Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

nation states and war

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:24:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't figure out what grounds there are for defending and sustaining this concept of nation states. In particular, that we're all assigned citizenship that corresponds somehow to a particular geographical area. I know that the US is big on national identity, you have the pledge of allegiance and various national holidays. Stars and stripes. Songs. Flags in peoples front yards.

I would like to highlight the following issues related to nation and states:

More and more people have multiple citizenship.

Meanwhile, there are at least 12 million people who are stateless. http://www.unhcr.org...

Citizenship is vitally important. For example, being a citizen of the US gives you opportunity and a certain amount of freedom while being a citizen of, say, Chad, condemns you to constant uncertainty and the threat of violence.

Restrictions on citizenship and immigration allow companies to bypass employment laws that have been fought for over centuries and move their factories to countries where they can do whatever they like. Poor workers trapped by citizenship in bad countries will accept any kind of work to survive.

Restrictions on citizenship and immigration open the opportunity for sex-trafficking and mail-order brides, because citizenship in a "good" country is worth trading anything for.

So I'm wondering what the justification is. Is it a pragmatic thing, like those closed residential areas in third world cities? Or is there some theoretical reason for it?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:40:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And the war part:

The decision to go to war is not really made by the population. It's made by the government, an elite that claims to represent the population.

However, it's important to remember that people vote almost entirely on domestic policy. They don't elect a government based on foreign policy.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

On the contrary, wars are almost always unpopular and the government spends huge amounts of time and resources to persuade the population of its worth. There is also always censorship. Which is really persuasion in the wrong direction.

Anyway. It always seems strange the way we talk about nations as individual actors. It's not the territory or even the population that is acting. I always think of the revolution of independence in South America. It was a revolution of the descendants of the Spanish against Spain. The majority, the indigenous population, were just as oppressed before and after the revolution. They continued their lives more or less miserably on their farms no matter how the boundaries were drawn. So what meaning does it have, really, this talk of nations in South America and "independence" and war and all the rest of it? And what justification is there to kill so many people just to transfer money and power from one small elite to another?

So the UN only recognizes states. Meanwhile, there are substantial minority populations that the UN will not recognize, because they are within a defined state. Those minorities may not care to be there. Wars may be fought against them. Always it ends in minority groups fighting for statehood if they can.

Is it at all conceivable that instead we have a more flexible approach to statehood and citizenship?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:38:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, I want to say that your views and questions on this topic are exceptionally cogent.

The answer, IMHO, is simple. Power does not grow. Once divided, the only way one acquires more power is by taking it from someone else. Power corrupts.

This answers all of your questions and issues. Citizenship is indeed extremely important, and we don't grant it to just anybody...they have to earn it. Why? Because by granting citizenship, we cede power - example, if we annexed the 100+ million people of Japan as the 51st state, then the 300 million current voters of the US would only have 3/4 as much influence over Washington than they did before annexation. Similarly in a corporation, current shareholders loathe dilution. The reasoning is the same.

War is the ultimate expression of power. Most that know the nature of war either condemn it outright, or come very close to it. Most great generals are known for abhorring the act of war, but that once engaged, it must be done properly. "It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin."
http://classics.mit.edu...

---

Regarding minorities within countries, two things:

1) The UN recognizes the rights of individuals in member countries as defined by its charter.

2) This whole minority thing is US propaganda. In the US, we celebrate our diversity. In our foreign policy, we actively encourage sectarian strife, ostensibly in the name of liberation or "justified" civil uprising. Power corrupts.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:51:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The next question invariably becomes - Is power absolutely necessary? IMHO, this isn't exactly the right question - rather it should be Does power exist, and can we get rid of it? The answer is yes it does exist, and no we can't get rid of it.

Even anarchists believe in power - they just think that power should never be ceded by an individual for any reason. They see this as a type of justice.

The problem is that reality does not allow for this to occur. Two people have more power than one person. If two people band together to take power from this one person, they will most likely win, ceteris paribus. Continue to extend this very simple logic, and you can easily see why the most successful states also tend to be the largest.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:56:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When I read 1984 in high school, O'Brien's speech on power sometime during the torture sessions stuck out for me. I think that was the entire basis of his book. Power is what is responsible for the dystopian 1984, and power is why 1984 is easily applicable to today's state of affairs.

US policy on minority populations in other states is a form of doublethink. It is seeped in the calculus of power, i.e. best it happen to them, so that we may become more justified in taking them over. Best it NOT happen to us. Also, do your absolute best to not be seen as the cause of such sectarianism, else you will unite the sects against you. Bush and Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision of the past 100 years.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:12:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
O'brien:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"

"We are the priests of power," he said. "God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan 'Freedom is Slavery." Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone-free-the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body-but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter external reality, as you would call it-is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute."'

"But how can you control matter?" he burst out. "You don't even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death-"

O'Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn-by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation-anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature."

"But you do not! You are not even masters of this planet. What about Eurasia and Eastasia? You have not conquered them yet."

"Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we did not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceania is the world."


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

---

Personally, I think the bolded will never happen and is the ultimate lie, and is where 1984 falls apart. You can easily see here how power corrupts. Once we begin to believe the same, that we are capable of doing what we are not capable of doing, we will also fall apart.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:29:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:12:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
O'brien:

Power over matter external reality, as you would call it-is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute."'

---

Personally, I think the bolded will never happen and is the ultimate lie, and is where 1984 falls apart. You can easily see here how power corrupts. Once we begin to believe the same, that we are capable of doing what we are not capable of doing, we will also fall apart.

IMHO, Bush in Iraq is an archetype of thinking that "we are capable of doing what we are not capable of doing". It's interesting that it took a born-again Christian believing in blind faith to bring America as close to 1984 as it's ever been. It's almost appropriate that a blithering idiot like Bush would look, act, and think like Big Brother.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:31:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just look at Bush here. Big Brother indeed, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:34:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:31:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just look at Bush here. Big Brother indeed, IMHO.


From the video, 00:45:

The Congress exists, primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress.

---

From 1984:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake."

---

THIS ALL STARTED WITH IRAQ.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:54:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:51:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The next question invariably becomes - Is power absolutely necessary? IMHO, this isn't exactly the right question - rather it should be Does power exist, and can we get rid of it? The answer is yes it does exist, and no we can't get rid of it.

Even anarchists believe in power - they just think that power should never be ceded by an individual for any reason. They see this as a type of justice.

The problem is that reality does not allow for this to occur. Two people have more power than one person. If two people band together to take power from this one person, they will most likely win, ceteris paribus. Continue to extend this very simple logic, and you can easily see why the most successful states also tend to be the largest.

Final points:

1) Let's say there are two people, and lightning strikes one person and that person dies. Power amalgamates to the other individual. Is this just? Is this moral? IMHO, simple logic like this makes anarchy as a political theory totally invalid and a ridiculous concept.

2) Let's say you wanted to divert a river to prevent flooding. Do you really expect that people will somehow just band together in a totally chaotic and unorganized fashion to divert this river? Or would you expect organization from someone whose specific purpose was to organize this activity, and that such organization would be more effective? People cede power to this organizer. This organizer is the state.

Power will be with us. It is how one manages power that determines whether or not the person/society continues to exist, and GIVEN EXISTENCE, whether or not their model is moral or not.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:58:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 10:54:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

2) Let's say you wanted to divert a river to prevent flooding. Do you really expect that people will somehow just band together in a totally chaotic and unorganized fashion to divert this river? Or would you expect organization from someone whose specific purpose was to organize this activity, and that such organization would be more effective? People cede power to this organizer. This organizer is the state.

I'm sorry, obviously I have a lot to say about this topic, lol...

It becomes EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, IMHO, to outline the specific powers ceded to the state. It becomes EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to understand that the state does not have ALL POWER, but only enough to carry out its duties, whatever they may be. I come from the perspective that the state should be as small as possible, because that way, as much power as possible resides where it should reside, the individual. However, I recognize that ceding SOME POWER to the state is also in my best interests.

Ok, I think I am done.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 11:18:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nation states is a hugely misused term. A nation state is literally a state containing a single nation of people.

Japan is about as close as you get to a true nation state but still falls short of the mark truly.

Just saying.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 11:31:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:51:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The next question invariably becomes - Is power absolutely necessary? IMHO, this isn't exactly the right question - rather it should be Does power exist, and can we get rid of it? The answer is yes it does exist, and no we can't get rid of it.

Even anarchists believe in power - they just think that power should never be ceded by an individual for any reason. They see this as a type of justice.

The problem is that reality does not allow for this to occur. Two people have more power than one person. If two people band together to take power from this one person, they will most likely win, ceteris paribus. Continue to extend this very simple logic, and you can easily see why the most successful states also tend to be the largest.

You don't understand anarchy
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 1:59:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 11:31:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/18/2013 9:51:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
The next question invariably becomes - Is power absolutely necessary? IMHO, this isn't exactly the right question - rather it should be Does power exist, and can we get rid of it? The answer is yes it does exist, and no we can't get rid of it.

Even anarchists believe in power - they just think that power should never be ceded by an individual for any reason. They see this as a type of justice.

The problem is that reality does not allow for this to occur. Two people have more power than one person. If two people band together to take power from this one person, they will most likely win, ceteris paribus. Continue to extend this very simple logic, and you can easily see why the most successful states also tend to be the largest.

You don't understand anarchy

At this point, neither do you.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 2:04:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've observed various conversations and debates on anarchy. I've attempted to engage the many proponents here on the subject, almost none of which were able to substantially offer a view of anarchy different that a state structure.

For example, many would cite Catalonia. Catalonia was not an anarchy. They operated fully within the state structure at the time.

I can go on, but your comment doesn't really deserve a response, other than what I've already addressed, i.e. your ad hominem is deserving of one in retort. You don't know what you're talking about, and IMHO are delusional.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 5:45:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 11:18:30 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Nation states is a hugely misused term. A nation state is literally a state containing a single nation of people.

Japan is about as close as you get to a true nation state but still falls short of the mark truly.

Just saying.

You're right. Thanks.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 5:46:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 5:45:31 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/18/2013 11:18:30 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Nation states is a hugely misused term. A nation state is literally a state containing a single nation of people.

Japan is about as close as you get to a true nation state but still falls short of the mark truly.

Just saying.

You're right. Thanks.

So what term should I be using instead?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 5:52:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wrichcirw, what do you mean by "power" exactly? It can be defined lots of different ways. And what's your argument for saying that it can't grow? For example, if you mean (and I'm assuming you don't) power as influence over people, then total power grows as the world's population grows. Or, perhaps you define power as proportional influence, which kind of makes it a circular argument saying it doesn't grow. Well, I'm just guessing what you mean.

Or, perhaps you mean power as control over territory. And the people and resources associated with that territory. Which is my question. Why do we define people in connection with territory?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:56:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
When I read 1984 in high school, O'Brien's speech on power sometime during the torture sessions stuck out for me. I think that was the entire basis of his book. Power is what is responsible for the dystopian 1984, and power is why 1984 is easily applicable to today's state of affairs.

US policy on minority populations in other states is a form of doublethink. It is seeped in the calculus of power, i.e. best it happen to them, so that we may become more justified in taking them over. Best it NOT happen to us. Also, do your absolute best to not be seen as the cause of such sectarianism, else you will unite the sects against you. Bush and Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision of the past 100 years.

Okay. Well, I probably shouldn't have used the word "minorities" because it's not exactly what I mean anyway. Yes, the US propaganda on minorities is outrageous. I haven't seen much of it, but what I have seen is so cynical, simplistic and awful. Does it really work? I suppose it must.

But just because there is propaganda on this issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other ways. It does, of course.

Here is good site about indigenous populations (almost all minorities).
http://www.iwgia.org...

So, the point is, here are people within a larger state whose rights and culture may well be being violated by the majority. So if their state goes to war or is invaded, what meaning does it have for these indigenous communities? In the sense that, if occupied, it may be better or worse for them. So when we talk of a state going to war, the question is, WHO is going to war? Because it's not the territory. And it's not the population, especially when the population is against it.

