What Political Values do you Align With Most?

[Links]

3 hours ago, Devin said:

Hmm, I'm trying to think of a nationalistic culture that doesn't try to take over other countries. 

 

In my vicinity in western Europe there's quite a few depending on what you mean by nationalism. We have Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, who are all left wing and funnily enough are also unionists because they favour EU membership. English nationalism is right wing, but not imperialist (English nationalism is very different from the British unionists who took over from the Normans in taking over the whole archipelago and then further into the "British Empire". )

 

Then there's Spanish nationalism: Spain was fascist under Franco but stayed out of WW2. They also have Basque and Catalan nationalists who just want separation from the motherland and independence. India had it's nationalism to escape from the British empire and actually split up into 3 countries rather than take over anywhere else. Thinking about it, a lot of nationalist sentiment comes from wanting freedom and independence from a larger entity. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Links

[Links]

3 hours ago, Devin said:

Could you give me an example of the rubbing up against eachother for their own self interests, I think it would require respecting the other cultures, I live in my world with a lot of people that I have huge cultural differences with and we just respect eachothers differences, learn where we can cooperate together and where we shouldn't do things together.

 

Well, keeping your culture alive means having a certain concentration of people living together in a neighbourhood so you can club together and have your own shops, religious centres, restaurants and schools. Historically there's been plenty of examples where a powerful culture made life difficult for the less powerful. Think of Christians and Muslims making persecuting pagans, or when Muslims, Christians and Jews had to live in each others countries. Nowadays there's more tolerance, yes, but still "quarterising" where people create neighborhoods like you said in your other post. We have "white flight" from London to outside counties like Essex, so we have pressures on housing, schools, public services, political policies like whether to allow Sharia law, Jewish Eruvs, arguments about Christmas and are we a Christian country, Saudis not allowing churches etc. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Links

[Devin]

20 minutes ago, Links said:

 

In my vicinity in western Europe there's quite a few depending on what you mean by nationalism. We have Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, who are all left wing and funnily enough are also unionists because they favour EU membership. English nationalism is right wing, but not imperialist (English nationalism is very different from the British unionists who took over from the Normans in taking over the whole archipelago and then further into the "British Empire". )

 

Then there's Spanish nationalism: Spain was fascist under Franco but stayed out of WW2. They also have Basque and Catalan nationalists who just want separation from the motherland and independence. India had it's nationalism to escape from the British empire and actually split up into 3 countries rather than take over anywhere else. Thinking about it, a lot of nationalist sentiment comes from wanting freedom and independence from a larger entity. 

Hmm, I would call them Sepratists, not nationalists,  the nation is The U.K, Spain, etc.

 

Definition from your England's Oxford dictionary

 

na·tion·al·ism

/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌliz(ə)m/

noun

identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

[Devin]

5 minutes ago, Links said:

 

We have "white flight" from London to outside counties like Essex, so we have pressures on housing, schools, public services, political policies like whether to allow Sharia law, Jewish Eruvs, arguments about Christmas and are we a Christian country, Saudis not allowing churches etc. 

Yeah, I don't condone that way of migrants changing an areas culture.

[Links]

4 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

Honestly, it sounds like he's been listening to tim pool.  And people who talk about "replacement theory" which is essentially a racist theory that goes back forever. 

 

Am I he?  Anyway I've never heard of Tim Pool, I just say his wiki page and his views are quite a mixture of left & right and I don't have an opinion about him. 

Replacement theory?  It only sounds racist in the literal sense of being race-ist ie a theory about race. Plenty of groups and tribes have been lost to history, including in my own country. I was rather sad when I learned that the neolithic people who built Stonehenge were replaced by the Bell Beaker people, who were in turn replaced by the Celts, who were then replaced by ... well you see what I mean. So yes I guess replacement is an ancient thing. 

[Jonas Long]

7 minutes ago, Links said:

 

Am I he?  Anyway I've never heard of Tim Pool, I just say his wiki page and his views are quite a mixture of left & right and I don't have an opinion about him. 

