Should the EU become one big country like the USA? [Archive]

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 11:23 AM

Nationalism isn't 'silly'. It's the most potent source of patriotism and interest in public affairs. Nationalism gives nations a historical or mythical (or both) ideal against which to strive. Removing that will ultimately harm the Republic you intend to create.

Turkey wants no part in the limp-wristed liberalism of Western Europe. Turkey wants membership in the EU for the sole purpose of strengthening them vis-à-vis their regional interests - many of which run directly counter to Europe's.
Nationalism breeds racism, discrimination and wars! A nation is only land with made up borders and people.

No nationalism won't harm the EU!

I had to look up what limp-wristed means and it means homosexual??

Yeahhh they want us for protection and I want they because there people are so nice and the country is so beautiful!

I'm not seeing why countries in Europe need to be unified to the point of being one state, in both national as well as economic ways. One could argue that we're heading into a superstate economically, but even with that we're not some United States of Europe - there's more to a country than economics.

So no, I don't think this should happen.

Because we all like eachother and it would be awesome a fuck?? It would be great for the people, it would be great for everyone!!

The only thing I see standing in its way is nationalism. But most of the EU is very liberal and nationalismis dying out!

sqishy

May 31st, 2016, 11:31 AM

Because we all like eachother and it would be awesome a fuck?? It would be great for the people, it would be great for everyone!!

Could we not do the same without having to be one superstate? (Taking that the similarities are more important than the differences, ofc.)

The only thing I see standing in its way is nationalism. But most of the EU is very liberal and nationalismis dying out!

I don't want to get into nationalism as such, and I'm not sure that most of the EU is very liberal or that nationalism is dying out, whichever way you want to take that. For example, we have far-right parties getting more support due to terrorism (even if indirectly).

Liberalism, how you define it, and how to find the lack of it, depends more than just same-sex marriage legalisation if that's what you're coming from. I'm not opposing you as such, just pointing out some things.

Vlerchan

May 31st, 2016, 11:38 AM

No.

The largest issue is the different political, and politico-economic, cultures, and different positions in the overall business cycle. Here, there's quite a clear centre-periphery-Eastern divide. Whether greater convergences can occur within the centre, in particular, is something I'm open to.

Double-no to the Turks joining the EU. Not just because of their recent neo-Ottomanian drift under Edrogon but because the state is intended to persist as a buffer against exported-instability from the Middle East (of which, currently, albeit, it is worse than no buffer at all) and incorporating them into the European Union obviously undermines that function.

Nationalism breeds racism, discrimination and wars!
Historically cosmopolitanism internationalism has also bread discrimination and wars.

Re., humanitarian interventions.

Judean Zealot

May 31st, 2016, 11:59 AM

Nationalism breeds racism, discrimination and wars! A nation is only land with made up borders and people.

Nationalism has bred war and atrocity, but don't forget, so did democracy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror) and internationalism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union). The ideals of nationalism do not necessarily lead to those atrocities, and as I've pointed out, gives vitality to the public life.

No nationalism won't harm the EU!

It most definitely will. If the people feel no connection to the state, the state itself degenerates into a feudal entity - an unenthusiastically supported means of protection. Without any feelings for the state, the state can no longer function as a Republic.

I had to look up what limp-wristed means and it means homosexual??

I was using it in the sense of weak, saccharine, etc.

Yeahhh they want us for protection and I want they because there people are so nice and the country is so beautiful!

The government wants it so did they can keep on stirring up shit in the middle east and continue repressing the Kurds.

Leprous

May 31st, 2016, 12:01 PM

Should the EU become one big country like the USA?

I think it should! It would be awesome and we NEED to add Turkey because I love Turkey and turkish people:')

The thing is, it works in the USA because well, historicly it has always been together, never forced to become 1 big country. Also, in the US, everyone speaks English, here in Europe, nobody would understand eachother.

Also, you want Erdogan to become part of the European government? (That is if you make the leaders of each country control Europe). That man isn't really good to have as a leader.

Also, let's concider the fact the Balkan states have always wanted to be independant from eachother (and trust me them splitting wasn't too friendly), you're going to throw them together just like that? Same goes for Northern Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Also what about Russia? Just take the part west of the Ural and give the rest to Asia?

The arguements "it would be awesome" and "it would be great fun" aren't really great.

Also might mention that Germany tried to unite all thr German speaking countries and in the long run that ended up becoming WW1 so yeah. Hitler wanted a reich, WW2. ISIS wants a "muslim" nation, look what's happening their.

What I'm trying to get at is that this would most likely end in a civil war. It has been proven time on time again. The US can't be compared to Europe as they are completely different, 1 primary language, 1 leader etc etc.

Also who would lead this 'country'. I don't think you want Merkel. Which to me seems the most obvious candidate in a situation like this.

As Paraxiom mentioned, nationalism is definitly not dying out at all, because of the recent events the Belgian far right party has been gaining in popularity (and I'm sure other countries aswell)

Btw, a nation is more than a bunch of land with made up borders and people. You know they are there for a reason right? Economic reasons, languagues, races, politcal preferences.

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 02:59 PM

The thing is, it works in the USA because well, historicly it has always been together, never forced to become 1 big country. Also, in the US, everyone speaks English, here in Europe, nobody would understand eachother.

Not reallyyyyy the USA was originally thirteen colonies! I don't think the language will be that big a deal! We're managing now!

Also, you want Erdogan to become part of the European government? (That is if you make the leaders of each country control Europe). That man isn't really good to have as a leader.

Nahhhh we could have everyone vote on members of the EU parliment and the President!

Also, let's concider the fact the Balkan states have always wanted to be independant from eachother (and trust me them splitting wasn't too friendly), you're going to throw them together just like that? Same goes for Northern Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

I don't suggest forcing counties at gun point! No wars need to be fought!:) They can leave if they want to! Besides that is all nationalism, when they get past that they will see its a good idea.

Also what about Russia? Just take the part west of the Ural and give the rest to Asia?

What is the Ural?? I done a quick google search but nothing come up!

The arguements "it would be awesome" and "it would be great fun" aren't really great.

There are loads of reasons it would be a good idea! The EU can protect the rights of those living in the EU, it can improve conditions and make it a better place to trade. It would also have a larger presense on the world stage.

Also might mention that Germany tried to unite all thr German speaking countries and in the long run that ended up becoming WW1 so yeah. Hitler wanted a reich, WW2. ISIS wants a "muslim" nation, look what's happening their.

What I'm trying to get at is that this would most likely end in a civil war. It has been proven time on time again. The US can't be compared to Europe as they are completely different, 1 primary language, 1 leader etc etc.

Noooo this is the 21st century. If they want to leave they can vote like Scotland did with the UK.

The thing is, it works in the USA because well, historicly it has always been together, never forced to become 1 big country. Also, in the US, everyone speaks English, here in Europe, nobody would understand eachother.

Also, you want Erdogan to become part of the European government? (That is if you make the leaders of each country control Europe). That man isn't really good to have as a leader.

Also, let's concider the fact the Balkan states have always wanted to be independant from eachother (and trust me them splitting wasn't too friendly), you're going to throw them together just like that? Same goes for Northern Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Also what about Russia? Just take the part west of the Ural and give the rest to Asia?

The arguements "it would be awesome" and "it would be great fun" aren't really great.

Also might mention that Germany tried to unite all thr German speaking countries and in the long run that ended up becoming WW1 so yeah. Hitler wanted a reich, WW2. ISIS wants a "muslim" nation, look what's happening their.

What I'm trying to get at is that this would most likely end in a civil war. It has been proven time on time again. The US can't be compared to Europe as they are completely different, 1 primary language, 1 leader etc etc.

Also who would lead this 'country'. I don't think you want Merkel. Which to me seems the most obvious candidate in a situation like this.

nationalism is definitly not dying out at all, because of the recent events the Belgian far right party has been gaining in popularity (and I'm sure other countries aswell)

I don't know:') but I believe with how liberal the EU is, a good leader would be voted in:) Don't know much about merkel but I assume you say her because germany is currently leading the EU?

Historically cosmopolitanism internationalism has also bread discrimination and wars.

Re., humanitarian interventions.

Not supporting anything that leads to words buddy:')

Double-no to the Turks joining the EU. Not just because of their recent neo-Ottomanian drift under Edrogon but because the state is intended to persist as a buffer against exported-instability from the Middle East (of which, currently, albeit, it is worse than no buffer at all) and incorporating them into the European Union obviously undermines that function.

Turkey's location in the world sucks! But they are an awesome country and just because they are in unfortunate circumstances doesn't mean we should leave them to fend for themselves! Imagine if your country was in such a situation? Besides with countries like the UK, Germany and France the EU could easily stabilize Turkey.

Liberalism, how you define it, and how to find the lack of it, depends more than just same-sex marriage legalisation if that's what you're coming from. I'm not opposing you as such, just pointing out some things.

I do think Europe is one of, if not the most, liberal places on the planet. *Go us:')* Do I think we're liberal enough? NOPE! Tbh I find it sad same sex marrigae is considered a liberal issue. It is a basic right.

As for you concern about a super state I think it could only make things better!! :)

Judean Zealot

May 31st, 2016, 03:14 PM

I think the 21st century will disillusion you pretty bad within the next two decades.

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 03:18 PM

I think the 21st century will disillusion you pretty bad within the next two decades.

Whyyy?

Leprous

May 31st, 2016, 03:19 PM

Not reallyyyyy the USA was originally thirteen colonies! I don't think the language will be that big a deal! We're managing now!

Nahhhh we could have everyone vote on members of the EU parliment and the President!

I don't suggest forcing counties at gun point! No wars need to be fought!:) They can leave if they want to! Besides that is all nationalism, when they get past that they will see its a good idea.

What is the Ural?? I done a quick google search but nothing come up!

There are loads of reasons it would be a good idea! The EU can protect the rights of those living in the EU, it can improve conditions and make it a better place to trade. It would also have a larger presense on the world stage.

Noooo this is the 21st century. If they want to leave they can vote like Scotland did with the UK.

I don't know:') but I believe with how liberal the EU is, a good leader would be voted in:) Don't know much about merkel but I assume you say her because germany is currently leading the EU?

Not supporting anything that leads to words buddy:')

Turkey's location in the world sucks! But they are an awesome country and just because they are in unfortunate circumstances doesn't mean we should leave them to fend for themselves! Imagine if your country was in such a situation? Besides with countries like the UK, Germany and France the EU could easily stabilize Turkey.

I do think Europe is one of, if not the most, liberal places on the planet. *Go us:')* Do I think we're liberal enough? NOPE! Tbh I find it sad same sex marrigae is considered a liberal issue. It is a basic right.

As for you concern about a super state I think it could only make things better!! :)

No offense but your current arguements are pretty damn weak.

Alright: The Ural is the mountain range (and river) seperating European Russia from Asian Russia. We're managing the language now? Maybe, but how many countries do you go to where nobody speaks English? Well yeah. As for languages, what will the this state's primary language? No language is in a real minority here.

Actually it won't change the presence of Europe towards the world, not at all. It will when it comes to teritory but why should size matter here?

The fact you don't know about most of the things you're talking about just makes me feel like you're saying this "because it sounds cool".

"Turkey is cool" is no reason to bring them in. You wanna have a border with Syria? Also, if this is one big nation, that means you need 1 visa right? That means once you're in one country, you're everywhere. (Which is already the case so it won't improve anything).

Not every country wants to adopt the euro as their currency, take Switzerland and Norway, they are neutral. You say every country can just leave but that means it defnitly won't last long.

Nationalism isn't a thing that just "goes away with time". It stays, and will always stay. You can't assume wars won't be fought, as they probably will in the examples I mentioned before. Germany tried it and it failed, the Romans tried it and it failed, Napoleon tried it and it failed.

You can't just "stabilize Trukey". You can try to stabilize the Kurds and the Syrian border problems, please tell me how you'd do it.

Judean Zealot

May 31st, 2016, 03:25 PM

Whyyy?

Because you believe that the increasing internationalism and liberalism that we are seeing is a good thing - it's not. Liberalism is good in small doses perhaps, but what we have now is a full inversion of values. The one who is ideologically ideology-less is the most admirable in the postmodern world, and the consequences of that monster have yet to raise their head.

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 03:48 PM

No offense but your current arguements are pretty damn weak.

Noneeeee taken... :eek::(

Alright: The Ural is the mountain range (and river) seperating European Russia from Asian Russia. We're managing the language now? Maybe, but how many countries do you go to where nobody speaks English? Well yeah. As for languages, what will the this state's primary language? No language is in a real minority here.

Okayyy and what's the problem with Ural? If its one of them things when great tension is built up over tiny land... because I'm lucky just giving it to whoever wants it.

I have been to Japan, Greece and Italy:) Do they need a primary language? Look at Luxembourg, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and India.

