If Racism is Bad…

[Pannonian]

China, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...roups_in_China many of the dialects are unintelligible other than the written word. Considering most of their major wars were one group warring with another I would not attribute nation hood to them any earlier than it occurred in Europe.

Other that, at least in theory, the more local the government and the less centralized the more responsive it should be to the will, and needs of its constituents. Would you disagree?

The dominant Chinese group had a sense of common identity as far back as the mythical past that Confucius regularly alludes to. Since Confucius lived around the 6th century BC, that puts the sense of Chinese nationhood at least a few centuries before that.

As for the locality of the identity being more responsive to the needs of its constituents, maybe, but I'm not going to theorise on that, as I have little interest in doing so. However, the other end of that argument is that, the larger the body, the more heft it has in making an argument. The relative decline and rise of the UK and US is evidence enough of this. Even if the most local body of identity is the most responsive of all to my demands, I'm not going to cut myself off from the larger body. I have no interest in brave last stands.

[Fisherking]

Kneejerk much? Can't exactly blame you considering I do it a lot but you might want to reread my statement: Nationalism is recent, I'm not arguing that, I never said otherwise, but national identity is old: China has existed in one form or another for at the very least a thousand years, France predates the turn of the first millenia, germany could be said to have been one nation in cvil war between 1000 and the 1800's and supposedly Japan has existed continuously under the unbroken line of emperors for over 2000 years. It might not have become a science until recently but national identity, of German, French, Chinese, Japanese has been around for millenia. The idea of making everyone think not in those terms of country/fief/tribe but as fellow human is idealistic and impossible as humanity is now.

I didn’t see this post earlier. Sorry.

Not all my post was directed at you. Mostly just the age of nationalism. With the bold part here, I agree.

The dominant Chinese group had a sense of common identity as far back as the mythical past that Confucius regularly alludes to. Since Confucius lived around the 6th century BC, that puts the sense of Chinese nationhood at least a few centuries before that.

As for the locality of the identity being more responsive to the needs of its constituents, maybe, but I'm not going to theorise on that, as I have little interest in doing so. However, the other end of that argument is that, the larger the body, the more heft it has in making an argument. The relative decline and rise of the UK and US is evidence enough of this. Even if the most local body of identity is the most responsive of all to my demands, I'm not going to cut myself off from the larger body. I have no interest in brave last stands.

Of course most of this is theory and depends upon the principle of nonaggression.

To no one in particular.

As I said, The modern Nation State is the perfect instrument for empire building and aggressive war.

If you like to fight by all means keep and expand the nation state, it is just it will leave nothing but slaves and leaders.

[Pannonian]

Of course most of this is theory and depends upon the principle of nonaggression.

To no one in particular.

As I said, The modern Nation State is the perfect instrument for empire building and aggressive war.

If you like to fight by all means keep and expand the nation state, it is just it will leave nothing but slaves and leaders.

Actually, the next step of nationhood that I support, Europeanism, is based in my eyes on two non-aggressive founding pillars. Firstly, the common market means the EU bloc can stand as one against any outside competitor, giving the bloc far more say than any single European state or statelet. With the likes of China, Russia, etc. throwing their weight about without going as far as war, this is a good thing to have in our favour, and something Americans have taken for granted (I suspect American dislike of a European state may have something to do with not wanting a competitor). Secondly, there is cultural identity in the form of football, and specifically UEFA. Where war has been the Briton's geography lesson in the past, nowadays it is football, with teams from every corner of the continent competing in common competitions, and with the EU's employment laws resulting in talented players from everywhere being heroes in one league or another.

[The Lurker Below]

In response to the original question I would say: a big fat bloated tax-payer supported military. Now hush, and:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

to fill the ranks.

[Greyblades]

Sounds like your getting pretty personal there.

If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.

I think you should explain how I have proposed some rightwing conspiracy for the rich to take over the world.

There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.

Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.

Pax Romana indeed! If you prefer to live under an emperor or dictator then I more understand your accusations of republican, as opposed to totalitarian.

Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.

Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.

Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.

How anti-authoritarian equates to right wing you will need to show us all.

...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.

[Pannonian]

If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.

There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.

Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.

Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.

Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.

Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.

...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.

It might have something to do with people seeing true Americanism as pro-freedom and anti-tyranny, which results in forever finding new definitions of freedom to fight for and tyranny to fight against. It also means anyone America is fighting against is by definition a tyrant, while America's friends are by definition pro-freedom. I prefer being me and trying to find common cause with people who think like me.

[Fisherking]

If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.

There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.

Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.

Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.

Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.

Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.

...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.

I really don’t know what you are talking about. Do you mean that a republican form of government is a bad thing vs. direct pure democracy or are you just referring to political parties?

If you go by the Pax Romana then you could call this time a Pax Americana. Many client kingdoms lost their liberties to direct Roman rule and Britain was conquered. Seems to me things were not all that peaceful 27bc to 180ad. It seems the Americans are right on track.

The last thing is that you have sufficiently broadened the definition of right wing to include Noam Chomsky into the Republican Party.

Favoring decentralized weaker forms of government doesn’t make someone right wing.
Most would say it verges on anarchy. For my views on labor I have been called a communist. In business and trade I would outlaw corporations and revert to general partnerships leaving all owners liable for legal actions and debts under the law. My right wing view is that people should have the rights to property and not for the state to control.

It might have something to do with people seeing true Americanism as pro-freedom and anti-tyranny, which results in forever finding new definitions of freedom to fight for and tyranny to fight against. It also means anyone America is fighting against is by definition a tyrant, while America's friends are by definition pro-freedom. I prefer being me and trying to find common cause with people who think like me.

No I am not trying to invent new freedoms, just recapture those we have lost. I don’t think the US government has a right to tell other governments what is best for their people and that invading someone else to bring them freedom is just conquest. The same as Roman intervention into Gaul led to the conquest of all Gaul and parts of Germany. How do you free people by killing them and taking over their county?

Nationalism usually amounts to the States excuse in acting in its own interests at the expense of both its people and the people it wishes to impose its will upon.

[Strike For The South]

In response to the original question I would say: a big fat bloated tax-payer supported military. Now hush, and:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

to fill the ranks.

Cute. Sounds like every other 19 year old virgin who tripped over whatever leftist their ap teacher had them read, but cute none the less