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?

There exists also the theory, that monopolies could never exist for long time, without the help of government. The rise of monopolies in the beginning 20th century is linked with state privileges for such companies.
Even Milton Friedman changed his mind and becomes a critic of anti-trust laws, which, in his opionion, make more harm than good.

In the caso of russia, i would disagree with liberty. Russia may have a high growth rate, but this is due to higher gas and oil prices. The russian economy isn`t free and only a few bis companies with good ties to the Kremlin make profits. Normal people without political relations have more or less no chances to challence the oligarchies. It isn`t surprizing, that russia is on the last places in the Index of economic freedom.

__________________
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else

Claude Frédéric Bastiat

Wow. You deduced my posts are asinine, unstudied, and ignorant based on all 20 of them? It usually takes at least 25 before someone catches on to me. You are, of course, free to label me a follower of Rush or Hannity despite the fact that I don't like either one. I haven't actually listened to them in the past several years beyond the time it takes to scan through radio stations or turn the channel. But hey, maligning someone you don't know with the ol' Rush and Sean bit always works, huh?

I'd address the rest of your post, but honestly I can't make much sense of it. Oh, it's not that I don't understand it; it's that, well, you are arguing against something I haven't said. And I don't really have the inclination to defend thoughts I haven't expressed. Maybe it's my fault for not making my position clear, but it seems to me that you aren't terribly interested in finding out if that's the case.

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.

True. Economic systems in their "pure" forms would be utterly ineffective... a completely free market or full-fledged communism. I assume by fascist you're referring to some kind of strictly-regimented command economy.

__________________

Let me revise my last post. I agree with you: only a fool would put faith in the goodness of mankind. This is why I don't put faith in the goodness of mankind. Yet, you prefer to put nearly ALL (or at least a great deal) of the power into the hands of these people we can't trust.

In what way does that make sense? Are you really telling me that the few people who run the government are so drasticly unlike the rest of humanity that they do not pursue their own selfish goals? And, you might bring up the fact that those who govern are elcted by the people, thus ensuring that only the good guys get into office. Well, those who do the electing are only looking out for themselves; we have the same problem.

I, at the very least (and I do not think that an anarchic society would work this way) espouse a system in which "every man for himself" is the social order; you, however, want to concentrate great power in the hands of a few. This is idiotic. We have seen what big states do to people. The USSR killed many; Hitler's Germany killed many; the Spartans enslaved many; the US dropped to Atomic bombs on innocent people. None of these things have been done on this scale by anyone in the private economy. We talk of the horrible tragedies of Virginia Tech, and Colombine, but the deaths here can't hold a candle to the death and destruction inflicted at the hands of large states.

Do you think maybe you could reply to me this time? If I have made any little errors, please mention them, but also reply to the rest of my post.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I look at a fascist economy as one where the capital is privately owned but state directed. There are many degrees of freedom that can be controlled within this sphere, as economics encompasses the production, distribution and consumption of goods. The state can have varying degrees of control over these many avenues.

For instance, I view environmental regulations as fascist because they are an example of the state dictating how a private company can use its capital. It may be a case where the state offers a range of limits. But there are cases where a company is forced to follow specific guidelines in order to operate.

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.

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.

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?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

You want to concentrate great power in the hands of those strong enough to take it. I have to wonder: which idea is worse? Whatever happened to concentrating power in the hands of the majority in the form of democratic republics? I've always thought those are generally a good idea.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I thought it was clear that my use of the word state in this post was in reference to an actual state of the United States of America, i.e. Alabama, New York, Tennessee, Hawaii, etc. Apparently not. As for the difference between country and nation, I suppose you can nitpick if you like. I really have no interest in arguing that particular point since you apparently understood what I was getting at anyway.

You have addressed camraderie among individuals as well as comraderie among members of the same group when there are other, similar groups present -- neither of which I have disagreed with. But what you haven't addressed is how a large group shares that unique sense of comraderie when there is no comparable alternative group.

No, you're not right. I meant exactly what I wrote, otherwise I wouldn't have written it that way.

To your first inference, it's the difference between a government that establishes loose guidelines under which businesses may themselves operate, and a government owning or controlling businesses with the intent of handing autonomy over at a later date.

To your second inference, any sort of mixed economy is going go to contain bits and pieces of multiple economic systems. We generally label an economy as a whole based on the predominant system. But that does not preclude us from addressing subsets of the entire economy as being closer to one system or another.

I don't think a hypothetical USofE is any more impractical than our current USofA.

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?

This is why I asked.

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.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

"Impractical" was probably the wrong word to use; the nation-state system is ingrained into the minds of the public, and undermining "national soveriegnty" is usually recoiled from. The EU seems to be the first experiment of replacing nation-states with a continental-type state, so we'll see what happens there. In my lifetime, I would not be surprised to see the international arena dominated by these continental-unions, I think that a world federal government is still too foriegn of a concept for many to accept.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

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.

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.

My apologies then. Please, by all means, enunciate clearly.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson