (http://www.fao.org/) of food.

Edit: damnit, I'm having trouble with links to the FAO's site right now...not sure if that's just my ISP or if it's a problem with the site itself.

Ah here, this might work better: http://faostat.fao.org/

Edit edit: Damn it! None of the FAO's statistics pages are working for me right now! I can't back up the net import claim without it...I'm not finding other reliable resources yet. I shall endevour to do so however.


No, that doesn't and can't happen. Local food supply becomes expensive because of high labor costs. And high labor costs mean... right, that people have a lot of money.

Yes it does, and can happen. Local food supply is impacted by much more than labour costs. At the most obvious, natural disasters/crop failures. These can have a devastating impact on the cost of local foodstuffs that are completely independent of labour costs.


Local food production will only decrease if foreign producers offer cheaper food. Again, simplistic and false.

Outside of natural disasters, you also have the issue of the shift from foodstuffs to cash crops, including biofuels, something that has been a major issue of concern recently.


This is absolutely ridiculous and impossible scenario under a free market. I'm not sure what planet you're living on...but it's not the same one I'm on.

If the global prices rise, it leads to an increase in local production. Price up, supply up.
There's no vicious circle you describe, what happens is the exact opposite.

Do you have a habit of putting your hands over your ears and going 'lalalala can't hear you!' ?

The price of rice is up. Supply is dangerously down. That may even out in a few more seasons, but right now, it still means people are rioting (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/editorial/2008/July/editorial_July43.xml&section=editorial&col=) over food shortages.

Rising food costs have had a discernable impact even in the richest of nations...though in those nations there is no shortage. Instead, as Llewdor pointed out, wealth keeps the supply fairly stable in the rich nations. There is no magical cornucopia producing more food for the rest of the world though...stable supplies in the industrialised west despite global shortages necessarily means that those shortages are intensified outside of the industrialised west.



Yes, but then you become a much poorer nation than the ones specializing in what they do best.
Better that then the trend of becoming more and more dependent on foreign food production.

Less of an issue for the industrialised west...but most developing nations are dangerously reliant on food imports and thus more seriously impacted by fluctuations in global costs and supply.

I personally think the UN is a terrible idea.

Idk, its not a terrible idea i think, its just been utilized in terrible ways...

You know, at least nowadays nations have to get together and look eachother in the face...

At least you have to go through alot more shit to, say, invade the German Confederation like in the Napoleonic Wars...In this day and age there'd be alot more consequences, i mean, look at all the shit Russia's getting for Georgia...

That's what I said essentially...people aren't going to admit these things to themselves consciously...and if they do, they will always try to find a way to not feel bad about it, even though they recognise that they should feel badly.
Normative claims don't apply to feelings. You feel how you feel - there's no "should" to it.

If people don't feel bad, then they don't feel bad. Given how widespread this seems to be, can we honestly claim there's anything wrong with it? This appears to be how morality works.
Well in my mind, it's not a situation of 'it was going to happen anyway, might as well profit over some other country'. There is moral weight lent to such events when global powers not only fail to criticise these atrocities, but also seem content to aid and abet them as long as a profit can be made. In essence, that countries were willing to compete for profits despite human rights violations, sends the message that profits > human rights.
But profit > human rights. We've already established that. Just because you'd prefer that not be the case doesn't change the fact that your opinion appears to be in the minority.
So for someone like you, there would actually have to be a direct impact (negative I'm assuming) on your life for you to care?

I believe in the main, this is true of many people.
It certainly looks like it. It's refreshing not to be in the minority for once.
It's why I think environmental concerns will be the 'issue' to bridge that gap...I don't mean things like slashing and burning the rainforest...but rather environmental issues impacting our global food and energy supply. If what was going on in Darfur meant you had to pay a dollar more a litre for gas, or three dollars more for a pound of wheat, I believe that suddenly, it would 'matter'.
Sure.

Though, here you're relying on the people to figure out what's causing them harm, and it's not an entirely obvious connection all the time. If you think the people can figure that out well enough to support action that actually does some good, you have more faith in them than I do.
I don't think this is any sort of answer at all.

Yes, if you create wealth in your nation, and are able to continue purchasing limited supplies of essential goods, you'll be better off than those nations who are unable to do so. Even ignoring that there will be citizens within your nation who despite higher levels of average wealth will be cut out of the market, this 'solution' is very short lived.
Isolated poverty is a necessary consequence of widespread wealth. And it's only relative poverty, after all.
We are relying in absolutely incredible levels on food imported from other countries. The lessening in transportation subsidies means that yes, food prices will rise, but that increase is even less likely to translate into higher profits for exporting nations. Once the local food supply becomes too expensive for the local population to afford even with increased global prices, food production will decrease as it simply will no longer be economically viable...at which point, the supply will decrease once again, prices will rise and eventually, even the richest nations will be struggling. Not only with the cost...but the instability that hunger causes.

We're already seeing how events in distant lands have immediate impacts on the price of commodities in our own nations. Someone farts in Iraq and petroleum peaks again. Simply ignoring this, and working single-mindedly on the accumulation of wealth is a stop-gap measure and incredibly short-sighted.
This isn't a problem that only gets worse and worse. We only need to stay afloat long enough for other societies to collapse. This will dramatically reduce their consumption of resources (partly through reducing their populations), thus allowing us to pull through.

When all is said and done, the world may well look very different from the one we have today, but we'll still be in it.
I'm sorry, Llewdor, but 'survival of the fittest' isn't a viable option until you are much more self-sufficient than any western, industrialised nation is anymore.
We need to look at this competitively. Environmental concerns necessarily create a huge free-rider problem. Unless we're going to go into other parts of the world and force them to smarten up, we need to find a way to weather the storm. Because if the storn's coming it's coming regardless of what we do.

Outside of natural disasters, you also have the issue of the shift from foodstuffs to cash crops, including biofuels, something that has been a major issue of concern recently.
That surge in biofuel production is largely the result of some very short-sighted subsidies.

If you want ethanol, buy it from Brazil. They make it cheaper.
Better that then the trend of becoming more and more dependent on foreign food production.
This is the traditional economic growth curve. A new economy is heavily Agrarian. Slowly, that Agricultural production becomes Manufacturing. When those are about equal, the Manufaturing levels off and Services grow at the expense of Agriculture. And then ultimately Services become the dominant economic activity at the expense of everything else.

This is the traditional economic growth curve. A new economy is heavily Agrarian. Slowly, that Agricultural production becomes Manufacturing. When those are about equal, the Manufaturing levels off and Services grow at the expense of Agriculture. And then ultimately Services become the dominant economic activity at the expense of everything else.

Not the way we do it, lmao...

