Not by a hair of my chiny chin chin....

[Watchman]

For most of history your "nationality" has been utterly irrelevant to what "state" you live under

Oh? WW1? Serbia?

Since when was "the period after WW1" synonymous with "most of history"...?

I'll grant you it explains rather a lot if your perspective's like that, though.

Just as a little reminder, the aftermath of WW1 was when the last "old skool" multi-ethnic empires in Europe - Hapsburg Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Czarist Russia - went to pieces and were replaced by a bunch of cranky little nation-states that by and large hated each others' guts as well as the sundry large ethnic minorities that "sullied the purity" of the polity...

But conversely in let's say the 17th-century Swedish Empire around the Baltic it generally mattered preciously little as such what your ethno-linguistical background was.

[Mangudai]

In a nutshell the legitimate functions of the state are "to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In my view socialism tramples on liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are drifting into abstract language here, and I doubt we can sort it out in this thread. Socialism comes in different flavors, suffice to say an example of democratic socialism gone too far is Britain circa 1975. An example problem is: Are taxi drivers allowed to charge any fare they choose, or should the prices be controlled by the government?

You mean it's not true that people die in some countries because they cannot pay for the treatment necessary to keep them alive?

In the underdeveloped part of the world people are dying at a tremendous rate because they lack medical care. That is why I accuse socialists in developed countries of being national socialists, more concerned with controlling their fellow citizens than of addressing the worst human suffering.

The US has a broken health care system by anyone's standard, but it is rare for someone to be refused life saving treatment. What is common in the US is bankruptcy due to medical bills after treatment.

I acknowledge that health care is an essential humanitarian service like education. There is a role for government to play and a role for personal responsibility. In between is a large complicated grey area. In my view basic access to health care is important enough to justify the use of force (i.e. taxes). But the government can go too far (Britain's NHS). Obama's plan promises to keep the private insurance and personal choice American's have now, and address the gaps of people who lack insurance. He explicitly promised not to adopt a plan like Canada's that denies people choices. If I understand correctly, the Canadian system has more personal choice/responsibility than most of the European plans.

[Mangudai]

Finnish law forces all workers to obey the national contracts that are drafted every few years for each profession and seniority level. The agreement becomes universally enforceable provided that more than 50% of the employees support it, in practice by being a member of a relevant trade union. The unionization rate is high (70%), especially in the middle class (AKAVA - 80%). A lack of a national agreement in an industry is considered an exception. More flexibility is generally recommended by economists for various reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland...and_government


This is a clear example of socialism trampling on individual liberty.

[Watchman]

Are you also aware it's been a mutually beneficial and on the whole extremely popular arrangement for decades ? Although the employers' organisations have been quibbling lately...

[Husar]

And? Everybody dies. Why waste masses of cash on futile causes?

Noone said they're futile, but yes, compassion is not a universal human trait so I may be preaching to the death metal band now and then.

[rory_20_uk]

Erm, often I am the one saying is it futile and hence treatment will not be escalated.

[Fragony]

Since when was "the period after WW1" synonymous with "most of history"...?

Missed that sorry, my bad. The nation state is a double edged sword, it was the driving force that pushed european nations upward, but a failed state is misery confined.

Sorry Frag, but that's a nation-state.

I know but I don't regard that to be a bad thing. Culture is music, literature, folklore, language, those are the ties that bind

[Watchman]

Europe got quite far without the nation-state you know. The Westphalian "centralised state" - as opposed to say feudal - seems to have "cut" it quite well enough, and without the ugly ethnic cleansings and "russification" programmes...

Also, it occurs to me most of the really big names of Classical music seem to have worked in the period before nationalism turned up.

[Fragony]

Europe got quite far without the nation-state you know. The Westphalian "centralised state" - as opposed to say feudal - seems to have "cut" it quite well enough, and without the ugly ethnic cleansings and "russification" programmes...

Let's look at it's succes before looking how it can be wrong, the strong (or valid) nations have developed into democracy's and democracy's tend to leave eachother alone can't deny that. Feudalism wan't that bad either there were more rules and rights then people think, hardly anarchy. The Nation-state is a good thing, it's balance pure and simple.