And often, in dictatorships of various kinds, the government is the minority. So if they invade another country and we talk as if that country has, as a whole, done the invading, it's outrageously unfair. To speak as if this dictatorial minority can legitimately act on behalf of the whole country.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:29:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:38:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, I want to say that your views and questions on this topic are exceptionally cogent.

The answer, IMHO, is simple. Power does not grow. Once divided, the only way one acquires more power is by taking it from someone else. Power corrupts.

This answers all of your questions and issues. Citizenship is indeed extremely important, and we don't grant it to just anybody...they have to earn it. Why? Because by granting citizenship, we cede power - example, if we annexed the 100+ million people of Japan as the 51st state, then the 300 million current voters of the US would only have 3/4 as much influence over Washington than they did before annexation. Similarly in a corporation, current shareholders loathe dilution. The reasoning is the same.

Not necessarily. Shareholders are, by definition, equal. The same is not true for citizens. They all have the power to vote, perhaps, but that power is very weak. Citizens who are born into political families, or have control over huge amounts of resources are obviously more powerful than those who don't. So, in theory at least, the annexation of another nation with 100 million citizens could make powerful people in the US even more powerful because they have control over a much larger population.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ooh. And I forgot to mention those people resident in countries with only partial rights. For example, filipinas in Hong Kong. They come to Hong Kong and work as maids, but they are never given proper residency rights and their visas restrict them to working as maids. They can't get other work.
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

This is an example I happen to have come across, but I'm sure there are parallels in other countries. Domestic services is, of course, something that can't be moved to "developing" countries in the same way that factories can be. But, in an equal society, it's prohibitively expensive. So here we have a subclass of people, residents, who are denied rights and options in order to keep them cheap and working as maids. Nice.

I suppose a parallel would be all the illegal immigrants in the US? I know nothing about this, but it seems a good way to keep domestic workers cheap. Without full rights as citizens, there's a large population that are happy to clean your house for cash in hand.

So anyway. It's another example of how weird and arbitrary it is to link citizenship to a particular territory. Because here we have long term residents who are not citizens and probably never will be.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:43:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So I'll repeat (OK rephrase) the question. WHY does the UN only recognize states? Is it a pragmatic thing or theoretical? Does anybody know?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:27:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 5:52:35 PM, rross wrote:
Wrichcirw, what do you mean by "power" exactly? It can be defined lots of different ways. And what's your argument for saying that it can't grow? For example, if you mean (and I'm assuming you don't) power as influence over people, then total power grows as the world's population grows. Or, perhaps you define power as proportional influence, which kind of makes it a circular argument saying it doesn't grow. Well, I'm just guessing what you mean.

Or, perhaps you mean power as control over territory. And the people and resources associated with that territory. Which is my question. Why do we define people in connection with territory?

Obviously I mean whatever Orwell meant by it.

"It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan 'Freedom is Slavery." Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone-free-the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body-but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter external reality, as you would call it-is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute."'

Think of a polity. As that polity grows, the amount of power each individual has over the polity decreases.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:32:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:29:14 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/18/2013 9:38:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
First of all, I want to say that your views and questions on this topic are exceptionally cogent.

The answer, IMHO, is simple. Power does not grow. Once divided, the only way one acquires more power is by taking it from someone else. Power corrupts.

This answers all of your questions and issues. Citizenship is indeed extremely important, and we don't grant it to just anybody...they have to earn it. Why? Because by granting citizenship, we cede power - example, if we annexed the 100+ million people of Japan as the 51st state, then the 300 million current voters of the US would only have 3/4 as much influence over Washington than they did before annexation. Similarly in a corporation, current shareholders loathe dilution. The reasoning is the same.

Not necessarily. Shareholders are, by definition, equal. The same is not true for citizens. They all have the power to vote, perhaps, but that power is very weak. Citizens who are born into political families, or have control over huge amounts of resources are obviously more powerful than those who don't. So, in theory at least, the annexation of another nation with 100 million citizens could make powerful people in the US even more powerful because they have control over a much larger population.

