Meanwhile in Poland

[JagLover]

Breadvan72 said:

Probably only on PH would the idea of an open society be seen as a bad thing. What is the big deal with national sovereignty? Nation States are relatively recent inventions, and their borders are not visible from space. To take one example, the polity now known as the UK has for large chunks of its history (including the history of its predecessor polities) comprised bits of several land masses (Britain, Ireland, parts of Europe) and contained many language groups.

Without a demos there is no democracy. So that is the first big deal about national sovereignty, that without it you don't have democracy.

Moving on to the reality of the modern welfare state "If you are a citizen of the world you are a citizen of nowhere". It is not to the world that we look to for our health care needs, to take care of us in ill health or retirement, but the nation state. In a world of growing globalisation and automation it is also the nation state that we rely on to prevent us falling into poverty.

Those who favour a world without borders rely least on the protection of the state and have the most marketable skills to benefit from the new era. They lead smug, affluent, lives looking down on the "ignorant bigots" who are starting to realise what is going on.

[anonymous-user]

That "citizens of nowhere" line worked really well in the June election, eh? Really big hit with the demos, and all that. Given that the right has been busy dismantling the State for the last several decades, it's amusing that the right suddenly finds itself all concerned about the State and its borders. Democracy need not be artificially confined by borders, or the historical accidents that create borders. There can be arguments about where you locate your democracy. For example, you can locate democracy in meetings of several governments each one of which has been democratically elected. Or you can try to locate it in one government; but if you do that it may not be the best idea to legislate for that one Government to have more executive power and less need to consult the legislature. Henry VIII clauses aren't named after a paragon of democratic rule.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 18th July 09:25

[CrgT16]

Open Society.... read about Frankfurt School and Critical Theory and the many things around it. Yes far fetched and paranoia... but for some theory conceived over 40 years ago seems quite actual.

For one loosing your identity, culture and history is why I don't believe in open society and why you need nation states. The people in the world cannot be amalgamated into 1 harmoniously mindset they are different with extreme different beliefs.

Using religion as an example of belief system do you really think you will ever be able to have a world where we are tolerant towards others, respect people's free thought and freedoms? No way .... think about can you make countries like UK be like Saudi Arabia? Or can you ever make Saudi Arabia a free country for man and women like the UK? I use Saudi as an example. Pick the country of choice that is fundamentally different than yours.

It's just not possible in the next 100-200 years.. .

[4x4Tyke]

Scale has no bearing on the three pillars of liberty, executive, legislature and judiciary are all present in the EU and stronger than in the UK with our unelected second house.

[Mr GrimNasty]

The 'borders are not visible from space' cliche probably sounded really intellectual and deep, on scrutiny it is a completely vacuous statement.

The origins of sovereignty date back to the time when man formed the very first tribes/cooperates and farming settlements, and is the very foundation of civilisation/society.

The boundaries of Nation States were forged after millennia of violence and war, pillaging, rape, slaughter, conflicting values, constant insecurity and uncertainty.

Countries/Nations with secure borders and sovereignty provide us with peace, security, stability, democracy, prosperity, long life...........

To suggest any of this is a recent or an unnecessary construct is highly ignorant - it is a fundamental to the way we live and human success.

To throw it all away on the basis of some extreme ideological belief in a border-less/stateless global socialist/fascist governance is insane. The world will descend back into chaos and violence, and despite the denials, that is already manifestly happening in Europe with the reckless tolerance of mass immigration.

[anonymous-user]

Many nation states have borders determined for them by other states, or set by the results of warfare. Look at Africa and the middle east for some examples of this. The idea that a nation state is some ideal fulfilment of historical destiny is, I suggest, not very historical. It is just one type of state that has been in vogue for the last few centuries. It has limitations. For example, a nation state can sometimes be too small to deal with its problems and sometimes too large to deal with its problems. This can happen simultaneously to the same nation state. You could maybe replace it with a city state, or with a super state. Neither is inevitable.

