• Kippo
    26
    So you think that being fans of sport teams can replace the nation state?ssu

    Yes, in terms of bringing people together. A certain psychological need for togetherness and belonging is fulfilled. Obviously I'm not suggesting that Manchester United raises taxes or invades Poland.

    To view the nation states as inherently evil and worthless simply doesn't at all think about how our societies are and have been formed and takes every positive aspect as simply given.ssu
    I mentioned previously how nation states have historically brought about much "good" - though it is a mixed bag of course. But are they not really as parochial as modern tribes and an impediment to attaining fairness for all regardless of where you are born?

    Would you assume the World would be better if basically the Han Chinese and Indians and their politicians, if only they could get together, would decide how much taxes you have to pay to them?ssu
    I don't get where you are coming from here with respect to nations not existing.

    How do you approach democracy then?ssu
    You mean in a "united world?". I guess there would be levels of increasing geographic scales of government with voters choosing. (Not unlike the USA, which in some ways is not a typical nation state becasue it was a huge space sparsely populated and then filled with people from all round the world.)
  • ssu
    688
    Why is that? Do Nordic countries use the Merit system?ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Not actually. There can be some specialized professions that applying for a work permit might be easier. Here it goes so that before a residence permit can be granted to you, you must find a job in Finland. When you have found a job, you can apply for a residence permit. You must apply for a residence permit before you come to Finland in the US.

    Is there a limit to how many immigrants are allowed in annually?ArguingWAristotleTiff
    If you can just prove that you have a job in Finland, I think there's no quotas. The country has agreed to accept quota refugees a whopping 750 people (and people are frightened!) Now in 2015-2016 some 30 000 came here and basically fifth of them likely will get a residence permit. All other Nordic countries have taken in more refugees and immigrants. Sweden naturally the most.

    What happens when someone does enter a Nordic country without permission?ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Well, if it would be an American that would mean that you come here without a passport (as naturally tourists from many countries can come here). Likely they'll put you back on a plane where you came from or contact your embassy to solve the issue. If it's someone from Eritrea, Afghanistan or other Third World countries who seeks asylum, they likely put you somewhere to wait for your application to be handled. That might take a time.

    The states themselves offer up a diversity in religion, food and traditions native to their state. The greeting you would get from Hanover in Georgia would be VERY different than the greeting you would receive at our ranch here in the Desert Southwest. From attire to manners, dialect to burying traditions, our state are very different cultures.ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Surely someone from Arizona and some New Yorker have differences. But your are still Americans. That's the point. I think few multiethnic countries have succeeded successfully in inventing an identity that consolidates over older identities. Good example is the UK with the "new" identity of being British. A Scotsman can be British, but he will be offended if you refer him as being English. Just like Hannover, if he's from Georgia, might find it strange if someone refers him as being a yankee (which can happen as some people think yankees refer to all Americans).

    I am not sure of what the size differential is between the Nordic countries and United States of America, which leads me to wonder if it wouldn't be a fair correlation between the two as far as mobility within the defined borders. Maybe Nordic countries collectively are what the States are of the Union represent? Would that be accurate?ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Oh no.

    By population size here are some US states that by population are the same size as the Nordic countries:

    Sweden = Michigan
    Denmark = Wisconsin
    Finland = Minnesota
    Norway = South Carolina
    Iceland = Wyoming (minus 200 000 persons)

    So we are talking about the smaller states. Hence only Sweden has more people than Arizona and all put together they equal the population of Texas, but are smaller to the population of California. By landmass the countries are similar in size to Alaska, Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona all added together.
  • ssu
    688
    Yes, in terms of bringing people together. A certain psychological need for togetherness and belonging is fulfilled. Obviously I'm not suggesting that Manchester United raises taxes or invades Poland.Kippo
    Even if people can be quite fanatic in their support of their team, it's still a hobby, past-time. And of course if the team loses all it's games there won't be so many fans. If the club goes bankrupt and is dissolved, what happens to the fans? Well, they just turn to some other team or sport. It's in the end just leisure time.

    Yet the issue isn't just about bringing people together. It's about that they accept the laws, accept the authority that taxes them, that people accept civic duties and participate in the state for example by voting in elections and basically feel that the state serves them.

    I mentioned previously how nation states have historically brought about much "good" - though it is a mixed bag of course. But are they not really as parochial as modern tribes and an impediment to attaining fairness for all regardless of where you are born?Kippo
    Mixed bag, of course, but how are they an impediment to fairness?

    You might be familiar to minorities in the terms of race or sexual identity, which are focused upon with modern identity politics in the US. Yet when the differences between a minority and majority are that the people talk a different language, have a different culture, a different religion and above all, don't even live together, what do they have in common? They have no interaction, don't know each other, so what on Earth bonds them together so well, that the minority would accept to be dominated by the majority living somewhere else?

    You mean in a "united world?". I guess there would be levels of increasing geographic scales of government with voters choosing. (Not unlike the USA, which in some ways is not a typical nation state becasue it was a huge space sparsely populated and then filled with people from all round the world.)Kippo
    Voters choosing what? And what increasing geographic scales?