Of certain foodstuffs. You certainly aren't a big exporter of rice, or bananas, etc. US tastes have changed and there is a higher demand for 'exotics', including beers and wine.
In fact, since 2005, the US has been a net importer (http://www.fao.org/) of food.
Probably by price rather than mass, though I'm not sure. But it has big imports and big exports.


Yes it does, and can happen. Local food supply is impacted by much more than labour costs. At the most obvious, natural disasters/crop failures. These can have a devastating impact on the cost of local foodstuffs that are completely independent of labour costs.
Yes, but it is not caused by the economy choice.
Furthermore, on the contrary, if you're trying to be self-sufficient, your crop failures seriously deprive you from food, and small exports mean you can't afford importing the rest.
But if you're a product exporter, food importer - then you just buy the food from another part of the world which didn't have crop failures.


Outside of natural disasters, you also have the issue of the shift from foodstuffs to cash crops, including biofuels, something that has been a major issue of concern recently.
Shift from food to biofuels only happens because there's enough food already. No one's getting less food because of it.


The price of rice is up. Supply is dangerously down. That may even out in a few more seasons, but right now, it still means people are rioting (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/editorial/2008/July/editorial_July43.xml&section=editorial&col=) over food shortages.
Yes, but not in US. And that's the whole point, you just change the exporter, or bid higher, and you get what you need.


There is no magical cornucopia producing more food for the rest of the world though...stable supplies in the industrialised west despite global shortages necessarily means that those shortages are intensified outside of the industrialised west.
No, it doesn't. It means the non-industrialized nations have to shift more of their population to grow crops. [Or should have shifted earlier]. In exchange, they get industrial products from the West - including agricultural equipment.


Less of an issue for the industrialised west...but most developing nations are dangerously reliant on food imports and thus more seriously impacted by fluctuations in global costs and supply.
So what do you propose? That they don't industrialize and stay agricultural for self-sufficiency?

Or, maybe, it's better to select nations with the best climates for each product and let them grow most of the food?

Considering the evolution of the nation state, the various pros and cons of such, and taking into account our global and local realities, what role do you think the nation state should play in this early part of the 21st century?

That's a difficult question for me to answer.

Speaking abstractly, I don't particularly think that "states" are the right ways to organize human beings politically, and therefore I'm inclined to say that the role of the nation state, properly, is "none": if we are going to have control over our own lives, we should not be dependent upon, and obedient to, the decisions of large bureaucratic institutions far away upon which we have, realistically, not so much input.

But the global reality being what it is, I'm willing to acknowledge that sometimes you have to play the hand you are dealt, even as you might prefer to just knock over the table... even assuming a commitment to anarchist principles that simply does not exist among the general populace, radical political decentralization and autonomy is a rather tricky proposition to implement in anything like the present global economic system. Absolute refusal and rejection, however tempting the idea, is ultimately counterproductive in a world where, perversely, we are dependent upon the smooth functioning of precisely the institutions we have good reason to oppose.

So I'm left with giving a more mainstream left answer, to supplement but not to replace my reply of "none." Domestically, the "nation-state" has a duty to serve the will of the people, as expressed through representatives elected fairly and proportionately (lower-case "p", I'm not too concerned for the particular election format) in competitive, pluralistic elections. As a person, my "will" is that it meaningfully expand our democratic control over our economic lives, through extensive, well-funded social programs and some variety of (largely) market-oriented socialism. This means large government "size", but I'm not convinced that this fact is of any particular significance. I'd prefer that this happen in a localized manner as much as reasonably possible.

Internationally speaking, I'm willing to defend the democratic "nation-state", at least in some respects, as a guardian of (relative) collective autonomy, insofar as it gives its citizens some control over the society they live in a way that global market capitalism can't equal. That said, while there's something to autarky and self-sufficiency in abstract, in the context of the massive human needs at stake in development, outright protectionism among developed countries ought to go in essentially all cases, and it should be applied only very carefully among developing countries. Further, as long as we are a global society, we should expand and respect the international legal order: unilateralism and the right-wing nationalist obsession with "sovereignty" amount to a "might makes right" world.

Normative claims don't apply to feelings. You feel how you feel - there's no "should" to it.

Its implicit in normative claims that there are things that one should feel/do/be/whatever.

If people don't feel bad, then they don't feel bad. Given how widespread this seems to be, can we honestly claim there's anything wrong with it? This appears to be how morality works.

People don't care that much about things that don't personally concern because of the limits human psychology. If everyone didn't feel bad if you, Llewdor, were tortured and raped for several years does that mean that indifference to your torture and rape is morally acceptable?

But profit > human rights. We've already established that. Just because you'd prefer that not be the case doesn't change the fact that your opinion appears to be in the minority.

This thread is based on the normative claims dealing with the state. The practices advocative in such claims and actual practices don't necessarily mesh.

This isn't a problem that only gets worse and worse. We only need to stay afloat long enough for other societies to collapse. This will dramatically reduce their consumption of resources (partly through reducing their populations), thus allowing us to pull through.

When all is said and done, the world may well look very different from the one we have today, but we'll still be in it.We need to look at this competitively. Environmental concerns necessarily create a huge free-rider problem. Unless we're going to go into other parts of the world and force them to smarten up, we need to find a way to weather the storm. Because if the storn's coming it's coming regardless of what we do.

The collapse of some societies would drastically reduce the consumption of surviving societies as well. I recognize that there are free rider problem, but I would think that one should form mechanisms to reduce or eliminate this problem.

How will Canada survive when the environment and global economy collapse?

some countries had this radical idea of taking a piece of paper and writing down all the things they promise not to do, even if the majority wants them to.

The problem is that a leader can draw up the best constitution in the world, but if that country's cultural outlook is different to it's constitution (as happens), eventually it will corrupt it to it's own ends. Look at Pakistan and the US. They both had good constitutions they have intentionally twisted to suit lesser ends.

So then how do you suppose we make democracy work without it being a tyranny by majority?

I'm not convinced you can. Ideologically I dislike democracy, but I concede that some form of representation of the larger population at a certain level can be beneficial. The emphasis, however, is on ensuring that the population has a point of contact with the rulers, not in passing legislation.

See, I love it when people are under the mass dillusion that somehow the people REALLY REALLY want something, and it's just the mean politicians who stand in the way.

If the vast bulk of people really wanted to forcibly prevent genocide, where are the politicians advocating this? If the majority supported it, why don't they elect people who agree?

One could argue that politicians are more wary of wealthy lobby groups than of elections which can be swung easily by throwing money at them. I think there is an element of both. Lobby groups know how to use the democratic system to their own ends extremely effectively, and hold more sway than the electorate over government decisions.

The people, meanwhile, are selfish, short sighted, bigoted, ignorant zombies, and believe whatever politicians and/or Fox News tell them.