For the relatively recent origins of the nation state, study some history. The nation state hasn't been around for very long, save in the unhistorical imaginings of nationalists.

As for the notion that humans are inevitably bound to form adversarial groups based on village, valley, tribe, region, state, empire, whatever, this seems quite often to be used as a justification for one or other version of localism, nationalism, or xenophobia. It's an innately pessimistic view, suggesting that we are no better than we were when we first developed social behaviour, but we have learned a great deal about communication and co-operation since then.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 18th July 09:36

[Digga]

Breadvan72 said:

Many nation states have borders determined for them by other states, or set by the results of warfare. Look at Africa and the middle east for some examples of this. The idea that a nation state is some ideal fulfilment of historical destiny is, I suggest, not very historical.

Worked out lovely for Iraq and Syria, didn't it?

Even Italy is still fragmented, itself only a nation for less than two centuries and the rift between the north and south is very real. (Anyone not aware can google for "Lega Nord" rather than ask on here for explanation.)

[Nothingtoseehere]

Breadvan72 said:

Many nation states have borders determined for them by other states, or set by the results of warfare. Look at Africa and the middle east for some examples of this. The idea that a nation state is some ideal fulfilment of historical destiny is, I suggest, not very historical. It is just one type of state that has been in vogue for the last few centuries. It has limitations. For example, a nation state can sometimes be too small to deal with its problems and sometimes too large to deal with its problems. This can happen simultaneously to the same nation state. You could maybe replace it with a city state, or with a super state. Neither is inevitable.

For the relatively recent origins of the nation state, study some history. The nation state hasn't been around for very long, save in the unhistorical imaginings of nationalists.

As for the notion that humans are inevitably bound to form adversarial groups based on village, valley, tribe, region, state, empire, whatever, this seems quite often to be used as a justification for one or other version of localism, nationalism, or xenophobia. It's an innately pessimistic view, suggesting that we are no better than we were when we first developed social behaviour, but we have learned a great deal about communication and co-operation since then.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 18th July 09:36

Did you go to to Glastonbury this year?

[John145]

Breadvan72 said:

Many nation states have borders determined for them by other states, or set by the results of warfare. Look at Africa and the middle east for some examples of this. The idea that a nation state is some ideal fulfilment of historical destiny is, I suggest, not very historical. It is just one type of state that has been in vogue for the last few centuries. It has limitations. For example, a nation state can sometimes be too small to deal with its problems and sometimes too large to deal with its problems. This can happen simultaneously to the same nation state. You could maybe replace it with a city state, or with a super state. Neither is inevitable.

For the relatively recent origins of the nation state, study some history. The nation state hasn't been around for very long, save in the unhistorical imaginings of nationalists.

As for the notion that humans are inevitably bound to form adversarial groups based on village, valley, tribe, region, state, empire, whatever, this seems quite often to be used as a justification for one or other version of localism, nationalism, or xenophobia. It's an innately pessimistic view, suggesting that we are no better than we were when we first developed social behaviour, but we have learned a great deal about communication and co-operation since then.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 18th July 09:36

If the nation state was removed do you see the world being a more harmonious place?

Despite relatively small recent conflict, I don't see a transition to statelessness solving any of the problems we have today.

For me the problems are:

- wealth inequality (across continents, not individual countries)
- power without accountability in too many countries
- corruption

The only solution I see to this is incentivising people to solve their home's problems and supporting them with trade and wealth.

Opening borders will just see more of what we've had for more than my whole lifetime. A brain drain that has promoted inequality whilst restricting wealth growth for short term gain.

[jjlynn27]

BV tries to impart some wisdom on 'lil-Englanders' with entertaining, yet completely predictable, results.
It's funny, always the same people, climate change denying, trump worshiping, eu hating, poorly educated angry oaps.

[Nothingtoseehere]

jjlynn27 said:

BV tries to impart some wisdom on 'lil-Englanders' with entertaining, yet completely predictable, results.
It's funny, always the same people, climate change denying, trump worshiping, eu hating, poorly educated angry oaps.

Wisdom? Its something a 5 year old would write a story about or part of a Miss World speech.
Its so unworkable its ridiculous. More chance of marketing an underwater hairdryer.

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

BV tries to impart some wisdom on 'lil-Englanders' with entertaining, yet completely predictable, results.
It's funny, always the same people, climate change denying, trump worshiping, eu hating, poorly educated angry oaps.

Almost as predictable as arrogant retorts from Remain advocating, Green energy promoters

But at least your vested interests in both topics make your stance much more understandable. And predictable

John145 said:

If the nation state was removed do you see the world being a more harmonious place?

Despite relatively small recent conflict, I don't see a transition to statelessness solving any of the problems we have today.
...

I'm not wholly sure bv is suggesting "statelessness" as the way forward (if he is, then that definitely deserves some deeper critique). Just where the boundaries of where the "state" are. e.g. for those of us who prefer the boundaries we currently have, what is so wrong with expanding them to the edges of the EU?

As much as we may have learnt much over the centuries about "communication" etc. I'd accept bv's accusation of pessimism and suggest we have fundamentally learned very little.

We are fundamentally territorial creatures and the bounds of our states are set by our various endeavours (political, warring, trading etc). We (the UK) have rejected extending those boundaries beyond the UK. We've done so a few times in recent history (NB and not because we don't value relations with RoW. Usually as because we value them).

If the EU political elite try to set them more formally as an EU "state" they will fail. There is little appetite for this IMO (the EU constitution roll out went really well) and attempting to do so insidiously will end in major problems.

Trying to over-intellectualise our baser instincts is foolish (ironically) IMO. The majority of the species won't confirm just because intellectuals say so (for better and for worse).

[dandarez]

jjlynn27 said:

BV tries to impart some wisdom on 'lil-Englanders' with entertaining, yet completely predictable, results.
It's funny, always the same people, climate change denying, trump worshiping, eu hating, poorly educated angry oaps.

the ageist Lynnee is back (sorry, resident).

Wisdom? Is that a f toothbrush?

Yep, climate denier - tick.
Trump worshipper - non.
EU (not eu) hating - tick.
Poorly educated? 'Your' old chestnut about the 'old'.
Answer will take a little longer. I keep telling you, one day you will be old (IF you're lucky, looking around me many of your generation - just seen the latest figures that HALF of all young UK adults are obese, ffs! - a lot of you will be lucky to hit 50 at that rate!)

Asides, back to educ.
Fyi, I was privileged to be at the front of the lecture theatre a lot of times over 14 years, best job in the world! Vacations and sabbaticals. Hardly know you're born! I saw how clever some of today's generation were, sitting in front of me (I always estimated a third were). Bright, that is, some very. The rest? They were in the wrong place! And I'm not including the ones curled up cosily and fast asleep at the back in their A&NS greatcoats (even on warm days ), as they'd had no sleep the night before or had been pissed up to the eyeballs in the SU bar, or locked out by their landlady!). Surprisingly, a few of these were still able to 'wave a bit of paper' at grad day.

Bit like some of the st lecturers who (were) moved on to other establishments with glowing recommendations (reason? to be f rid of them as they were useless, and as such did an extended tour of academia over years).
Academia, eh?
Even back then they used to say it was out of touch with the real world. I saw it. First hand. It was!

Wonder where some of those students are today?
No idea, but I bet they attend Glasto!
And their job description today? Keyboard Warrior!
or even, dare I say it, EU Supplier of Green Energy?

[anonymous-user]

No Glasto for me. Too big. Latitude is more fun, although it is worrying that this year you would not be let in without a child called Ottoline or Jasper in tow.

I would not suggest abolishing the State. On the contrary, the State can be a good thing (and in the UK there has arguably been not enough State since circa 1979, with some adverse consequences); but I don't buy the notion that a particular version of the State (the nation State) represents the perfection of the State, or is a natural and ideal thing. The nation State can be a very good thing, but also a less good thing, and groupings of States may be better able to deal with some of the problems that might challenge or even overwhelm individual States. Such groupings need not be inimical to democracy. The current retreat to nationalism in the UK does not appear to be favouring democracy. The accretion of executive power seems ironic, given how much the Rees-Mogg lot banged on about Parliament before loyally voting for not much Parliamentary scrutiny of what the Executive wants.

