Patriotism and the Nation-State

[Catta]

Where's my "I love my country and the EU" option ?

And to the UK europhobes : You could be an equal to Germany and France on the EU stage. You chose not to. Your loss. You could be a dominant power within a major power, or a junior partner of the US. Is the choice that hard to make ?
Not that I don't love the english, I still consider them the closest country to France culturally.

Pff, Nordic Federation best in world. All other federations are run by little girls.

[Dillon]

Why would you want to change something you love? Are you a woman? (hue hue hue)

I love my country (the land) and its people (my fellow Americans), but I don't like the government, as by government's very nature being force and not reason.

[Deleted]

Pff, Nordic Federation best in world. All other federations are run by little girls.

As fun as a Nordic Federation sounds, it would still not weight that much on an international scale I'm afraid
On the other hand, if that means Norway enters the EU I'm all for it

[Killingifrit]

That was not the treaty of lisbon, that was the constitution also you left out that Spain and Luxembourg got a referendum as well and they said yes. You don't need a referendum for a treaty.

The older versions were the foundation for the modern day union and it pressed forward thanks to the political will of the elected representatives of the people.


Let's see, we have a directly elected parliament, a council consisting of the elected heads of state and government of the member states, a council consisting of the ministers of the member states, a comission president appointed by the european council and then elected by the also elected parliament. Who's unelected?

lisbon treaty, constitution they were practically the same. nevermind the fact the irish voted no the treaty.

oh please. the participation rate in eu elections is not even 50%. nevermind the fact these mops barely have any power.

oh please, the european council. Hermvan von Butttocks have no credibility or support from the people. Politicians are not the people.

nevermind the fact the support for EU is below 50 in most eu countries.

[Elegiac]

You cannot really believe that.

At every point in world history (Especially modern), the most peaceful times have been when one superpower operated a hegemonic influence in its immediate area.

Rome, the Mongol Empire, the British empire and now, the United States. Superpowers one and all that operated with practical carte blanche and oversaw the most prosperous and peaceful (Yes, peaceful. Compare the wars seen prior to the British Empire such as the 100 years war, War of Scottish Independence and the War of the Roses with the relatively tame French-Indian War and War of 1812) times in history.

When you introduce another superpower into the mix (Such as Russia) no matter how allied you may be at one point in time ("Let's kill Hitler") you will find yourself at odds over the differences you DO have.

I do. All those Empires you mentioned succumbed to hypertrophy when they overextended themselves, and the US has hit its limit. The Pax Americana (if such a thing existed) has since ended.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 04:18 PM ----------

Tackling them in reverse order: The limitations were put there to prevent the people from losing power over the government. The Constitution was implemented to protect the citizens from any form of tyranny. As for World Policing, prior to the Cold War the US did not enter a single conflict on foreign soil besides World War 1 that wasn't directly provoked. Prior to WW2, the end of which saw the beginning of the Cold War, the US maintained minimal military presence outside US territory. In fact, historically, the US is considered an isolationist nation for this very reason. Same with Foreign Aid. Prior to World War 1 the only "foreign aid" came in the form of scholarships for foreign students via missionary programs in Africa. After World War 1 the US contributed a small (by today's standards) amount toward rebuilding Belgium, and began sending small amounts of food to European nations. During World War 2, the US began supplying foreign aid as we know it today to allied nations in Europe due to any other form of US intervention being wildly unpopular with the public. Literally up until the DAY before the Pearl Harbor attack something like 83% of the US population opposed US involvement in WW2. Ever since then, the US has been funneling money into nations for various reasons, be it they weren't commies during the Cold War, or Russia was trying to invade (this is how the US helped found Al-Qaeda).

An oversimplification. The limitations were put -both- on government -and- people; the Founders wanted to create a system that was difficult for tyranny to emerge in, either from the top down or bottom up.

The shift from isolationism to world policeman was a significant ideological change, yes, but ultimately it was one that was permitted to happen -because- it remains in like with the core philosophy of American exceptionalism and democratic peace. It went from a matter of being a City Upon a Hill as the Puritans called it, to being an active agent in the proliferation of American liberalism.

[Sunseeker]

America is many things, and patriotism is dangerous because it encourages people to ignore diversity in favor of singular viewpoints. America is not this, its not that, its not you, its not me. it is all of those things, it is "us" with no room for division. We are all americans, with all the diversity that carries with it. There are many things that are important to America as a nation, and none of them hqve to do with beimg right-wing or left-wing. Those are sources of division, and America is founded on unity, not on singularity and there is an important difference. Even when we disagree, even when the Founding Fathers disagree, there is much room for commonality, even if the best we can do is shake hands and agree to disagree. There is no harm in disagreement, and america was founded on new amd diverse viewpoints. There IA great harm is anyone taking the stance that people who disagree with them good inherently inferior viewpoint and are therefor not worthy of respect or being a member of the Union.

People are quick to forget that UNITED we stand has nothing to do with agreement, only that we are all, first and foremost, Americans, Mr that unity as a nation, q diverse chorus of voices, is what makes us strong.

