Nationalism or Internationalism, which do you prefer?

I'll have to think about that.

i think a tempered combination of both would be best. people tend to talk in black and white and not the grays of the real world. i don't think we can live/survive as an island.

Individualism

Nationalism doesn't tend to end very well when it happens. Internationalism is much better, as long as people are actually benefiting. I wouldn't include extreme globalization under the category of "good" internationalism, though.

National....sovereignty A nation unto kind. I am against a one world order....it is deadly. People on an individual basis, loses freedoms. I do not believe in communism. I believe in familial of kind. Smaller townships, the better.

Neither. The first one sounds like socialism/communism. I don't care about the economy/politics of the rest of the world.

I really and truly dislike nationalism. So I automatically prefer Internationalism...

Internationalism.

Mostly nationalism. I would even prefer cityism over that. I like variety and choice.

Communism of course has nothing more to do with internationalism than it has to do with nationalism.

Except for environmental and health concerns, the majority of current internationalism is far more about capitalism than communism.

There is not even evidence of international communist/socialist conspiracies, and yet plenty of operative examples of international capitalism.

In spite of this, international socialism is likely to evolve anyhow, for basic natural unplanned reasons:

Corporations will desire consistent regulation, similar taxes and environmental laws and such, which allow them to use the same business plan wherever they operate.
Likewise consumers and workers will demand the same safety regulations and benefits offered in other nations. The only way to accomplish this is through regulatory bodies which would evolve to become international governments.

It is the principle nature of governments to be socialist. Also, when representation is centralized, it's far more convenient to create common laws for everyone than to reconcile a ton of laws communities create for themselves.

Broader socialism naturally rides on the coat-tails of broader commerce.

Any intelligent company takes advantage of as broad commerce connections as it can. Why buy parts in America when China offers better parts for cheaper? Why just sell American made products to America when you can sell the same product world-wide?

The 13 colonies wanted to trade timber, otters, manufacturing, and lobsters for cotton, rum, and pork. They wanted a common currency, reliable postal services, and duty free trade.

The relationship of Georgia to Maine in 1780 is no different than the relationship between the US and the Mid-East or Africa today. Trade starts, government follows, at the request of both trade instigators and the general affected public. Once a goverment is in place, socialist behavior comes naturally.

There is no conspiratorial enemy in all of this. The only people to blame are small business owners or corporate CEOs wishing to expand where they buy and sell to increase profits. With trade comes a need to regulate trade. With regulatory agencies generally comes increasing bounds of regulatory subject matter, as proposed by any of it's constituents. If one regulated member demands truth in product labelling, all members must agree on truth in product labelling, and so world government spreads, not by intent, but by the nature of social interaction. The eventual result is a common body of laws the majority of the world agrees upon.

Oh, another influencing component is private world travel. If enough travellers visit Turkey and get arrested for no good reason, Turkey gets bad international press and is somewhat coerced into changing their policy to fit the opinions of popular international culture. If they fail to do so, they will lose their tourism and international trade.

We here raise a fuss about how women are treated in Afghanistan, and the rest of the world complains about our poor international business practices. Eventually we all give in to the international common denominator opinion if we wish to continue thriving.

America relied on foreign trade long before we even became a nation, and it's primary prosperity has always been the result of such. The situation hasn't changed any. We need things like oil, uranium, gold, and aluminum, now found mostly elsewhere, and need to sell products to other nations to finance this.

It's rare that parts or materials needed for my business come from America, and you can likewise be sure that when I'm selling things on eBay that I will refuse international customers.

Nor do I wish to compete against less ethical busineses. I don't want to have to pay top dollar for nearly endangered hardwoods while other businesses illegally harvest international rainforests, and would prefer that they are forced to abide by the same environmental replenishment ethics that I am willing to pay for myself.