On democracy more generally, I gather that some here think that there is a group called "the people", and that there is another group who, because they have a certain undefined level of affluence, do not count as "the people" and are to be deplored as the elite, or whatever. This is another amusing irony, because it used to be the case (in the bad old days) that if you were insufficiently affluent you could not qualify as an elector. Now it seems that if you dare to be affluent, or maybe a bit too educated, or too metropolitan, or too travelled, or whatever (choose your insult as you prefer) you do not qualify to have an opinion or a vote, because you are a member of some sinister elitist conspiracy to rob "the people" of whatever their birthright is.

Another entertaining feature of all this is that you then get projects such as Brexit or Trumpism that masquerade as projects of "the people" whilst being on analysis projects of a small and wealthy elite that doesn't much care for the State at all, because the State at its best controls and regulates capitalism and makes it serve the wider good rather than narrow interests.

[Nothingtoseehere]

Breadvan72 said:

I would not suggest abolishing the State. On the contrary, the State can be a good thing (and in the UK there has arguably been not enough State since circa 1979, with some adverse consequences); but I don't buy the notion that a particular version of the State (the nation State) represents the perfection of the State, or is a natural and ideal thing. The nation State can be a very good thing, but also a less good thing, and groupings of States may be better able to deal with some of the problems that might challenge or even overwhelm individual States.

Have you been studying Rumsfeld speeches?

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

Almost as predictable as arrogant retorts from Remain advocating, Green energy promoters

But at least your vested interests in both topics make your stance much more understandable. And predictable

Observations, my dear Watson.

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

Observations, my dear Watson.

You need to move house/widen your circle/drop the blinkers Sherlock

Someone on here once noted that a handful of anecdotes do not constitute data. They were very erudite, young, good looking, debonair...

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

...
Another entertaining feature of all this is that you then get projects such as Brexit or Trumpism that masquerade as projects of "the people" whilst being on analysis projects of a small and wealthy elite that doesn't much care for the State at all, because the State at its best controls and regulates capitalism and makes it serve the wider good rather than narrow interests.

Those voting for both of these phenomena come from all walks of life. The mistake is to think otherwise to rationalise a decision that has been taken.

I am sure a very substantial proportion of those voting to leave the EU are far from blind to the shortcomings of our own nation state. But replacing it with one that is clearly not working is not a solution.

Our species isn't ready for superstates yet. They fail every time. Whether it ever will be ready remains to be seen.

Ironically, as someone who sees no sense in an arbitrary "acceptable gap" between "rich" and "poor" I think the only chance of success of superstates is to limit them to nations that have significant enough likenesses fiscally, economically, legislatively etc. The EU expanded too quickly and in the wrong ways to achieve this.

(Another option may be to have a common "enemy" to focus against, extra-terrestrially... About as likely as the current EU admitting they got things badly wrong and adjusting their course ).

[MrBrightSi]

Murph7355 said:

Our species isn't ready for superstates yet. They fail every time. Whether it ever will be ready remains to be seen.

There it is. The revelation a few on here aren't ready to hear and refuse to even entertain in their mind. We've seen on this continent the failure of these multiple times. This quote of a bigger decent post is what turned me away from a lot of the big ideal, hand holding, world in unison dreams that come with early 20's life and an addiction to smoking weed.

There's some good arguments coming from BV, but JJ has to be some kind of vicious troll, i've never seen this poster make anything other than vacuous petty insults at others who disagree.

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

You need to move house/widen your circle/drop the blinkers Sherlock

Someone on here once noted that a handful of anecdotes do not constitute data. They were very erudite, young, good looking, debonair...

How would that help as I was, quite clearly, talking about few people on NP&E?