Replacement theory?  It only sounds racist in the literal sense of being race-ist ie a theory about race. Plenty of groups and tribes have been lost to history, including in my own country. I was rather sad when I learned that the neolithic people who built Stonehenge were replaced by the Bell Beaker people, who were in turn replaced by the Celts, who were then replaced by ... well you see what I mean. So yes I guess replacement is an ancient thing. 

Oh ok, he just uses the argument that America is "too diverse" basically, that having too many cultures mixing together will always cause problems.  Tribes and cultures have always been temporary things and always will be, it's not really sad to me. 

[Links]

4 hours ago, Devin said:

@Links have you spent much time in large metropolitan areas? There's actually ethnic neighborhoods, and I don't just mean like ghettos or something, there's Indian neighborhoods, Middle Eastern, Italian, Cuban,.... They're adored actually, not frowned upon, it's so beautiful seeing distinct cultures, and then also coexisting in the same city. Mosques, Synagogues, Cathedrals, all around the corner from eachother, the different religious leaders coming together on shared holidays, it's so beautiful actually.

 

Yes I've spent most of my life in cities, and yes we get ethnic neighbourhoods. Also I've been on holiday to the Spanish costas where there's neighbourhoods of British ex-pats doing the same thing. Why do you think many people do that?  Is it to do with people wanting to live within their own familiar culture rather than give it up and  create a new kind of fusion?  Not everyone lives in a segregated way, there's usually minorities within minorities and layers of complexity within cultures. 

  

Phew, I've not posted here for months and now I'm inundated! Oh well. 

[Devin]

6 minutes ago, Links said:

 

 Why do you think many people do that?  Is it to do with people wanting to live within their own familiar culture rather than give it up and  create a new kind of fusion? 

Because they're not well accepted by the local culture, it's a defensive reaction.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Links]

5 hours ago, Orb said:

@Links also the human race will continue to increase in population, the sexual drive is very powerful. What makes you think people arent raising enough children? Last i checked the population globally is increasing.

 

 

I was just looking this up yesterday on wiki. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate 

According to that data, the top 102 countries have replacement rate of 2.1 or above. The other 102 have below replacement. 

 

This graph from the UN shows a variety of scenarios for total world population, the median graph peaking later this century about 2090. 

https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/900  

 

So I guess this comes back to what you value and want to preserve: culture, economics, and do you identify with a particular group which you want to survive. If you don't identify with an ethnicity then what keeps it all together, is it just government presiding over a large collection of individuals? 

 

I guess the world population and national populations will eventually peak and start to decline which isn't a bad thing. But western capitalism doesn't seem to have a business model for this situation, the approach of the ruling classes here has been to raise immigration to keep the population increasing because that is how it keeps the growth curve operating. But maybe we need a new economic theory for declining populations.  Some far eastern countries are holding out with an ageing population and limited immigration like Japan and South Korea so we'll see what happens there. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Links

[Jonas Long]

9 minutes ago, Links said:

If you don't identify with an ethnicity then what keeps it all together, is it just government presiding over a large collection of individuals? 

That is the exact hypothesis for the American  "experiment"

Edited September 18, 2023 by Jonas Long

[Devin]

20 minutes ago, Links said:

 

 

lf you don't identify with an ethnicity then what keeps it all together, is it just government presiding over a large collection of individuals? 

 

 

 

Well, I interact with a lot of ethnicities and, we're all human, we all still look after eachother and care about eachother and work together.

 

*AND we enjoy EACHOTHERS traditions, not just our own.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Links]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

Hmm, I would call them Sepratists, not nationalists,  the nation is The U.K, Spain, etc.

 

Definition from your England's Oxford dictionary

 

na·tion·al·ism

/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌliz(ə)m/

noun

identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

 

 

Ha ha, you try going to Scotland or Wales and tell them they aren't a nation! You'd possibly get away with it in England because we've been occupied by the imperialists for so long that many of our people can't tell the difference.  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved governments now and what's the point of being a separatist if you don't intend to have your own independent nation?   If you believe in having sovereign nations then of course they're all going to look after their own interests above the interests of foreign nations.  It's a bit like having separate companies or separate families.  Your responsibility begins at home. 

