ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Yes, Bill Gates can, and then he can deny any state the right to tax his holdings, he can move his assets into any other state he wants, without a by your leave from any states hes the resident of.

Rich folks already try to do this, and to use tax havens, and such, but this would open up many more such possibilities, and would be especially helpful to folks who have fixed assets that cant easily be moved to a tax haven.

I'm not talking about filthy rich folkes.

I'm talking about a principle.

Can Bill Gates set up his own state in the middle of the USA? Can he get away with being king? Can he get away with murder?

Im sorry, my sarcasm got lost in their. The first paragraph was meant to say what Bill Gates could do in GePaps ideal world. Thats why the second said "this would open up more such possibilities"

[lord of the mark]

I think its clear GePap doesnt envision each individual getting the right to westphalian sovereignty, in an anarcho-capitalist wet dream.

He wants a world govt above nationality, which the EU could be the model for, if it wasnt so exclusive as to keep out Turkey, african immigrants, and in so many other ways to express a common non-universalist identity.

[Sirotnikov]

And Fatah may have been more independent, but was still closely aligned with Damascus.

mutual interests & cooperation != being a tool of.

I read your first statements as "Syria was a puppet master of Fateh".

That conflicts with what I know, and I haven't met this angle anywhere. I will try and read up on that in the next few days. However it does seem odd to me, that I totally missed it, given my pretty good basic knowledge on the issues at hand.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im sorry, my sarcasm got lost in their. The first paragraph was meant to say what Bill Gates could do in GePaps ideal world. Thats why the second said "this would open up more such possibilities"

I'm not always good at spotting sarcasm - especially when its late or I'm sleeping.

Just ask Az - I practically scared him a few weeks ago when I began arguing with something sarcastic he said.

To my defense - it was early in the morning and I was still tired from my sleep in the train ride to my work.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
GePap, you say you oppose all nationalism. Do you support the concept of national liberation?

No. I support the notion of individual rights, which would include the ability of people to carry out whichever cultural rites they chose and felt was part of their national identity. BUt I don't support "national liberation" if the point is to create yet another Nation-state in which groups that happen not to be of the newly liberated nation end up still being oppressed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I'm glad we finally reached discussing axioms. This means we could eventually agree to disagree, both understanding each other's view. What is your grudge with nationalism?Nationalism is not necessarily based on ethnicity, but rather on a common ethos. Americans have an ethos and values - they are hardly a homogenous ethnical bunch.

That is simply not how "nationality" has developed historically. It has always had a ethno-cultural bent. Even in the UNited States (a state based on universalistic values that the system holds to be applicable to all human beings) large sections of the population see "American nationality" as being based on shared ethnic and cultural norms, hence the attampt tp exclude immigrants from "other" cultures. Thankfully the more universal values slowly if enoxarably win out and Laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act fall by the wayside.

Israeli Jews have rather different ethnicities, dozens of different religious streams. They are bound together by very old ideas of tradition and a common-feeling, which is what nationalism really is. If you grant self governance to everyone, on what basis will people decide to divide?

Jews still (from an outsiders point of view) still define themselves primarily from a religious context, at the least in the sense that this shared religious context that held Jews to be seperate from everyone else helped the community create a relatively stable ehtnic line. And as for the questions of who decides, that is one of the primary problems of nationalism. What defines the nation is a "fiction" in the sense that it is purely an opinion of individuals, and what happens to individuals who don't share that opinion? You can see this debate in Israel itself with the question of who is a Jew, especially as more orthodox Jews try to re-exert the primacy of the Jewish religion as the basis for Judaism.

Can a person self govern? Can a building? A city block? A neighborhood?If not - then what is the minimum requirement for a bunch of people to self govern? If suddenly a group of people what self determination and self governance, on a territory previously belonging to a larger "self governing" group, then what? Who decides who gets what? What if they get into a brawl over conflicting interests?

This is a problem inherent in nationalism because as you stated, who choses what the nation is? Why is French nationalism OK, but Breton nationalism just too small? Why German, and not Hessian? Or Bavarian? Obviously larger political units can harness greater amounts of collective energy. A great empire will build greater things than a small state. BUt hey, Singapore governs itself rathjer nicely, and it is just a single city and suburbs.

And finally - if you have a bunch of people , united by what ever, that want to self govern and define themselves according to values they share... what other name would you call them, if not "a nation"? And what would be the difference in your eyes?

Nation, before it became confused with State, defines an ethno-cultural group. After all, by your definition, wasn't there a Habsburg "nation"? The Habsburg realms in Central Europe had been ruled by the same dynasty for several centuries by 1905,. and yet open any history book and no one speaks of a "Habsburg nation" anymore than they speak of an "Ottoman nation." So the difference in my eyes is the difference that history recognizes. The theory of nation defines a nation as a single ethno-cultural group.

I go by what I read and what I was taught in different places.
You're welcome to enlighten me if you are familiar with a different history. Saying I'm wrong without either proof or at least a competing narrative is not convincing.

Pan-Arabism was already at work by the time the Ottoman Empire collapsed, one of the reasons why the Arabs supported the British and not their nominal rulers and Caliphs for the past 300 years. So before the Europeans went about creating new borders in the ME there was already a sentiment amongst Arab thinkiers that Arab rule was something distinct from just Muslim rule, which is a universal ideal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think its clear GePap doesnt envision each individual getting the right to westphalian sovereignty, in an anarcho-capitalist wet dream.

He wants a world govt above nationality, which the EU could be the model for, if it wasnt so exclusive as to keep out Turkey, african immigrants, and in so many other ways to express a common non-universalist identity.

An actual world government is unecessary and probably asking for trouble. Internationally accepted norms on the rights of all human beings that apply to all states, weak or strong, is enough. Sadly, we are only beginning to get there, and won't have anything of the sort by the time I die....

[Sandman]

In terms of silliness, nationalism is the equal of religion. It's hardly surprising the two go hand in hand so often. The main difference is that, in the developed world, at least, indifference to religion is commonplace, whilst being indifferent to nations is pretty rare and is likely to attract more hostility.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by GePap
Internationally accepted norms on the rights of all human beings that apply to all states, weak or strong, is enough.

Who defines the 'rights' though, and how are conflicting 'rights' resolved?