A truly international movement that I can wholeheartedly support.
That’ll put an end to all these petty nation-states, but good.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]So do I, but it’s questionable whether our (primarily) two-party system accurately represents all the divergent interests of the American people(s). This begs the further question: is it really desirable to represent all their interests? Is a more representative form of government necessarily better than a less representative form?[/quote] No, it doesn’t. No, it isn’t, but it is desirable that their interests be represented to the government. It’s better to have more interests represented to the government, but not necessarily in or by the government.
I don’t understand. Could you elaborate?
Representation to the gov’t: a group has to be able to make its case through official channels – even if it’s repeatedly turned down – or it’ll take action by other means.
Representation in the gov’t: every group doesn’t need to have a seat at the table, and (given current governance models and logistics) it’s better if all don’t.
(Consider the EU. With 6 or 10 members, everyone sitting around the table and hammering out a deal worked. At 27 member states, it doesn’t.)
Representation by the gov’t: gov’ts cannot be all things to all constituencies, and sometimes it’s better, in the scheme of things, not to be anything at all to some (beyond a forum for speaking out). In any participatory system (not necessarily political) there’s a threshold beyond which accommodation becomes more trouble than it’s worth (if not impossible).
That makes sense. Thanks.
Sure.
So where do lobby/pressure groups fit into this government model by prepositions?
Great. Can we kiss and make up now?
This is starting to sound like a Consitutional Convention…
Great. Can we kiss and make up now?[/quote]I thought you were married, and I’m engaged. But drinks are good. 
[quote=“ac_dropout”]So where do lobby/pressure groups fit into this government model by prepositions?[/quote] 
Pressure groups apply pressure in an attempt to distort the political ball game.
Your town wants to beat my town for the Subside Cup. Everyone concerned can’t get on the court, so you hire your people, I hire mine, and they go to it. Whoever lobbies the ball best looks best to the gov’t and wins the game.
Unless, of course, you’re playing dirty, and one of your people is the ref. In which case you’re not only showing off to the gov’t, your reps are in the gov’t. That upsets the entire game.
One way or another, the game comes to an end and prizes are given out by the gov’t in the Subside Cup. Whichever side wins gets to gloat, and their team of lobbyists get championship rings. If you lose, and you’re lucky, you get a secondary prize. If you’re unlucky, you not only saw your better team robbed on the court because the other guys bought the ref, they also ride out of town with your entire cheerleading squad. After that, people start throwing elbows during the games.
I don’t have a problem with individuals, union, corporations, farmers’ co-ops, etc. organizing themselves to lobby the government. The danger to democracy comes when those same lobbying groups form political action committees and donate money to candidates. Inevitably, the groups with the most money get the most talk time and the candidates, if they get elected, are more likely to reciprocate in their favor.
TC,
The term “nation-state” is not used by political scientists and historians to describe any and all forms of government throughout history. But as Screaming Jesus alluded, there were cultural/ethnic/religious polities that resemble modern nations in many ways, and distinguishing between them is not always easy.
One feature of nation-states is a strong allegiance of the people (the nation) to the government (the state), in theory at least regardless of internal differences. This allegiance is a prerequisite, again theoretically, to citizenship. Thus, a Catholic Hispanic whose primary language is Spanish, identifies with mestizo culture and history, etc., can move to the United States, become a citizen, and swear his allegiance to the American state. He submits to our laws, serves in the military if called upon to do so, and identifies with the United States, rather than Mexico or Costa Rica or wherever.
Take Iraq as another example. We are hoping that Iraq truly becomes a nation-state. We are hoping that Sunni Arabs, Kurdish Arabs, and Shi’a Arabs will take on a new cultural and political identity known as “Iraqi.” But what is an Iraqi? And to what government do they swear their allegiance, and why? What does it mean to be an Iraqi? Does a Kurdish Iraqi consider himself Iraqi, or Kurdish, or a mixture of both? From what I’ve read, Kurds in Iraq do not distinguish themselves from Kurds in other countries. The idea that they should have separate identities because of political borders -that they should become members of nation-states rather than an ethnic group- is alien to them.
Yugoslavia was a nation-state with serious ethnic and religious divisions, and following the death of Tito it broke up, precisely because those different peoples did not really take on the identify of national citizens. They were Orthodox Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Serbian, Croatian, etc.
As one final example, think of Nazi Germany. Hitler thought it absurd that Austria and Germany should remain disparate polities, since linguistically, ethnically, and culturally “German” Germans and “Austrian” Germans were very similar.
An important question in the coming century will be if nation-states can survive as religious/ethnic/linguistic/cultural divisions within the world’s various countries deepen. France will be predominantly Muslim in less than 25 years. Will these Muslims take on a French identity? And what does it mean to be French? Is there a difference between a French-speaking, white Catholic citizen of France and an Arabic-speaking, Muslim citizen of France? If there isn’t, then I would be curious to know what it is about that citizenship which eclipses the other aspects of their identity. Is it a document that says “French” on it? Is that all citizenship means?
gao_bo_han, may get something out of this talk I posted in the arts and culture forum: The Society of Difference. (Or you could just read it here.)
GBH -
The term is a fairly recent construct. It has it use in identifying certain socio-political characteristics.
However, the characteristics the term describes can correctly be applied to societal and cultural groupings that pre-date the 300 years or so period that is most commonly referred to by those using the term.
Socio-political and socio-cultural are not the same thing, TC.
If you’re so sure about this, offer up a concurring opinion.
However, without this fail safe to regulate “bribery” in the form of campaign contribution. You would have unregulated bribery in the system. And this non-transparency would not allow political opposition to compete for attention.
Throughout history there is no evidence that the world either converging or diverging from the “nation-state” concept. It is just one of the many different types of States that exist in the world.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]GBH -
The term is a fairly recent construct. It has it use in identifying certain socio-political characteristics.
However, the characteristics the term describes can correctly be applied to societal and cultural groupings that pre-date the 300 years or so period that is most commonly referred to by those using the term.[/quote]
Not sure what to say here TC. I have never seen the term “nation-state” used in any academic paper to describe any polity that existed before the 17th century. The rise of the nation-state is an oft-discussed subject in political science courses, and many articles and books have been written on the subject. Of course you “can” use the term to describe ancient societies, but you “can” also use the term to describe your favorite lamp…it’s just not going to make much sense to anyone else.
A united earth? Are you kidding? What shall ever happen to TI and all those new and beautiful postage stamps?
No, it won’t last forever: the world will one day be free of nation states.
That’d be about the time that it becomes free of humans.
Which may be next week, but may take the next million years.
Time to cash in those stocks and die drinking champagne.
Here’s a perspective stolen (and probably distorted) from Daniel Quinn:
Humans are social animals, and the kind of society which is natural for us, is the tribe. Our ancestors grouped themselves into tribes well before they evolved into humans. Many of our modern social organizations attempt to mimic tribal life (churches, companies). When we think of an ideal “community,” this is what most of us seem to have in mind (except for degenerates who prefer the big city).
For a few thousand years, some of us (representing more and more of the total human population) have been wildly experimenting with alternative lifestyles that are none too stable or sustainable. When this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will, the survivors will live in tribes again.