Quote:
|
Originally Posted by danielpalos
What do you think of a hypothetical, US of Earth, with a constitution similar to the US Constitution; but with an amendment based on the theory of nullification (i.e. a formal mechanism for enforcing the Tenth Amendment), as a states' right?
|
I think it’s not a bad idea. It’s an impractical idea, given the current global system of nation-states, but not a bad one. I used to be a staunch opponent of any sort of world government, but a weak federation composed of the world’s states (however they are formed then), I think, would be a great public tool to work alongside NGOs and the World Bank to help reduce poverty and conflict. And hopefully the nullification amendment would ensure that the federal government remained weak, but that task would remain primarily in the hands of global citizenry. Public opinion at large seems opposed to such a creation, though; even the relatively long-standing EU is meeting roadblocks while consolidating itself into a state.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ambiguous
Part of what makes nations unified is a common social theme. These themes are usually measured against other social themes. Comparison is a vital part of a group's identity. It allows people to isolate the differences that make them unique. When you don't have such a source for comparison, it's more difficult to assert your identity.
Let's say I live in Miami. If I were to go to Jacksonville and happened to meet someone from my hometown, I'd feel an instant sense of comraderie. I wouldn't even have to know the person beforehand. Just knowing we were from the same town would be enough to make for a friendly chat. I wouldn't feel that sense of comraderie with the people from Jacksonville even though we were all from Florida.
Now imagine I traveled across the country to California and met someone from my Jacksonville. I would feel yet another sense of comraderie with that person because we would share a common state. But if I happened to meet that person in Jacksonville, I wouldn't feel that way. It's only when I'm outside the bounds of my own state that I feel that way toward another member of my state.
Take it one step further. If I were to travel to another France, I would feel a sense of comraderie with a Californian because we share a common country. I wouldn't feel that way if I were visiting California. But because we shared something in common while in a different place, we feel some sort of connection.
At every step, in order to feel that connection, you need something to compare yourself to. If the world was one giant country, it wouldn't matter because there's no one outside the world to compare ourselves to. If we were to travel to another planet and meet those inhabitants, then there would probably be some sense of fraternity among people of different nations. But we have nothing beyond our world.
There is no common social theme that ties together the people of the world because there is nothing out there that is different enough to make us see our similarities. Countries can only exist when there are more than one.
|
No offense, but this is a pretty anecdotal piece of evidence to refute the suggestion of global government.
You seem to equate the words “country,” “state,” and “nation.” Perhaps you did not mean to, but that is the impression I as a reader got. They are by no means anything alike. The nation-state system ties all of these things together, but in the abstract, all of the concepts are different. A “country” is a vague geographic entity, a “state” is a political institution, and a “nation” is a cultural identity. Your conclusion—“ There is no common social theme that ties together the people of the world because there is nothing out there that is different enough to make us see our similarities. Countries can only exist when there are more than one.”—is ambiguous for this reason. I think a much more accurate statement would be “identities can only exist when there is more than one.” Also, it doesn't necessarily take outside differences to notice similarities: see the John Donne excerpt in my signature, written in the seventeenth century. Camaraderie based on nothing but human brother- and sister-hood has been around for centuries.
Also, your story of camaraderie would hold in the system of nation-states just as it would hold in a system of continent-states under a world federation. I don’t see how the political structure of the world would necessarily destroy cultural identities—it would definitely quicken integration and promote similarities, but it can never take away the feeling of closeness of meeting someone abroad with a similar background to you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ambiguous
It's not the existance of regulation. It's whether the government is responsible for making the initial decisions. What I consider to be a market economy isn't possible if the government is the impetus for it. There's too much regulation and too little freedom.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ambiguous
I look at a fascist economy as one where the capital is privately owned but state directed.
|
You seem to be saying that the only “market economy” is one in which government is nonexistent, and any sort of “mixed economy” you define as “fascist.” Am I right?