Dear lord no. A share is equal to another share, yes. However, each shareholder typically owns very differing numbers of shares. Larger shareholders have more influence than smaller shareholders. If a shareholder has a majority stake, they essentially control the company. As more shares are issued, each and every shareholder gets diluted - they all lose influence over the company, i.e. power.

Regarding the underlined, no. It's much easier if we just expand the example. Let's say the US annexes Japan AND Europe. Europe is actually larger than America, let's say it has 400 million people. 500 million people would all of a sudden vie for control over Washington with the original 300 million Americans. If those 500 million people banded together, they could usurp the political system and mold it as they see fit, thereby taking power and control away from Americans.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:20:31 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/18/2013 9:56:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
When I read 1984 in high school, O'Brien's speech on power sometime during the torture sessions stuck out for me. I think that was the entire basis of his book. Power is what is responsible for the dystopian 1984, and power is why 1984 is easily applicable to today's state of affairs.

US policy on minority populations in other states is a form of doublethink. It is seeped in the calculus of power, i.e. best it happen to them, so that we may become more justified in taking them over. Best it NOT happen to us. Also, do your absolute best to not be seen as the cause of such sectarianism, else you will unite the sects against you. Bush and Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision of the past 100 years.

Okay. Well, I probably shouldn't have used the word "minorities" because it's not exactly what I mean anyway. Yes, the US propaganda on minorities is outrageous. I haven't seen much of it, but what I have seen is so cynical, simplistic and awful. Does it really work? I suppose it must.

But just because there is propaganda on this issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist in other ways. It does, of course.

Here is good site about indigenous populations (almost all minorities).
http://www.iwgia.org...

So, the point is, here are people within a larger state whose rights and culture may well be being violated by the majority. So if their state goes to war or is invaded, what meaning does it have for these indigenous communities? In the sense that, if occupied, it may be better or worse for them. So when we talk of a state going to war, the question is, WHO is going to war? Because it's not the territory. And it's not the population, especially when the population is against it.

And often, in dictatorships of various kinds, the government is the minority. So if they invade another country and we talk as if that country has, as a whole, done the invading, it's outrageously unfair. To speak as if this dictatorial minority can legitimately act on behalf of the whole country.

The answer to your question is simple, at least in the US. EVERY ELIGIBLE MALE signs up for the Selective Service once he turns 18. EVERY MALE is subject to the draft. There is no discrimination involved here. If you resist, it's a federal offense.

So, who is going to war? The answer is potentially EVERYONE.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 2:04:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I've observed various conversations and debates on anarchy. I've attempted to engage the many proponents here on the subject, almost none of which were able to substantially offer a view of anarchy different that a state structure.

You clearly haven't engaged that many people here then. I'm not even an anarchist so if you're referring to me it's not exactly a valid critique. Especially since the definition of a "state" is fuzzy anyway, and anarchy simply means a lack of a state

For example, many would cite Catalonia. Catalonia was not an anarchy. They operated fully within the state structure at the time.

I can go on, but your comment doesn't really deserve a response, other than what I've already addressed, i.e. your ad hominem is deserving of one in retort. You don't know what you're talking about, and IMHO are delusional.

Calm down, it wasn't an ad hominem it was my opinion. Ad hom would be as if I was like "your name is stupid so your argument is invalid""--I didnt even try to refute your argument other than point out that you simply *dont understand* anarchy....may I ask, what literature have you read on the subject?

I get that you're still upset because I voted you down in those two debates but seriously, get over it
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:52:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:43:35 PM, rross wrote:
So I'll repeat (OK rephrase) the question. WHY does the UN only recognize states? Is it a pragmatic thing or theoretical? Does anybody know?

I'm no longer sure I understand your question.

The UN has to recognize something. For something like the UN to recognize the 500+ members of the US house of representatives would be impractical and lead to an extreme bureaucratic nightmare. Instead of recognizing each district in the US, with each district's nuances and etc, the UN instead recognizes the US.