    In democracies it's typically one citizen one vote, hence in the "United World" the biggest minority would be the 1,3 billion Han Chinese. Asia would basically dominate the political scene:

    Just look at the populations in (2018):

    1 Asia 4,436,224,000 (including Australia & Oceania)
    2 Africa 1,216,130,000
    3 Europe 738,849,000
    4 North America 579,024,000
    5 South America 422,535,000

    Hence if Asians, China and India, can get together, they rule the "United World". If you live in North America, you would be a smal minority.
  • Kippo
    26
    Mixed bag, of course, but how are they an impediment to fairness?ssu

    Because the nation state tends to promote itself as a competitor with other nations. With competition there are winners and losers, and in the case of adherence to nation states, winners don't care if the playing fields are not level (Within a nation state however, there is usually much more effort made to make things egalitarian between geographic areas). A person born into a wealthy nation state has a much better chance of a bter life than a person born into a poor one.

    They have no interaction, don't know each other, so what on Earth bonds them together so well, that the minority would accept to be dominated by the majority living somewhere else?ssu

    People who make up "minorities" and " majorities" require a cultural context to be given to them in order for them to accept the classification. In order to accept belonging to some groups even. They have to be told that they are group X because of Y. This is not true of language, admittedly, whereby you automatically identify with those who speak your language. It is partially true though even for appearance - it is others who may make a big deal of how you appear - you wouldn't even know how you look without a mirror! Also a shared language is no guarantee of all speakers belonging to a single block of interest - think civil war; N Korean inoctrination....
  • ssu
    688
    Because the nation state tends to promote itself as a competitor with other nations.Kippo
    Yet you disregard the fact that most countries do have good relations with each other and conflicts are quite rare these days. If you argue that countries are competitors at the economic level because of capitalism, well, that's part of capitalism. And then you disregard the fact that countries prosper for mutual trade. Those countries that have closed their borders and think they don't need the outside World are dirt poor with huge problems. And that there are poorer nations and wealthier nations surely isn't a fault because nation states are formed based on nationationality. How a society works, how prosperous it is, how strong it's institutions are and how much social cohesion there is a result of a multitude of factors.

    People who make up "minorities" and " majorities" require a cultural context to be given to them in order for them to accept the classification. In order to accept belonging to some groups even. They have to be told that they are group X because of Y. This is not true of language, admittedly, whereby you automatically identify with those who speak your language. It is partially true though even for appearanceKippo
    Partially? I think a racial minority that is discriminated wouldn't see it so lamely as you do. Or if you are dirt poor and I'm extremely rich, that class difference between us doesn't require a 'cultural context' given by somebody for us to notice the difference. That difference is evident in our everyday lives.

    Awareness of your identity is seldom something you seek or you invent, but something that your surroundings give you.
  • Kippo
    26
    If you argue that countries are competitors at the economic level because of capitalism, well, that's part of capitalism.ssu

    No I'm not saying that countries operate like capitalist concerns. If you think about it they clearly don't. Capitalism is supposed to be about competing for business and winning because you can sell the most. In theory everyone benefits because the best product wins. And capitalist concerns prefer to do away with national borders as much as possible.

    Awareness of your identity is seldom something you seek or you invent, but something that your surroundings give you.ssu
    "National identity" has to be culturally imparted - history, myths, hurts, triumphs, strengths, and so forth. I can understand your confusion though because we tend to think that we as individuals have the national mythology embedded in us intrinsically - this is what gives rise to the sense of superiority and entitlement that nationalist leaning people have.
  • ssu
    688
    And capitalist concerns prefer to do away with national borders as much as possible.Kippo
    Only when it's beneficial for the capitalist. And countries aren't irrelevant of their national companies. Just look how many corporations are nationalized. The emergence of Sovereign Wealth Funds also shows this too.

    "National identity" has to be culturally imparted - history, myths, hurts, triumphs, strengths, and so forth. I can understand your confusion though because we tend to think that we as individuals have the national mythology embedded in us intrinsicallyKippo
    WHO thinks so?

    Where you seem to be confused and many others are also is when we talk of a national identity as a social construct, something that people have invented, that this means there's nothing "real" in it, as if it is just an imaginary construct and hence unimportant or easily changeable. However you mentioned history and to history there exists an objective reality of what has taken place (and not only subjective stories about it). And people do remember what has happened to them. That collective memory isn't just something invented out of thin air.

    Perhaps it's simply that in our time we take nearly everything as given and don't see how entitled we are especially in the West where we do have functioning democratic nation states. Then it's easy to question the whole meaning of it. And of course, a dispute between two countries make news, not a long term mutually beneficial relationship between two or more countries. Perhaps you have to be a Kurd or a Palestinian today to understand just how important an own nation state is.
  • Kippo
    26
    And people do remember what has happened to them.ssu

    Do they remember what they did to others?
  • ssu
    688
    Do they remember what they did to others?Kippo
    I'm sure people remember what they did personally.

    And on the rare occasion people can experience even collective guilt as the Germans do even now.
  • Kippo
    26
    So it is rare that they remember "nationally" what "they did to others", you agree?
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.