Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Nationalism or world government??

rated by 0 users
This post has 76 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 645
Points 9,865
James replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 9:26 AM

I guess essentially the USA can force its will against anyone anywhere so in a way you are correct.  however, if the USA got to uppity then Europe Japan, most of south america and most free asian nations would seek to balance US power along with russia, china and other dictatorships.  right now they are happy living under pax americana.

more importantly though is that nothing would prevent a private military corportation PMC from doing the same thing.

Yeah, look, globalism isn't about presenting a facade of a single state to the sheeple, you still need to have wars to keep the population docile and under control in terms of numbers.  I mean, there was supposed to be more than one de jure government in 1984, but that's not really how the system worked, is it? 

Actually I think you got that backward.  it is not exactly an ideal situation and indicative of a great system to have had enemy troops in your country for decades.  Being decentralized may make it harder to conquer you but it doesnt do anything about preventing hostile armies from bivovac in your major cities.  that kinda sucks.  I'll take centralization anyday.

Germany and Japan took the centralisation route, and they're still occupied by American troops.

You can say that it's peaceful, if you like, but you can't say that it's free, nor that they could choose not to pay.  I mean, if the Pashtuns put down their rifles and sent half their goats or poppies, or whatever, to Kabul, they'd probably also be left alone.  That's what they're fighting over.  The American Revolution was fought over a miniscule tea import duty, ffs, and now look at what you hand over to the government.

again I think your missing the point.  you are claiming that a return to the 18th century and jettison every comfort of modern society for decentralization as being a 'good thing' doesnt make much sense.   I mean isnt it better to have a centralized armed force and go kicking in other people's doors for plunder then to have that occur to you ?

 
Oh come now, do you also think that the economy should be centrally planned?  That's not where wealth comes from.
 
As for plundering wealth from foreign shores, hah, it lines the pockets of the state's minions and serves as a big fat inflationary dump on the relevant markets for the mundanes.  They're not plundering Iraq's oil for you, it's not like Saddam wasn't going to sell it to you.  You think the war made it any cheaper?  He just wasn't going to do it in Dollars.
 
no dude, decentralized societies may be less vulnerable to total capitulation, but they regularly get their asses kicked by invading troops.   not many folks have invaded the USA in the last 100 or so years.
 
I think Geography may have something to do with that.  You wouldn't need anything remotely resembling the United States military as it exists today to defend North America from a force which is that powerful.  Hitler, in one of his more lucid moments, once said that Germany could as easily invade the United States as the moon.
 
anarchism is really just a convenient  precursor to dictatorship since it removes the shackles of limited, decentralized, transparent, and balanced power imposed on government by classical liberals in the form of constitutional republicanism and a federalist kicker if your talking about the USA.
 
Where's this fantasy land you're talking about?  The US government is as clear as mud.
 
it works, no great but I think the next decade will show that liberal democracy is amenable to positive change without revolutions and carnage and uncertainty.

not so much with anarchy.

Political revolutions are engineered from above when someone important feels we need one, much like wars.  I don't know what your idea of "anarchy" is, but it's not going to be embodied in a violent uprising against the status quo, it's going to be a revolution of thinking, like the Great Enlightenment.

you mean germany right ?

hey the dude screwed up, but everyone knew that germany was going to attack russia expect stalin. you cant base a policy dynamic on the miscalculation on one dude.   no matter, my assertion stands.  nobody wants to align with a group of non-violent pacifists that wont come to your aid no matter how great the genocide and human rights violations.  and anarchists dont do rescue of maligned nations.   which means that enemies can pick them off one at a time in detail.

The funny thing about it is that Stalin never trusted anyone, not his own generals, not his political colleagues, not his spooks, not his experts, not his family, not anyone...  But he trusted Hitler.  There's probably more to it than that, but I don't know.

But it's not just an isolated example.  "Never trust an alliance with the powerful" is a Roman proverb, which many of their enemies would have done well to heed.  I believe it used to be an American proverb to trust in God and keep your powder dry.