[Elegiac]

oh please. it was a trade union at first and nobody signed up for this current version of political union. except the politicans, but they are not the people.

You seem like a very undemocratic person. very fit for the soviet union("eu"). and why another western power bloc? why not an eastern power block or southern? Are you racist?

Unions evolve, and the current international situation necessitates that Europe unite as a power bloc or shrink to secondary status.

As for the second comment:

- I am not very democratic, no. I dislike popular rule given that the average person is not educated or attentive enough to be trusted with making decisions of state, combined with the popular will being very easily whipped up to foolish ends vis a vis Iraq or the Franco-Prussian War. I am a Republican at heart, in the exact sense of that term.

- Because I am a patriot of Western Civilization. So sue me, but I am; I hold Western culture and philosophy to be the ideal towards which others should aspire, but not so inflexible that it cannot incorporate the ideas of other civilizations when they benefit.

[Deleted]

As fun as a Nordic Federation sounds, it would still not weight that much on an international scale I'm afraid
On the other hand, if that means Norway enters the EU I'm all for it

A Nordic Federation would be the 10th-15th biggest economy in the world, actually, not to mention we'd be an economic powerhouse in the EU.

[Elegiac]

and my point was nobody signed up for the current version of EU. treat of lisbon comes to mind. people were not given a referendum, except the dutch and frenchmen and they said no. im not gonna bother checking the other treaties but i bet there were no referendums for turning the steel union to the economic community or the community to the union. not to mention the union is full of unelected kretis and pletis.

Their representatives signed up for it, and politically speaking that is all the 'validity' that is needed.

Referenda are for populist morons; the people cannot be trusted to make such critical decisions concerning the national interest.

[Deleted]

A Nordic Federation would be the 10th-15th biggest economy in the world, actually, not to mention we'd be an economic powerhouse in the EU.

Well, Italy didn't weight in much on world politics before the crisis, why would a Nordic Fed be different ?
It would however give you a lot more weight within the EU.. if you can get a united voice. We all know how hard that is

[Cybran]

Referenda are for populist morons; the people cannot be trusted to make such critical decisions concerning the national interest.

So the Falkland referendums are not valid?

On topic: How totalitarian of you.

[Elegiac]

So the Falkland referendums are not valid?

On topic: How totalitarian of you.

They're valid if the government chooses to recognize them.

No, how Republican.

[Killingifrit]

Their representatives signed up for it, and politically speaking that is all the 'validity' that is needed.

Referenda are for populist morons; the people cannot be trusted to make such critical decisions concerning the national interest.

but they can be trusted to make such critical decisions as electing members of parliament? and how can one guarantee that members of parliament are educated enough?

[Deleted]

Well, Italy didn't weight in much on world politics before the crisis, why would a Nordic Fed be different ?
It would however give you a lot more weight within the EU.. if you can get a united voice. We all know how hard that is

I think it mostly has to do with that Italy's exporting is mainly industrial products, whereas most Nordic countries are fairly diverse, with a mix of both industrial products, services and raw material.

[Elegiac]

but they can be trusted to make such critical decisions as electing members of parliament? and how can one guarantee that members of parliament are educated enough?

Electing a member of a parliament is not a 'critical decision', it's an expression popular will as regards general direction of policy as well as keeping the government mindful of the basic interests of the masses.

Politicians tend to be members of the upper, middle, and academic classes.

[Jackmoves]

and how can one guarantee that members of parliament are educated enough?

Vote for someone you consider competent enough, if it doesn't go your way tough luck. Same logic applies for referendums.

[Deleted]

but they can be trusted to make such critical decisions as electing members of parliament? and how can one guarantee that members of parliament are educated enough?

In legislative elections you don't vote for people, you vote for the party. Those who are to become MPs are chosen by the party before the elections. Generaly these are reputable, competent and well educated people from the upper-middle class.

oh please, the european council. Hermvan von Butttocks have no credibility or support from the people.

He represent's the council not the people, he doesn't need your credibility.

oh please. the participation rate in eu elections is not even 50%. nevermind the fact these mops barely have any power.

National elections aren't far behind.

nevermind the fact the support for EU is below 50 in most eu countries.

Source?

lisbon treaty, constitution they were practically the same. nevermind the fact the irish voted no the treaty.

Yet they voted yes the second time and more recently voted yes for the ESM.

[Killingifrit]

Electing a member of a parliament is not a 'critical decision', it's an expression popular will as regards general direction of policy as well as keeping the government mindful of the basic interests of the masses.

Politicians tend to be members of the upper, middle, and academic classes.

you´d have to be an elected member of parliament to be a prime minister or any other minister in most representative democracies I would suppose. so it would be a critical decision since these are the ones creating overpowered federations like EU. make up your mind.

[Elegiac]

you´d have to be an elected member of parliament to be a prime minister or any other minister in most representative democracies I would suppose. so it would be a critical decision since these are the ones creating overpowered federations like EU. make up your mind.

You don't seem to grasp my point. The text is there, read it as many times as it takes you to understand it.

[Deleted]

overpowered federations like EU. make up your mind.

nevermind the fact these mops barely have any power.

Why don't you make up your mind too?