Those indisputable laws you speak of, designed to protect the rights and needs of everyone...well those are exactly what Neo Art was referencing. Constitutional limits on governmental power, exercised by an independent judiciary.

Again, however, a constitution can rarely stand up to the power of an ignorant majority. Constitutions can be amended, or used in an environmentally sustainable manner through recycling them for use as toilet paper.

The majority might desire a certain outcome, but if that outcome fundamentally violates constitutional principles, then ideally, that outcome will not be allowed.

Indeed.


Historically, the nation state has been fairly inward looking, with a focus on national unity. My original question basically asks you to consider whether or not this focus is as necessary now as it was even fifty years ago. Do we need fear expansionism to the same extent, is national defence and cohesion as important...and if not, then what should replace these concerns?

So I'm asking you to look at the nation state in the global context. How should nation states interact with one another, and what would that interaction look like at the regional (national) level? Understanding that we live in an intensely connected and interdependent context...whose concerns should be paramount?

Like with most things, taking either to an extreme is unlikely to wind up well. For a country to be effective on the world stage, however, it has to have overcome it’s most pressing internal problems. A country whose people are starving isn’t in a good place to focus on foreign issues. A strong culture, a strong sense of purpose as to what the nation hopes to achieve both internally and externally are important. National unity is important, but perhaps in a different way to as we have seen in the last century. Rather than trying to suppress regional and ethnic identity, it can make a good complement to a national identity, and I think this is what is lacking in the United Kingdom. Either we try to suppress the regions to the degree that the English think of the UK as “England” or we get all separatist. We rarely think of “the nations of the United Kingdom as one”. Similarly we think of second or third generation immigrants to the UK as still being somehow less than British, though we all belong to the same nation. This is why alienation (and radicalism) have become such issues. It’s a thorny and tricky issue, but the end result and the focus should be on multiple, equal groups under one nation and one rule.

Once the country is at peace internally with a powerful and secure government, it can be effective on the world stage. Provided a country is well off enough o look after itself, it should seek to use it’s own influence on the world stage through alliance with similar nations (such as Europe does with the EU) rather than through vague groups such as the UN, or through multinationals, which are neither loyal and trustworthy. Non interference in each others internal affairs is, I think, vital to ensuring stability. Once one nation charges into another’s own business to “defeat evil” then the chain reactions can be disastrously destabilizing for an entire region. A mutual understanding to stay out of such things is essential, and instead focus on the major powers (or alliances) reaching an agreements delineating respective spheres of influence, and focus on developing and stabilizing them as each sees fit.

There is a role for the UN, however, in maintaining such a balance and seeing it that agreements are honored, as well as stepping in should an obvious crimes against humanity be taking place, by which I don’t mean debatable issues like not allowing gay marriage, or conscription, but things like genocide or deliberately causing catastrophes (induced famines etc). I think, however, the Security Council in it’s current form is not best suited for this, as vetos make the whole show somewhat pointless.

A Government's role is to:

Provide those services that simply cannot be provided by private industry (Military, Taxation, Law Enforcement, Legislation) and to stay out of the way of everything else.

Sometimes I think maybe a Monarchy is the best form of Government. More and more it seems like democracy in the form of republics is an illusion designed to give the population the idea that we have control, but in reality our actual level of control over our legislature is negligible. When the Government and Government officials influence the news they can shape popular opinion any way they want, and then cast themselves as the peoples' heroes when they enact legislation pursuant to those opinions.

Considering the evolution of the nation state, the various pros and cons of such, and taking into account our global and local realities, what role do you think the nation state should play in this early part of the 21st century?

I'm not one to sit and maunder on about theory, I'm a practical guy. I think that America should preserve it's sovreignity in every possible sense of the word, and the rest of the world can do as it likes.

I'm not one to sit and maunder on about theory, I'm a practical guy. I think that America should preserve it's sovreignity in every possible sense of the word, and the rest of the world can do as it likes.

Because the USA is an island.

Because the USA is an island.

If it was, we wouldn't need border fences, just dock patrols.

Your comment is, I think, an oversimplification of my point. It's like the other people who live in my apartment building. I don't really give a damn what they do, as long as they don't pester me or raise too much of a ruckus after midnight. There's always someone getting together some kind of tenant's commitee, which I have no interest in, or intention of being ruled by, but other people seem to enjoy them, so more power to them.

This thread should have been posted during a week I was awake. It has some interesting sides to it...

Perhaps I'll get back to the debate later. Carry on!

I suppose if a state must exist it should conduct itself largely as if it were a confederation of autonomous communities; in essence, it should act as though it didn't exist except in cases where this isn't possible, which is generally related to international events.
As part of this, it should generally strive to be self-sufficient, though not completely, as trade between states can help aid in the formation of alliances. This is good because alliances can help protect against human rights abuses.

But profit > human rights. We've already established that. Just because you'd prefer that not be the case doesn't change the fact that your opinion appears to be in the minority.

No. It has not been established that profit is greater than human rights. What has been established is that the concern for human rights diminishes in inverse proportion to how well we know the people suffering the abuses. If we are complete strangers, then, and only then, profits seem to be considered more important than human rights.

We need to look at this competitively. Environmental concerns necessarily create a huge free-rider problem. Unless we're going to go into other parts of the world and force them to smarten up, we need to find a way to weather the storm. Because if the storn's coming it's coming regardless of what we do.


No, we do not have to look at it competitively. You can not apply the theoretical concepts of the free market to the physical reality of planetary ecology. I understand the attraction of it, especially for those who are unable to think about complicated subjects without quantifying everything, but we have to approach each problem in the context of its particular demands. Nature does not see us as economic entities, but as a large, decentralised, breeding population.

Nation-states have to think in terms of energy cycles, nutrient cycles, integrating with local ecologies, and a whole host of other things that most organisms do instinctively. Many of our current problems seem to stem from looking at resource management solely through an economic point of view (thank you for reminding me, Llewdor), rather than a more multidisciplinary approach that takes other factors into account. An example of this is our obsession with continued economic growth. We cannot continue to constantly expand. It makes no ecological sense. The things that do that inevitably use up all the food resources and start to die off. So, we have to get used to the idea of reducing the economy. Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order. It may be better for the economy to build a factory that makes machines that clean waterways, instead of shutting down the factories that pollute the waterways, but our ecology is better served by minimising our impact on the waterways entirely.

What I want to know is how nation-states will respond to this need. I think that will be a very defining moment in the future of the nation-state, now that concepts of common ethnicity, history, language, religion and enemy no longer serve as national unifiers.

Its implicit in normative claims that there are things that one should feel/do/be/whatever.
That's my point. If you can't defend the "should" then there's no basis for making normative claims.
People don't care that much about things that don't personally concern because of the limits human psychology. If everyone didn't feel bad if you, Llewdor, were tortured and raped for several years does that mean that indifference to your torture and rape is morally acceptable?
I would think it would have to. Isn't that what morality is - what people think is acceptable behaviour?

