[grassroots1]

There is no 'problem' because the Nation has always proved the strongest expression of group identity. When any country has gone to war it is a given that some towns will be under more threat than others or that such a confict might go against the political or religious aims of a minority. In such a war many people are expected to die and give their service - this is a huge commitment, but there are millions of examples of this. By and large people subsume their immediate community in a national identity becase it is real and it matters.

Ironically someone like me who believes in the world community would have to subsume THAT understanding to the national identity, in the name of short-term safety and security.

[Wolfman]

The only way to have a 'unified' humanity is in peace and plenty - when everybody enjoys the benifits. it may well be the case then that the unity is a conditional one, and therefore not 'unity' in any real sense it is a social contract made to be broken.

That same thing could be said about governments as a whole, not just a Pan-Human government. And everyone would benefit, really, atleast at first. Figure we're dealing with an Independence Day situation, large amounts of the human population are gone (at most the human population is a hundred million people across the world), large amounts of infrastructure and superstructure are gone, and most (if not all) governments and militarys (what's the plural of 'military' anyways?) are gone in any meaningful sense of the term. In order to rebuild human society in any sense, your only choice is to work together. Kind of like a Post-WWII Yugoslavia. Fighting the Germans united the Yugoslavs, and rebuilding kept them together after.

Really, to survive the war, you can stand together or die alone. To survive the after math, you can stand together or die alone. There would be a Pan-Human government (stated or otherwise) for a few generations. By which time, most would probably forget the old rivalries.

[Benjamin Noyles]

Ironically someone like me who believes in the world community would have to subsume THAT understanding to the national identity, in the name of short-term safety and security.

That same thing could be said about governments as a whole, not just a Pan-Human government. And everyone would benefit, really, atleast at first. Figure we're dealing with an Independence Day situation, large amounts of the human population are gone (at most the human population is a hundred million people across the world), large amounts of infrastructure and superstructure are gone, and most (if not all) governments and militarys (what's the plural of 'military' anyways?) are gone in any meaningful sense of the term. In order to rebuild human society in any sense, your only choice is to work together. Kind of like a Post-WWII Yugoslavia. Fighting the Germans united the Yugoslavs, and rebuilding kept them together after.

Really, to survive the war, you can stand together or die alone. To survive the after math, you can stand together or die alone. There would be a Pan-Human government (stated or otherwise) for a few generations. By which time, most would probably forget the old rivalries.

Right, but there are still routine examples, mabye hundreds every single day of people fighting,/dying/making sacrifices for, their group.

You still don't understand this cost benifit analysis thing. If you are fighting with another person to SURVIVE, then your part in that struggle is conditional (on your own survival). Nationalism on the other hand is unconditional, someone like Bobby Sands starved himself to death for his cause - how many of these global humanitarians would starve themselves to death so they could give everything they have to fammine relief?

[grassroots1]

You still don't understand this cost benifit analysis thing. If you are fighting with another person to SURVIVE, then your part in that struggle is conditional (on your own survival). Nationalism on the other hand is unconditional, someone like Bobby Sands starved himself to death for his cause - how many of these global humanitarians would starve themselves to death so they could give everything they have to fammine relief?

Very few nationalists are unconditionally nationalist. Similarly, very few internationalists are unconditionally internationalist. However, some are. Personally, at the present moment, I can't see myself sacrificing my life for the sake of the human race. Can you see yourself sacrificing yourself for your nation? Even your family? I understand these are difficult questions, but I wouldn't discount internationalism just because they aren't willing to immediately sacrifice themselves to the cause. It's a rhetorical position, just like nationalism is generally a rhetorical position.

[Benjamin Noyles]

Very few nationalists are unconditionally nationalist. Similarly, very few internationalists are unconditionally internationalist. However, some are. Personally, at the present moment, I can't see myself sacrificing my life for the sake of the human race. Can you see yourself sacrificing yourself for your nation? Even your family? I understand these are difficult questions, but I wouldn't discount internationalism just because they aren't willing to immediately sacrifice themselves to the cause. It's a rhetorical position, just like nationalism is generally a rhetorical position.

Well it is not 'rhetocical' because it is a reality for which there is substantial evidence. dying for your country is so hard to imagine? Your country goes to war, you join the military, you die on duty knowing full well this was a possibility - that has been the story of millions of people. that you imply that people feel the same way towards the human race is ridiculous and there is no evidence to suggest that any group places world security above it's own. Likewise someone breaks in your home and your family is attacked by an assailent so you intervene - risking your life in doing so, you do it without a second thought and you are morally obligated to do something. on the other hand you wald through the streets of a foreign town and see the same thing happening to a complete stranger you would probably stay out of it, you certainly would not be morally obligated to risk your life in this case - BUT WHY NOT as you say "he has two legs and eats and shits" like you do, isn't that all that matters?

Its the same with nations. You talk about how the world REALLY is, well the world is undeniably nationalist - everywhere, everyone is group identifing and thise who are not are groups that are dying out and being replaced by people who understand their purpose in life. Whether it really is scientific or logical is irrelevant.

[grassroots1]

dying for your country is so hard to imagine? Your country goes to war, you join the military, you die on duty knowing full well this was a possibility

We're talking about different things here. I'm talking about someone like the Tunisian Mohammed Bouazizi who set himself on fire because he was frustrated at the injustice his state did him. In this sense he was nationalist because he was inflicting pain on himself to protest that injustice, and correct the wrongs his own state did him (not his nation). An internationalist might not be so inclined to die for his nation in a war that he or she feels is unjust to begin with. However they might be inclined to die in a war that supports the fundamental ideals of human brotherhood and cooperation. They are equally valid; equally rational (or irrational).

that you imply that people feel the same way towards the human race is ridiculous and there is no evidence to suggest that any group places world security above it's own.

I'm not suggesting they do, or even that they necessarily should. I'm saying that in times of peace when the security of your family and community are not directly threatened, what reason do you have NOT to work toward the well-being, not only of your own "people," whoever you might imagine them to be, but the world community as a whole?

You talk about how the world REALLY is, well the world is undeniably nationalist

I agree, it is. But you also have to recognize the direction of the tide of history, which is undeniably moving towards the melding of culture, race, and nationality. National problems are becoming world problems. Nations now need to work together, on the issue of the environment, on the issue of nuclear weapons, to ensure that we can survive into the future. Petty nationalism and an attitude of "I have to get mine" will only exacerbate the cycles that have led us to this precipice.

[Benjamin Noyles]

We're talking about different things here. I'm talking about someone like the Tunisian Mohammed Bouazizi who set himself on fire because he was frustrated at the injustice his state did him. In this sense he was nationalist because he was inflicting pain on himself to protest that injustice, and correct the wrongs his own state did him (not his nation). An internationalist might not be so inclined to die for his nation in a war that he or she feels is unjust to begin with. However they might be inclined to die in a war that supports the fundamental ideals of human brotherhood and cooperation. They are equally valid; equally rational (or irrational).

>implying that people are equally indifferent to nationality.
Ok then take this situation in libya. If you are good internationalist living in libya you should have no objection to what is going on - you should feel the need to join/help NATO which is carrying out a UN mandate by bombing your people for the whole of humanity, democracy, modernity, and so on. That is what you just said.

We are not speaking hypotheticaly here, people do not feel that way - not now, not ever. People TALK about human rights, everyone does, even colonel Gadaffi has a human rights award he gives out every year, and every third world regime will speak at the UN with a straight face saying how they are fighting a crucade against intollerance, and so on. - Internationalist humanist perspective is metaphyisical, it doesn't exist in the real world, it has no solid form so you understand how ALL of these interpretations are fake and not really real.

In a United world how would you solve the middle east crisis: one side says palastinians are victims fighting for their human rights and democracy, and another says the same of the Isrealis.

So again you return to what is real, and that is brute force and the biological struggle of different groups for supremacy.

I'm not suggesting they do, or even that they necessarily should. I'm saying that in times of peace when the security of your family and community are not directly threatened, what reason do you have NOT to work toward the well-being, not only of your own "people," whoever you might imagine them to be, but the world community as a whole?

Because it is my identity, my sense of security, my society, my future, the future of my children, etc that is at stake - these are things that are sacred and important to me by instinct. Thats the 'evolutionary' bit in terms of survival of the fittest/ evolutionary struggle for the maitainence and survival of the nation - why it is ingrained in people to view their survival in collective group terms, to think otherwise is unnatural. If you go against nature nature will destroy you - if you have these ideas you do, then that meme will not live on much longer because you will be taken under by those with the will to live.

I agree, it is. But you also have to recognize the direction of the tide of history, which is undeniably moving towards the melding of culture, race, and nationality.

I don't see a trend; ordinary people the world over act in exactly the same way as their ancestors. we are still no closer to making this metaphyiscal idea of universal brotherhood a reality after hundreds of years of existence in poplular culture. People do not fit the mould - so if you are being serious here then you need first to actually change humanity.