The UN does not recognize Taiwan. This is generally because the KMT, Chiang Kai Shek's legacy, still carries the official line that it is the undisputed head of mainland China. The CCP (Chinese communist party) obviously has a problem with this. The UN chooses to recognize the CCP.

Statehood is extremely important. With it comes legitimacy of rule, as the state is recognized as providing security for its country. When security is in doubt, it manifests in civil war. When statehood is in doubt, it's usually because of civil war. Perhaps this answers your question.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:53:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:52:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:43:35 PM, rross wrote:
So I'll repeat (OK rephrase) the question. WHY does the UN only recognize states? Is it a pragmatic thing or theoretical? Does anybody know?

I'm no longer sure I understand your question.

The UN has to recognize something. For something like the UN to recognize the 500+ members of the US house of representatives would be impractical and lead to an extreme bureaucratic nightmare. Instead of recognizing each district in the US, with each district's nuances and etc, the UN instead recognizes the US.

The UN does not recognize Taiwan. This is generally because the KMT, Chiang Kai Shek's legacy, still carries the official line that it is the undisputed head of mainland China. The CCP (Chinese communist party) obviously has a problem with this. The UN chooses to recognize the CCP.

Statehood is extremely important. With it comes legitimacy of rule, as the state is recognized as providing security for its country. When security is in doubt, it manifests in civil war. When statehood is in doubt, it's usually because of civil war. Perhaps this answers your question.

Not really. But you're right that it's my own fault for not being clear what the question is.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:57:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:53:34 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/18/2013 9:52:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:43:35 PM, rross wrote:
So I'll repeat (OK rephrase) the question. WHY does the UN only recognize states? Is it a pragmatic thing or theoretical? Does anybody know?

I'm no longer sure I understand your question.

The UN has to recognize something. For something like the UN to recognize the 500+ members of the US house of representatives would be impractical and lead to an extreme bureaucratic nightmare. Instead of recognizing each district in the US, with each district's nuances and etc, the UN instead recognizes the US.

The UN does not recognize Taiwan. This is generally because the KMT, Chiang Kai Shek's legacy, still carries the official line that it is the undisputed head of mainland China. The CCP (Chinese communist party) obviously has a problem with this. The UN chooses to recognize the CCP.

Statehood is extremely important. With it comes legitimacy of rule, as the state is recognized as providing security for its country. When security is in doubt, it manifests in civil war. When statehood is in doubt, it's usually because of civil war. Perhaps this answers your question.

Not really. But you're right that it's my own fault for not being clear what the question is.

I need to think some more about it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:58:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:38:29 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/18/2013 2:04:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I've observed various conversations and debates on anarchy. I've attempted to engage the many proponents here on the subject, almost none of which were able to substantially offer a view of anarchy different that a state structure.

You clearly haven't engaged that many people here then. I'm not even an anarchist so if you're referring to me it's not exactly a valid critique. Especially since the definition of a "state" is fuzzy anyway, and anarchy simply means a lack of a state

I think you have clearly not seen me engage with numerous people on this website. My arguments are already far beyond your simplistic definition. What you don't seem to grasp is that what my arguments entail here is the CONSEQUENCES of the lack of a state.

For example, many would cite Catalonia. Catalonia was not an anarchy. They operated fully within the state structure at the time.

I can go on, but your comment doesn't really deserve a response, other than what I've already addressed, i.e. your ad hominem is deserving of one in retort. You don't know what you're talking about, and IMHO are delusional.

Calm down, it wasn't an ad hominem it was my opinion. Ad hom would be as if I was like "your name is stupid so your argument is invalid""--I didnt even try to refute your argument other than point out that you simply *dont understand* anarchy....may I ask, what literature have you read on the subject?

Ad hom is attacking the person as opposed to the argument. You attempted to attack my credibility as opposed to the logic of my arguments. My charge was, and still is correct. As of this point, you still don't have an argument. What exactly about my comments do you disagree with?

I get that you're still upset because I voted you down in those two debates but seriously, get over it

Actually, I think you're the one with the problem. Why didn't you try to engage in a discussion about the topic here, instead of just leading with a perjorative non-argument? What exactly is your intention here?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?