[Meneldil]

And? Everybody dies. Why waste masses of cash on futile causes?

Why waste cash at all ? Let just regress to a stone age-like way of life. No more healthcare, no more government, no more tax. Awesome I say.

The Nation-state is a good thing, it's balance pure and simple.

Like it or not, the whole idea of Nation and Nation-state are responsible for most of sins of the 20th century. Neither fascism, nazism or communism would have existed without nations.

That's quite a shame, since the concept was firstly born from the enlightnement, but heh.

[Kralizec]

The fact that the Netherlands aren't part of Germany started out as a historical anomaly. Afterwards howerver, they grew apart. "Nations" can be seen as the byproduct of a previously existing state and historical trends.

Secondly, the idea of a "nation-state" is also firmly linked with the idea of self-determination.

Thirdly, ideas can't be responsible for deaths.

[Mangudai]

Are you also aware it's been a mutually beneficial and on the whole extremely popular arrangement for decades ? Although the employers' organisations have been quibbling lately...

You can see the people who benefit, you do not see the opportunity cost. We could get into the purely practical economic arguments, but I think there is a fundamental civil rights issue here.

When I was 19 years old I wanted to work as a carpenter in the construction industry over the summer between college terms. I called dozens of construction companies looking for a job. Needless to say, none of the union companies called me back. A few non-union companies considered me, but said it was too much hassle to hire somebody who is going to leave after 10 weeks. One guy agreed to hire me for $12/hour (about half the union wage) and no benefits. I took the job and it changed my life. The education of that job was worth more to me than a college semester. I've built on those skills and been involved in various related projects some for charity, some for money, some for friends, and some for myself. I don't work in construction now, but employers in other industries seem to be very impressed by that little gem on my resume.

Finnish law would have prevented me from having that opportunity, and nobody would even realize it.

[Mangudai]

Hey CountArach. I apologize for the meanness of some of my comments directed at you. My temper flared up and I was a lot harsher than I should have been.

[rory_20_uk]

Why waste cash at all ? Let just regress to a stone age-like way of life. No more healthcare, no more government, no more tax. Awesome I say.

Good use of "reducto ad absurdiam" Most people are happy with somewhere in between. For this, there needs to be assessment of where money is spent, and where it isn't - where most utility can be gained. In simple cases, that does boil down to decisions made by people such as myself.

[Meneldil]

That's why most developed countries (with the exception of the US) offer a healthcare system ranging from decent to very effective.

As far as I know, "most people" don't have a problem with that, nor with having their tax money spent on helping others. I'd go as far as saying that most people actually appreciate public healthcare and don't really give a crap about what the gvt is doing with their tax (appart from the usual moaning).

The whole idea that the government is going to oppress you with money gathered from tax is so anglo-saxon

[Mangudai]

For most of us, tax money = time at work. My total tax bill adds up to 2 1/2 months wages every year. There are a lot of things I'd rather do with that time than be at work. I don't mind my taxes being used to help unfortunate people. But, I object strongly to them being used for any unnecessary purpose. On a whole other level, I object to my taxes being spent on me individually as if I were incompetent, or my values irrelevant.

You know, the one thing I like about Karl Marx's vision, he imagined there would be no state and all the workers would have abundant leisure time.

[Watchman]

You can see the people who benefit, you do not see the opportunity cost. We could get into the purely practical economic arguments, but I think there is a fundamental civil rights issue here.

Er... not really. Given that it's a tripartite agreement between trade unions (which people are free to be or not be members of), employers' unions (ditto) and the State (which is chiefly interested in being able to fine-tune monetary policy, which after all is connected to the price-wage creep which in turn the agreement is all about) that really just sorts out what degree of wage rise is mutually agreeable and economically sensible for the next year.

Not nearly as distruptive as the strikes the unions would otherwise use to drive their demands home, after all.