I have three options: enforced common international laws, facing unfair competition, or making inferior products for fewer customers. Come to think of, I have a fourth option, I could become unfair competiton myself, but I wouldn't do that. My preference is international law. It's the most win-win of all the options.

Here's something for you to think about. If there was only one set of international law for everyone on the planet, the only reason we would have for immigrants is because they preferred the scenery or culture. Mexicans wouldn't come here to work if labor laws were the same there. Nor would American companies build factories in Mexico, Canada, or Vietnam if labor and trade laws were the same there as here.

I like for communities to all have their own ways of doing things, but when everyone is competing in the same international market, I want everyone playing by the same rules. So does most every business person around the world except the corrupt ones, and the world runs mostly on business, so a world government is rather inevitable. - It's what most people want unless they live in a nation which does things quite differently. If you want to live in a religious cult, then likewise you are amongst those who prefer to live much differently.

My ultimate preference would be a combination of the two, local laws for local things, and international laws for international things.

The problem is when larger governmental bodies exceed their scope, for instance when national laws are created for things like recreational drug use which could be local in nature.

I once had my car possessed by the US government when entering Alaska from Canada because my bro had an ancient pinch of grass in his wallet he was unaware of. At the very same time, it was legal in Alaska for a resident to grow a few such plants. As I see it, the US gov't had no business interfering in Alaskan matters. If Alaska itself instead had a strict policy, that would be a different matter, where again, I feel state rights should be considered first. Grass laws are tight in Arizona, and I can respect that (though I'm not happy about it). Even there though the DEA feds once busted an entire pro-pot city, turned over everyones beds in the middle of the night. As I see it, city laws should supercede both state and national laws in matters which are local in nature.

For this to really work though, one would practically have to sign a waiver every time they passed through a new town, stating that they were aware of the local laws. It would suck to drive through a town and find out the hard way that eating meat or wearing red shoes on Sunday was illegal there.

I recall that in Oregon (and New Jersey) it's illegal for people to pump their own gas. (This was done to create jobs for returning WW2 service-men.) I had a Swedish car which would belch out a gallon of gas unless you pumped the gas real slowly, but the gas attendants refused to believe me until it was too late and I had gas eating away at the paint on my fender.

Btw, you often use the term National 'Sovereignty'. That's a really strange term, and I wonder what you mean by it. Do you mean sovereign over ourselves, or over other nations? One would think over ourselves was implied simply by being a 'nation'. The other wierd part is 'sovereign'; this means king or queen. Does this mean you are against democracy?

Somehow the whole term brings to mind the Church of England, where the king basically broke ties with the Vatican and declared himself the local pope as well.

God warned us of man’s government, which you have said are by nature, socialistic, perhaps this is why God warned us of man‘s government. A world centralized government is bad for individual freedom.

Personally, I think NAFTA is not a good thing. No free trade. Why can’t people just trade within their countries, learn to live within their means?

I can’t write the commentary you can Kristal. I like life simple. I could live as an Amish farmer.

I agree with much of what you said. What if someone just wants to live simply?

I would like the U.S. to be beholden to American citizens, let the citizens be in charge of their destiny, not allow some big corporations design our way of life. I’m not too good with words, especially since my stroke, I apologize. I am not a worldly woman.

I am not for a democracy, I am for a Republic. A democracy can be run fraudulent, by voter fraud. Throughout history, democracies.

Sorry, I goofed...I meant to say Throughout history, democracies have not flourished, but only fail.

I'm confused about the examples and the question. I like the thought of people being able to govern themselves, the smaller groups, the better. At the same time, worldwide economic and political co-operation is beneficial, and it doesn't erode the liberties of the smaller groups if you don't let it. The only things that should be universally enforced are basic human rights.

Hmm, the reply system has changed here. I hope this works. I also hope comments are labelled "reply to person" again.

NAFTA alone is not a good thing because people are trading in disimilar conditions. It makes Americans compete with $2/hr labor and poor environmental ethics.

I could get by with less exotic woods. American companies would offer the microchips I need if China was no longer an option.

Still, my parts and material options would be less diverse and cost more if we only had national commerce. Your cost of living would four times as high if we resorted to local national commerce.

I'm all for local communes (the 'simple life' as you say). As I said in my last post, local laws for local activities, and international law for international activities.

People increasingly live internationally though. Few people share your interest in a simple life.

However bad democracies are, republics are worse. In democracies you have to delude the voters with every vote, in republics you only have to delude them once, when they choose their representatives.

test

nbarone? what is that?

What I feel if we trade within our own country, have competition, with no monopoly, we would do well.

Let's face it, we really can't be totally free dealing with man's government.

We have a large enough country that we could certainly get by not trading with other countries. One must keep in mind that pioneers didn't trade with other nations (not that their standard of living was too high). And as you mention, there are the Amish.

The natives on the other hand did extensive trading centuries ago.

It has to end sometime anyhow, if not at national borders, then at world borders, unless we start trading with other planets.

Monopolies are a separate issue. Anti-trust suits have been in decline since the 70's. Again though, the same efficient benefits of international trade also apply to small businesses vs. large corporations. If not for Ford and GM, local blacksmiths would still be making wagon wheels. The thing is we can't afford to live at that level of inefficiency anymore. Too many people, not enough resources. Eventually everything we own will fit in a holographic iPhone and our toe nail clippings will be recycled. Small businesses can't make that happen.

People can make due with what they have...trading amongst themselves. This country didn't need anybody. This country could have sustained itself...but we have those that want more. This country had the richest soil. The Amish have survived within their community. How much does a person need?

I'm going with Meism for now, because, who can you trust?

Yeah, that's pretty much how it is.

Currently we need lots of renewable power and to recycle our water. That in turn requires plenty of steel, copper, and silica (and the last of our oil). We probably do have just enough of those too to get by with though, even though we get them from places like India, Africa, and Australia at the moment.

We couldn't go back to living on farms and ranches now even if we wanted to. Arable land is too precious to live on and requires industrialization to feed everyone now.

Theoretically I suppose we could even turn desert sands into lush farms, but it would require new water technology. Desalinating ocean water requires too much energy.

I would imagine that the up side of global warming is that it will desalinate our oceans naturally, that our deserts will become rain forests in 2-3000 years, and if we don't impede, thus correct the CO2 problems by itself.

Unfortunately we are still likely to lose a ton of species in the meantime. Critters like tree frogs and polar bears can't wait it out 40,000 years for things to return to normal.

what the hell?!

My replies were going to nbarone. Someone who hasn't been here in a long time. That was odd.

test

I prefer internationalism. I think we should work together for the benefit of all living.

I am an individualist by nature. This doesn't mean that I am unwilling to cooperate with others in many areas though. Basically, I just want to be left to my own devices, decide who my friends and companions are on my own and go my own way. Other than that, it doesn't much matter to me which way the world goes.

> Personally, I think NAFTA is not a good thing. No free trade. Why
> can’t people just trade within their countries, learn to live within
> their means?


Do you know what this would mean for a country like Switzerland that has relatively scarce natural resources? That's why Switzerland's chief industries are manufacturing and banking. They import most raw materials and export manufactured goods.

If it were me (besides seeing no problem with the status quo), I'd also argue for the right of the Swiss to move wherever the resources were.

If you ask her about Mexico she has two answers (certainly neither of which are move to where the resources are), either they aren't industrious thinking enough, or God granted American resources to the lost tribe, not to Mexicans.

I'm curious about her response on the Swiss though. They are white after all.

Come to think of it, wrist watches are rather economical on the materials to labor ratio, aren't they?

I guess I'm an isolationist at heart. Speaking of this country, we should learn to live with what we have.

I hate nationalism. I think this world is one for all, and people should be able to live where they want.

Nationalism is segregation, internationalism is congregation (non religious interpretation)