Out of character thread XVI

[Privateerkev]

I'm not sure the nation-state has outlived it usefulness yet, but the part in bold is pretty much the same as my feelings about immigration. I think if people want to come here to work we should make it easier for them to become legal. Aside from it being the moral thing to do, from a national security viewpoint it would be safer if we could keep better track of everyone (and thus be able to find the few people who really are dangerous) and it might make it harder for businesses to get away with paying people half of minimum wage just because they're undocumented and can't do anything about it.

I'm quite convinced that the nation-state is a horrible way to form governing bodies and will cause much death and suffering in the future. Drawing lines around geographical spaces and then making special rules for some people in those lines leads to a lot of trouble in my opinion.

As for immigration, it has to do with the fact that those people are... people. I don't care if you've lived here 100 years or 30 minutes. Once your in the social and cultural structure, I have an ability to help you through my tax money and civil instruments, like voting. So then I will do so. I would prefer if I could extend this to everyone on the planet but one thing at a time.

[Zim]

PK,
Well, with the growing importance of regional political entities over national ones, as well as truly global ones (like the U.N. or World Bank) it might only be a matter of time. Although growing movements for the political independence of small ethnic minorities in places like the European Union might be signs of a countervailing trend. I think any process that results in the end of the idea of the nation-state will take a very long time, with lots of hiccups and setbacks along the way.

In the meantime, I don't think they're all evil. Pre-state societies have rates of death by violence far higher than the most warlike nation states in history. If nothing else, nation-states have caused people to look beyond terms of their own family or tribe, and it's in such entities that truly developed theories of social justice have arisen. Now it's just a matter of consolidating them all into one, which might be the difficult part.

My views on immigration seem to be similiar to yours.

[Privateerkev]

I'm not advocating going back to feudalism. I just rather move towards a single global spanning government where todays nations are more like states in the US.

And I have no problem equating hyper-nationalism with "evil". World War One is but one example of the dark side of the nation-state.

The idea that I'm supposed to think and feel something different about someone just because they are on the other side of an arbitrarily drawn line, is completely anathema to everything I believe in.

[Zim]

I'm not advocating going back to feudalism. I just rather move towards a single global spanning government where todays nations are more like states in the US.

And I have no problem equating hyper-nationalism with "evil". World War One is but one example of the dark side of the nation-state.

The idea that I'm supposed to think and feel something different about someone just because they are on the other side of an arbitrarily drawn line, is completely anathema to everything I believe in.

Hyper-Nationalism certainly has led to some terrible things, but something I read for a college class a long time ago stuck with me. Apparently the rate of death by violence in pre-state societies is dreadful, averaging about 1 in 3. Even the very worst Nation-States have never matched that. It was safer to be a German or a Jewish person in the first half of the 20th century, than to be, say, a Native American before Columbus, if your main concern is death by violence.

I read something interesting by a writer once who right up until about the beginning of the Second World War (he died before it came to a head). He was talking about nationalism, and why German nationalism at the time scared him. He said nationalism became especially dangerous when it moved from being proud of your country to being proud of being from your country(or of it's majority ethnicity, or whatever).

In the former you're presumably judging your country by some outside standard, and rightly or wrongly, find it measure's up well. In the latter he thought you would fall into the trap of thinking something is right or wrong depending on whether it fell in line with what your country was doing.

i.e. In the first case someone might be proud that the U.S. fought against Germany in the first World War, in the second someone might say that the Iraqi War is right because America is in it.

I thought it was pretty interesting, considering what actually happened regarding German nationalism after the
fellow died.

Edit: I know you're not arguing for a return to tribalism, PK, but after finding out we essentially agree I wanted to ramble a bit.

[Privateerkev]

Hyper-Nationalism certainly has led to some terrible things, but something I read for a college class a long time ago stuck with me. Apparently the rate of death by violence in pre-state societies is dreadful, averaging about 1 in 3. Even the very worst Nation-States have never matched that. It was safer to be a German or a Jewish person in the first half of the 20th century, than to be, say, a Native American before Columbus, if your main concern is death by violence.

Which is why I am not advocating going back to pre-state societies.

(I thought I said that earlier...)



Though I might take issue with your implication that post-Columbus America was not deadly. Millions of indigenous people died from disease, overwork, and war as a direct result of European intervention.

Also my Polish step-grandfather has a thing or two to say about how deadly it was in in the first half of the 20th century since he spent all of World War 2 in Auschwitz as slave labor.

So, my point is, pre-state societies and nation-states were/are both deadly. I would prefer to have a government based on neither. I rather move forward and create something else that takes care of the greatest amount of people possible. And I know we're capable of it which makes me stubborn because I know we can do better than what we've done and what we have now.

[Zim]

I know, I just felt like rambling a bit.

I was just going by the numbers. A 33% chance of dying by violence is much worse than that experiences by any society based on nation states. Arguing against the pain of individuals would both accomplish little and make me feel like a jerk.

