National government can only work if you discriminate nationalities. I wonder how Rand want to solve that paradox.Originally Posted by Hazir
National government can only work if you discriminate nationalities. I wonder how Rand want to solve that paradox.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Er... that's completely untrue. Are municipal governments discriminating against other cities? No, you just need various levels of governance, and national government is one reasonable level. Obviously the particular jurisdiction of a national government will be rooted in history of a geographical and cultural nature, but the basic idea of a national government is no more particularist than any other local government.
Usually the national government makes sure this doesn't happen. There is no worldwide government that makes sure that national government don't discriminate other nations citizens.
A Zürcher can instantly become a Berner just by moving to Bern, and receiving the rights of a Berner. A Milanesi can get the right's of a Zürcher just by moving to Zürich, he needs to get Swiss citizen to get those rights.
It's a completely different thing.
Last edited by earthJoker; 01-27-2012 at 05:50 PM.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
National governments govern. What discriminates is the concept of nation itself, because it requires to include and exclude certain people, otherwise it would be called "humanity".
We have international law that governs many of the interactions between nations. It's still very new and imperfect, but it does do things like regulate trade (WTO, etc.), movement of people in times of strife (UNHCR), how they handle conflicts (ICJ, Geneva conventions), etc. We have a concept of universal human rights which apply to all peoples regardless of citizenship.
Look, I'm not saying that national chauvinism doesn't exist, but we do have the beginnings of a meta-national structure in place, and there's nothing inherent to the concept of a national government that's discriminatory.
Exactly.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I just want to echo what's been said: The idea of borders and sovereign governments is the basis for an us verse them mentality. I don't even understand how anyone can say we don't compete with other countries. If America could have a world, where everyone is super advanced technologically. (the whole world is improved) but they happen to be at the very bottom of this advancement. I don't think they'd take that world.
The cost of doing humans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/bu...hina.html?_r=2
Apple disagrees:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...1#comments-bar
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In your plan would you also be able in your country of choice right away. Because as long as you won't get the same rights right aways it's still discrimination based on nationality. The EU doesn't offer that yet.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Be able what? To vote?
I would say yes to allowing it, but no to straight away. 5 years say (one Parliamentary term here). Otherwise visitors could vote, vote tourism would be possible (!)
Yes of course, but it would be the consequence of your statement. As long this isn't possible you are disadvantaging people because of where they live(d).
Even with the 5 years rule it would be very easy to "take over" another nation by just moving in enough people to another country.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Indeed.
There is a rational explanation as to why visitors can't vote. It is still discrimination, but I find it a conscienable one.
There is no rational explanation as to "Buy American" ideas. It is discrimination for discriminations sake, it doesn't even work.
True. I don't find that too likely and cultures evolve anyway.Even with the 5 years rule it would be very easy to "take over" another nation by just moving in enough people to another country.
So it is you're opinion that make one discrimination legit and the other bordering to racism?
I agree with both of the statements, but I can't agree that one discrimination somehow evil and the other good. They are both discriminations, period. It's only the effects that are different.
Of course it is likely, China is just doing it in Tibet as we write here.True. I don't find that too likely and cultures evolve anyway.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I suggest you study the recent history of the Balkans. Which happens to be a part of Europe as we speak.
Congratulations America
Theoretically as a nation you're always better off finding the best deal. you'll have all the same resources plus some extra. In theory you coudl provide for said workers plus have some extra resources left over. Just depends on how society chooses to move it's labor force and resources.
If we don't care if other countries get stronger then yes it's fine, and it's natural. And after retraining of our workers (at least the up and coming generation of workers) to specialize in task that we have a compartive advantage in it'll be better for us too. I don't share the mentality that Wiggin and others are saying, that countries don't compete for being in control, for being the more powerful relative other countries. I think that's a big part of the world. It will always be with us. It's human nature to want that control.And we're always going to pay for them, one way or another. Those costs need to be taken into account to establish if shipping jobs oversea is really in the interest of a society.
The economical consideration is that it is cheaper, I seriously doubt that it is cheaper. There is this funny idea that people have that creative destruction comes for free. I think it doesn't, that doesn't make it bad, but honesty about its costs might help us make better decisions.
My interests as a consumer are not the same as my interests as a member of a society.
Congratulations America
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nothing is free, but it's worth it.
"Shipping out" jobs is far too simplistic a notion. Youth unemployment is higher than elderly or middle aged unemployment, it's not because young people were working until their jobs went to Taiwan.
In fact "Made in Taiwan" was a very common expression when I was a kid, yet I'm too old to class as youth unemployment by a few years now. It's a non-starter frankly.
Jobs aren't zero-sum, people aren't widgets or widget-makers, supply and demand aren't infinitely elastic, markets are necessarily constrained, information access is assymetric, it's like all our conceptions of these things are just not 100% accurate
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Where is "sclerosis" being "practiced"?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Much of Europe including large parts of the UK.
Wait is that because of the unions or what
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Because companies value experience. Guess who doesn't have much.Also, minimum wage laws make it impractical to hire many young people for a wage they can't justify.
Hope is the denial of reality
I knew there was more to the union hate than was being toldBecause companies value experience. Guess who doesn't have much.
Okay so in simple terms this discussion is about whether or not there are negative externalities to the happy shenanigans of western businesses? And one side is saying "yes there are" while the other is saying...???
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, but it's a bit funny because Loki and Rand are taken in by the easy rhetoric of business people, whereas I am not fond of extending socialism to people who use it in the name of capitalist enterprise, the costs should be born by those who cause them, not by the general public in some stealthy way.I knew there was more to the union hate than was being told
Okay so in simple terms this discussion is about whether or not there are negative externalities to the happy shenanigans of western businesses? And one side is saying "yes there are" while the other is saying...???
Congratulations America
No, it's more about how things are proportioned. Hazir claims the externalities and the business-gouging are high and the consumer benefit/efficiency benefit is low. Rand is claiming the latter of those is high and the other two are comparatively smaller.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Are only a tiny group of people buying the cheaper products? No, everybody is. Everybody benefits.
Who benefits the most? Those with the least disposable income.
I suggest you have a look at your payslip and consider why the hell you don't get anywhere near the amount in your bank account of the wages your employer doles out for you. Part of that money goes to the unseen costs of your cheap products.
Congratulations America
No, part of that money go to the dole bludgers I've railed against.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote