Quote:
Originally Posted by Luap
There is no comparable alternative group to the human species, really, unless you want to use lower animals, and human beings still feel a unique sense of camaraderie under the right circumstances. We as the human community don't need some other community to compare ourselves to in order to establish that sense of brotherhood, of similarity. I'm not sure if I'm addressing the point you're looking for, though.
Anyway, the nature and scope of camaraderia can be discussed by us, but we should also look at its value. You brought this up in response to danielpalos' suggestion of a world federal government--do you mean that such an institution should be avoided to preserve nationality or that it is unworkable because of nationality? Or am I missing the mark again?
|
I think it's unworkable because of human nature. Because there is no group against which a unified world body could identify itself, people as a whole would automatically identify themselves primarily according to their pre-existing nationalities. When the US was first formed, people identified themselves as New Yorkers, Virginians, or Pennsylvanians first, and Americans second. The bonds to the states were stronger. But having a common enemy and seeing the strength that came from being among equal nations changed people's perspectives.
Part of what gives us national (or any level) pride is that sense of uniqueness. Not everybody in the world is from your nation, state, or town. Therefore when comparing yourself to others you feel something special about having that as an identifier. If everyone had the same affiliation, for instance being a member of a worldwide federation, there wouldn't be a sense of pride of belonging. Just look at us now. How many people are proud to be part of the human race. Not many. I'm sure most are glad to be human. But since every other person on the planet is human, it's not that big a deal. Likewise, being part of a worldwide federation along with everyone else won't be the same as being part of a unique group. When everyone is a member of something, the membership itself loses meaning.
Quote:
|
I understand better now. What about China's progress into a freer market, then? It is certainly a mixed economy, and the Communist Party refers to its programs as socialist. However, that state's experiences would seem to contradict the idea that a government will never truly establish a market economy on its own. I don't know the degree of regulation imposed on businesses, but in 2005 70% of China's GDP was in the private sector, whereas no fully privately-owned firms existed in 1956. Also, the reforms of the past decades have transferred much of the state planning of pricing and allocation to the free market. I don't know a great deal about China's economy, and there is definitely a lot of government intervention, but I just wanted to suggest that it is possible for a government to relinquish control to a market-oriented system.
|
I wouldn't exactly call China a free market. China has certainly made steps to move
toward a free market economy. But it's still ruled by a Communist government that has significant control over the business dealings of its people. That shadow hasn't gone away. If anything, the Chinese government has allowed this to happen as a way of surviving rather than because it believes in the tenet of freedom. It has merely lengthened the leash, which is a far cry different from letting people loose.