If there's more to morality than that, I haven't seen it (and I have a degree in this crap).
The collapse of some societies would drastically reduce the consumption of surviving societies as well. I recognize that there are free rider problem, but I would think that one should form mechanisms to reduce or eliminate this problem.
That's what makes it a problem - it persists. People act in their own best interests. Given the option to be a free rider, that's what they'll do. This isn't going away.
How will Canada survive when the environment and global economy collapse?
As an entity I don't think it will.

No. It has not been established that profit is greater than human rights. What has been established is that the concern for human rights diminishes in inverse proportion to how well we know the people suffering the abuses. If we are complete strangers, then, and only then, profits seem to be considered more important than human rights.
But for any given person, the vast majority of the world consists of complete strangers. Hence, human rights don't matter.
No, we do not have to look at it competitively. You can not apply the theoretical concepts of the free market to the physical reality of planetary ecology. I understand the attraction of it, especially for those who are unable to think about complicated subjects without quantifying everything,
If it matters, measure it.
Nature does not see us as economic entities, but as a large, decentralised, breeding population.
Nature doesn't see us at all. Nature doesn't have a point of view.
Many of our current problems seem to stem from looking at resource management solely through an economic point of view (thank you for reminding me, Llewdor), rather than a more multidisciplinary approach that takes other factors into account.p
What other factors? You haven't mentioned any.
An example of this is our obsession with continued economic growth. We cannot continue to constantly expand.
Sure we can.
It makes no ecological sense.
That's because ecology makes bad assumptions about efficiency and value. And scarcity.
The things that do that inevitably use up all the food resources and start to die off.
Because they can't manufacture new food for non-food sources. We can.
So, we have to get used to the idea of reducing the economy.
You frighten me. That would be a terrible idea. Do you have any idea what chaos that would cause?

That's my point. If you can't defend the "should" then there's no basis for making normative claims.

Are you arguing that normative claims can't be defended or something else? Please clarify.

I would think it would have to. Isn't that what morality is - what people think is acceptable behaviour?

If there's more to morality than that, I haven't seen it (and I have a degree in this crap).

More or less, but what constitutes acceptable behavior is based on value judgements.

That's what makes it a problem - it persists. People act in their own best interests. Given the option to be a free rider, that's what they'll do. This isn't going away.

Generally the way to fix free rider problems is to take away the option of free riding. One way could be punitive tarrifs on goods from uncooperative nations

As an entity I don't think it will.

So what do think would have a decent chance of surviving?

But for any given person, the vast majority of the world consists of complete strangers. Hence, human rights don't matter.

Any given person is human. Hence, human rights matter.

That's because ecology makes bad assumptions about efficiency and value. And scarcity.

How so?

You frighten me. That would be a terrible idea. Do you have any idea what chaos that would cause?

Ummmm.... I think most people find the idea of environmental, economic, and political collapse much scarier than the idea of a stationary or low growth economy.

and what if "what they want" is not reducible? What if what they want is fundamentally at odds? What if I want a hydro electric dam built over a waterfall and you don't? How do we compromise on that? Either it gets built, or it does not.

Well, there's an easy solution to that. Build half a dam.

Ummmm.... I think most people find the idea of environmental, economic, and political collapse much scarier than the idea of a stationary or low growth economy.

In a stationary economy, all of those would likely happen. The thing is, the technological and productive development that stem from economic growth are the main way of offsetting the environmental damages from the existing economic base. A stagnant economy still consumes non-renewable resources, but without new developments to reduce or shift consumption of those resources, you hit "limits to growth" that are far faster and far more brutal than any seen under a healthy growth scenario.

A healthy amount of growth is a self-fulfilling cycle that ultimately produces improving environmental conditions; growing too slowly or too quickly causes deterioration. Not to mention, of course, that even if a healthy level of stagnation were possible, those economies that are still growing will end up simply taking their resources and economic base, producing those same catastrophes through a different route.

But for any given person, the vast majority of the world consists of complete strangers. Hence, human rights don't matter.

If it matters, measure it.

Nature doesn't see us at all. Nature doesn't have a point of view.

What other factors? You haven't mentioned any.

Sure we can.

That's because ecology makes bad assumptions about efficiency and value. And scarcity.

Because they can't manufacture new food for non-food sources. We can.

You frighten me. That would be a terrible idea. Do you have any idea what chaos that would cause?

Llewdor, your inability to view things in a qualitative, rather than quantitative, way says more about your lack of vision than it does about reality. Your refusal to acknowledge basic reality in favour of your economic theories is also bizarre and creates a barrier when communicating with you.

Human rights obviously matter. Go ask your mother if she would be comfortable with having you in jail for the rest of your life without trial or being charged with anything. Your human rights obviously matter to her.

Other factors involved in resource management should include whether or not some organism or ecological system necessary for human life is also using this resource, whether or not the creation of an industry in an ecology will be detrimental to the local organisms (including humans), not to mention issues of cultural heritage that impact on ecological stewardship. You can't eat money.

Ecology makes no assumptions about scarcity. Ecologists observe how organisms and ecological systems react to scarcity, and then make hypotheses based on that. Economists assume that all actors will react to scarcity as rational beings. Economists struggle to reduce waste in an effort to improve efficiency. Biologists observe ecological systems that are more than 100% efficient, i.e. the are synergetic. Ecologists define value as that which increases or sustains the chances for (and quality of) life. Ecoonmists narrow their vision only to that which can be traded or sold.

We can also make unnecessary items out of food items, creating food scarcities. And as long as we make a profit, that's fine, right? You probably answer yes to this question in a completely non-ironic fashion.

Why are you so scared? Isn't a recession negative growth? If it is, then we can assume that there will be many recessions as ecological awareness and necessity make themselves more felt. It won't be the first recession we had. While they are annoying for those who sell shoes for a living, those of us employed in necessary professions keep working. Restructuring our entire global economy to follow ecological guidelines will slow down a lot of things. Deal with it. Get a job in a sustainable field. It's not chaos if you prepare for the change and move with it. Adapt or die.

In a stationary economy, all of those would likely happen. The thing is, the technological and productive development that stem from economic growth are the main way of offsetting the environmental damages from the existing economic base. A stagnant economy still consumes non-renewable resources, but without new developments to reduce or shift consumption of those resources, you hit "limits to growth" that are far faster and far more brutal than any seen under a healthy growth scenario.

A healthy amount of growth is a self-fulfilling cycle that ultimately produces improving environmental conditions; growing too slowly or too quickly causes deterioration. Not to mention, of course, that even if a healthy level of stagnation were possible, those economies that are still growing will end up simply taking their resources and economic base, producing those same catastrophes through a different route.

