I hope not. Sounds awful.
I hope not. Sounds awful.
I've always preferred ice cream for dessert at Thanksgiving as well, but that's not to say I won't give pie a chance. Yikes that was awful.
Why would you possibly want your government to be decided in Beijing?
You do realize that the trend of globalization is against homogeneity, right? Particularly in economics.Originally Posted by NGS
Hope is the denial of reality
Because perhaps by then the Chinese will have invented the perfect system of government. Christ man, I'm thinking hypothetically hundreds of years in the future. Who knows what the world will look like then? Shit, I know I'm not making a strong argument here, I'm just hypothesizing about a vision of the future.
Can you please elaborate on this?
Globalization rewards efficiency and punishes inefficiency. If a country has a comparative advantage in something the market values, it achieves rapid economic growth. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. The numerous countries that have attempted to resist globalization have also suffered miserable economic fortunes. Even within countries, some groups benefit from increased exposure to global markets, while others are harmed (think African agricultural producers or Western textile workers). While on average, prosperity has gone up, so has the disparity in income, both between and within societies. Forcing the same economic cycle to all these groups is simply a recipe for a disaster.
On a cultural level, for every group that embraces globalization, there are numerous groups that attempt to return to a "purer" time in order to battle it. This occurs everywhere from Africa and the Middle East to North America and Western Europe. Just because globalization meant that much of the world is exposed to some of the same events/technology/ideas, doesn't mean there's any trend toward adopting these new global norms at the local level.
Hope is the denial of reality
If they've done that, we can vote for it locally. Even hypothetically, I can't envisage any way it'd be a good thing. Everything ruled by one person/cabal with no outside pressure? Sounds like a nightmare.
When you said the trend of global economics is against homogeneity I thought you were talking about a split between economics systems, not between production and specialization. So yeah, what you've said makes sense. Thanks.
It seems that the groups which battle globalization ultimately fall behind. It could be that I'm thinking about this a bit too archaically or using poor examples (eg. dictatorships and undeveloped nations instead of industrialized, successful economies like Finland and Norway), but pooling resources and ideas and sharing responsibility for supernational consensus governing will lead us in the right direction. Slowly, perhaps, and with some "bumps" along the way, but at the same time peacefully and cooperatively (that is, if everyone buys in).On a cultural level, for every group that embraces globalization, there are numerous groups that attempt to return to a "purer" time in order to battle it. This occurs everywhere from Africa and the Middle East to North America and Western Europe. Just because globalization meant that much of the world is exposed to some of the same events/technology/ideas, doesn't mean there's any trend toward adopting these new global norms at the local level.
It may be too soon to tell but we can't say with certainty that local populations won't adopt global norms and ideas. Look what happened with the creation of nation-states, for instance. The paradigms and ideals that a people value come from the top. For example, at the time of the consolidation of France, only 25% of the population actually spoke "French." No one was from "France," they were from Burgundy or Brittany or Paris, and while these ethnic micro-identities still remain somewhat today, if you asked a Frenchman where they live they will answer "France." It's the similar story with Italy; 2% spoke everyday Italian at the time of unification, and we all know the region's history, but we can understand the more homogenized cultural/ethnic identity they share today, despite the North vs. South vs. Sicily rivalry (admittedly, Sicilians will probably say they're from Sicily if you bother to ask). The idea of a nation-state's shared cultural and linguistic heritage is as much bs justification by its proponents as it is truth, and yet we have bought into it. Many of us agree that English is becoming the global language, and if that does indeed happen it isn't very far-fetched to say that one day people will refer to themselves as "European" or "Asian" or even "Eurasian" rather than Belgian or Japanese.
There are a lot of ways I could go with this, but honestly I feel like debating my idealistic hypothetical is a waste of time.
To get back on topic, more than 300 years since the Act of Union if you ask a Scot where they're from you're quite likely to hear Scotland (or smaller) not Britain, the UK or Europe.
I consider myself English.
Do you consider that a triumph of English values or a failure of British values?
Edit: that question is disastrously worded, but I think you know what I meant.
England has never been very good at incorporating other nations. Hell, the Welsh still don't consider themselves English and they were annexed by England nearly five centuries ago.
Hope is the denial of reality
Best non-European example that I can come up with is the Iroquois. Of course I'm not really knowledgeable about Asian history in this regard.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I was referring to recognized states.
Hope is the denial of reality
A triumph. Not so petty and insecure as to feel a need to blend all together.
Loki: Why would we want the Sheep Shaggers to be considered English?
So another 10% of your territory doesn't decide to secede in the future.
Hope is the denial of reality
I could only hope ...
Why not just declare a commune-state for every major city?
Hope is the denial of reality
Also, I would contend the profitability of switching currencies goes down as near 0 transaction costs lets in all players, in that sense it makes more than one currency less useful. Essentially becoming a waste of time (which everone has to spend) switching between them. The real pro of multiple currencies is ultimately you don't have to rely on one single institution to get it right on how to manage the currency. I think all the other pros of multiple currencies will get washed away once a single government and economy is formed.Lebby has it backwards. As transaction costs go towards zero then the advantages for a universal currency decrease not increase.
Petty and insecure? That sounds an awful lot like projection. Do I identify as an American rather than a North Carolinian because I'm petty and insecure? No, I do so because I think my national values supersede those of my state and because of the job others have done of crafting a national identity to foster unity.
What's the real reason you'd rather not call yourself British? Certainly it can't be lumping yourself in with those "sheep shaggers."
I wonder how Rand thinks an "English" culture was created if not by an attempt to blend preexisting cultures (or an attempt by one to dominate the rest).
Hope is the denial of reality
Most of what makes me proud to be English stands in direct opposition to the herp derp Little Englandism Randblade is espousing here. Most of what makes me ashamed to be English stands in direct support of it.
In other news, Loki just made a much stronger point that me but I felt the need to wade in and have my say anyway, so I posted.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I thought you were Scottish? Or do you just live there?
Hope is the denial of reality
Seriousy? I actually do live very near the border, but I'm certainly not Scottish.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
You just refuse to admit it.
Hope is the denial of reality
If you were to hear me speak, it would soon disabuse you of this notion.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I probably would be equally likely to not understand anything you say.
Hope is the denial of reality
Natural evolution. I don't think anyone deliberately merged cultures.
And why couldn't such evolution include the Welsh and the Scots?Seems to me that the main reason has to do with the reach of English kings.
Hope is the denial of reality
Out of curiosity, what makes you proud or ashamed?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Requiring Westphalian states and then saying you can't find non-European models is some kind of self-defeating tautology, isn't it Loki? I'm going to assume you're going to refuse to accept Vietnam as an example because the partition was temporary, part of a civil war, ex parte colonialism, blah blah blah.I was referring to recognized states.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote