| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What's wrong with cops these days? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 20 2010, 10:22 PM (2,294 Views) | |
| New Harumf | Jul 22 2010, 03:44 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Timid men… prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty. – Thomas Jefferson, 1796 Agreed. Despots disguised as our protectors are worse then storm troopers. Liberty requires we take action, not relying on a state to protect us, serve us, and coddle us. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 22 2010, 06:38 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
Humanity is more than just DNA. Humanity is art, language, culture, religion, ethnicity, nationality, tribe. Humanity is a diverse amalgation of undescribable creative force. I do not consider nationalism to be a regression to tribal identity. I consider nationalism, specifically pan-nationalism, or nationalism for all, to be the greatest tool we have on this Earth to protect that diversity. According to linguist McWorther 90% of human languages spoken today will be extinct by 2050. Globalization has brought us close, and technology closer. Where once a sea or a mountain or simple distance protected culture, now intermixing and intergrating of culture has no natural barrier. It demands an artificial one. A world with one international government will survive only when culture is dead - when there is one ethnicity, one tribe, one race, and one language. Such a world may be run by homo sapiens, but it will not be human. Our differences define us as a species, TC. I do not consider my tribe superior to others. Do I care more about American lives? Yes, in the same way that I care more about the lives of my friends than those of strange Americans, and my family's to those of my friends. I love my tribe, and will work for it. It is not my duty to improve the tribes of other - nor my position so that I may choose which are destroyed. I will strive to better the failings of my own society, and to protect the rights of others to do the same for their society. I cannot, nor do I want too, see a single form of government imposed universally. I am exclusionary in my politics only insofar that I refuse to integrate them. The society which I inhabit is one fueled by egotism. Government is community, regardless of the size of that community. We are not giving up community values by accepting government help - we are embracing the whole of the national community, because we are a tribe. The tribe does not need to splinter further. |
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Jul 22 2010, 08:50 PM Post #28 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
There is no general or abstract man. Man is particular, with particular and not general duties. A man owes more to his kin than an outsider, his neighbor than a stranger, and his countryman than a foreigner. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jul 23 2010, 12:48 AM Post #29 |
|
Science and Industry
|
In general egotism and the hatred of self-sacrifice are the results of excessive material comfort. It is paradoxical to suggest that egotism will be defeated through the widest dissemination of material comforts. Socialism only results in the trickling down to the poor the coarse habits of the rich, as in Europe. Our national "community" has no likeness with a family. In the welfare state the providers of and the recipients of the public dole are forever adversarial, which is the precise opposite of true community and true duty, and which is a transaction that provides neither uplift nor edification about any such thing as community, duty, or responsibility. Of course, you have been known to propose, in authentically fascist manner, the shifting, through war, of the burden of this internal struggle upon an external misfortunate such as a foreign nation, so in theory your "national family" can be constructed, but needless to say not without terrible and facepalmworthy consequences that I do not wish to contemplate at this moment. If you wish to philosophize about "what is human" then I don't believe you or anyone else has anything close to an understanding of this thing sentience, and certainly not any basis upon which to unfold such a simplified political theory. But if I may speculate on the future your fascination with the creative powers of our diverse species will be indulged just fine by ever increasing technologies, especially the computer technologies that will preserve the extinct languages and possibly help us revive them. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 23 2010, 08:06 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
The starving are not more philosophical because they are starving. They are less so, as they focus only on the acquisition of material needs. Spiritual goodness comes through the rejection of material goods in favor of a stoic lifestyle - not by being forced into one. All of man's material needs must be first given, so they can then be rejected. An Ethiopian, at the height of famine, is not a better person than an American who rejects the comforts he was given to live a spiritual lifestyle.
They do not have to be. I help my family when they need my help. Welfare is the same principle.
Please cite any time I have supported a war of aggression against another state. My state has the right to sovereignty without external aggression, and so do all other states.
I do not pretend to. I am merely trying to describe my moral position, which you have misinterpreted.
Preservation as a relic of a past is not the same. I would rather walk through an Aztec city today, than look at a picture of one in a book. I would rather hear women and children conversing in their language around me - not hear computer recordings. In any case, information is lost over the ages. Even digital records have lifespans. There is no way to preserve the full breadth of complexity a culture has save for its natural preservation by that culture group. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 23 2010, 08:52 AM Post #31 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Who decided for us that diversity is a noble goal? A good thing? I would be perfectly happy continuing the line of Western Culture without the interference of Asian, Native or Tribal diversity from anywhere else. My ear is tuned to Beethoven - my eye is focused on Shakespeare - my philosophy is rooted in Aristotle. That is enough for me. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 23 2010, 09:40 AM Post #32 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
That is precisely my point. A one world government would force integration of cultures for the purposes of stability, and it would naturally occur through the generations even without force. There would be no 'Western culture' or 'Asian culture'. There would be a single mono cultural, monolingual, mono religious, brown mass of people. It would be a very boring world, and I could not consider it human. I am talking of diversity on a global scale - an Arab state for Arabs. A Greek state for Greeks. An American state for Americans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYCMXfBrPc http://worldethnicmap.webs.com/worldmapnations.png Edited by Union, Jul 23 2010, 09:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 23 2010, 12:00 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
. . . and I see nothing wrong with that. However, now we seem to have a Northern European state for Muslims, a Midwestern US state for Muslims, an Asian state for Muslims - It is an attempt to undiversify at a global level. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 23 2010, 12:18 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
I agree. Which is why I am a nationalist, opposed to domestic multicultural programs, opposed to immigration in general, and, in the words of TC, "exclusionary." Global diversity requires national homogeneity. Get rid of Chinatown or Little Italy. Keep China and Italy. Edited by Union, Jul 23 2010, 12:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 23 2010, 01:18 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Thank you. If I really need bratwurst and strudel, I'll fly to Munich, thank you! |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Jul 23 2010, 01:37 PM Post #36 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
Just for future reference, the next time it is said that fascism is left-wing, I'd like to note that the libertarian and the semi-fascist are in complete agreement. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 23 2010, 01:40 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
About one issue. I also advocate universal health care, worker's rights, and other issues that would be opposed to by libertarians, but that you and I likely could agree on. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 23 2010, 01:57 PM Post #38 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Were such a policy (of national homogeneity) not ****ing retarded, I'd support it. It's something we could use in Europe. As you guys are all European immegrants, unless you're proposing to give your land back to the natives and come back to the Old Country, my response is: WTF are you smoking man? That said, the US of A is big enough to break the states down into ethnic groups, so you wouldn't have to fly five thousand miles for some good sausage. Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Jul 23 2010, 01:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 23 2010, 02:05 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
We're talking idealization to an extreme, not practicality, or even outright desirable. I like Chinese takeout, for example. :lol: In addition, I am talking about groups as they stand with no regard for their past, or how they got there. IE: Kosovo will remain an Albanian state, Israel a Jewish one, and in the United States Indian Reservations would be granted statehood, etc. In addition, I recognize the 'melting pot' of mixing cultures to produce new ones. North American culture would be united in a single state, as would other multi-cultural states such as Switzerland or Kazakhstan where multi-culturalism forms a key part of the national identity. Edited by Union, Jul 23 2010, 02:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 23 2010, 02:18 PM Post #40 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
So you recognize that mixing cultures produces new cultures. You view these new cultures as viable and as intrinsically valuable as the cultures they came from. And you want to... prevent... the mixing... of cultures? To stop new cultures forming? To preserve diversity and having different cultures? Wait... what? Where have I messed up here? You want to stop the creation of new cultures so we can have different cultures? I don't get it. Not at all. Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Jul 23 2010, 02:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 23 2010, 02:39 PM Post #41 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
My particular problem is with the concept of a one-world government, which will result in a single culture. More than anything, I want there to be diversity of cultures. So yes, allow the mixing and evolution of cultures, but do so in a controlled way, to simulate the isolating effect geography once had, thus preventing this process from being taken to its eventual conclusion - monocultural, monolingual world. It is very hot, so I may not be explaining myself plainly. Two cultures can very easily mix into one - IE: Spanish culture, mixing with Native cultures, produced Latino culture. One culture can be split into two - IE: Dutch colonists in south Africa become Afrikaaners. The former is done naturally when cultures mix. The latter requires that cultures be kept apart, allowing them to split. Technology has made the former much easier, and the latter much more difficult, by destroying natural barriers between peoples that isolate cultures, discouraging hybridization, and encouraging separation. When two hybrid cultures integrate into a hybrid of the hybrids, four cultures have been destroyed. When a hybrid of a hybrid of a hybrid mixes with a similar hybrid, that number becomes 16. This increases exponentially until there would remain one culture in the world. I have no problem with hybrid cultures. I have a problem with the end-path of cultural mixing. I want there to be, artificial if necessary, barriers to control the natural mixing of cultures, in order to preserve diversity. Is this any clearer? Edited by Union, Jul 23 2010, 02:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 23 2010, 02:44 PM Post #42 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
How is imposing arbitrary rules on an international level to encourage multiculturalism any different from One World Government having a the same multi-cultural programs that we currently have on a national level? |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 23 2010, 02:47 PM Post #43 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
I edited my old post. To add to your new concern, it is because a minority culture, given a long enough timeline, is always integrated with the dominant culture, into a new, hybrid culture. When the cultures are very alien, such as China to Europe, it may take some time (and Chinatowns in the USA continue to thrive.) When they are somewhat similar, such as Irishmen with Englishmen, it happens much more quickly (You cannot tell apart a fourth generation Irishmen in America today, in terms of culture, language, or race, from a fourth-generation Englishmen). However, it always happens (The Huns became Europeanized, despite a Central Asian origin). Edited by Union, Jul 23 2010, 02:48 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Jul 23 2010, 03:49 PM Post #44 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
While I don't necessarily agree with every aspect of Union's platform, this one seems simple and straightforward to me: Take things as they are. I.e., he's looking at cultures as they are now, not some romanticized view of the past or some idealized view of what they could be. And he's saying, let's preserve these cultures that are there now. Because potential cultures don't exist, and therefore we can't value them, and past cultures might be valuable but they are gone. But present cultures are here, and thriving, and he wants them preserved and not homogenized. Yes, cultural mixing created the current cultures, but preservation does not mean recontruction, and if one wants to preserve a culture, he has to start somewhere - with the culture as we have it. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Jul 23 2010, 03:54 PM Post #45 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
I frankly don't care as long as you're not infringing my rights or someone else's. |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Jul 23 2010, 04:05 PM Post #46 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
I just drew a weird parallel here between abortion and preserving current cultures based on this post. Sorry, that was random. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 23 2010, 05:00 PM Post #47 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Like your right to move country? Move state (can't tell me the culture of Texas is the same as California)? Go on holiday? Lobby for a change in law that would effect the "culture" of the USA (such as a lobby for GLBT rights)? Why preserve culture as it is now? Are we at the peak of culture? No. It's like wanting to preserve the Dark Ages "before things get any worse". Cultures constantly shift. That's what makes them cultures. If we kept that view, we wouldn't have the USA. Now I'm not one to sing the coulda-shoulda-wouldas, I just don't see what's so great about what we've got today and how we can protect it and why we should want to preserve what we have rather than move forward. Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Jul 23 2010, 05:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Filo | Jul 23 2010, 05:33 PM Post #48 |
|
General
|
Italian cops are a bunch of fascistes |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 23 2010, 06:50 PM Post #49 |
|
Deleted User
|
I completely disagree. That's like saying I can't move to Italy, because I'm not Italian. Limitations such as that would require massive government intervention. Such barriers would restrict us to a portion of the earth, based solely on our ethnicity or nationality. Such a proposition is impossible. You think we have a problem with immigration now? Just imagine if we, or if any other country for that matter, tried to restrict certain people from entering the country, based on ethnicity. It would be too massive of a project to fulfill, even in the least bit. If people want to move, then let them move. Its not up to the government to regulate something like that. That is a freedom dictated to the people. Cultures are always changing, no one has a right to keep an entire one stagnant. I believe a couple Asian countries have tried this before in the past, or something similar. Didn't work very well though. |
|
|
| New Harumf | Jul 23 2010, 07:46 PM Post #50 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
No. Wong. We have a right, as a state, to limit what influences our society. Peroid. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |











11:51 AM Jul 13