Actually it won't change the presence of Europe towards the world, not at all. It will when it comes to teritory but why should size matter here?

Because the EU could influence other countries to change their policies. The EU could stop sending arms to bad people and could block trade from countries that adopt polices that go against peoples human rights.

When's the last time the leader of Nauru made world news compared to the leaders of Russia and the USA.

Not every country wants to adopt the euro as their currency, take Switzerland and Norway, they are neutral. You say every country can just leave but that means it defnitly won't last long.

Then switzerland and norway don't have to join?? They can join at a leter date or just be a friendly ally. The only real problem nation is the UK!

"Turkey is cool" is no reason to bring them in. You wanna have a border with Syria? Also, if this is one big nation, that means you need 1 visa right? That means once you're in one country, you're everywhere. (Which is already the case so it won't improve anything).

Turkey is amazing that much is true but I also said if your country was in a similar situation would you want help? If you was a citizen of Turkey would you want help? You don't even need a visa buddy.

You can't assume wars won't be fought, as they probably will in the examples I mentioned before. Germany tried it and it failed, the Romans tried it and it failed, Napoleon tried it and it failed.

Lets keep it real buddy... Germany did not try to avoid wars.... the Romans didn't try to avoid wars... Napoleon didn't either!

Thankfully today they're more peaceful.

Who is going to attack the EU then that won't attack now?

Nationalism isn't a thing that just "goes away with time". It stays, and will always stay.

Nahhh with increased immigration, education and internationalism it is going!

Even if you believe nationalists are here to say, does not mean their opinions should not be challlenged. Racists aren't going anywhere soon does that mean we should accept then?

You can't just "stabilize Trukey". You can try to stabilize the Kurds and the Syrian border problems, please tell me how you'd do it.

Nope you can't! But it would be easier with full support from the EU.

I would sit down everyone involved in a room and talk it out untill there is peace.

I would also take all the guns away and increase policing.

Because you believe that the increasing internationalism and liberalism that we are seeing is a good thing - it's not. Liberalism is good in small doses perhaps, but what we have now is a full inversion of values. The one who is ideologically ideology-less is the most admirable in the postmodern world, and the consequences of that monster have yet to raise their head.

Sooooo us liberals are bad because we have an inversion of values? What values are these?

Judean Zealot

May 31st, 2016, 03:56 PM

Sooooo us liberals are bad because we have an inversion of values? What values are these?

I never said liberals are bad. I said their ideas are. Values like family, country, religion, and the very notion of objective and transcendental morality have all been cast away and replaced with a shallow egalitarianism.

Vlerchan

May 31st, 2016, 03:56 PM

Turkey's location in the world sucks! But they are an awesome country and just because they are in unfortunate circumstances doesn't mean we should leave them to fend for themselves! Imagine if your country was in such a situation? Besides with countries like the UK, Germany and France the EU could easily stabilize Turkey.
I don't believe we should leave them to fend for themselves. I am content with providing them with financial-aid and a customs union for the service that the state offers. That service is to absorb the instability that the Middle East exports and stop it from reaching European borders.

It's just not in Europe's interests to open ourselves to disruption from the Middle East.

Furthermore, the Irish were subject to population transfers, and arguably genocide, as a result of British security concerns. Being Irish, I would have preferred that didn't happen, but I can understand the British mentality that led to the centuries long occupation.

[...] internationalism and liberalism [...]
What definitions are we using here?

The particular definition I also use for 'internationalism' is co-operation amongst nations. That's distinct from 'globalism' which refers to the flattening of national distinctions, and 'globalisation' which refers to greater interconnectiveness amongst nations. Thus, nationalism and internationalism are not only fully reconcilable, but the latter necessitates the former.

Judean Zealot

May 31st, 2016, 04:04 PM

Vlerchan

I'm referring to the rejection of national identities - or any other "chauvinist" identities - on the basis of a misplaced humanism.

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 04:04 PM

I never said liberals are bad. I said their ideas are. Values like family, country, religion, and the very notion of objective and transcendental morality have all been cast away and replaced with a shallow egalitarianism.

I thought liberals had good values in all them departments!:')

Family values: You can start a family with anyone you want! Same gender, different gender or even a mailbox! Its the person's right to choose, not the goverments.

Country: What bad values do we have here? Valuing education or healthcare?

Religion: Practice whatever you want! No discrimination.

What do you mean by transcendental??? I didn't take maths in college for a reason:')

Also egalitarianism means:
Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism or equalism—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If that is what you mean how is it bad?? Dude chill out on the big wordsXD

sqishy

May 31st, 2016, 04:08 PM

I do think Europe is one of, if not the most, liberal places on the planet. *Go us:')* Do I think we're liberal enough? NOPE!

How liberal would you like Europe to get?

As for you concern about a super state I think it could only make things better!! :)

I'm not concerned as such (partly because I don't think it will happen 'deep enough' to the level of culture to make a supernation), more just not getting why it should happen.

Can your vision of (let's say) 'saturated liberalism' not happen without the creation of a superstate/nation?

- - - - - - - -

I think the 21st century will disillusion you pretty bad within the next two decades.

Now that you tickle my curiosity, I'm wondering what your predictions are for these next ~20 years socially. (Honestly just wondering.)

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 04:16 PM

How liberal would you like Europe to get?

I'm not concerned as such (partly because I don't think it will happen 'deep enough' to the level of culture to make a supernation), more just not getting why it should happen.

Can your vision of (let's say) 'saturated liberalism' not happen without the creation of a superstate/nation?

hmmm:) On the liberal spectrum I would say I am very far left, just a little right of communism.:) However of course politics is more complicated that that!:) Yeah I think it could happen without a supernation!:) But in my opinion it would be more awesome as a supernation:)
Vlerchan

I'm referring to the rejection of national identities - or any other "chauvinist" identities - on the basis of a misplaced humanism.

That is not what internationalism means!! Dudeeeee I am not being insulting because I'm not that good at fancy english but don't use fancy big words unless you have to and you know the meaning because I think we're disagreeing on stuff we agree on!!

National identies can be fun and harmless! Let the Italian be proud of there amazing cars! But don't let it lead to hatred.

Stronk Serb

May 31st, 2016, 04:32 PM

Just... no. Look at the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. They were multiethnic and they fell apart even though there was not much difference between the peoples, at least in USSR's Europe side. Besides, most peooles strived for independence from countries like Russia, Germany France and UK to be willing to give it up again to their same former overlords. Can you imagine Ireland submitting back to the UK? The lsrger states will call the shots. Also European borders are not made up. Also including Turkey in the EU... just no. Some might be nice peoole, but when they are in a foreign enclave, they get neo-Ottoman tendencies. I mean their government already has them. And a democratically elected government shows the will of the people.

Judean Zealot

May 31st, 2016, 04:33 PM

Family values: You can start a family with anyone you want! Same gender, different gender or even a mailbox! Its the person's right to choose, not the goverments.

Modern liberals undermine family by condoning sexual promiscuity and denigrating the traditional role of the housewife, among other things.

Country: What bad values do we have here? Valuing education or healthcare?

The negation of the value and moral authority of the state; a tendency towards denying the obligation to sacrifice for the state.

Religion: Practice whatever you want! No discrimination.

The insistence on banishing any displays of religion from the public sphere; the underlying narrative of 'since no religion is true just do what makes you happy' - a far cry from the tolerance espoused by Locke.

What do you mean by transcendental??? I didn't take maths in college for a reason:')

That transcends space and time.

If that is what you mean how is it bad?? Dude chill out on the big wordsXD

Egalitarianism isn't bad in and of itself, but when it is given such a prominent place so as to allow for radical moral relativism it becomes problematic, as all other ideals are rejected on grounds of being discriminatory or exclusive.

I write as I speak; I'm sorry if you can't follow.

That is not what internationalism means!!

It is what it has meant for the greater part of the 20th century.

sqishy

May 31st, 2016, 04:35 PM

hmmm:) On the liberal spectrum I would say I am very far left, just a little right of communism.:) However of course politics is more complicated that that!:) Yeah I think it could happen without a supernation!:) But in my opinion it would be more awesome as a supernation:)

Alright then.

- - - - - - - -

That transcends space and time.

I didn't expect this to come up in discussing the advancement of the EU and related stuff.

- - - - - - - -
[As a side thing (no offence intended), I would be open to doing some ROTW with concentrated emotive interaction and even maybe some roleplay of characters/etc.]

Judean Zealot

May 31st, 2016, 04:41 PM

I didn't expect this to come up in discussing the advancement of the EU and related stuff.

I was referring to transcendent morals as a critique of modern liberalism.

What do you mean by emotive interaction?

Vlerchan

May 31st, 2016, 04:44 PM

I didn't expect this to come up in discussing the advancement of the EU and related stuff.
As the number of Judean Zealot's* posts in a given thread rises, the probability that we'll delve into he philosophical intrinsics of a distantly-related topic approaches 1.

---

* / Paraxiom

National identies can be fun and harmless! Let the Italian be proud of there amazing cars! But don't let it lead to hatred.
To me hatred has always seemed a profoundly anti-nationalist idea. It revolves around a preoccupation with the identities of others, which shouldn't occur if one is comfortable with ones own.

The globalising and homogenising tendencies of anti-nationalist ideologies should, rather, prompt greater degrees of animosity.

---

Edit: I also work hard to maintain an environment of unpleasant, emotionless neutrality around here.

I'd really prefer if it stayed likes this. If not for my own selfish preferences, because it just makes things more efficient and less prone to flaming borne of misunderstandings.

sqishy

May 31st, 2016, 04:45 PM

I was referring to transcendent morals as a critique of modern liberalism.

Alright, forgive me then.

What do you mean by emotive interaction?

Where emotions clearly come out at you through the typing of the person, typing being how we interact here.

I find it quite present in this thread :P .

As the number of Judean Zealot's* posts in a given thread rises, the probability that we'll delve into he philosophical intrinsics of a distantly-related topic approaches 1.

---

* / Paraxiom

Principle from observance noted :D .

mattsmith48

May 31st, 2016, 06:30 PM

Should the EU become one big country like the USA?

I think it should! It would be awesome and we NEED to add Turkey because I love Turkey and turkish people:')

I dont think it would happen countries like the UK already have trouble staying together. I think its more of the opposite that will happen bigger countries like the US splitting into a group of smaller countries

Flapjack

May 31st, 2016, 08:55 PM

To me hatred has always seemed a profoundly anti-nationalist idea. It revolves around a preoccupation with the identities of others, which shouldn't occur if one is comfortable with ones own.

The globalising and homogenising tendencies of anti-nationalist ideologies should, rather, prompt greater degrees of animosity.

Are you saying the anti-nationalists are the ones with hatred? I can only speak for myself of course but I am super hippie and peaceful:)

I also don't see the harm of globalising? In fact, I think its a great thing!:)

Modern liberals undermine family by condoning sexual promiscuity and denigrating the traditional role of the housewife, among other things.

Whats wrong with sexual promiscuity? Let people do whatever they want with their bodies!

As for the whole traditional role of the house wife thing... I'd explain how it's sexist but you won't get it so again I'll just say it's their business! If the man wants to look after the kids and clean with the women working, more power to them! Who does it hurt?

The negation of the value and moral authority of the state; a tendency towards denying the obligation to sacrifice for the state.

Can you give examples?

The insistence on banishing any displays of religion from the public sphere; the underlying narrative of 'since no religion is true just do what makes you happy' - a far cry from the tolerance espoused by Locke.

Well I personally don't agree with this and I don't believe it is an idea adopted by many religions! Of course those that aren't religious will see it as silly, similar to how you would see them as silly.

I think you should be able to worship any god or grapefruit or whatever. It's your life:) Besides contary to popular belief, I think a lot of good can actually come out of religion.
[QUOTE=Judean Zealot;3372102]

Egalitarianism isn't bad in and of itself, but when it is given such a prominent place so as to allow for radical moral relativism it becomes problematic, as all other ideals are rejected on grounds of being discriminatory or exclusive.

[/quote[
Egalitarianism is more communism buddy:)

everlong

May 31st, 2016, 09:01 PM

Why? I wouldn't see a point to it. I feel like it would be way too complicated and useless.

Leprous

June 1st, 2016, 12:29 AM

Noneeeee taken... :eek::(

Okayyy and what's the problem with Ural? If its one of them things when great tension is built up over tiny land... because I'm lucky just giving it to whoever wants it.

I have been to Japan, Greece and Italy:) Do they need a primary language? Look at Luxembourg, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and India.

Because the EU could influence other countries to change their policies. The EU could stop sending arms to bad people and could block trade from countries that adopt polices that go against peoples human rights.

When's the last time the leader of Nauru made world news compared to the leaders of Russia and the USA.

Then switzerland and norway don't have to join?? They can join at a leter date or just be a friendly ally. The only real problem nation is the UK!

Turkey is amazing that much is true but I also said if your country was in a similar situation would you want help? If you was a citizen of Turkey would you want help? You don't even need a visa buddy.

Lets keep it real buddy... Germany did not try to avoid wars.... the Romans didn't try to avoid wars... Napoleon didn't either!

Thankfully today they're more peaceful.

Who is going to attack the EU then that won't attack now?

Nahhh with increased immigration, education and internationalism it is going!

Even if you believe nationalists are here to say, does not mean their opinions should not be challlenged. Racists aren't going anywhere soon does that mean we should accept then?

Nope you can't! But it would be easier with full support from the EU.

I would sit down everyone involved in a room and talk it out untill there is peace.

I would also take all the guns away and increase policing.

Sooooo us liberals are bad because we have an inversion of values? What values are these?

Firstly, nationalists are NOT the same as racists, okay? Check your facts before labeling someone racist.

It's not just "a tiny piece of land" it's a massive mountain range that is the natural border between Asia and Europe, you can't just "give a country to whoever wants it" look at Ukraine, it didn't work out there when Russis took the Krim.

Japan Greece and Italy are single countries, not a massive superstate made up of multiple countries forced together, they need a primary language.

The problem with Switzerland is they won't enjoy being completely enclosed by a super state, that usually doesn't work out.

You really think it's easy to "stop sending guns to bad people"?. It's not. Do you know why they didn't yet? Money! Why did it takes ages to help the people in Libia? No oil = no money involved. They won't just stop as it would reduce their income.

Talking to make peace? You really wanna talk with ISIS? I'm pretty sure that's not possible but okay. You can't exactly convince a bunch of insane terrorists to join the West.

You don't even need a visa?? So you'll just let anyone in? Any random person from who knows where can come in? Alright so if terrorist who will blow up an airport (again) want to smuggle themselves in they just can? Europe already has the problem of open borders and you'll make it worse.

You really think this would work but you need to think about why it can't.

phuckphace

June 1st, 2016, 12:41 AM

Firstly, nationalists are NOT the same as racists, okay? Check your facts before labeling someone racist.

:eek:

a good post!

I'm legit impressed over here, mang.

---

to the OP: you know your idea is a bad one when even those posters with a fatal allergy to nationalism are shaking their heads.

Stronk Serb

June 1st, 2016, 02:25 AM

:eek:

a good post!

I'm legit impressed over here, mang.

---

to the OP: you know your idea is a bad one when even those posters with a fatal allergy to nationalism are shaking their heads.

You know his idea is a bad one when every European poster cringes and says "HELL NO!!1!111!", even the ones without nationalist tendencies.

Vlerchan

June 1st, 2016, 02:58 AM

Are you saying the anti-nationalists are the ones with hatred? I can only speak for myself of course but I am super hippie and peaceful.
It's a bit more nuanced.

Your typical anti-nationalist desires the elimination of a strong national culture. He cannot respect the difference established between peoples above and beyond the level of postmodern liberalism: universal-equality, freedom-of-action. This is seen in his reduction of all acts of culture to a 'personal choice': which necessitates the desacralisation of those acts (it's flattening and transformation into lower- and popular-culture*) and renders the identity of their practitioners void in the public sphere*.

Thus, those that continue to cling to their identities in spite of encroaching liberal-internationalism are despised: racists, bigots and cranks.

---

* National-culture gets its power from persisting above the realm of personal-choice. It is qualitatively different from any shared culture, insofar as it is only through this exclusive-compulsiveness that a spirit of togetherness and belonging are born out of.

* 'Void' because their once sacred historically-held connectiveness is severed: National-groups are turned from A People to a group of individuals who like to do things together.

I also don't see the harm of globalising? In fact, I think its a great thing!
I'm fine with globalisation (defined above) but the process of globalising is effectively the same as telling a given-people they don't exist.

---

I also have a response above - on Turkey - I think you might have missed in the flurry of posts that were produced last night.

phuckphace

June 1st, 2016, 03:00 AM

You know his idea is a bad one when every European poster cringes and says "HELL NO!!1!111!", even the ones without nationalist tendencies.

you know your idea is a bad one especially when it doesn't involve a union of Germany and Austria under the NDP/FPO and the formation of das Viertes Reich

Flapjack

June 1st, 2016, 07:32 AM

Firstly, nationalists are NOT the same as racists, okay? Check your facts before labeling someone racist.

I never said all nationalists are racists. I even clarified some nationalism can be positive, such as the Italians taking pride in their cars and glass.

I did however say nationalism is bad and often, if not always, leads to stuff like racism and discrimination.

It's not just "a tiny piece of land" it's a massive mountain range that is the natural border between Asia and Europe, you can't just "give a country to whoever wants it" look at Ukraine, it didn't work out there when Russis took the Krim.
Dude whatever it is, it can't be such a big deal that the EU can't form! Also, Ukraine never just gave over crimea.

Japan Greece and Italy are single countries, not a massive superstate made up of multiple countries forced together, they need a primary language.

Again, look at countries like Singapore, India, Canada and spain. There are such a thing as translators. News can get around the EU like it currently does.

You really think it's easy to "stop sending guns to bad people"?. It's not. Do you know why they didn't yet? Money! Why did it takes ages to help the people in Libia? No oil = no money involved. They won't just stop as it would reduce their income.

Yeahhh I think it's that easy. Since when did we have to have a financial incentive to do good in the world?

Talking to make peace? You really wanna talk with ISIS? I'm pretty sure that's not possible but okay. You can't exactly convince a bunch of insane terrorists to join the West.

I was talking about the kurds but yes we should definatly talk to ISIS! It is not reasonable to fight a war where hundreds of thousands of people will die with millions displaced because you assume they wouldn't respond to peace talks. I never said asking ISIS to join the west.

Look at the IRA. They were terrorists. There was fighting. There was peace talks. Now there is peace.

You don't even need a visa?? So you'll just let anyone in? Any random person from who knows where can come in? Alright so if terrorist who will blow up an airport (again) want to smuggle themselves in they just can? Europe already has the problem of open borders and you'll make it worse.

Ohhh I thought you were talking about travel in the EU! Yeahhh you'd need a visa from outside.

It's a bit more nuanced.

Your typical anti-nationalist desires the elimination of a strong national culture. He cannot respect the difference established between peoples above and beyond the level of postmodern liberalism: universal-equality, freedom-of-action. This is seen in his reduction of all acts of culture to a 'personal choice': which necessitates the desacralisation of those acts (it's flattening and transformation into lower- and popular-culture*) and renders the identity of their practitioners void in the public sphere*.

Oh well I'm not like that buddy!!:) I love national identity and culture! One of my favourite countries in the world is Japan because of their beautiful culture!

I'm fine with globalisation (defined above) but the process of globalising is effectively the same as telling a given-people they don't exist.

Well I think gloabalising can be done whilst respecting everyone's national identity:)

I don't believe we should leave them to fend for themselves. I am content with providing them with financial-aid and a customs union for the service that the state offers. That service is to absorb the instability that the Middle East exports and stop it from reaching European borders.

Yeah that is good buddy:) That is the best that can be done tbh without the joining the EU:)

Furthermore, the Irish were subject to population transfers, and arguably genocide, as a result of British security concerns. Being Irish, I would have preferred that didn't happen, but I can understand the British mentality that led to the centuries long occupation.

What was done to the Irish was terrible and it horrific acts like the British occupation of Ireland that make me dislike the exreme nationalists! To look after their own nations best interests they will do horrific things to people just because they are born on another side of a made up border!

Leprous

June 1st, 2016, 09:06 AM

I never said all nationalists are racists. I even clarified some nationalism can be positive, such as the Italians taking pride in their cars and glass.

I did however say nationalism is bad and often, if not always, leads to stuff like racism and discrimination.

Dude whatever it is, it can't be such a big deal that the EU can't form! Also, Ukraine never just gave over crimea.

Again, look at countries like Singapore, India, Canada and spain. There are such a thing as translators. News can get around the EU like it currently does.

Yeahhh I think it's that easy. Since when did we have to have a financial incentive to do good in the world?

I was talking about the kurds but yes we should definatly talk to ISIS! It is not reasonable to fight a war where hundreds of thousands of people will die with millions displaced because you assume they wouldn't respond to peace talks. I never said asking ISIS to join the west.

Look at the IRA. They were terrorists. There was fighting. There was peace talks. Now there is peace.

Ohhh I thought you were talking about travel in the EU! Yeahhh you'd need a visa from outside.

Oh well I'm not like that buddy!!:) I love national identity and culture! One of my favourite countries in the world is Japan because of their beautiful culture!

Well I think gloabalising can be done whilst respecting everyone's national identity:)

Yeah that is good buddy:) That is the best that can be done tbh without the joining the EU:)

What was done to the Irish was terrible and it horrific acts like the British occupation of Ireland that make me dislike the exreme nationalists! To look after their own nations best interests they will do horrific things to people just because they are born on another side of a made up border!

So you think you can do peace talks with an organisation who's only goal is to destroy anyone who says no to their way of life? Yeah....that won't happen.

You say nationalism can be positive and in your next sentence say it's bad.

It's not about the Ural itself, it's about what you would do with Russia. More than half of it is Asia. Not to mention Turkey is partially Asian to.

Again, those are countries, not 1 big nation.

The IRA wasn't exactly hating everything that was western and wasn't blowing up airports and shooting in concert halls in different countries... You can't really talk to ISIS without them killing you first.

:eek:

a good post!

I'm legit impressed over here, mang.

---

to the OP: you know your idea is a bad one when even those posters with a fatal allergy to nationalism are shaking their heads.

As you are aware all of my posts are well contructed and clever. All of my posts are extremely important and will help humanity. Totally a fact. (Still not sure if your post was sarcasm though...)

Posts merged. Next time, please use the "edit" button. -Alluring

Flapjack

June 1st, 2016, 09:54 AM

So you think you can do peace talks with an organisation who's only goal is to destroy anyone who says no to their way of life? Yeah....that won't happen.

It's worth a try buddy. If they are allowed to form their country they may agree to a peace treaty and limit their military etc we could also put pressure on them to accept human rights.

What's your plan then? Bomb them? Kill hundereds of thousands of innocent civilians whilst displacing millions? Soooo 10 years later there is another group that forms with anti west ideals. Answer me this, if your country was bombed and your family was murdered would you fight those that did it to you? That is the root of their hatred. By bombing them more you are perpetuating the cycle.

You say nationalism can be positive and in your next sentence say it's bad.

yeah pretty much! Just like with anything a little can be good, but too much can be very bad.

Leprous

June 1st, 2016, 10:19 AM

It's worth a try buddy. If they are allowed to form their country they may agree to a peace treaty and limit their military etc we could also put pressure on them to accept human rights.

What's your plan then? Bomb them? Kill hundereds of thousands of innocent civilians whilst displacing millions? Soooo 10 years later there is another group that forms with anti west ideals. Answer me this, if your country was bombed and your family was murdered would you fight those that did it to you? That is the root of their hatred. By bombing them more you are perpetuating the cycle.

yeah pretty much! Just like with anything a little can be good, but too much can be very bad.

"If we allow them to form their country". You do realise their 'country' is a place where women have no rights, if you listen to any form of western music you get locked up and/or executed.

You know the only real progress that is causing them to loose ground is gained by bombing and killing them right?

Just a question, do you know who ISIS is?

Answer me this, if they listen to your 'peace talks' and then suddenly bomb the shit out of us would that make you happy? I'm not sure if you realise that they are a bunch of lunatics who deserve to die.

They refuse to listen to us, they have literally no reason to. Also human rights are too western for them, don't even bother.

Living For Love

June 1st, 2016, 01:34 PM

If that ever happens I will move to Antarctica and become a hermit.

Flapjack

June 1st, 2016, 01:39 PM

If that ever happens I will move to Antarctica and become a hermit.

Why?XD

Leprous

June 1st, 2016, 02:14 PM

Why?XD

Well because it literally is a terrible idea.

Vlerchan

June 1st, 2016, 03:13 PM

I love national identity and culture! One of my favourite countries in the world is Japan because of their beautiful culture!
If you're in support of the maintenance of national identity and culture then what's the issue with nationalism, being as this is necessary to secure said maintenance. Like I claimed earlier, if one is incapable of elevating their own culture above that of popular culture, it loses it's power.

Japanese culture is also structurally quite-patriarchal and communitarian (anti-individualist), having an inbuilt intolerance of immigration.

Well I think gloabalising can be done whilst respecting everyone's national identity
I would appreciate if you could define globalising.

I'm using it to refer to the flattening of national distinctions as is required for global governance.

What was done to the Irish was terrible and it horrific acts like the British occupation of Ireland that make me dislike the exreme nationalists!
There was nothing nationalist about the British occupation, nationalism didn't emerge as a phenomenon until the 19th century. It was the expression of legitimate security concerns, that Spain, later France, would use it as a staging post to invade the United Kingdom. In a world so predatory, the moral high ground wasn't an option.

Look at the IRA. They were terrorists. There was fighting. There was peace talks. Now there is peace.
It's worth emphasising their was fighting for 30 years, peace emerged as the IRA began to lose popular support - particularly in the South: which grew increasingly disillusioned with anti-partitionism*, and a small radical contingent still continue to fight today.

Peace-talks tend to occur before peace, but that's no reason to believe - at all - that peace talks cause peace.

If they are allowed to form their country they may agree to a peace treaty and limit their military etc we could also put pressure on them to accept human rights.
Their country, borne of conquest, can only be formed at the expense of the Syrian and Iraqi states. This would also set an unfortunate international precedent for armed-separatist groups to take advantage of, which would probably be incredibly harmful in the long-run.

ISIL also derives it's law from it's holy texts, which are regularly incompatible with the ethos of modern human rights doctrines. Being as their entire legitimacy as an organisation is derived from a fundamentalist concentration on the jurisprudence established in their holy text - adoption of the liberal-international standard is unlikely to say the least.

In fact, the entire reason ISIL seeks to establish a caliphate is to escape the norms of liberal-internationalism*, it's a radical reactionary backlash against the ethos of modernism.

---

ISIL are an internationalist organisation, and a useful example of violent anti-nationalist built on the same globalising and homogenising premise I outlined earlier.

What's your plan then? Bomb them? Kill hundereds of thousands of innocent civilians whilst displacing millions? Soooo 10 years later there is another group that forms with anti west ideals.
Yes. Then split the states up into functional administrative units, unlike what happened previous, so that law-and-order can be consolidated. Include a hefty dose of nationalism so far as citizens might be capable to understanding, and aligning, personal loss with the goal of the state.

I understand the argument you're making about it inducing more to fight: it's just too late to let the Arabs deal with this alone, Islamic-internationalism has taken hold.

Again, look at countries like Singapore, India, Canada and spain
In all of these states a language (English/Chinese, Hindi, English, Spanish (Castillan)) dominates as is required for administrative and business purposes.

Porpoise101

June 1st, 2016, 04:43 PM

Double-no to the Turks joining the EU. Not just because of their recent neo-Ottomanian drift under Edrogon but because the state is intended to persist as a buffer against exported-instability from the Middle East (of which, currently, albeit, it is worse than no buffer at all) and incorporating them into the European Union obviously undermines that function.
Erdogan is not an Ottomanist. He is an authoritarian who uses Sunni Islam to get popular support. Similar to how Putin uses the Orthodox Church in some ways. Erdogan is also a nationalist though (unlike Putin), which is the difference between the Ottomans who were theocratic, but internationalist. They accepted all ethnicities (assuming that you converted to Islam). That is why in the Balkans and the Caucasus ethnic lines are often by religion because the ones that converted assimilated. If Turkey was a proper nation (meaning without Hatay and Kurdistan), I feel that it would be stable enough to join the EU.

That being said, the OP is totally wrong. I feel that it would be better to make a stronger UN than to make a united EU. It would be better than this whole 'spheres of influence' garbage that we have lived with since the Age of Discovery. Maybe someone should make a 'Government of the World' thread.

Vlerchan

June 1st, 2016, 05:05 PM

Erdogan is not an Ottomanist.
Hence the prefix neo-. There's considerable qualitative differences but what matters is the departure from the Westernisation of the Kemalist era and an increasingly Eastward-orientated outlook.

I should also emphasise that it's not it's (in)stability I care about. It's the fact that it can be an effective buffer when we need it to be, and absorbing it into the EU would undermine that role.

sqishy

June 1st, 2016, 05:39 PM

Porpoise101

June 1st, 2016, 05:54 PM

I'm asking an open question on your (you all) views of what would be sufficient to define Europe as a superstate; I'm wondering what your definition for it would be, where the line would be drawn, and how we should avoid this if you think we should (because most responses here are against the idea).
Collective defense, economic policy, and administration. I could say that the EU is a superstate for many nations if you account for their NATO membership. I think that it is ok in the current way, as it is a loose confederation rather than a centralised establishment. I do feel like there is some issue on the economic side of things, but I'm not very knowledgeable in that department.
Vlerchan I am not sure that using Turkey as a buffer is a good long term idea. I feel it tends to breed mistrust between both sides, which could be more dangerous.

Stronk Serb

June 1st, 2016, 06:18 PM

Paraxiom
Geographically Europe with non-Europe areas inhabited by European peoples, like Asian part of Russia, the Republic of Cyprus etc.
There is just too much bad blood. Can you expect Serbia to magically get along with the former Yugo republics? With Albania? What about Kosovo? It still technically is a rogue state. What about no one liking Russia, Germany France, the UK. They will mostly be calling the shots, and no one really likes them. No one want's to revert back to the pre-Romanticist era when most peoples were under occupation by a select few great powers.

Vlerchan

June 1st, 2016, 06:58 PM

@Vlerchan I am not sure that using Turkey as a buffer is a good long term idea.
I start with the realist presumption that mistrust already persists between states and that their primary motive is power and security vis-á-vis each other. I feel that what I propose - and what occurs already regardless - will seem more rational when I place it inside the broader context.

The aim is to insulate continental-Europe from shocks, as in the past it hasn't boded well with their confrontation. It is relatively peaceful at current but as we can see from the increasing support from radicals at the moment liberal-internationalism was not secured eternally after the collapse of the Soviet Russia. Thus opening it up to confrontation with severe shocks, severe as a result of both the extreme-volatility of the Middle East and the social-distance of the actors, is something I'd much rather see avoided.

It is in our interests to ensure that the Turkish state remains strong and relations remain tight. This is to help it both absorb shocks and fetter to urge to pass these shocks onto the European Union. It's not an expendable alliance, and thus whilst the Turks are, without a doubt being utilised to our benefit (as we are to there's), their recognised non-expendable nature ensures the maintenance of working-trust underpinning the relationship in place.

Of course, if things become dangerous, the intention behind the maintenance of the Balkans in historical geostrategy is them being capable of buffering the Turks, whilst - importantly - there's no requirement to maintain a strong Russia. Them being conflicted amongst themselves, also means they can't leverage their position for greater gain as effectively as a unitary-peninsula might.

In the long-term I would much prefer that none of this is necessary. But it probably is, and I'm risk-adverse.

[...] what would be sufficient to define Europe as a superstate [...]
Collective defence, Fiscal-policy that can draw on direct taxation, Monetary-policy control, Legal supremacy.

It currently has the last two.

[...] we're not a serious/seriously devoted circle of academic intellectuals either (or similar).
It has nothing to do with being serious academics :neutral: :huh:.

It has to do with a) reducing the amount of pure irrelevancies included in posting, b) reducing the amount of fighting that giving into emotion during an argument regularly prompts :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:. I don't feel to passionately about the former, but that the latter is the norm is one of the reasons that this forum is such an effective platform :thumbsup:.

But anyways this probably isn't the place to discuss this :rolleyes::rolleyes:. All-in-all, it probably wouldn't bother me to any significant extent if the posting style I regularly encounter here changed, but I'm still noting that I figure the current norm is more effective :eek::metal:.

Leprous

June 2nd, 2016, 12:30 AM

[QUOTE=Paraxiom;3372666]TheFlapjack phuckphace Judean Zealot Vlerchan The Special One Stronk Serb Porpoise101
and so on for anyone I left out / who is interested

I'm asking an open question on your (you all) views of what would be sufficient to define Europe as a superstate; I'm wondering what your definition for it would be, where the line would be drawn, and how we should avoid this if you think we should (because most responses here are against the idea).

Well for me this European superstate would just be a place where all the countries will be thrown together and be rebranded as states (just like the US). Europe would then be a country, aswell as a continent.

It should never happen. As soon as a country wants to take over others you know shit's about to go wrong. We should avoid it by keeping the 'made up borders' and avoiding any countries to merge together.

Flapjack

June 2nd, 2016, 04:24 AM

TheFlapjack phuckphace Judean Zealot Vlerchan The Special One Stronk Serb Porpoise101
and so on for anyone I left out / who is interested

I'm asking an open question on your (you all) views of what would be sufficient to define Europe as a superstate; I'm wondering what your definition for it would be, where the line would be drawn, and how we should avoid this if you think we should (because most responses here are against the idea).
I think the EU can be considered one country when the EU parliment can over turn local laws and enforce new laws upon local countries. I know everyone against the eu claims this has already happened, but it reallyyy hasn't.:)

I think one military would also define europe as a superstate.

If you're in support of the maintenance of national identity and culture then what's the issue with nationalism, being as this is necessary to secure said maintenance. Like I claimed earlier, if one is incapable of elevating their own culture above that of popular culture, it loses it's power.

Because nationalism is like religion in this way. You can be a harmless happy nationalist, but you also get extremists! Every country has them, I know there is loads where I live. They cause fearmongering and racism and are often the ones that don't like positive change, cos it was better in the old days:') For example; France and latvia have banned the wearing of the burker... to ya know protect womens freedom!... by telling women what they can and cannot wear...

Japanese culture is also structurally quite-patriarchal and communitarian (anti-individualist), having an inbuilt intolerance of immigration.

I know:) Japan is one of my favourite countries!

I would appreciate if you could define globalising.

To make global or worldwide in scope or application.
I don't see the harm in this? It benefits all of us!:)

There was nothing nationalist about the British occupation, nationalism didn't emerge as a phenomenon until the 19th century. It was the expression of legitimate security concerns, that Spain, later France, would use it as a staging post to invade the United Kingdom. In a world so predatory, the moral high ground wasn't an option.

You're right, nationalism did spread spread across europe in the 19th century, but this was not the origins orf nationalism. Do you think people in the UK didn't care about their country before? The British ocurpied Ireland because they put their own needs and selfishness, before the needs of the Irish. Something nationalists are still doing today.

It's worth emphasising their was fighting for 30 years, peace emerged as the IRA began to lose popular support - particularly in the South: which grew increasingly disillusioned with anti-partitionism*, and a small radical contingent still continue to fight today.

Peace-talks tend to occur before peace, but that's no reason to believe - at all - that peace talks cause peace.

I know this buddy:) But imagine if the British done to Ireland what the west has been doing to the Middle East. That is of course bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and targeting hospitals. Do you think 10 years later when the British leaves without trying to rebuild Ireland the IRA will come back? Will they have support from the people? This is why we're in the Middle East so much.

Their country, borne of conquest, can only be formed at the expense of the Syrian and Iraqi states. This would also set an unfortunate international precedent for armed-separatist groups to take advantage of, which would probably be incredibly harmful in the long-run.

I know it's bad and I don't want it either but what is the alternative? If ISIS is destroyed my military force, countries like the USA, France and the UK must rebuild the country.

In fact, the entire reason ISIL seeks to establish a caliphate is to escape the norms of liberal-internationalism*, it's a radical reactionary backlash against the ethos of modernism.
I know you're not one of the people doing this buddy but I find it sooo annoying when people pretend they're all for spreading democracy and freedom etc and then completly overlook saudi arabia!

ISIL are an internationalist organisation, and a useful example of violent anti-nationalist built on the same globalising and homogenising premise I outlined earlier.

How are they anti-natioanlist? They are nationalist for the caliphate they want to create. There hasn't been a caliphate in generations and they're trying to make it exactly how it used to be. There is a caliph and all the laws are similar to what they would have been back then.

Yes. Then split the states up into functional administrative units, unlike what happened previous, so that law-and-order can be consolidated. Include a hefty dose of nationalism so far as citizens might be capable to understanding, and aligning, personal loss with the goal of the state.

What do you mean by include nationalism? Do you mean encourage the citizens to vote in elections and care about the future of the country? Or do you mean the nationalsim that tells them their country is the best etc.

In all of these states a language (English/Chinese, Hindi, English, Spanish (Castillan)) dominates as is required for administrative and business purposes.
Then have a language for admin:p

Vlerchan

June 2nd, 2016, 04:30 AM

I know everyone against the eu claims this has already happened, but it reallyyy hasn't.
The EU has a specific number of exclusive competences in law-making, and a specific number of shared competences where it is capable of over-ruling states. It also has legal supremacy since Van Gend En Loos [1963].

As soon as a country wants to take over others you know shit's about to go wrong.
States in the European Union pool sovereignty. It isn't appropriated by one.

Edit.

Because nationalism is like religion in this way. You can be a harmless happy nationalist, but you also get extremists! Every country has them, I know there is loads where I live. They cause fearmongering and racism and are often the ones that don't like positive change, cos it was better in the old days
National-chauvinism is a separate phenomenon to Nationalism. That it can fester within nationalist communities is no reason to reject nationalism - for the same reason that liberal-interventionism festers inside liberal communities and that's no reason to reject liberalism.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

I also can't approach the claim that nationalists reject 'positive change' because it's too vague an accusation to come to grips with.

For example; France and latvia have banned the wearing of the burker... to ya know protect womens freedom!... by telling women what they can and cannot wear...
That's born out of France's radical-liberal tradition of separating religion from the public sphere.

Furthermore the Burka is an object of a patriarchal culture. It persists out of a sense of righteous gender-seperatism: where woman must be dewomanised in order to participate in the Islamic public sphere. I don't agree with it being banned but there's a clear feminist argument for it.

don't see the harm in this? It benefits all of us
It involves displacing national-values - and thus scope for a national contribution to the ends of the human-race.

There's little identifiable difference in the argument being put forward that those put forward in defence of the civilising mission of colonialism. Just the presumption that this time we're correct!

Do you think people in the UK didn't care about their country before? The British ocurpied Ireland because they put their own needs and selfishness, before the needs of the Irish. Something nationalists are still doing today.
You're issue is not nationalism but a failure for people to engage in compulsive-altruism.

The original occupation of Ireland had nothing to do with nationalism at all. The Tudors were dependent on the ascent of their populace. Their populace in turn supported them so that there liberties - vis-a-vis absolutist France - would be maintained. The English Kingdom occupied Ireland in order to continue securing the liberties and thus the monarchs persistence. Otherwise the populace would rise and replace them - such as English impotence in the HRE contributed to the Glorious Revolution.

Here - each person looked out for themselves and their families. Individualism at its bloodiest.

Furthermore - someones needs have to be elevates to prime importance. So a complete rejection of selfishness is untenable.

---

Will respond to the rest later.

lliam

June 2nd, 2016, 02:28 PM

Rather gets Angela Merkel anointed by the Pope as new virgin who gives birth to the next Messiah, than Europe becomesv a country under one flag ... merde, we got a flag already.

As for nationalism, I share your opinion. N'ism is a bad thing, because behind "national" an ism is added. And any ism per se is the exaggeration of a often healthy conception for life.

By no means I think I don't like idea of the United States of Europe based on American standards. If it would happen some day, then Europe could equal merge politically with America, and we would continue to vote dudes like D. Trump. :D

USAE ... United States of America and Europe.

I prefer more PRE -People's Republic of Europe, based on the Chinese model.

SSp_wouddv8

sqishy

June 2nd, 2016, 05:58 PM

I've never got 5 notifications within a day, but by all means I accept them.

Collective defence, Fiscal-policy that can draw on direct taxation, Monetary-policy control, Legal supremacy.

It currently has the last two.

How far do you think it needs to go with taxation and collective defence?

________________

It has nothing to do with being serious academics.

It was an analogy by exaggeration, don't worry!

It has to do with a) reducing the amount of pure irrelevancies included in posting, b) reducing the amount of fighting that giving into emotion during an argument regularly prompts. I don't feel to passionately about the former, but that the latter is the norm is one of the reasons that this forum is such an effective platform.

I said that I know why emotion reduction goes on, yes.

But anyways this probably isn't the place to discuss this. All-in-all, it probably wouldn't bother me to any significant extent if the posting style I regularly encounter here changed, but I'm still noting that I figure the current norm is more effective.

I was saying I'm open to more stuff like the OP in this thread, I don't see harm in it - we don't need to keep an 'uncomfortable' level of low emotion all the time. Not an attack on you or anything, only my take on it.

I will also screenshot your response because I've never seen you do this before :D . You also had to make me remove all the smileys because the response window wouldn't let me do more than 10 - sneaky..

Hoping we're on good terms and that I did not anger you enough to get that on your reply title :rolleyes: .

________________

Collective defense, economic policy, and administration. I could say that the EU is a superstate for many nations if you account for their NATO membership. I think that it is ok in the current way, as it is a loose confederation rather than a centralised establishment. I do feel like there is some issue on the economic side of things, but I'm not very knowledgeable in that department.

I get the NATO part, but only to the point that's it's more of a Western European thing rather than spread across-EU, also with Ireland not taking part. It does raise wondering how much intra-EU differences there are too with economics and types/forms of governance, though more-so out of my curiosity being paired with ignorance on close-up details...

Geographically Europe with non-Europe areas inhabited by European peoples, like Asian part of Russia, the Republic of Cyprus etc.
There is just too much bad blood. Can you expect Serbia to magically get along with the former Yugo republics? With Albania? What about Kosovo? It still technically is a rogue state. What about no one liking Russia, Germany France, the UK. They will mostly be calling the shots, and no one really likes them. No one want's to revert back to the pre-Romanticist era when most peoples were under occupation by a select few great powers.

...which does bring us to this - good point is all I can say really. There's too much dissimilarity to 'cleanly attempt' at an EU superstate by nationalism and culture.

Well for me this European superstate would just be a place where all the countries will be thrown together and be rebranded as states (just like the US). Europe would then be a country, aswell as a continent.

It should never happen. As soon as a country wants to take over others you know shit's about to go wrong. We should avoid it by keeping the 'made up borders' and avoiding any countries to merge together.

My short answer is that I agree.

I think the EU can be considered one country when the EU parliment can over turn local laws and enforce new laws upon local countries. I know everyone against the eu claims this has already happened, but it reallyyy hasn't.:)

I think one military would also define europe as a superstate.

Legally the EU may be getting closer in unification with its members, but would it not still be many nations?

Military unification I feel is one of the biggest resistances to an EU superstate in this way - whatever about the degree of national spirit, the military is more tightly seen as belonging to their country alone fundamentally. Basically, good luck trying to cut and paste the UK's military sovereignty/etc into just a part of the EU.

[...]N'ism[...]

This has the potential to be a shorter catchphrase, perhaps derogatorily so even.

Flapjack

June 2nd, 2016, 06:19 PM

I've never got 5 notifications within a day, but by all means I accept them.

Trust me they get old real fastXD

Military unification I feel is one of the biggest resistances to an EU superstate in this way - whatever about the degree of national spirit, the military is more tightly seen as belonging to their country alone fundamentally. Basically, good luck trying to cut and paste the UK's military sovereignty/etc into just a part of the EU.

Yep thats why I think it will be the main sign that the EU superstate is a reality.

I don't see the big deal though but thats just me:p

Vlerchan

June 2nd, 2016, 06:56 PM

How far do you think it needs to go with taxation and collective defence?
Exclusive competence in foreign policy.

With taxation, merely the power to tax directly.

Hoping we're on good terms and that I did not anger you enough to get that on your reply title.
Oh, no hard feelings at all. In clarification the first response to you was just a snap of attempted-wit and the second was me just messing around with smilies (which using even just felt weird). Like I said, it doesn't really bother me too much at all if people want to add in more emotion to their post. I'm sceptical it's a good debating strategy but I'm entirely laid back about it.

---

Continuing the responses to Flapjack here. Sorry for splitting it.

But imagine if the British done to Ireland what the west has been doing to the Middle East.
Unionists were more than happy to see militarisation in the north and the armed-combat of nationalist-militants.

There was of course a notable lack of collateral, but there's a major difference between the humanitarian intervention in Iraq in the early 2000s and the current state of affairs where the US has been invited in by the Iraqi government. Here, external forces are working in tandem with the government as opposed to just in the spirit of some foreign idea, irrelevant to the lives of most Iraqi inhabitants.

I know it's bad and I don't want it either but what is the alternative?
Partition.

Let the Kurds have their own state.
Cede South-East Iraq to Iran, as an Iranian protectorate.
Place the remainder of Iraq under global protection, organised beneath a Western charter.

Even if the region remains relatively violent - setting the international-law precedent outlined earlier is simply out of the question.

I know you're not one of the people doing this buddy but I find it sooo annoying when people pretend they're all for spreading democracy and freedom etc and then completly overlook saudi arabia!
Well, lucky for you, the complexities of the vertical inheritance of the crown of the House of Saud, combined with the decline of oil as a source of revenue - and thus the weakening of the social contract that monarchical rule, we'll probably see considerable instability emerge in the state. Perhaps it's collapse.

How are they anti-natioanlist? They are nationalist for the caliphate they want to create. There hasn't been a caliphate in generations and they're trying to make it exactly how it used to be. There is a caliph and all the laws are similar to what they would have been back then.
They are anti-nationalist because their ideological mission transcends nationality - and in fact Islamic-internationalism persists as a violent rejection of it.

Glorification of the past is not necessarily nationalist - it's reactionary or anti-modernist.

What do you mean by include nationalism?
I mean condition people to believe that the loss experienced through a necessary war waged against Islamism is just and necessary when occurring for the sake of preserving the nation.

phuckphace

June 2nd, 2016, 07:16 PM

Judean Zealot

June 2nd, 2016, 07:31 PM

I think I cracked a rib laughing at Vlerchan's emote-post up there.

----

since Irish nationalism was mentioned I might as well admit to being something of an IRA-boo. I don't agree with their ideologies or methods entirely, but just the idea of white people engaging in organized violence for a nationalist cause in the current century is extraordinary in itself.

The IRA in the current century are barely even nationalist - they're just a profiteering racket. That said, I have sympathy for Sinn Fein and the old Provos as well.

Vlerchan

June 2nd, 2016, 07:34 PM

If I recall correct, the IRA in the current century is where people go to get their heroin.

Flapjack

June 2nd, 2016, 07:44 PM

I mean condition people to believe that the loss experienced through a necessary war waged against Islamism is just and necessary when occurring for the sake of preserving the nation.
I am sorry but nationalism really is a cancer that I wish could be eliminated from this world. A person should care about his country and everyother country.

I am not American but I care about the transphobia and their lack of gun control laws that are killing people. I am not Russian but I care about the gays being discriminated against etc etc. I personaly do not like the country I happened to be born in very much, but I will vote in the electons when I can and do my bit to make the country better.

Well, lucky for you, the complexities of the vertical inheritance of the crown of the House of Saud, combined with the decline of oil as a source of revenue - and thus the weakening of the social contract that monarchical rule, we'll probably see considerable instability emerge in the state. Perhaps it's collapse.

Doubt it, it was the Saudis that purposefully caused the drop in oil prices and I don't want the country to be unstable. I want the hypocritical leaders in the west to put pressure on them to change.

phuckphace

June 2nd, 2016, 07:48 PM

If I recall correct, the IRA in the current century is where people go to get their heroin.

*crushed*

well then.

Vlerchan

June 2nd, 2016, 08:40 PM

I am not American but I care about the transphobia and their lack of gun control laws that are killing people. I am not Russian but I care about the gays being discriminated against etc etc. I personaly do not like the country I happened to be born in very much, but I will vote in the electons when I can and do my bit to make the country better.
Caring about LGBT rights and being a Nationalist aren't mutually exclusive positions.

Doubt it, it was the Saudis that purposefully caused the drop in oil prices and I don't want the country to be unstable. I want the hypocritical leaders in the west to put pressure on them to change.
Oil prices were so low because [1] fracking increased supply significantly [2] states such as Libya and Syria consistently produced above expectations, and [3] demand in Europe and Japan lagged.

If you're motioning towards Saudi Arabia's reluctance to sign up to a quota, that was because it would almost inevitably result in a loss in marketshare in the medium-run, and not because the Saudi's desire low prices for oil (which left significant holes in their budget).

It's also fair enough that you just want regime change, though Western leaders are never going to make an active attempt to displace the leaders of a compliant petrostate.

Flapjack

June 2nd, 2016, 08:44 PM

Caring about LGBT rights and being a Nationalist aren't mutually exclusive positions.

I never said they wasn't but you missed the point I was trying to make. Firstly nationalism is terrible. Secondly a person should care about issues whereever they take place in the world. Because we are all human:)

All countries are only land with people on it that have a goverment or monachy or leader of some kind to rule them and made up borders.

Just because a person is born on another side of an imaginary line, does not make them less important.

As for oil prices, I'll take your word for it buddy you are a lot more knowledgeable being an economics student and all:')

Judean Zealot

June 2nd, 2016, 08:56 PM

TheFlapjack

No intelligent nationalist would tell you that other nationalities are less human. They're not. However, when a state is dealing with finite resources they must focus on their own people. That doesn't make the others less human, no more than supporting your family before others dehumanises them. One can care about issues abroad, but the state must work for its own constituency, not foreigners.

Porpoise101

June 2nd, 2016, 09:49 PM

Leprous

June 3rd, 2016, 12:26 AM

I never said they wasn't but you missed the point I was trying to make. Firstly nationalism is terrible. Secondly a person should care about issues whereever they take place in the world. Because we are all human:)

All countries are only land with people on it that have a goverment or monachy or leader of some kind to rule them and made up borders.

Just because a person is born on another side of an imaginary line, does not make them less important.

As for oil prices, I'll take your word for it buddy you are a lot more knowledgeable being an economics student and all:')

Basicly what you're saying is that caring about your country and being proud of your country is terrible. For example if your country is playing at the Olympics and they get a gold medal it's tereible to be proud of your country?

Nationalists are not all racists. Sometimes we can't care about other countries because we have our own problems that need to be solved. Nationalists do care about other countries, but our own country comes first.

Also I would still like to know how you will convince ISIS to be 'nice' to us.

Stronk Serb

June 3rd, 2016, 01:44 PM

Maybe a European Superstate could work if we carved up the Continent further. That way there are no hegemons, just a bunch of bickering subdivisions. Divide and Rule right? Maybe divide France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Poland, Belgium, Ukraine, Turkey.... and definitely the UK

As much as Dividing the UK makes me happy... I do not think it is practical. And I think that it is better the current situation anyways.

If we want to talk about a real superstate.. I would say China, maybe India is one. Also Egypt tried to make a secular pan-Arab state during the Nasser period. They would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling Americans.

Division is bad, because then the superstate rule will be hated because of splitting people who are of same nationalities. That was one of the reasons Yugoslavia broke apart. Also dividing Germany, Poland, Russia and Ukraine? Weren't they divided enough in their modern history? Also why the hell put Turkey in the EU? They're not even European by culture, by ethnicity they are mixed with a blender of who knows what anymore, not to mention their neo-Ottoman tendencies which, as a Serb of sound mind and body, make me cringe. At least if you're going to let a neo-Ottoman Turkey in Europe, get some Serbian Frontiermen, Austria was pretty happy with our service.

Flapjack

June 3rd, 2016, 01:47 PM

Division is bad, because then the superstate rule will be hated because of splitting people who are of same nationalities. That was one of the reasons Yugoslavia broke apart. Also dividing Germany, Poland, Russia and Ukraine? Weren't they divided enough in their modern history? Also why the hell put Turkey in the EU? They're not even European by culture, by ethnicity they are mixed with a blender of who knows what anymore, not to mention their neo-Ottoman tendencies which, as a Serb of sound mind and body, make me cringe. At least if you're going to let a neo-Ottoman Turkey in Europe, get some Serbian Frontiermen, Austria was pretty happy with our service.
Hasn't Serbia made a bid to join the EU?

Stronk Serb

June 3rd, 2016, 02:20 PM

Hasn't Serbia made a bid to join the EU?

Yes, but a majority of Serbs don't support it. I generally see the terms the EU put in front of us to be degrading to Serbs. I say fuck 'em.

Left Now

June 3rd, 2016, 02:22 PM

Is this thread about Battlefield 2142? :)

Since it was the last time that I saw whole EU was controlled by one EU government.

Anyway that is up to Europeans to choose either if they should become one superstate or not,but the thing which is completely clear to me is that Turkey will have no place in such superstate.

Vlerchan

June 3rd, 2016, 02:34 PM

Maybe a European Superstate could work if we carved up the Continent further. That way there are no hegemons, just a bunch of bickering subdivisions.
Sounds like it would be more of a paralysed mess than it currently is. But then it all depends on the manner through which the voting is structured.

Of course, if the Eurpean Union was to become an actual superstate, then it's components would become increasingly irrelevant - so I'm not sure it'd make too much of a difference.

Flapjack

June 3rd, 2016, 03:32 PM

Is this thread about Battlefield 2142? :)

I haven't been gaming long enough to have played that buddyXD

Anyway that is up to Europeans to choose either if they should become one superstate or not,but the thing which is completely clear to me is that Turkey will have no place in such superstate.
Why is everyone against Turkey joining??:o

Left Now

June 3rd, 2016, 03:43 PM

I haven't been gaming long enough to have played that buddyXD

Why is everyone against Turkey joining??:o

I am not against it,I just say that Turkey just does not fit in Europe.The country itself is a melting pot of different ethnic groups the most serious ones are Kurds.For Europe,Turkey is exactly like a beautiful view of sea waves from a very calm place in the beach,but when you get into the sea and encounter waves from close,you will understand how easily they can drown you.

Flapjack

June 3rd, 2016, 03:47 PM

I am not against it,I just say that Turkey just does not fit in Europe.The country itself is a melting pot of different ethnic groups the most serious ones are Kurds.For Europe,Turkey is exactly like a beautiful view of sea waves from a very calm place in the beach,but when you get into the sea and encounter waves from close,you will understand how easily they can drown you.
You sound so wiseXD I love Turkey but if their values aren't compatable with the EU's then they shouldn't join.

Left Now

June 3rd, 2016, 03:56 PM

You sound so wiseXD I love Turkey but if their values aren't compatable with the EU's then they shouldn't join.

They are far from compatible,but still they are good trade partners.

Porpoise101

June 3rd, 2016, 04:35 PM

Of course, if the Eurpean Union was to become an actual superstate, then it's components would become increasingly irrelevant - so I'm not sure it'd make too much of a difference.
That's what I'm thinking. Over time, erode away the autonomy and make a strong centralised government that can repress the small administrative regions. Even if people start to get upset, they won't be able to do anything about it.

sqishy

June 3rd, 2016, 06:25 PM

Trust me they get old real fastXD

I got 6 today :P .

Yep thats why I think it will be the main sign that the EU superstate is a reality.

I also think that is the main resistance to it, one which I expect to hold out on.

Exclusive competence in foreign policy.

Going with the above I said.

With taxation, merely the power to tax directly.

Are there some forms of taxes which are already administrated this way?
Are there some coming through any rumours or speculations of coming legislation?

This said, I do also wonder how much 'new' legislation is being done by the EU per month or even week, new meaning the features of a large-scale plan to advance the EU's scope and strength legally, rather than just the everyday legal processes of the system already going on.

Despite my recent posts here I'm not saying I necessarily expect an EU superstate to be around the corner, or that I am neutral or even good with it; the reason was that I'm only wondering how close we are with it and what routes would be easiest to it, by those intending to do it.

- - - - - - - -

Oh, no hard feelings at all. In clarification the first response to you was just a snap of attempted-wit and the second was me just messing around with smilies (which using even just felt weird). Like I said, it doesn't really bother me too much at all if people want to add in more emotion to their post. I'm sceptical it's a good debating strategy but I'm entirely laid back about it.

I wasn't taking the scope of debating strategy, as we could certainly do more efficiently with pure debate/argument interaction/etc, so I don't disagree with you there - emotion outside content of debates, and their diversities in and between participating people adds an unnecessary complexity in the stage for which debate is held, a bit like how our atmosphere makes high-quality telescope imagery hard to get due to the turbulent air (long analogy over). So I am fine with us doing enough and being informal and laid back with it, as you say.

I end my off-topic offshoot here then.

Flapjack

June 3rd, 2016, 06:29 PM

I got 6 today :P .

Being active here can be very drainingXD

I also think that is the main resistance to it, one which I expect to hold out on.

Personally that is one of the reasons I want it. Europe one of the most liberal places on earth so hopefully that will stop stupid wars.

What do you think about an EU superstate then buddy?

Vlerchan

June 3rd, 2016, 07:00 PM

Are there some forms of taxes which are already administrated this way?
Nope. I don't believe the EU has the competence to do so - but I could be wrong on that point.

This said, I do also wonder how much 'new' legislation is being done by the EU per month or even week, new meaning the features of a large-scale plan to advance the EU's scope and strength legally, rather than just the everyday legal processes of the system already going on.
None. The EU is incapable of altering the "scope and strength" of its competences without calling an intergovernmental convention and revising the treaties. There's exceptions - with unanimous council ascent it's possible to engage in a limited amount of revision through the simplified revision procedure. It's been used jut once ever though: to establish the ESM - and whether that was legal is still being debated within the legal profession.

On the other hand - the historical CoJ has been quite activist: so whether it's fair to claim that change is so infrequent is up for debate. Most of the biggest changes came through the courts.

Leprous

June 4th, 2016, 03:42 AM

Being active here can be very drainingXD

Personally that is one of the reasons I want it. Europe one of the most liberal places on earth so hopefully that will stop stupid wars.

What do you think about an EU superstate then buddy?

Unifying Europe won't suddenly stop all the wars. The current conflicts that are big are in the ME.

One thing I'd like to know is if this superstate would deploy their military in the Middle East. For example to fight ISIS, which is a pretty major threath to the West. Or would you leave them be and let the Middle East solve it on their own?

Left Now

June 4th, 2016, 03:49 AM

Unifying Europe won't suddenly stop all the wars. The current conflicts that are big are in the ME.

One thing I'd like to know is if this superstate would deploy their military in the Middle East. For example to fight ISIS, which is a pretty major threath to the West. Or would you leave them be and let the Middle East solve it on their own?

I just know that anytime "West comes to realize that Middle East is a Middle of the East not a Middle of the West" many problems here can be solved.Most of the chaos and instability now has roots in foreign particularly Western interferring with Middle East matters in last 50 years.

ISIS is an offshot of groups like Taliban which came to power with support of western backed powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan during Cold War against USSR.The very ideololgy itself has roots in Wahhabi School of Saudi Arabia which is fully supported by west even now,because it provides the interests of West here.

Leprous

June 4th, 2016, 04:29 AM

I just know that anytime "West comes to realize that Middle East is a Middle of the East not a Middle of the West" many problems here can be solved.Most of the chaos and instability now has roots in foreign particularly Western interferring with Middle East matters in last 50 years.

ISIS is an offshot of groups like Taliban which came to power with support of western backed powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan during Cold War against USSR.The very ideololgy itself has roots in Wahhabi School of Saudi Arabia which is fully supported by west even now,because it provides the interests of West here.

The thing is, ISIS is loosing ground, also because of western support. While I am against constant interferance by the west in the Middle East I do think they should help to push them out. I know ISIS is there because of the west, but I think they should support the Middle East for now.

After that is done though, the west should get out and stay out. The problem is though that there's too much money involved here.

Flapjack

June 4th, 2016, 04:32 AM

After that is done though, the west should get out and stay out. The problem is though that there's too much money involved here.
Stay out so 10 years later there can be a similar problem?

Leprous

June 4th, 2016, 04:44 AM

Stay out so 10 years later there can be a similar problem?

As Left Now just said, the west is in the Middle East too much. They want ro made the Middle East the Middle West.

I am surprised you don't seem to be against it though because you were completely anti-war. Western countries tend to ignore their own problems by going to other countries and sometimes make it worse.

Left Now

June 4th, 2016, 04:51 AM

Stay out so 10 years later there can be a similar problem?

Stay in and One year later a similar problem can happen.

The thing is, ISIS is loosing ground, also because of western support. While I am against constant interferance by the west in the Middle East I do think they should help to push them out. I know ISIS is there because of the west, but I think they should support the Middle East for now.

If West really intends to support Middle East and its peopld they would better tame their media.ISIS claims to be an Islamic group yet it is one of the worst enemies of Islam.Currently different Islamic civil movements in Iraq,Iran,Lebanon and other neighboring countries are trying to prove illegitimacey of this group and its ideologies regarding Islamic Teachings.The main ground that this false group must lose ground in is not military ground,but religious and ideological ground.If you prove them that they are not acting according to Islam,they will vanish and only a few of them will remain.

As I see Western media has not done anything except promoting the very stereotype about Islam,causing more problem.

Besides,Western support has been considered suspicious due to the fact some of their aid drops have landed in ISIS territories in Iraq,and in Al-Nusra Front territories in Syria.I am sure that even without Western support local powers can deal with ISIS since most of the loss of ground was not effectively supported by neither West nor Russia,but by regional troops and supports.

Leprous

June 4th, 2016, 05:00 AM

Stay in and One year later a similar problem can happen.

If West really intends to support Middle East and its peopld they would better tame their media.ISIS claims to be an Islamic group yet it is one of the worst enemies of Islam.Currently different Islamic civil movements in Iraq,Iran,Lebanon and other neighboring countries are trying to prove illegitimacey of this group and its ideologies regarding Islamic Teachings.The main ground that this false group must lose ground in is not military ground,but religious and ideological ground.If you prove them that they are not acting according to Islam,they will vanish and only a few of them will remain.

As I see Western media has not done anything except promoting the very stereotype about Islam,causing more problem.

Besides,Western support has been considered suspicious due to the fact some of their aid drops have landed in ISIS territories in Iraq,and in Al-Nusra Front territories in Syria.I am sure that even without Western support local powers can deal with ISIS since most of the loss of ground was not effectively supported by neither West nor Russia,but by regional troops and supports.

The West are after money, if ISIS pays they are willing to help them. That's one of the reasons they shouldn't stay in the ME.