If we look at it in terms of a transition from our current economic model to one that encompasses ecological awareness and good practice (much the same way most companies in OECD countries embrace worker safety laws), then we don't have to immediately shut down everything. But there are some things that we need to start changing right away. An ever increasing economy is fine, as long as it does not consume an ever increasing amount of resources. So, we will experience a definite slow down in the resource extraction industry. Many of our current technologies are also going to be obsolete or overly expensive soon, like the internal combustion engine. We just can't ecologically afford to have 6 billion engines churning out pollution. So, the automotive industry is going to either die or massively reinvent itself.

New technology is also part of the solution, and in some ways, our best hope. However, we have to approach technology from a different perspective. To tie it back to the role of the nation-state, we can see a role for the nation-state as an ecological steward for the land it occupies, ensuring that new technologies are more ecological than the ones they are designed to replace. An example of this would be a nation-state adopting an environmentally friendly building code so that new buildings are more ecologically friendly than old ones.

If people had got hung up on 'the way it's always been done', the nation state itself never would have been born...and if we get hung up on it now, we're never going to evolve.

Are we that fucking stupid?

Sometimes we certainly appear to be.

And by we, you mean Llewdor.

:D

Llewdor, your inability to view things in a qualitative, rather than quantitative, way says more about your lack of vision than it does about reality.
If you can't measure two things against each other (quantitatively), how do you know which one is more important?

This is the fundamental failing of your reliance on qualitative anything.
Human rights obviously matter. Go ask your mother if she would be comfortable with having you in jail for the rest of your life without trial or being charged with anything. Your human rights obviously matter to her.
You just made my point by using an example from within a small social group. Humans DO NOT CARE about distant humans they've never net. Suggesting that we should for reasons of "human rights" is laughable.
Other factors involved in resource management should include whether or not some organism or ecological system necessary for human life is also using this resource, whether or not the creation of an industry in an ecology will be detrimental to the local organisms (including humans), not to mention issues of cultural heritage that impact on ecological stewardship. You can't eat money.
That's a great thing about money. You can exchange it for things.

Remember, I wasn't talking about money. I was talking about wealth. Money isn't worth anything if you can't exchange it for the stuff you want (like food). I'm not sure you know what wealth creation is.
Ecology makes no assumptions about scarcity. Ecologists observe how organisms and ecological systems react to scarcity, and then make hypotheses based on that. Economists assume that all actors will react to scarcity as rational beings. Economists struggle to reduce waste in an effort to improve efficiency. Biologists observe ecological systems that are more than 100% efficient, i.e. the are synergetic. Ecologists define value as that which increases or sustains the chances for (and quality of) life. Ecoonmists narrow their vision only to that which can be traded or sold.

We can also make unnecessary items out of food items, creating food scarcities. And as long as we make a profit, that's fine, right? You probably answer yes to this question in a completely non-ironic fashion.
Yes. Because as long as we're creating wealth, then overall scarcity is being reduced.

And that's the assumption ecology makes about scarcity. Economic activity creates wealth, and that's a reduction in scarcity. Your ecological view thinks that can't happen.
Why are you so scared? Isn't a recession negative growth? If it is, then we can assume that there will be many recessions as ecological awareness and necessity make themselves more felt. It won't be the first recession we had. While they are annoying for those who sell shoes for a living, those of us employed in necessary professions keep working. Restructuring our entire global economy to follow ecological guidelines will slow down a lot of things. Deal with it. Get a job in a sustainable field. It's not chaos if you prepare for the change and move with it. Adapt or die.
Well, I have often said that altruism isn't sustainable, and I work for a charity...

Resources aren't finite. The universe is big.

*pokes Llewdor*

If you can't measure two things against each other (quantitatively), how do you know which one is more important?

This is the fundamental failing of your reliance on qualitative anything.

No. You are simply wrong. I know it is more important to listen carefully to my children instead of deciding everything for my children. I do not need to make any sort of quantitative comparison in order to figure this out. There is no failing, except the one you think is there because of your lack of vision.

You just made my point by using an example from within a small social group. Humans DO NOT CARE about distant humans they've never net. Suggesting that we should for reasons of "human rights" is laughable.

If you read carefully, you will notice that I am not discussing what should be. I am discussing what is.

Since the importance of human rights is dependent on our intimacy with the people involved, we need to have some sort of protection for human rights that go beyond the community level. If not, we simply go back to the era of the robber baron where the guy who could organise the biggest group of thugs gets to do whatever he wants. A quick glance at history show us that the best method for protecting such rights is through some sort of accountable democracy.

Now, since we only care about the human rights of people within our monkeysphere (You can look it up at pointlesswasteoftime.com, too many pop-ups), we have to somehow tie in our selfish desires for our human rights with those of others. The modern nation-state does that to a certain degree. By protecting my rights as a Canadian, I am also protecting your rights as a Canadian. In this regard, we see a way that the nation-state will persevere. For purely selfish reasons, as it seems to the best steward of protecting my rights that has come down the historical pipeline, the accountable and democratic nation-state.

So, if we do want to protect the rights of those who are far away, then we have to somehow tie our rights in to their rights. We would somehow have to have the same mechanism, or something similar, at the international level that we have at the national level.

That's a great thing about money. You can exchange it for things.

Only if they are still available at a price that I can afford.

Remember, I wasn't talking about money. I was talking about wealth. Money isn't worth anything if you can't exchange it for the stuff you want (like food). I'm not sure you know what wealth creation is.

Yes. Because as long as we're creating wealth, then overall scarcity is being reduced.

And that's the assumption ecology makes about scarcity. Economic activity creates wealth, and that's a reduction in scarcity. Your ecological view thinks that can't happen.

What, exactly, is wealth in economic terms, according to you?

Can you also explain what assumption ecology makes about scarcity. It seems to read that the ecological view assumes that economic activity cannot create wealth. I don't see how that follows. It would also be dependent on what you mean by wealth.

Well, I have often said that altruism isn't sustainable, and I work for a charity...

Resources aren't finite. The universe is big.

The last time I read something like that was in a science fiction novel.

...You just made my point by using an example from within a small social group. Humans DO NOT CARE about distant humans they've never net...

I can't accept that. I do care about distant people I've never met. Suffering is horrible. I can imagine what other people experience. I know other people who also care.

I believe that compassion and empathy are inheritable human traits.

I can't accept that. I do care about distant people I've never met. Suffering is horrible. I can imagine what other people experience. I know other people who also care.

I believe that compassion and empathy are inheritable human traits.
Then explain why our actions seem more concerned with cheap gas than with the suffering in Darfur.

I can explain it by concluding that humans don't care about each other.

Then explain why our actions seem more concerned with cheap gas than with the suffering in Darfur.