 

What does 'nation' mean?  From the Oxford dictionary too for consistency: 

"a country considered as a group of people with the same language, culture and history, who live in a particular area under one government"  

[Devin]

10 minutes ago, Links said:

 

 

 If you believe in having sovereign nations then of course they're all going to look after their own interests above the interests of foreign nations.  It's a bit like having separate companies or separate families.  Your responsibility begins at home. 

 

It's more than that though, emphasis on the detriment part.

 

It's like in business, it's ironic capitalism goes with your logic, capitalists believe in competition, socialists believe in cooperation.

 

In business the most important thing is relationships, not squeezing every last dime from a "customer", but trying to maximize "profit" for both parties actually.

 

Nations can work harmoniously in a mutual trusting relationship. Your camp uses zero-sum gain logic, but in reality it's that you both can earn 2+2, it's not just 1-1=0.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Links]

23 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

That is the exact hypothesis for the American  "experiment"

 

That pretty much sums up my point - the left progressive wing involves a lot of social experimentation with uncertain outcomes often based on theory more than historical data.  If we're being prudent shouldn't we limit the experimentation to a few pilot examples and see how those go before deciding whether to expand them elsewhere? 

 

12 minutes ago, Devin said:

Well, I interact with a lot of ethnicities and, we're all human, we all still look after eachother and care about eachother and work together.

 

Thanks, that's a good example to share. But how long do we let the experiment run before deciding whether it's a success and is copyable elsewhere?  America hasn't exactly settled down into a steady state yet. Let's give it a few more hundred years imo. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Links

[Devin]

6 minutes ago, Links said:

 

 

Thanks, that's a good example to share. But how long do we let the experiment run before deciding whether it's a success and is copyable elsewhere?  America hasn't exactly settled down into a steady state yet. Let's give it a few more hundred years imo. 

I don't suggest copying it, I like individual homogenous European states.

 

All I want is more harmonious relations between nations.

 

I like how liberal the Netherlands are and how conservative Hungary is, it's a buffet rather than 1,000 ways to prepare a potato. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Jonas Long]

6 minutes ago, Links said:

 

That pretty much sums up my point - the left progressive wing involves a lot of social experimentation with uncertain outcomes often based on theory more than historical data.  If we're being prudent shouldn't we limit the experimentation to a few pilot examples and see how those go before deciding whether to expand them elsewhere? 

Part of the unique spirit of America is the experimental, pioneering approach.  

[Devin]

35 minutes ago, Links said:

 

That pretty much sums up my point - the left progressive wing involves a lot of social experimentation with uncertain outcomes often based on theory more than historical data.  If we're being prudent shouldn't we limit the experimentation to a few pilot examples and see how those go before deciding whether to expand them elsewhere? 

 

Yes.

 

Isn't keeping things the same and not trying new things also an experiment?

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Links]

13 minutes ago, Devin said:

t's like in business, it's ironic capitalism goes with your logic, capitalists believe in competition, socialists believe in cooperation.

 

In business the most important thing is relationships, not squeezing every last dime from a "customer", but trying to maximize "profit" for both parties actually.

 

Nations can work harmoniously in a mutual trusting relationship. Your camp uses zero-sum gain logic, but in reality it's that you both can earn 2+2, it's not just 1-1=0.

 

I'm not a businessman so don't have direct experience to offer. But businesses must need a lot of teamwork internally to get good results, even if the employees are also competing against each other for promotion and bonuses etc.  Companies also cooperate with their suppliers for their own inputs to build up good relationships. 

 

Similarly socialists surely employ a mix of cooperation and competition, tho with less need for competition anyway.  I'm retired now, but used to work in the public sector and we were the only organisation in the country doing what we did so there wasn't anyone else to compete with. Some things are naturally socialist and no point privatising. It's nonsensical to have several armies or police forces competing for the same jobs.  I never said I'm a capitalist apart from where I invest some pension money. But then it's pretty stupid to have state ownership of everything too, so private ownership is good as well. 