I don't think ISIS is about religion, that's just an excuse they use. Since when does a religion allow the rape of girls that they kidnapped? Never. Since when is killing for your religion right? It has never been right.

The Muslims are getting a worse name here everyday, which is sad. It's not their fault.

Left Now

June 4th, 2016, 05:15 AM

The West are after money, if ISIS pays they are willing to help them. That's one of the reasons they shouldn't stay in the ME.

What is money good for when at the end everyone's destination is the grave?

These lives of ours do not belong to us,in our belief,it just has been lent to us for a purpose,to be tested for a greater goal.If only we could tame our greed and selfishness then our lives could be really better.

I don't think ISIS is about religion, that's just an excuse they use. Since when does a religion allow the rape of girls that they kidnapped? Never. Since when is killing for your religion right? It has never been right.

The Muslims are getting a worse name here everyday, which is sad. It's not their fault.

Well I say we are partly to be blamed.If we would once again return Early Years of Islam and Traditions of Muhammad and Imams and instead of thinking about filling our pockets with money and our bellies with colorful meals and just thinking about satisfying our desires,we would think about Islamic Values like Social Justice,Knowledge,Kindness,Ethics.Family,Environment,Tolerance,Being concerned about welfare of our brothers and sisters in religion or our same in creation,then maybe we could have done better.

Unfortunately many Muslims think they themselves and Quran are enough,while if they read Quran,it is clearly stated in it that some of us must study in Islamic fields and get the realities of this religion and then teach it to others.Very bad of Muslims to think that just by reading Quran literally they can be good Muslims.According to Quran itself we need scholars studying religion and its aspects,but it seems many Muslims specially in Western countries just like the Islam that they like not what Islam really is.

Flapjack

June 4th, 2016, 05:25 AM

Stay in and One year later a similar problem can happen.

I don't want a military presense in the middle east but the nations that have been destroyed must be rebuilt!

As I see Western media has not done anything except promoting the very stereotype about Islam,causing more problem.

From my experience the media in Europe is quite positive of Islam but of course there is the racist alarmists. As for the USA, all their media, including the 'liberal' is alarmist. Ever heard of fox news?xD
As @Left Now (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=76790) just said, the west is in the Middle East too much. They want ro made the Middle East the Middle West.

I am surprised you don't seem to be against it though because you were completely anti-war. Western countries tend to ignore their own problems by going to other countries and sometimes make it worse.
I am not for war, I am for rebuilding the country.

Left Now

June 4th, 2016, 05:39 AM

I don't want a military presense in the middle east but the nations that have been destroyed must be rebuilt!

Well they must be rebuilt but let's just say that:

"Our architecture is a little more complicated than Westerners think".I hope you get what I intend to say.

If West really wants to help,then this is a good thing to say:

"Instead of catching fishes for me,help me learn the very basics of fishery so I can do it myself according to my own conditions".

For rebuilding these ruins,if West really is honest in its intentions then they must provide enough scientific and basic supports to the intellectuals of these countries,and help them remake their own country with their own hands.

But I strongly believe that Western powers more like to sell their scientific products to others than cooperate with them in scientific and beneficial fields.Money and Self Interesg plays very important roles in Western Foreign Policy

From my experience the media in Europe is quite positive of Islam but of course there is the racist alarmists. As for the USA, all their media, including the 'liberal' is alarmist. Ever heard of fox news?xD

Ever Heard Of It?Man it is very famous for being very something here.

Vlerchan

June 4th, 2016, 06:43 AM

I'm in, at least, partial agreement with Left Now.

If Iraqi institutions are to possess the legitimacy they require to be sustained in the long-run then these need to come emerge from the hands and minds of the Iraqi people. Western support would be beneficial - though, there's an obvious concern that this would be dominated by special-interests, but an explicitly active role should be discouraged.

However - at the same time, I do also feel that a number of cities should be handed over to Western authorities to function as Charter-cities, ruled by technocrats, and operating on the basis of a liberal charter. Functioning as free economic zones, these should hopefully help kickstart economic development. Being an experiment, agreement should be subject to constant revision by the Iraqi government.

Left Now

June 4th, 2016, 07:11 AM

Vlerchan,

Will these Free Economic Zones assure that Iraq's economy will maintain its independece or will it endanger it?

Developement and Economic Growth is Good but maintainance of the Nation's independence in different fields is prior to any of these matters.If foreign investments and financial involvement can endanger this independence,and in this case that Western powers have proved to later use this dependency as a tool to push for their own interests and progress of their foreign policy and as a press for putting pressure on the people in times of disagreement,then I do not approve it.

Vlerchan

June 4th, 2016, 07:23 AM

Will these Free Economic Zones assure that Iraq's economy will maintain its independece or will it endanger it?
Integration into the global economy always results in governments abdication some degree of independence - promoting interdependence. Nonetheless it's required for economic development which in turn bolsters the legitimation of the state and enables it's successful centralisation.

Left Now

June 4th, 2016, 07:44 AM

Integration into the global economy always results in governments abdication some degree of independence - promoting interdependence. Nonetheless it's required for economic development which in turn bolsters the legitimation of the state and enables it's successful centralisation.

And this is why I have a problem with Current way of Global Economy.As I am aware current interdependence related to Global Economy promotes extreme growth of Economy which lacks stability and also will put countries in an order from "Leader" to "Follower" according to their then economic power share and although they will all grow with each others,still this order is maintained and countries which are at the end of the chain are forcefully at lower levels of correct developement comparing to others,and they won't be able to change their conditions neither because they lack sufficient independence.

Global Economy requires the whole group of countries to make a certain Global Profit,which requires each country to give a certain amount of its yearly outcome to the Global Economy.Many end of the chain countries often are not able to reach this certain amount and for remaining in this Global gathering they will need to pay from the very money that they need to provide welfare for their people.This way only central economic related areas in these countries will develope and peripheral areas will remain poor.

Also,as I said this way of foreign investment endangers the independence of the nation.More their dependency,more it is possible that it will be abused by foreigners to put pressure on the people.

sqishy

June 4th, 2016, 04:16 PM

Nope. I don't believe the EU has the competence to do so - but I could be wrong on that point.

None. The EU is incapable of altering the "scope and strength" of its competences without calling an intergovernmental convention and revising the treaties. There's exceptions - with unanimous council ascent it's possible to engage in a limited amount of revision through the simplified revision procedure. It's been used jut once ever though: to establish the ESM - and whether that was legal is still being debated within the legal profession.

On the other hand - the historical CoJ has been quite activist: so whether it's fair to claim that change is so infrequent is up for debate. Most of the biggest changes came through the courts.

Alright then.

Being an experiment, agreement should be subject to constant revision by the Iraqi government.

Yes!

I may be unexpectedly pleasantly surprised for you, but since a while ago of me thinking of a sufficiently ethical scientific method being imposed on different forms of states/ their govts and seeing how they go, I could only find an absence of similar ideas around, until now.

Vlerchan

June 5th, 2016, 09:05 AM

.As I am aware current interdependence related to Global Economy promotes extreme growth of Economy which lacks stability and also will put countries in an order from "Leader" to "Follower" according to their then economic power share and although they will all grow with each others,still this order is maintained and countries which are at the end of the chain are forcefully at lower levels of correct developement comparing to others,and they won't be able to change their conditions neither because they lack sufficient independence.
Economic integration tends to promote higher levels of economic growth. It does not necessarily lead to greater levels of economic instability. Countries rapidly liberalising capital-flows can lead to financial instability that in-turn leads to economic instability however.

The second point is simply untrue. Economic integration does not lock countries into their current state of development. The evidence from the NICs (Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.) comprehensively refutes that notion. Free trade allows for a more efficient allocation of resources (labour, capital), transference of technology, and encourages better corporate governance.

This, in turn, leads to productivity gains in the traded goods sector, the freeing up of formally-engaged factors of production and there allocation in regions of the economy with grander returns, and a movement up the ladder of comparative advantage.

On the other hand, state-sponsored strategies of industrial development tend to petter out rather quickly (re: Latin America).

Global Economy requires the whole group of countries to make a certain Global Profit,which requires each country to give a certain amount of its yearly outcome to the Global Economy.
It doesn't require this, but countries do tend to export because that's beneficial for them. If you mean, in the latter part, that sometimes countries run current account (imports less exports) deficits, this is always matched by current account surpluses, so nothing is necessarily lost.

[...] I could only find an absence of similar ideas around, until now.
If you're interested, the economist Paul Romer has written significantly on the idea of Charter Cities.

Left Now

June 5th, 2016, 11:35 AM

Economic integration tends to promote higher levels of economic growth. It does not necessarily lead to greater levels of economic instability. Countries rapidly liberalising capital-flows can lead to financial instability that in-turn leads to economic instability however.

Still this higher levels of economic growth are lesser stable than an independent but cooperating economy.Growth and development require enough resources (Money,materials,technology,human-force,energy and...).Faster the growth more resources required.If a country's growth rate is higher than its ability to provide enough resources for its constant growth,well it is completely clear that it won't grow anymore.This is why it will need to bring in resources from beyond its borders,and surely other countries will not provide its requirements without expecting profit.

Well I have a problem with this matter.In my opinion,a country's economy must be able to survive well enough even if all other countries did not intend to cooperate with it or invest in it.This view has actually been made in me specifically for the experience of sanctions imposed on my country during last decade.So I believe foreign investments and integration must not be that much that a country's constant yearly outcome be seriously dependent on the profit made by them,instead they must be enough to boost short and temporary but long term effective plans.This way the country's political independence will also be secured.

Instead of a huge "Global Economy",I am more for "Independent but Willing to Cooperate Regional Economies".This way countries can profit from each others without endangering each others independence.The growth rate might not be as high as the previous,but it is constant and stable and the failure of one economy in one country will not endanger the others.

The second point is simply untrue. Economic integration does not lock countries into their current state of development. The evidence from the NICs (Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.) comprehensively refutes that notion. Free trade allows for a more efficient allocation of resources (labour, capital), transference of technology, and encourages better corporate governance.

I did not say they will stay at their current state of development,I said countries at the end of the chain will not be able to make as much progress as more economically strong countries at the beginning of the chain,I said that they will all grow but not fairly.Besides this will require them to endanger their independence for more profit which I am against.

Now a question Vlerchan to more clarify my statement:What will happen if suddenly,one of the strongest economies of this Global Gathering gets bankrupted for mistakes made in economic planning and won't be able to even provide basic supports for its own people?For example US.I want to know what exactly will happen to countries like Korea?Can you predict it for me?

This, in turn, leads to productivity gains in the traded goods sector, the freeing up of formally-engaged factors of production and there allocation in regions of the economy with grander returns, and a movement up the ladder of comparative advantage.

This will also increase the thirst for more fast growth and a lot more profit,increasing of greed,which can lead to increasing levels of expectation of people and also changes in social morality.This has happened in my country Vlerchan do not try to deny it.Even if you are correct,these changes are not good in my country.I'm sure Iran is not an expectation in this matter neither.

On the other hand, state-sponsored strategies of industrial development tend to petter out rather quickly (re: Latin America).

I agree with this part.I am actually not for big-governments neither since I believe the same as Mr.Tavakkoli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Tavakkoli) who is also not in favor of big-governments,but also is not in favor of complete ignorance of the government in economic matters.He supports government's control of main industries and just government's supervision of other industries.

It doesn't require this, but countries do tend to export because that's beneficial for them. If you mean, in the latter part, that sometimes countries run current account (imports less exports) deficits, this is always matched by current account surpluses, so nothing is necessarily lost.

What if all the profit is sacrificed for more profit and not for general welfare?It has happened in Iran during Mr.Khatami's and Mr.Rafsanjani's administrations,when social justice was ignored and people more leaned toward figures like Mr.Ahmadinejad for his so-called populist attitude.

Vlerchan

June 5th, 2016, 12:14 PM

Still this higher levels of economic growth are lesser stable than an independent but cooperating economy.
If you mean stability in the broader, non-economic sense, this isn't true at all. The countries that are the most stable - tend to be the ones with the highest GDPs and most integrated economies.

Growth and development require enough resources (Money,materials,technology,human-force,energy and...).Faster the growth more resources required.If a country's growth rate is higher than its ability to provide enough resources for its constant growth,well it is completely clear that it won't grow anymore. This is why it will need to bring in resources from beyond its borders,and surely other countries will not provide its requirements without expecting profit.
Economic growth is the value added when resources are placed in more purposeful employment (such as when we bring bricks and mortar together to create a house, with labour-power). The growth rate literally can never outstrip the rate of the extraction of resources, as it is contingent on them existing to being arranged in the first place.

That firms in other countries expect a profit also shouldn't be an issue at all. Trade isn't a zero-sum game. If an economic exchange occurs it is because both sides see themselves as better off than they persisted in the previous state of affairs. Given that, international trade leads to both sides benefiting.