I can explain it by concluding that humans don't care about each other.

that certainly isn't the only conclusion. shit, it isn't even the most intuitively plausible one.

No. You are simply wrong. I know it is more important to listen carefully to my children instead of deciding everything for my children. I do not need to make any sort of quantitative comparison in order to figure this out.
Whereas I rely on published research to tell me that - research wherein stuff got measured.

We both reach the correct conclusion, but you only made it because you were lucky.
If you read carefully, you will notice that I am not discussing what should be. I am discussing what is.
So you're claiming that human rights are real? Or do matter? Even though you've agreed they obviously don't matter to most people?
Since the importance of human rights is dependent on our intimacy with the people involved, we need to have some sort of protection for human rights that go beyond the community level. If not, we simply go back to the era of the robber baron where the guy who could organise the biggest group of thugs gets to do whatever he wants.
Yes. Is there a reason we should want to avoid that?

And that's a fairly good description of representative democracy, isn't it?
A quick glance at history show us that the best method for protecting such rights is through some sort of accountable democracy.
Wherein the guy with the biggest group of voters gets to do whatever he wants?
Now, since we only care about the human rights of people within our monkeysphere (You can look it up at pointlesswasteoftime.com, too many pop-ups), we have to somehow tie in our selfish desires for our human rights with those of others.
Why?
So, if we want to protect the rights of those who are far away, then we have to somehow tie our rights in to their rights.
So we want that? Haven't we already determined that we don't want that?
Only if they are still available at a price that I can afford.
If inflation outpaced your earnings, then your wealth (measured in real dollars) decreased.
What, exactly, is wealth in economic terms, according to you?
Total value of stuff. Money counts. So does food. But the value is determinied individually.

So, if I have a bunch of water, and you have a bunch of food, I can trade you some of my water (which you want) for some of your food (which I want), and thus we've created wealth by increasing the value of stuff we have.

There's a great wealth creation game one can play at office Christmas parties. You distribute gifts to the crowd at random. Everyone gets one. Then you have them rate on a numberical scale how much they like the gift they got. Average those scores, and you'll usually see something like 4/10. Maybe as high as 6/10. That's the value of the goods you distributed. Now let them trade with each other. Through the voluntary exchange of the gifts, they'll end up with gifts they like more. If you measure the scores again after the trading, your average scored will climb to the 8/10 range. Voila - wealth creation, even though the actual goods in the room are the same.

that certainly isn't the only conclusion. shit, it isn't even the most intuitively plausible one.
Intuition isn't justifiable.

What conclusion would you draw from that?

The appropriate role of the nation-state is to provide the framework within which distinct geographic communities (the geographic part is important) function. There are a whole list of things that are ascribed to the nation-state, but the most important is its geographic integrity. The nation-state must have geographic boundaries within which it operates and is sovereign, and it cannot be voluntary within those boundaries.

Of course, that doesn't mean the boundaries can't or shouldn't fade. Rather, they definitely should fade. Trade across borders, travel, migration and cultural interaction must occur. Will the nation-state fade? Someday it might, but, the current attachment to it is too strong to develop even the most basic timeline.

Intuition isn't justifiable.

perhaps, but that actually requires you to demonstrate the strength of your conclusion to an even greater degree

What conclusion would you draw from that?

well, given that people can and do feel for strangers and that those feelings are acted upon like all the fucking time, i would tend to conclude that we have both some issue of immediacy as well as some sort of game-theory collective action issues at work when we choose our gas prices over distant people's suffering.

Whereas I rely on published research to tell me that - research wherein stuff got measured.

We both reach the correct conclusion, but you only made it because you were lucky.

No. Again, you're getting it wrong. Like the people who put together the scientific studies by which you must conduct your quotidian minutiae, I am able to use imaginative leaps to formulate the most intelligent and rational explanation before quantifying it. Many people can do this. It is called common sense.

So you're claiming that human rights are real? Or do matter? Even though you've agreed they obviously don't matter to most people?

Yes, yes, and yes. Thank you for finally catching up.

Yes. Is there a reason we should want to avoid that?

Many reasons, not the least of which would be the fact that the only contracts that such a person would enforce would be those he wished to enforce. It would be impossible to have a free and open market if this person would randomly take everyone's money.

And that's a fairly good description of representative democracy, isn't it?

Wherein the guy with the biggest group of voters gets to do whatever he wants?

No. Democracies are inherently accountable to the citizenry. What you are describing is mob rule.

Why?

Because we seem to be otherwise incapable of protecting the human rights of others.

So we want that?

Yes. We do. Again, if you are having trouble understanding why, ask your mother how she would feel if you were deprived of your rights.

Haven't we already determined that we don't want that?

No. We haven't. I thought you had caught up. I was apparently wrong.

If inflation outpaced your earnings, then your wealth (measured in real dollars) decreased.

It is this exact narrowness of thought that typifies the economist's mind that I was discussing. Thank you for providing an example.

Total value of stuff. Money counts. So does food. But the value is determinied individually.

So, if I have a bunch of water, and you have a bunch of food, I can trade you some of my water (which you want) for some of your food (which I want), and thus we've created wealth by increasing the value of stuff we have.

There's a great wealth creation game one can play at office Christmas parties. You distribute gifts to the crowd at random. Everyone gets one. Then you have them rate on a numberical scale how much they like the gift they got. Average those scores, and you'll usually see something like 4/10. Maybe as high as 6/10. That's the value of the goods you distributed. Now let them trade with each other. Through the voluntary exchange of the gifts, they'll end up with gifts they like more. If you measure the scores again after the trading, your average scored will climb to the 8/10 range. Voila - wealth creation, even though the actual goods in the room are the same.

So, wealth is value. And value is apparently subjective. That was really helpful, Llewdor. :rolleyes:

Llewdor hasn't responded to my couple last posts. That makes me sad. :(

No. Again, you're getting it wrong. Like the people who put together the scientific studies by which you must conduct your quotidian minutiae, I am able to use imaginative leaps to formulate the most intelligent and rational explanation before quantifying it. Many people can do this. It is called common sense.
You just said you use imagination as the basis for rationality.

Common sense may well be common, but is it correct?
Yes, yes, and yes. Thank you for finally catching up.
That doesn't make any sense. If we've agreed that most people don't care about human rights, why do you think human rights are important?
No. Democracies are inherently accountable to the citizenry.
They're accountable to a plurality of the citizenry.
Because we seem to be otherwise incapable of protecting the human rights of others.
But why are we trying? Why should we care?

We've aready establishd that we don't.
Yes. We do. Again, if you are having trouble understanding why, ask your mother how she would feel if you were deprived of your rights.
I'm someone she knows. She's supposed to care about my rights. We're discussing the rights of people we don't know. Humans generally. The Sudanese in particular. My mother probably would be upset if I were deprived of my rights, just as I would object were she deprived of hers. But, like most people, I'm not taking any action at all to help people in far away lands who are deprived of their rights. Neither is my mother.