 

Capitalism and socialism both have their place - for example my family life is very much like a socialist system; we share the family income in a joint bank account and spend it on where it's most needed. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. And that's as a traditional married couple.  But I have a preference for my own family rather than having personal equality with other families, beyond the taxes I have to pay plus a bit of charity donation. My "right wing" mentality is to extend that family circle outwards in stages. Just as I prioritise my nuclear family, I'll also prioritise my extended family over others. I'll prioritise my local community over others, my tribe, my nation, my race , my religion etc. I'm rejecting the idea that there has to be some enforced equality by everybody.  Surely that's a caricature of socialism? 

 

It's circles within circles. I accept that there's a lot of "me" identification in that, a lot of ego: my family, my tribe, my nation. But that's the glue which holds things together isn't it?  I've got a little project to map out these circles of identification, I wonder if anyone else has done anything like it before?  Like a venn diagram of circles with me at the centre , my family, my friends, my extended family, my tribe etc etc. 

[Jonas Long]

8 minutes ago, Links said:

 

I'm not a businessman so don't have direct experience to offer. But businesses must need a lot of teamwork internally to get good results, even if the employees are also competing against each other for promotion and bonuses etc.  Companies also cooperate with their suppliers for their own inputs to build up good relationships. 

 

Similarly socialists surely employ a mix of cooperation and competition, tho with less need for competition anyway.  I'm retired now, but used to work in the public sector and we were the only organisation in the country doing what we did so there wasn't anyone else to compete with. Some things are naturally socialist and no point privatising. It's nonsensical to have several armies or police forces competing for the same jobs.  I never said I'm a capitalist apart from where I invest some pension money. But then it's pretty stupid to have state ownership of everything too, so private ownership is good as well. 

 

Capitalism and socialism both have their place - for example my family life is very much like a socialist system; we share the family income in a joint bank account and spend it on where it's most needed. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. And that's as a traditional married couple.  But I have a preference for my own family rather than having personal equality with other families, beyond the taxes I have to pay plus a bit of charity donation. My "right wing" mentality is to extend that family circle outwards in stages. Just as I prioritise my nuclear family, I'll also prioritise my extended family over others. I'll prioritise my local community over others, my tribe, my nation, my race , my religion etc. I'm rejecting the idea that there has to be some enforced equality by everybody.  Surely that's a caricature of socialism? 

 

It's circles within circles. I accept that there's a lot of "me" identification in that, a lot of ego: my family, my tribe, my nation. But that's the glue which holds things together isn't it?  I've got a little project to map out these circles of identification, I wonder if anyone else has done anything like it before?  Like a venn diagram of circles with me at the centre , my family, my friends, my extended family, my tribe etc etc. 

Yeah, you can do that circle thing with your own "self" ie body, mind, Id, ego, superego, higher self, etc. however you see that or want to do it.  But the benefit of the exercise is actually to detach from intense identification with these things, the way I've seen it.  Which are you really, your thoughts, body, feelings; which really define you,, your family, country, race, football team, favorite philosopher, favorite spiritual teacher, etc.  They're all constructs, none of any of them are you. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Jonas Long

[Links]

17 minutes ago, Devin said:

Yes.

 

Isn't keeping things the same and not trying new things also an experiment?

 

Hmm, I guess it depends on the context. If you're living a good life and external circumstances (ie those beyond your control) stay the same then it's not really an experiment to stay the same. But the complication is, the outside world is always changing and we have to adapt and change just to conserve what we've got. Do we want to conserve? 

   

Are Americans fundamentally happy with what they've got?  It doesn't quite look like they are, they keep criticising themselves and try to improve and change themselves. Yet they've been the richest country and most powerful superpower for the last century or so.  I'm just wondering aloud if there's a correlation there, between having that  dissatisfaction and inner conflict, and their material success.  Yet some other powers are rising in the East like China who don't broadcast all their insecurities to the rest of the world (tho must surely have them hidden away).  Their "communist" model for being a super power looks rather different to the US.