This view has actually been made in me specifically for the experience of sanctions imposed on my country during last decade.
Your economy policy prescription is equivalent to voluntarily imposing those sanctions on yourself. If you can see that those didn't operate to help Iran, then I have no idea why protectionism is a good idea.

I am - nonetheless - more than willing to cede to degree of political independence so that the living standards of the entire populace might be bolstered. Your prescription entails stagnating economic fortunes, which when a state is surrounded by advancing prosperity is dangerous.

I did not say they will stay at their current state of development,I said countries at the end of the chain will not be able to make as much progress as more economically strong countries at the beginning of the chain,I said that they will all grow but not fairly.
The fastest growing countries in the world are liberalising developing African states.

The fastest growing countries in the world before these were liberalising developing Asian states.

Since WWII, developing countries that integrated into the global economy grew much faster than the developed countries that did.

Now a question Vlerchan to more clarify my statement:What will happen if suddenly,one of the strongest economies of this Global Gathering gets bankrupted for mistakes made in economic planning and won't be able to even provide basic supports for its own people?For example US.I want to know what exactly will happen to countries like Korea?Can you predict it for me?
Korean GDP, and living standards, will slip, but to a level above where they would be had Korea not integrated into the global economy. In the long-run, markets will clear, and Korea will be placed on a lower growth path, but will be better off than if it disengaged from the global economy entirely. Though, it's wroth noting that we have international institutions such as the IMF to mitigate the potential damage of such errors made.

Nonetheless, the likelihood that the US will go bankrupt is quite slim.

This will also increase the thirst for more fast growth and a lot more profit,increasing of greed,which can lead to increasing levels of expectation of people and also changes in social morality.
Yes. Historically economic development has been associated with social change. More-so in the likes of Europe. Less-so in the likes of Asia.

If you would rather tend to a deadwater economy than perhaps meet this potentiality then that's not a position I can argue with.

What if all the profit is sacrificed for more profit and not for general welfare?
Companies cannot make a profit unless their product leaves the consumer in a better position than that consumer began in. You can manage the resulting interactions amongst a more prosperous people through social legislation rather than economic legislation.

[...] Mr.Ahmadinejad [...]
I'm unsure about the others, but no economist would support the policies that Ahmadinejad pursued, that when weren't junk, where entirely unsustainable.

Left Now

June 5th, 2016, 01:04 PM

...Given that, international trade leads to both sides benefiting....

True,but all these are only possible when you are completely sure that your partners are at the highest level of honesty with you and also they will not put their own interests over their promises.In matters related to Middle Eastern countries,I have not seen westerners be so serious about keeping their promises.

Your economy policy prescription is equivalent to voluntarily imposing those sanctions on yourself. If you can see that those didn't operate to help Iran, then I have no idea why protectionism is a good idea.

Nope,Iran seeks well developed cooperation with other nations,it does not want to be isolated.Before Ahmadinejad,Iran had a considerable share of Global Economy for itself,the way that most of the budget of the government was provided by export of raw oil and gas or extreme industrialization,which put lots of pressure on working and lower classes of the society and filled the pocket of government related and Westophilic elites,and foreign trade and investments.When sanctions about the nuclear myth came to the scene,most of these gateways of income got closed,specially export of the oil which was a disaster.

After it got clear that this kind of economy will endanger the political independence of the country,the thesis of "Resisting Economy" was introduced which insisted on Least Dependency of Raw Oil and Gas Export,More Attention Toward Domestic Industries and Workshops,Cautious but Both-Side Profitable Foreign Cooperation and Investment.

I just know that I am not ready to endanger my country's independence for a more luxurious life or for another meal during the day.I am even ready to fast for months but not lose my independence and the right to choose the laws and ways of my country.I am sure that many others are not to do this neither because it was experience during Shah's times.If a day the majority decided to do this,then I am not in any place to stop it anymore;but for now it has shown that Security of Our Independence Against World Powers is more important than fast economic growth.Besides,not integrating into Global Economy the way that you say does not necessarily mean poverty and undevelopment right?If management is alright,things can go slowly but toward positive points.

I am - nonetheless - more than willing to cede to degree of political independence so that the living standards of the entire populace might be bolstered. Your prescription entails stagnating economic fortunes, which when a state is surrounded by advancing prosperity is dangerous.

Who does not prefer the living standards of the entire populace to get better?But if there is no guarantee that these standards will stay the same,then why should the political independence get reduced?Our partners in the past have proved to be unreliable specially during difficult times.This is why instead of Global Integration,I more prefer Independent but constant cooperations,specially regional ones.This way opportunities will not be lost neither.

The fastest growing countries in the world are liberalising developing African states.

The fastest growing countries in the world before these were liberalising developing Asian states.

Since WWII, developing countries that integrated into the global economy grew much faster than the developed countries that did.

Pay attention,since WWII many other things have also happened.More stealing from third world countries by pioneers of the world economy.More wars,more violence,more radical changes,more degradation of moral matters,more...

I want everything to be fine,not just my economy.If there is a way which helps my economy grow very fast but also make my people greedy,more selfish and more consuming,then I prefer to look for another program that might not help economy to grow so fast (I am not saying not growing at all),but will also help cultural and moral values to get strengthened.

Korean GDP, and living standards, will slip, but to a level above where they would be had Korea not integrated into the global economy. In the long-run, markets will clear, and Korea will be placed on a lower growth path, but will be better off than if it disengaged from the global economy entirely. Though, it's wroth noting that we have international institutions such as the IMF to mitigate the potential damage of such errors made.

Nonetheless, the likelihood that the US will go bankrupt is quite slim.

Quite slim now.Who knows what awaits US and other world powers?

Yes. Historically economic development has been associated with social change. More-so in the likes of Europe. Less-so in the likes of Asia.

If you would rather tend to a deadwater economy than perhaps meet this potentiality then that's not a position I can argue with.

A deadwater economy is an isolated and weak-managed economy.I have already made it clear that we do not want isolated economy,but ajust want our foreign cooperations to have a rational limit that the partners do not use it as a tool to put pressure on the nation.

Companies cannot make a profit unless their product leaves the consumer in a better position than that consumer began in. You can manage the resulting interactions amongst a more prosperous people through social legislation rather than economic legislation.

Agreed,but it won't be possible unless a country is free to make its own choices not under pressure of other nations to change its laws and ways of life through different ways,including media inducing.Also Cultural-Overwhelming which is also a byproduct of limitless foreign cooperation,will make troubles for an independent society to reform itself.

I'm unsure about the others, but no economist would support the policies that Ahmadinejad pursued, that when weren't junk, where entirely unsustainable.

That's why its main supporters,educated populist economists and managers,and even the supreme leader himself after 2 years of his presidency,got into some odds with each others specially about his management of finance.But remember that the mistakes of two pro-globalization activists in Iran caused Ahmadinejad to be elected.Tow main pro-globalization activists with considerable supports of global society.

Vlerchan

June 5th, 2016, 01:54 PM

True,but all these are only possible when you are completely sure that your partners are at the highest level of honesty with you and also they will not put their own interests over their promises.In matters related to Middle Eastern countries,I have not seen westerners be so serious about keeping their promises.
In the realm of international politics.

When I made the original suggestion regarding Iraq earlier I had implicitly intended for the Charter Cities to be detached from the realm of international politics, and allow economic development to be guided by market forces. Within markets, it is incredibly costly for firms to be dishonest.

Besides,not integrating into Global Economy the way that you say does not necessarily mean poverty and undevelopment right?If management is alright,things can go slowly but toward positive points.
Yes, stagnation was likely an exaggeration. States can still grow whilst refusing to embrace global markets, and internal competition, but generally at a cute muted rate.

But if there is no guarantee that these standards will stay the same,then why should the political independence get reduced?
Because if those living standards fall through - because you have been excluded from the global economy - then your political independence is restored as compensation. In such a case, one still technically has independence, since one has the power to define the time when it will trade economic fortunes for a certain act of domestic policy.

This is why instead of Global Integration,I more prefer Independent but constant cooperations,specially regional ones.
In other words, you'd prefer regional trading blocks amongst allies, like the EU?

(I still disagree with this, but it's better than economic isolationism.)

Pay attention,since WWII many other things have also happened.More stealing from third world countries by pioneers of the world economy.More wars,more violence,more radical changes,more degradation of moral matters,more...
Since WWII, the process of decolonialism commenced, which probably reduced the amount of overall theft.

Nonetheless, the point I made still stands. Strong economic isn't just restricted to developed countries, and well managed developing countries can join too.

If there is a way which helps my economy grow very fast but also make my people greedy,more selfish and more consuming,then I prefer to look for another program that might not help economy to grow so fast (I am not saying not growing at all),but will also help cultural and moral values to get strengthened.
I am sceptical that consumer-society is associated as much with the rate of growth, as much as the stock of GDP: where individuals are better able to engage in consumerism.

Who knows what awaits US and other world powers?
We can make some pretty sound predictions based on previous data. But you are correct in that we can be certain.

A deadwater economy is an isolated and weak-managed economy. I have already made it clear that we do not want isolated economy,but ajust want our foreign cooperations to have a rational limit that the partners do not use it as a tool to put pressure on the nation.
Your position - which I was responding to - was that growth would undermine morality.

I was calling it deadwater based on that - and not based on a resistance to economic integration.

Agreed,but it won't be possible unless a country is free to make its own choices not under pressure of other nations to change its laws and ways of life through different ways,including media inducing.
Sure. Though, given as how our governments are indebted to the business interests that would be making profits on Iran, the likelihood is that the political strength to dictate the domestic policies of other states is going to be difficult to muster. The overwhelming likelihood, is that you have little to fear.

But remember that the mistakes of two pro-globalization activists in Iran caused Ahmadinejad to be elected.Tow main pro-globalization activists with considerable supports of global society.
The fact that two people were incorrect in their analysis of an unrelated area (the domestic economy), and also happen to support a position I support, does not undermine the intellectual merit of the position I support.

sqishy

June 5th, 2016, 02:11 PM

If you're interested, the economist Paul Romer has written significantly on the idea of Charter Cities.

I will look into it!

Left Now

June 5th, 2016, 02:35 PM

In the realm of international politics.

When I made the original suggestion regarding Iraq earlier I had implicitly intended for the Charter Cities to be detached from the realm of international politics, and allow economic development to be guided by market forces. Within markets, it is incredibly costly for firms to be dishonest.

Agreed,but do you think it is really possible?When it comes to matters related to Middle East,Western Economy is usually associated with Western Foreign Policy.

If partners were reliable partners,we would be on the same boat about many matters Vlerchan,but they have proven not to be.

Yes, stagnation was likely an exaggeration. States can still grow whilst refusing to embrace global markets, and internal competition, but generally at a cute muted rate.

:rolleyes:

Cute Muted!

Because if those living standards fall through - because you have been excluded from the global economy - then your political independence is restored as compensation. In such a case, one still technically has independence, since one has the power to define the time when it will trade economic fortunes for a certain act of domestic policy.

I actually wanted to say what if after integrations,some major players decide to become bullies for you and take the continuity of these profits,which has provided a higher standard of living for people,as a hostage for forcing you to do what they want you to do?This has a high chance of causing social instability.

In other words, you'd prefer regional trading blocks amongst allies, like the EU?

(I still disagree with this, but it's better than economic isolationism.)

Among countries in one region,and then among regions themselves.Another type of Global Economy actually which give nations constant moderate profits for trade and cooperation.

Since WWII, the process of decolonialism commenced, which probably reduced the amount of overall theft.

The theft has actually increased,only in a new way actually;High amounts of resources for low prices.A bad deal which 3rd world nations have no other choice except to agree if they enter the chain.

I am sceptical that consumer-society is associated as much with the rate of growth, as much as the stock of GDP: where individuals are better able to engage in consumerism.

It is not independently associated.But when a proper social background is not ready yet,introducing extreme economic growth may cause social disorders.A number of countries in the world have become the victims of this matter.

Your position - which I was responding to - was that growth would undermine morality.

I didn't say growth.I said extreme growth in a short period of time without preparing proper social background.Apologize for not clarifying.

Sure. Though, given as how our governments are indebted to the business interests that would be making profits on Iran, the likelihood is that the political strength to dictate the domestic policies of other states is going to be difficult to muster. The overwhelming likelihood, is that you have little to fear.

I hope.International cooperation without interfering with domestic matters is good.Hope these types of cooperation get more in this dishonest world.

The fact that two people were incorrect in their analysis of an unrelated area (the domestic economy), and also happen to support a position I support, does not undermine the intellectual merit of the position I support.

For sure,I was just saying that there is high chance that "Mindless and Radical Changes" toward full-globalization and undermining domestic potentials can lead to social injustice.I think you also agree with me.

PLUS+What was this thread about anyway? :)