That's what a human rights discussion needs to address.
So, wealth is value. And value is apparently subjective.
But measurable.

Llewdor hasn't responded to my couple last posts. That makes me sad. :(
I'd confused you with Gift-of-God. Sorry about that.

This does explain why you poked me, though.
Any given person is human. Hence, human rights matter.
Assuming that alone is sufficient reason.

I don't accept that assumption, so you'll have to justify that as your starting point.
How so?
I hope I already dealt with this one when talking to Gift-of-God.
Ummmm.... I think most people find the idea of environmental, economic, and political collapse much scarier than the idea of a stationary or low growth economy.
The difference is in our expectations. I expect a stationary or low-growth economy to lead to those collapses you mentioned, whereas I expect a high-growth economy to protect us from them.

We want the same outcomes (no collapse). I just don't think your solutions will work.

I'd confused you with Gift-of-God. Sorry about that.

This does explain why you poked me, though.

lol, you missed the main post right before the one you quote below.

Assuming that alone is sufficient reason.

I don't accept that assumption, so you'll have to justify that as your starting point.

Alone I doubt it's sufficient. Its just points out that everyone has things they don't want other to do to them, such as trying to murder or rape them. Since the only way to be reasonably sure others won't do these things to them they have to have most people voluntarily choose not to do them, which also results in reciprocal for obligations on all parties, and mechanisms to punish those who do choose to do them. Basic enlightened self-interest.


The difference is in our expectations. I expect a stationary or low-growth economy to lead to those collapses you mentioned, whereas I expect a high-growth economy to protect us from them.

We want the same outcomes (no collapse). I just don't think your solutions will work.

Several posts ago you claimed that the environment will collapse because of the free rider problem. This will, as you claim, lead to the collapse of a number of societies. Given the fact that environment has gone to hell and the markets of several societies no longer exist its reasonable to assume that global trade flows will have been drastically reduced resulting in negative economic growth . Already you admitted that you don't think Canada as an entity will survive. I'm guessing that other governments will dissolve as well. My understanding is that you don't want to work towards eliminating the collapse, as this is futile, so much as find a way to weather the coming storm.

You just said you use imagination as the basis for rationality.

Not quite. I use my imagination to quickly come up with hypotheses that can be rationally examined. I just don't limit myself to purely quantitative forms of this type of thinking.

Common sense may well be common, but is it correct?

If you can tell me how this has anything to do with the OP, I'll answer your question.

That doesn't make any sense. If we've agreed that most people don't care about human rights, why do you think human rights are important?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Most people do care about human rights, but they only care about the rights of those who they feel some sort of kinship with. This is the third time I point this out to you, I believe.

They're accountable to a plurality of the citizenry.

You do realise that if an individual's rights are taken away from him or her, he or she, as an individual, can then hold the government accountable? If a minority of one can do this, then it is not a tyranny of the majority. These are very simple concepts, Llewdor. I shouldn't have to explain them to you.

But why are we trying? Why should we care?

We've aready establishd that we don't.

We are trying to protect the human rights of other people far away because they deserve the same rights we do. There is no rational reason to protect the rights of Canadians but not the Sudanese. If we accept that we are all equally deserving of human rights, then we must make efforts to overcome our natural apathy and create societal organisations that protect the people that we frankly don't care about. So, the reason we are trying is because we are smart people who realise that being one of 'us' is not inherently better than being one of 'them', and if we protect 'us' because we are human, then there is no good reason to not protect 'them' as they are also human. We don't have to care. There is no obligation to do so.

And we have not established that we do not care about human rights. I realise this is nuanced and subtle, but I will repeat it one last time for you. I will even type slowly for your benefit: People care about the human rights of those people that they like.

I'm someone she knows. She's supposed to care about my rights. We're discussing the rights of people we don't know. Humans generally. The Sudanese in particular. My mother probably would be upset if I were deprived of my rights, just as I would object were she deprived of hers. But, like most people, I'm not taking any action at all to help people in far away lands who are deprived of their rights. Neither is my mother.

That's what a human rights discussion needs to address.

Which is why I have been addressing just such a thing in my last few posts. Maybe this time you'll catch up.

But measurable.

Can you give me a good definition of wealth, please?

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of what you meant by ecological assumptions about scarcity. Your explanation upthread was so badly worded that I fear that you are somewhat confused about the topic.

lol, you missed the main post right before the one you quote below.
I didn't see that one.
Are you arguing that normative claims can't be defended or something else? Please clarify.
The normative claims I've seen here appear baseless. Before they're persuasive they'll need justification.
[/quote]More or less, but what constitutes acceptable behavior is based on value judgements.[/quote]
But a subjective basis like that robs morality of it's prescriptivity. I then have no reason to care about the moral opinions of others.
Generally the way to fix free rider problems is to take away the option of free riding. One way could be punitive tarrifs on goods from uncooperative nations
Tariffs significantly retard growth, and unless you're a very large trading partner compared to the nation to which you're trying to apply pressure, their best response is to continue their free ride.

The only way to stop them would be by force. Would you advocate that?

Not quite. I use my imagination to quickly come up with hypotheses that can be rationally examined. I just don't limit myself to purely quantitative forms of this type of thinking.
So you jump to a conclusion first and rationalise it later. That's appalling.
If you can tell me how this has anything to do with the OP, I'll answer your question.
You defended one of your points on the grounds that it was common sense. I deem that irrelevant.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Most people do care about human rights, but they only care about the rights of those who they feel some sort of kinship with. This is the third time I point this out to you, I believe.
But that's not human rights. Human rights apply to all people equally. If you're only applying human rights to people about whom you care, how is that different from self-interested preservation of your own community?

The result of your description basically says "evil people can't have friends".
You do realise that if an individual's rights are taken away from him or her, he or she, as an individual, can then hold the government accountable?
No. Because I don't think he can. If the majority thinks its okay that his rights were taken away, he has no recourse.
If a minority of one can do this, then it is not a tyranny of the majority.
If a minority can always do this, then it's not democracy.
We are trying to protect the human rights of other people far away because they deserve the same rights we do.
Why do they deserve the same rights we do? You keep asserting this, but you haven't supported it at all, and you've even accepted that most people don't seem to agree with you.
There is no rational reason to protect the rights of Canadians but not the Sudanese.
Because I like them more? Whether the rights of the Sudanese are protected makes no material difference to most of us, so what rational reason do we have to care?