'Course, the institution may be getting a bit obsolete these days what with the economic structural changes and the waning of the power of many of the once mighty workers' unions. Did you know there was a time when the union of sailors and dockworkers could virtually dictate its terms on account of being able to bring foreign trade to a screeching halt with a strike ? That was decades ago.

When I was 19 years old...
*snip*
Finnish law would have prevented me from having that opportunity, and nobody would even realize it.

Whoa, hold yer horses. Are you seriously trying to tell me Finnish law prevents short-term - say, "summer job" - employement in eg. construction ?

Mangu my boy, you have absolutely no idea at all WTF you're on about. Serious. Case in point, only a few years ago my brother - who's a damn art student of all things - cheerfully worked on a construction site over the summer, all perfectly legal and whatnot. And never even considered union membership. Said the wages weren't half bad either IIRC. He's also worked in a grocery store, hotel etc. on more or less similarly short spells.

Dude. If you don't know what an icthyologist does... don't start going off about camels.

Let's look at it's succes before looking how it can be wrong, the strong (or valid) nations have developed into democracy's and democracy's tend to leave eachother alone can't deny that.

I don't really see what that has to do with the "nation-state" (in the nation sense) as such, rather than the centralised sovereign state which over time evolved into a democratic form responsible and responsive to its citizenry - which it originally wasn't, having developed to extract and aggregate resources for the rulers' disposal as efficiently as possible.

Also worth noting that the "nation" component of the "nation-state" was perhaps at its strongest in derivations that were very distinctly not the least bit democratic or peaceable... think Fascism and in particular its German offshoot, which were all about "The Nation" however now defined. Those are also rather directly responsible for nationalism being a bit passé in Europe these days, at least, compared to what it used to be...

Feudalism wan't that bad either there were more rules and rights then people think, hardly anarchy.

I daresay the constant warfare between the barons can be regarded as a certain degree of anarchy... but anyway, vous must be goddamn kidding me. Feudalism sucks , especially in the long run as the former "serf states" of East and Central Europe can attest to. (Prussia/Germany apparently jumped off the serfdom bandwagon at the last possible moment.) The root problem of feudalism is that it's not so much a system as an ad hoc replacement to effective state authority, in the form of a genuinely sovereign central authority capable of directly managing, policing and defending the territory and populace it lays a formal claim to. It's not so much "rulership" as a lack thereof - and certainly states retaining a strong feudal strain to their structures (generally, in the form of a powerful and priviledged aristocracy strong enough to defend their hereditary rights from state attempts to dissolve them) were wont to have a rather more downtrodden peasant class, retarded economic structures and some serious problems competing directly with states wielding more effective and advanced models of adminstration.
Unless they had a major advantage in gross resources or something of course, like Russia did, but then that one's not exactly been an unconditional success story...

[Husar]

The fact that the Netherlands aren't part of Germany started out as a historical anomaly. Afterwards howerver, they grew apart. "Nations" can be seen as the byproduct of a previously existing state and historical trends.

Secondly, the idea of a "nation-state" is also firmly linked with the idea of self-determination.

Thirdly, ideas can't be responsible for deaths.

Well, the ultimate form of self-determination would be anarchy, wouldn't it?

[CountArach]

Well, the ultimate form of self-determination would be anarchy, wouldn't it?

[Watchman]

After which it takes about three days for some wit to recruit a bunch of impressionable toughs, don a hockey mask, start calling himself Humongous, the Lord of Rock'n'Roll, and start the whole state-building thing all over again from square one.

"Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go."

[Husar]

After which it takes about three days for some wit to recruit a bunch of impressionable toughs, don a hockey mask, start calling himself Humongous, the Lord of Rock'n'Roll, and start the whole state-building thing all over again from square one.

"Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go."

As we all know that only works until the real american hero(tm) shows up and gives him a beating for the sake of self-determination.

The question is why would someone from Heerlen have a different government than someone from Aachen while someone from Moscow accepts the same government as someone from some small village in Siberia? Why always we vs them and not we + we + we + we vs them bacteria or something?

Please excuse my idealism but we got a lot of snow so I'm sure we will have world peace soon.