States are hopeless at rescuing people from genocide.  I don't know what you're advocating now, some sort of neoconservatism...  Suddenly it's not all about defending "liberal democracy" at home any more.  Genocides are performed exclusively by states, and others do nothing to stop them.  What genocide was ever stopped by some foreign cavalry riding in and altruistically saving the day, except perhaps by complete accident?

Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 9:31 AM

Centinel:
I guess essentially the USA can force its will against anyone anywhere so in a way you are correct.

How is this not a de facto world government, then? So much for nationalism. Oh wait, I guess it's really a question of whose nationalism gets to rule over everyone else's.

Centinel:
however, if the USA got to uppity then Europe Japan, most of south america and most free asian nations would seek to balance US power along with russia, china and other dictatorships.  right now they are happy living under pax americana.

So you say. It seems to me that other countries are, one by one, indeed trying to break away from US hegemony. The US power elite doesn't like that, of course, hence the escalation of economic, diplomatic, and military pressure being applied by the US against those countries.

Centinel:
more importantly though is that nothing would prevent a private military corportation PMC from doing the same thing.

Can you please substantiate this? I don't think you will, though - which I think is very telling.

Centinel:
Actually I think you got that backward.  it is not exactly an ideal situation and indicative of a great system to have had enemy troops in your country for decades.  Being decentralized may make it harder to conquer you but it doesnt do anything about preventing hostile armies from bivovac in your major cities.  that kinda sucks.  I'll take centralization anyday.

You're saying that decentralization per se doesn't prevent the presence of hostile armies? How does that follow?

What kind of centralization would you take? And how far does the centralization go? You never answered my question (again, very telling IMO) about what you think constitutes a "nation". For example, if my buddies and I got together and declared ourselves an "independent nation", would you go along with that?

Centinel:
no dude, decentralized societies may be less vulnerable to total capitulation, but they regularly get their asses kicked by invading troops.   not many folks have invaded the USA in the last 100 or so years.

Brush up on your history, kid. The last time the continental US was invaded was during the War of 1812, coming up on its 200th anniversary. Furthermore, how do you know that the US has been considered uninvadable because of its centralized military forces, and not from either the great distance and logistics that would be involved or the fact that US citizens are still very well-armed?

In any case, why are you so concerned about whether anyone "gets his ass kicked"? Besides, who got their asses kicked at the end of the Vietnam War - the Vietcong or the US military?

Centinel:
how about adding anarchism to that group.  it is just another ism that is used to gain power. in this case, anarchism is really just a convenient  precursor to dictatorship since it removes the shackles of limited, decentralized, transparent, and balanced power imposed on government by classical liberals in the form of constitutional republicanism and a federalist kicker if your talking about the USA.

You've never once clarified what you mean by "gain power". Can you try doing so now?

How can any limitation be imposed upon government by government? That is, how can any limitation really be imposed upon a government if that government is the final judge of its own limits to power?

Finally, I can't help but note that here you're supporting decentralization whereas elsewhere you oppose it. How do you reconcile that contradiction? I can't wait to (not) find out.

Centinel:
It works pretty good, not many liberal democracies are at risk of dictatorship, although statist have found a back door to power in the form of economic plunder using regulatory and tax policy.  however we know the scheme and we are currently developing strategies to reverse that trend within our current govt system.

What's your definition of "statist"? Who's "we"?

To be quite honest, I think the US itself has a good chance of becoming a dictatorship at this point. The unchecked growth of executive power, principally due to 'wartime necessities', seems to be the chief risk factor there.

Centinel:
it works, no great but I think the next decade will show that liberal democracy is amenable to positive change without revolutions and carnage and uncertainty.

not so much with anarchy.

How is the above anything more than just platitudes?