[grassroots1]

Ok then take this situation in libya. If you are good internationalist living in libya you should have no objection to what is going on - you should feel the need to join/help NATO which is carrying out a UN mandate by bombing your people for the whole of humanity, democracy, modernity, and so on. That is what you just said.

No it is not. I'm saying a sense of nationalism or at least a desire to protect your community overrides those underlying internationalist sentiments. Just because you need to protect yourself doesn't mean you've renounced every position you've held in the name of other principles like productivity, equality, equal opportunity, justice, etc. Those are the reasons why I'm an internationalist. I believe that human productivity would be much greater if each person had the opportunity to fulfill their potential and believed that making a contribution to society was important. The same level can be reached on a national level, but I believe it's so much more complete on the worldwide level.

People TALK about human rights, everyone does, even colonel Gadaffi has a human rights award he gives out every year, and every third world regime will speak at the UN with a straight face saying how they are fighting a crucade against intollerance, and so on. - Internationalist humanist perspective is metaphyisical, it doesn't exist in the real world, it has no solid form so you understand how ALL of these interpretations are fake and not really real.

It's absolutely real for most people I know. They believe they have rights as a human being and would be shocked to the core if they were violated, especially by a state that they trust to respect those rights.

Because it is my identity, my sense of security, my society, my future, the future of my children, etc that is at stake

Yes it is -- those things are threatened by the twin disasters that face human society: environmental crisis or the third world war. Those things will only be exacerbated by a national-level viewpoint and a dog-eat-dog mentality in international relations. We need to understand that there needs to be some level of cooperation, some understanding of human society in relationship with the environment we inhabit. We have a capitalist system right now that's run amok, where the people in power, at least in America, have the interests of business in mind. This is an unacceptable situation. I have pride in America, but not THIS America.

I don't see a trend; ordinary people the world over act in exactly the same way as their ancestors.

You don't see the rapidity of the means of communication and transportation? Have you missed the resulting fusion of cultures, ideas, and experiences? Because we certainly haven't missed this in America. It's everywhere and it's happening right before our eyes. There is no denying that this IS the future. I am a human being, and I have this perspective. You say I need to challenge humanity, well the fact is that I am humanity and I have this perspective, so maybe you need to challenge me.

[starman2003]

I don't know if it would be Fascism or what..

Authoritarianism and world unity would be the big winners, definitely, assuming ET isn't. There's nothing like a big danger from outside to unify people and strengthen government.

[Daktoria]

There is no 'problem' because the Nation has always proved the strongest expression of group identity. When any country has gone to war it is a given that some towns will be under more threat than others or that such a confict might go against the political or religious aims of a minority. In such a war many people are expected to die and give their service - this is a huge commitment, but there are millions of examples of this. By and large people subsume their immediate community in a national identity becase it is real and it matters.

Well that's a problem because you're assuming information economy is universal across all degrees and structures of separation. Some people associate more emphatically at higher levels. Some people associate more emphatically at lower levels. Even besides that, different nations have different amounts of levels within them.

Assuming homogeneous information economy would make you a hypocrite in any case because in order to assume that, all nations would be equal (hence no superiority).

The rest of your point could be substituted with nations being sacrificed for the sake of humanity (not that I believe that's a good thing, but it still stands).

well that is the problem isn't it. What we are talking about is reality here, what nature bestows on you is what you are. If you are born a cripple then you cannot very well choose to be something else.

How does being a cripple affect your ethics? Are you a moral relativist who believes morality is guided by self-interest?

Wouldn't be very fascist of you if you were...

[Rei Murasame]

Some people associate more emphatically at higher levels. Some people associate more emphatically at lower levels.

A lot of your argument seem to hinge around the idea that since everyone is not an exact carbon copy of each other, but merely similar, that all forms of over-arching social organisation are then somehow 'bad'.

Even besides that, different nations have different amounts of levels within them.

And inadvertently you have just given one of the reasons why different nations are different nations.

[Daktoria]

A lot of your argument seem to hinge around the idea that since everyone is not an exact carbon copy of each other, but merely similar, that all forms of over-arching social organisation are then somehow 'bad'.

Close, but no cigar.

My position is that because everyone isn't an "exact carbon copy", multiple interpretations of "over-arching social organisation" are possible. Therefore, imposing a particular scheme of "over-arching social organisation" would be incomplete.

These nuances are very important differences, Rei. They're the differences between particularist and universalist ways of thinking.

And inadvertently you have just given one of the reasons why different nations are different nations.

That's true.

However, Ben's argument was a matter of strength. Difference does not necessarily imply superiority.

For example, say we have national vector X:



NVX can be realized multiple ways such as:




(Magnitude 3 = half magnitude 2)

[Rei Murasame]

My position is that because everyone isn't an "exact carbon copy", multiple interpretations of "over-arching social organisation" are possible. Therefore, imposing a particular scheme of "over-arching social organisation" would be incomplete.

Then choose one! It's like the ultimate indecisiveness. Get some leadership and choose one.

This will of course lead back to me attacking the deontological roots of your ideology, because you will ask me how I presume to have the ability to make that choice, and I'll respond that it's because I am anticipating or hoping that people who think similarly to how I do, will use coercion on everyone to enforce a choice that we prefer.

Dissenters would have a sad day, but that's how it is. We are operating from different premises because I am fine with coercing others to get what we want (as are the present ruling class, as they do it to us daily), whereas you are not fine with that.

This is why your position can't actually win against the present ruling class, it's because you're effectively pacifistic toward them, and morally antagonistic toward any form of social organisation aimed at removing them from ascendancy. This is what makes Paleolibertarianism effectively one of the most economically and socially reactionary ideologies in existence.

[Daktoria]

Why does leadership have to choose one? Why can't leadership choose them all?

[Rei Murasame]

Is that a serious question? How can they 'choose them all'?

That is the same thing as choosing none.

[Daktoria]

Not really. There's a difference between preference and inclusion.

Also, if you're going to reject universal choosing, I see two problems specifically in your paradigm.

One, it's anti-science or at least anti-engineering. Science and engineering are inherently universal methods where you have to experiment with every possibility in order to reach a best answer.

Two, you can't endorse polyamory.

[Rei Murasame]

Not really. There's a difference between preference and inclusion.

And..?

One, it's anti-science or at least anti-engineering. Science and engineering are inherently universal methods where you have to experiment with every possibility in order to reach a best answer.

And then you choose one.

Two, you can't endorse polyamory.

And now you've lost me.

Example question, can you be both for and against using popular opposition to certain immigrant groups' way of life as a means of propelling people toward an objective?

[Daktoria]

And..?

If you turn on all light switches, there will be light. If you turn on no light switches, there will be no light.

And then you choose one.

No, see now you have a bigger problem.

Fascism's justification comes from discriminating for the sake of optimizing improvement.

However, you're compromising on that principle now by choosing which possibilities to experiment with. You don't know what you know until you find out.

And now you've lost me.

Well it's rather simple. Polyamory doesn't require people to be exclusive in their intimate relationships. They can choose all possibilities.

Example question, can you be both for and against using popular opposition to certain immigrant groups' way of life as a means of propelling people toward an objective?

Sure you can. You can trust popular opposition sometimes and not trust it other times.

Even within a certain moment, you can trust popular opposition regarding certain immigrant characteristics yet not trust popular opposition regarding other immigrant characteristics.

[Rei Murasame]

So you're just describing common sense then, and trying to portray this as a 'problem'. I'm not sure you you leap from one point to the next.

Fascism's justification comes from discriminating for the sake of optimizing improvement. However, you're compromising on that principle now by choosing which possibilities to experiment with.

How is that a problem? Try some stuff, and then choose one.

Well it's rather simple. Polyamory doesn't require people to be exclusive in their intimate relationships.

Polyamory is a choice of one way. It's a way that is inherently incompatible with monogamy. You can't be both at once.

I'm not seeing what you are getting at.

Sure you can. You can trust popular opposition sometimes and not trust it other times.

But you can't do both at once.

Even within a certain moment, you can trust popular opposition regarding certain immigrant characteristics yet not trust popular opposition regarding other immigrant characteristics.

But you are going to make a choice.

[Daktoria]

How is that a problem? Try some stuff, and then choose one.

It's a problem because if you don't choose everything, then you're not necessarily discovering the optimal path for improvement.

Polyamory is a choice of one way. It's a way that is inherently incompatible with monogamy. You can't be both at once.

I'm not seeing what you are getting at.

Polyamory is a choice of all positive intimate partners. Think specifically Rei, not generally.

But you are going to make a choice.

Even if I was a fascist, the choice I make would be (directly speaking) indifferent to whether or not popular opinion cares about immigrants or not.

Even as a fascist, the only thing I would care about are the immigrants themselves. If they could optimize improvement, I would endorse them. If they could not, I would condemn them. Whether or not people like them would be irrelevant.