Isn't indifference the rational default position?
If we accept that we are all equally deserving of human rights, then we must make efforts to overcome our natural apathy and create societal organisations that protect the people that we frankly don't care about. So, the reason we are trying is because we are smart people who realise that being one of 'us' is not inherently better than being one of 'them', and if we protect 'us' because we are human, then there is no good reason to not protect 'them' as they are also human.
You already know I don't accept your initial premise there, but even if I did you make yet another mistake. Smart people like us may well realise that being one of us is not inherently better than being one of them, but you haven't shown that to be relevant, either. Human rights are rights granted us because we are human. Rights granted us because we're a member of the same social group are not human rights. You have yet to demonstrate any evidence of a respect for human rights anywhere.
And we have not established that we do not care about human rights. I realise this is nuanced and subtle, but I will repeat it one last time for you. I will even type slowly for your benefit: People care about the human rights of those people that they like.
People care about the rights of people they like. I'm not convinced those are human rights. but even if they are human rights, you haven't explained why they should apply universally. You keep talking about how we have to because there's no reason not to, but there's also no reason to in the first place.

And I don't want to talk about wealth anymore if you cant get past this basic rights hurdle.

So you jump to a conclusion first and rationalise it later. That's appalling.

No, I don't. Again, you get it wrong.

You defended one of your points on the grounds that it was common sense. I deem that irrelevant.

No, I didn't. This isn't even part of the debate. It's just been a tangent of an offhand comment I made.

But that's not human rights. Human rights apply to all people equally. If you're only applying human rights to people about whom you care, how is that different from self-interested preservation of your own community?

The result of your description basically says "evil people can't have friends".

Define 'human rights'.

If they can only exist if they are applied to all people equally, then human rights don't exist at all. Unfortunately, Llewdor, reality would disagree with you. Again, I am not discussing what should be, but what is.

The fact is that human rights exist. Another fact is that they are not equally protected. This is true to such an extent that sometimes slow people are unable to see the difference between self-interested preservation of the community and individual support for human rights. This is further complicated by the fact that we use this self-interest as a method of protecting those human rights, as I outlined earlier.

No. Because I don't think he can. If the majority thinks its okay that his rights were taken away, he has no recourse.

If a minority can always do this, then it's not democracy.

Oh, I see. You are either using words such as 'democracy' and 'accountability' in ways that most people don't, or you do not understand basic political science.

Why do they deserve the same rights we do? You keep asserting this, but you haven't supported it at all, and you've even accepted that most people don't seem to agree with you.

They deserve the same rights that I do because there is no reason for us to have a separate set of rights. There is also at least one reason to protect their rights: it reduces the risk of me losing my rights and being brought down to their level.

Because I like them more? Whether the rights of the Sudanese are protected makes no material difference to most of us, so what rational reason do we have to care?

Isn't indifference the rational default position?

'Because I like them more' is not a rational reason. Indifference is not the rational default position. Rationality has absolutely nothing to say about default emotional states.

For someone who keeps praising rationality so much, you don't seem to understand how it works.

This is further evidenced by the fact that you seem to think that people care because they have rational reasons to do so. In reality, people care about things all the time without needing rational reasons. Note the popularity of soap operas.

But you're right. I glossed over it. I never presented a rational reason for caring about the Sudanese. And I'll tell you why. It's because it has nothing to do with the future of the nation-state. I was asking the question: if we want to protect the rights of people like the Sudanese in the future, would there be a role for the nation-state. I then went about exploring how such a thing would occur.

I could also speak of globalisation and communication, and whether that would create ties of kinship with the Sudanese such that any attack on them would be felt by the global community to an extent that we would all demand action from those capable of stopping the abuse and oppression. In such a context, the nation state would be unnecessary. That would be fun to imagine, in a teen/anarchist sort of way. The truth is that we are currently seeing the development of both kinds of globalisation: a creation of international organisations that somehow deal with international law, including human rights; and an international and aware global community.

You already know I don't accept your initial premise there, but even if I did you make yet another mistake. Smart people like us may well realise that being one of us is not inherently better than being one of them, but you haven't shown that to be relevant, either. Human rights are rights granted us because we are human. Rights granted us because we're a member of the same social group are not human rights. You have yet to demonstrate any evidence of a respect for human rights anywhere.

Are we debating? Excellent! Can you summarise our positions?

People care about the rights of people they like. I'm not convinced those are human rights. but even if they are human rights, you haven't explained why they should apply universally. You keep talking about how we have to because there's no reason not to, but there's also no reason to in the first place.

Because if someone loses respect for human rights one in one place, and we don't try to stop it, then we run the risk of losing ours. That is a rational reason. Since you have yet to provide any rational reason for ignoring their plight, I guess the score is 1-0 for me.

I also like the neat way you sidestep all the compassionate, moral, and empathic reasons, but we'll play it your way.

And I don't want to talk about wealth anymore if you cant get past this basic rights hurdle.

It's okay. I understand. It's often difficult for men raised in western Canada to admit they don't know something as well as they claimed.

The normative claims I've seen here appear baseless. Before they're persuasive they'll need justification.

How would normative claims be justified? Your idea that its ok not to care about the murders and rapes of others is justified on the grounds that you and other don't think that's a bad thing. A very subjective way of looking at the world if morality is based one's own moral code or the morality followed most of the population.

But a subjective basis like that robs morality of it's prescriptivity. I then have no reason to care about the moral opinions of others.

Morality without value judgements is nonsensical. Morality is a set of normative claims whose justification rests on value judgements.

Tariffs significantly retard growth, and unless you're a very large trading partner compared to the nation to which you're trying to apply pressure, their best response is to continue their free ride.

The only way to stop them would be by force. Would you advocate that?

Well generally the idea is to link some minimum level of environmental standards to an organization like the WTO which compared to any one nation is very large. Given the options of losing out the gains of trade with most of the globe and losing the benefits of polluting I would think most nations would choose the latter.

If it matters, measure it.How do we objectively measure the value of something?

How do we objectively measure the value of something?

Oh, there's some ways you can measure value. The most obvious being in monetary amounts, but there are alternatives.

How many is one willing to kill to gain something, for instance, or, if you are a state, how many of your own are you willing to sacrifice.

Not really objective measures, but they do give us an estimation of value.

Oh, there's some ways you can measure value. The most obvious being in monetary amounts, but there are alternatives.

How many is one willing to kill to gain something, for instance, or, if you are a state, how many of your own are you willing to sacrifice.

Not really objective measures, but they do give us an estimation of value.Is it a valid estimation of value? I mean, should anyone other than me care about what I value?

Is it a valid estimation of value? I mean, should anyone other than me care about what I value?
No.

But we'd measure how much you value it by asking you.

No.

But we'd measure how much you value it by asking you.Certainly. The problem with this when applying it to your argument about human rights is that you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't care about human rights, because an individual or group of individuals doesn't care about human rights.