Centinel:
I dont think it is possible given the diversity and the difficulty and costs and controversy of projecting power globally.  the USA catches alot of heat for turning out a dictator that murdered over half million of his own people and started two unprovoked wars.   so any single group that tries to obtain power by physical force will undoubtedly face alot of opposition.

I certainly see things a different way, namely that the world is already under a de facto economic, political, and military hegemony by the US.

Centinel:
you mean germany right ?

hey the dude screwed up, but everyone knew that germany was going to attack russia expect stalin. you cant base a policy dynamic on the miscalculation on one dude.   no matter, my assertion stands.  nobody wants to align with a group of non-violent pacifists that wont come to your aid no matter how great the genocide and human rights violations.  and anarchists dont do rescue of maligned nations.   which means that enemies can pick them off one at a time in detail.

Your assertion stands on air. Do you really think anyone is intimidated by you beating your e-chest and saying your assertion stands over and over? Or maybe you think we're all idiots and that, if you repeat something loudly and often enough, we'll inevitably come to just believe it.

How do you know whether "anarchists don't do rescue of maligned nations"? Oh guess what, you don't. So this is yet another timeless claim and therefore an argument from ignorance.

No matter how many times you try to re-assert your fantasy world, people like me will come along to point out that your emperor actually has no clothes.

Centinel:
I mean where is the financial profit in coming to the aid of a beleagured nation ?   a PMC that wasted shareholder wealth for noble reasons unrelated to profit would see their CEO fired in short order.

By that reasoning, non-profit organizations would never exist.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 9:32 AM

Centinel:
What if that nationalism was imbibed with the belief that individual rights and responsibility was the key to a happy civilization ?

and what is preventing that sentiment from becoming part of a nationalist fiber ?

What is nationalism necessary for, then? Why aren't individual rights and responsibility enough?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Iraq and Afghanistan are stable and peaceful?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 8:44 PM

Centinel:
but we do need to put a clamp on govt spending and regulation of commerce and private property.  but guess what.  people have figured out that this is a problem and our liberal democracy is moving to solve the problem without too much violence.  yeah it is slow, but i think this is the end of the beginning of governments partying at the expense of the people.   when we gut govt. spending and regulation with the appropriate amendments than it will be a signal that we are at the beginning of the end of the big govt era that we all as Austrians know is unsustainable.

Do you mean government spending like this?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 8:45 PM

Germany could ask the US to leave today and they would be gone tomorrow.

Yes, voluntary occupation. Let me show you how voluntary occupation works in Okinawa:

Nov 9, 2009:

Demo of 21,000 people demand closure of Futenma air base

Dec 6, 2009:

Yukio Hatoyama said a decision on Futenma issue will be made soon

December 19, 2009:

Doubts Grow in Japan About Premier Amid Money Scandal

May 5, 2010:

Full Futenma move impossible: Hatoyama: Okinawans are again called on to accept burden of U.S. bases

Jun 3, 2010:

Hatoyama falls victim to Futenma dilemma

Jun 22, 2011:

Japan, U.S. delay Futenma base relocation until after 2014

God, people will just believe any damn thing they're told by those in authority. It is good to be King.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 10:04 PM

The greatest non-anarchist military in the history of the world hasn't defeated a bunch of primitive insurgents?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Jul 27 2011 10:56 PM

p.s. i love it when the anti-american crowd shifts into their 'defend saddam'  'defend taliban' 'defend bushido japan' 'defend hitler' mode

You seem to be confusing the consistent condemnation of tyranny in all its forms (both the hypocritical Western variety and the more naked varieties you mentioned) with your own partiality. Abuse, oppression and war are never justified. It doesn't matter if the people doing it are flying the stars and stripes or some other flag.

or when they state that these heinous dictatorships were 'victimized' by US aggression.  

No, the dictatorships often survive intact. The Emperor of Japan lived (he wasn't a dictator, BTW). Many Nazi war criminals survived and escaped. The vast majority of the European nobility and royalty is still intact, even if thrones are a bit scarce. It's the civilians who get slaughtered. Dresden. Hamburg. Tokyo. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Etc.

