General

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Neodoxy — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:44:09 GMT

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.

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Clayton — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 20:55:05 GMT

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 -

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Autolykos — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:27:18 GMT

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.

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Autolykos — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:20:18 GMT

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?

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Autolykos — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:19:16 GMT

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?

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Bert — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:27:52 GMT

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?

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Jack Roberts — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:09:02 GMT

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.

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Joseph Stokes — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:59:01 GMT

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.

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Marko — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:02:48 GMT

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

Re: Nationalism or world government??

Bert — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 07:15:23 GMT

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."

Re: Nationalism or world government??

DanielMuff — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:48:04 GMT

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."