Despite the terrible injustices inflicted by the Spanish on the natives of central America (most under some kind of government that would have evolved into a nation state), I've always been taught that disease was a far greater culprit in the horrendous death rates than even the tendency for the Spanish to work slaves to death. A lot of the stories about the Spanish were propaganda spread by France and England, that we're only now learning is false.

The only thing that scares me about a worldwide nation-state is the kind of worry Ramses expressed.

Anyway, I'm off to church now, so no more debating for me. Feel free to refute my pathetic arguments. Oh, and Doug is playing his Teutonic save tonight, so we might have another of those "three turns in a few hours"
moments.

Which is why I am not advocating going back to pre-state societies.

(I thought I said that earlier...)



Though I might take issue with your implication that post-Columbus America was not deadly. Millions of indigenous people died from disease, overwork, and war as a direct result of European intervention.

Also my Polish step-grandfather has a thing or two to say about how deadly it was in in the first half of the 20th century since he spent all of World War 2 in Auschwitz as slave labor.

So, my point is, pre-state societies and nation-states were/are both deadly. I would prefer to have a government based on neither. I rather move forward and create something else that takes care of the greatest amount of people possible. And I know we're capable of it which makes me stubborn because I know we can do better than what we've done and what we have now.

[Privateerkev]

Despite the terrible injustices inflicted by the Spanish on the natives of central America (most under some kind of government that would have evolved into a nation state), I've always been taught that disease was a far greater culprit in the horrendous death rates than even the tendency for the Spanish to work slaves to death. A lot of the stories about the Spanish were propaganda spread by France and England, that we're only now learning is false.

1.) Your assuming that indigenous societies would just "naturally" find their way into becoming a nation-state. Nations were not inevitable but created and then supported by a mythology that made them seem inevitable.

2.) Having done no small amount of reading about the Spanish Empire, I can tell you there is overwhelming historical evidence that many of those stories are true. But France and Britain were by no means innocent...

3.) Disease came about partly because some European settlers deliberately gave blankets from their smallpox wards to native tribes as "gifts". But even though some of it was by accident, it still happened because people from one area of the world, sailed to another area of the world and insisted on conquering and converting people that were doing quite fine on their own.

[Zim]

So, to keep from being banned for hijacking the thread...

How about those rebels? What would the odds be for betting on Hummel beating out the Loyalists in the Civil War? 2:3, 1:2?

[Privateerkev]

Go back through the old OOC threads and you'll see us posting all sorts of goofy non-KotR related things.

I figure this thread is for community building. While spam is not allowed, general OOC conversation is. I could go and gab in the Frontroom or Backroom but I specifically like gabbing with you guys because we play together, and hence, I know you guys better than the other people on the board.

[Zim]

Go back through the old OOC threads and you'll see us posting all sorts of goofy non-KotR related things.

I figure this thread is for community building. While spam is not allowed, general OOC conversation is. I could go and gab in the Frontroom or Backroom but I specifically like gabbing with you guys because we play together, and hence, I know you guys better than the other people on the board.

It's also very nice to be able to say something political on a forum without initiating either a flame war or a bunch of mindless yes-man responses.

[Ramses II CP]

Hummel pretty dramatically increased his odds by catching the loyalists with their general away. If he can wipe out, or even badly damage, the siege army and then recruit to spend his wealth then I'd put the odds at 1:1.

On the political front, just let me say that as much as I dislike the idea of nations, I find the notion of a world government utterly abhorrent. Politics is like any other industry, it's primary goal and purpose for existence is to continue itself. The larger you let it get, and the longer it exists continuously, the more of a people's resources it will mindlessly consume in bureaucracy and paper shifting. To make a government smaller you have to, literally, destroy it. Anything else just adds to it as you pile layers on layers struggling to control the corruption and waste.

From time to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots. (Paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson because I'm too lazy to look it up)

The more power you give someone the more power their successor will demand until you're left with none. This is the inevitable course of history, reversed only when outrage finally exceeds tolerance. If you're lucky, and most of us are, you'll live near the apex of a society and skate through without ever going hungry or having to worry too much about the theives at the top.

I hope my daughter is that lucky, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Privateerkev]

Studying history for a living, the idea that anything is "inevitable" gives me pause.

[Zim]

Studying history for a living, the idea that anything is "inevitable" gives me pause.

Studying politics for a living, the idea that any world state would be more concerned for the welfare of its people, and less with accruing power to itself, than every other state in history, gives me pause.

[Ramses II CP]

Then you're looking at it too closely. (That really is supposed to be funny rather than me pretending to be an expert. I'm a duffer.)

Take the long view and ask yourself where civilization has existed continuously for a significant, from the long view, quantity of time without failing due to corruption or simple ineffectiveness or refreshing itself via rebellion. By the long view, I mean the long view of human existence and future potential. Our forms of power are ephemeral by their very nature, and better for it, but when they unravel... Cry Havoc and all that. I dread to think what the first failure of a world government will be like for it's people.