And this is how it always goes. The tyrants hurl battalions of expendables at each other and when things get desperate, they escape. Even if caught by the victor, they're frequently spared because killing a head of state undermines one's own aura of permanence.

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

How is having nukes not a comparative advantage against primitive insurgents? Why don't they simply nuke entire cities to rid of them?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Who here has defended Saddam, the Taliban, Bushido Japan, or Hitler? I wantz objective and empirical evidence and proof.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Thu, Jul 28 2011 11:50 PM

Centinel, is there such a thing as a war that was fought by the United States that you do not like, or would you defend every one of them?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Jul 29 2011 3:02 AM

I'm amazed Centinel will self-describe as a neocon - you guys are the ones who tried to pass this off as "dunking in a little water."

And, as always, it turns out that whatever dirt the government propagandists willingly talk about is just a diversion and is the tip of the iceberg.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Fri, Jul 29 2011 6:12 AM

I will rephrase the question. Is there a case in American history where the US went to war but you think it shouldn't have done so? Where you think it should have done nothing at all.

We shouldnt be using our cadilllac conventional miliitary forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It is like swatting a gnat with a hammer.  better to support indigenous fighters with a few arms and a little drone air support when necessary at a fraction of the cost and no US casualties.

That is still engaging in acts of war. You're just disagreeing with the tactics.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Jul 30 2011 11:03 PM

I... support war in Afghanistan

Why do you want there to be a war in Afghanistan?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sat, Jul 30 2011 11:36 PM

But if you win there would no longer be a war. Don't you want to win a war for a change?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Sat, Jul 30 2011 11:48 PM

Centinel:
If someone bloodies your nose and you don't respond forcefully, then  potential threats will judge you to be a 'paper tiger' and it is more likely you will be attacked again.

What Taliban bloodied your nose?

To paraphrase Muhammed Ali: "Ain't no Viet Cong ever call me nigger."

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jul 31 2011 1:15 AM

Rothbard on the subject of national liberation.  "Nationalism is not a unitary, monolithic phenomenon. If it is aggressive, we should oppose it; if liberatory, we should favor it."

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, Jul 31 2011 7:02 AM

So you're saying why you lose all these wars is because you can't fight?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 1
Points 20

Here is a good book chapter on this topic: Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, and World Government by J. Pojman. It's from Global Political Philosophy, 272 p., McGraw Hill.

 

To whom you tell your secrets, to him you resign your liberty.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

I oppose global government no more than I oppose continental dictatorships or national governments. Self appointed global authorities are not necessary in a globalized economy. People have been trading around the planet for 100s of years. Globalization is just a buzz word associated with the advancement in telecommunications and travel with regards to global trade. There is nothing wrong with being an internationalist, being not attached to a fictitious nationalistic entity. Are you a product of where you were born or of where you have been? I oppose all forms of government be it local, national, continental or global. In fact I would oppose global government before my own national government and I find that exploiting the nationalistic tendencies in people, in the uk, is a great way to encourage resistance towards the EUSSR.

Similar to the way that people will try to use state law and the state process to get around federal laws. People will use the nationalism and similar to resist global government.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jul 31 2011 11:27 AM

Centinel, it's not that everyone is against any kind of war, but it's who, what, when, where, why, and how that comes up.  Alright, World Trade Center was attacked, so why should the entire country raise their fists against the Taliban?  Did the Taliban mean to attack those individuals in the WTC, or was it more of a threat towards our government?  Why should random individuals who probably had zero connection to the WTC go fight?  A place in NYC is attacked, so should people in California care?  Should we all fight on behalf of someone who was attacked before investigating and make our own minds?  As far as I know this is a skirmish between our shoddy government and some people in the Middle East.  I know neither those in my government or those in the Middle East.

It's probably no surprise what people here view as a defense is most likely written out in The Private Production of Defense by Hoppe.  It's not about fighting wars to fight states, it's the fact a terrorist group who isn't really a State attacked "us" on behalf of our State, and collectively the State sends individuals over there to fight financed by money usurped from it's citizens.  Is that the idea anarchists suppose to support?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Sun, Jul 31 2011 12:19 PM

Centinel:
Your question is all wrong.

The means are absolutely essential to determining if war is fought.

I'm sure that Marko will take this as you deliberately refusing to answer the question.

Your non-answer has no applicability, because Marko's question referred to "a case in American history where the US went to war but you think it shouldn't have done so".

Can you try actually answering his question now?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Sun, Jul 31 2011 12:20 PM

Centinel:
If someone bloodies your nose and you don't respond forcefully, then  potential threats will judge you to be a 'paper tiger' and it is more likely you will be attacked again.

Is capturing and prosecuting terrorists as criminals not a "forceful response" in your view? Why or why not?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Sun, Jul 31 2011 12:27 PM

Centinel:
Your thinking is partly illustrative of why there are zero viable anarchists societies yesterday, today, or probably in the future.

Preemption against emerging statist threats is not allowed, you know only fight if you get attacked first.  That is okay in a fight by 5 year olds who cant really hurt themselves but  in today's world having a ' please bomb me first sir' policy is not a good idea.

Oh yes, the old "today's world" canard. Please do tell exactly how non-preepmtion is "not a good idea" in today's world.

My understanding is that, until recently, US government policy when it came to war was to not go to war until attacked (although there's plenty of evidence that it would let such attacks happen, or distort events to make it look like the US had been attacked first).

Furthermore, an important question regarding "emerging statist threats" is who will determine them and how they will make that determination. What's your own answer there?

And finally, why do you implicitly give the US special privileges to be able to preempt "emerging statist threats"? Presumably you wouldn't like it at all if the Chinese, the Russians, or even such as the Libyans decided to preempt what they saw as an "emerging statist threat" on the part of the US.

Centinel:
And deterrence is not in the anarchist mindset, so they will only attack when attacked and cease hostilities when the direct threat is removed. You know, just enough violence to provide for self-defense, no complete capitulation of the threat because that would be aggression instead of defense so it is bad.   But the problem is that the threat keeps coming back and the next time it doesnt make the same mistakes as before.

How do you know that "the threat keeps coming back"? That sounds like another prediction about the future to me.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Aug 1 2011 2:55 PM

anarchism is not going to make it in the real world

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

The absence of government has been the norm for thousands of years of human history. Even today, with our stifling bureaucracies and welfare-warfare superstates, the average person relates to his fellow man in an "anarchic" fashion (no policeman standing by with a billy club to make sure things happen a certain way) 99.9% of the time. Anarchy is not a political philosophy - it is simply opposition to politics. Of course, that is inconceivable for you beltway types.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Mon, Aug 1 2011 3:44 PM

Centinel:

Neodoxy: Although nationalism is superior to world government, I consider the ideas involved with nationalism more aggregeous and utterly vulgar than just about any other, so I would have a hard time choosing between them

What if that nationalism was imbibed with the belief that individual rights and responsibility was the key to a happy civilization ?

and what is preventing that sentiment from becoming part of a nationalist fiber ?

Then I would welcome that in the same way that I welcome the fact that killing babies is generally frowned upon in most national sentiments, but this would not cause me to support that nation. I would oppose nationalism in any form so long as it exists the same way it does today. So long as nationalism is exclusive (that is, excludes individuals based upon where they live) and borders are relevant (like "sea to shining sea" is something to be proud of and everyone on the other side of an imaginary line is a different type of person) then I will consider it disgusting, but the more back seat the nation is the better. I wouldn't oppose nationalism is there were no or minimal border patrols in particular and a type of "free market" on nations came into existence. That might be quite an ideal system.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (77 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS