posted 11-17-98 02:50 AM ET        

Yes, that's right, the organization that Arnelos founded based upon the famous Albert Einstein quote, "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

Please register your support for letting all of those petty nationalists know that they are not appreciated and we think life around here would be alot better (and the number useless posts would be reduced) if they would just shut up about how great their country is because they were born in it, blah, blah, blah.

posted 11-17-98 07:57 AM ET            

I think that belonging to a certain nation is connected with belonging to that nation's culture. Removing nationality might result in US on world scale - a world with very little culture :-)

posted 11-17-98 10:44 AM ET            

"Is it for the good of all countries (lower transaction costs because of single currency, more flexible movement of capital and labor etc.)..."

Don't forget that integration is also a strong supporter of peace among the nation states - the initial idea...

"or the bad (less competition among governments,..."

Why less ?In a single amrket they gotta comepte more for invetsemnt etc as if they were able to shut off their national economy.

"zillion layer bureaucracy in Brussels (a stereotype, but true in some ways),..."

True in which ways ? About 25.000 EU employees, all together, including translators.

"small nation cultures disappearing..."

Can't see that happening. We are a small nation, though we have the advantage that we speak the most common language (for native speakers) in the EU, but I don't see our identity disappearing. Look at the Irish, Portugese etc, where is their identity fading ?

I'm just a staunch pro-european...

posted 11-17-98 10:51 AM ET            

Hey, I'm not against EU, I'm just trying to really be sure about it - has anyone noticed that one REALLY starts understanding a subject when forced to discuss or defend it?

posted 11-17-98 10:56 AM ET            

I'm waiting cautiously what will be happening with EU. It is a great idea, but I'm not happy with many aspects of its implemetation - bureaucracy being one of the most annoying. I've recently heard that they're spending large sums of money that don't exist (like ships that have sunk ???). I have also lived in many countries and can't really fully understand nationalism. I see it as very irrational, learned behaviour, enforced by peer pressure. So I hope EU will succeed.

At the same time I'm glad that UK didn't join the MU yet, as I feel there is a real danger of the new currency collapsing. Oh, and I'd hate if London would stop being the financial centrum :-)

posted 11-17-98 10:57 AM ET            

for the next 5 seconds you will not dislike anyone or any country.

OK did you like the way that felt? Good, lets try to work towards that as humans.

posted 11-17-98 11:07 AM ET            

Dushan, bureaucracy is usually balmed on the EU. Could you give me an example ? I'll try to explain something about it. And the non-existing money.... the ECHO scandal ?

On EMU: The greater danger for London as financial center is staying outside. If the UK had been in the first wave, the ECB may even have gone to London...would have been possible.

posted 11-17-98 11:22 AM ET            

I can live with that at least on a personal level (I do not dislike people just policy sometimes).

posted 11-17-98 11:52 AM ET            

"you are right that you are wrong..."

lol (quoting DJ here) - I should have made it clearer: my opinion was not on the actual situation in the 3 baltic states, but on what the commission stated in its reports. Would have to check that though...

posted 11-20-98 02:20 AM ET            

Look at nations such as Australia, the US, Britain, etc. Our wasted food would come so very close to feeding the starving people in this world. And yet we let it rot, bury it, or use it as compost. Why? Selfishness and greed.

Oh the wonders that we could do under a unified world. NO WARS. After all, everyone is your brother (or sister), so why go to war with your brother. Everyone shares the wealth. So, no need to go to war over goods.

Imagine America lending Russia it's industrial knowledge, not for commercial gain, but because they are our brothers, and we wished to help them. But of course, they wouldn't be Russian and Americans. They'd be humans.

I suppose it is something similar to communism (or is it socialism) in it's purest form. From everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs. On a global scale. Which even I admit is fine in theory, but would never work in practice, due to greed, hatred and selfishness.

As for choosing which state to live in? Why would you bother. We would be living in utopia, a very garden of eden.

And yet, even here, even just talking in theory, people can't agree. It is a sad indictment on human society that we can't even agree on something so simple and pure as that ideal.

So, the biggest reason there can be no God: If there were, he would look down on us, and smote us into oblivion in disgust at our own stupidity and greed...

Brother Greg.

posted 11-17-98 08:22 PM ET            

Imagine there's no country,
I wonder if you can,
Nothing to live or die for,
A brotherhood of man.

Imagine all the people,
Living life in Peace.

Appologies if I have misquoted there, but I think you get the idea. Imagine a world where there was no countries - a brotherhood of man. No Palestinians killing Isrealis killing Palestinians. No Africans slaughtering each other. No Serbs killing Bosnians killing Serbs. No Irish killing British (killing Irish?).

Imagine a world where everyone was of one "nationality", with no hatred because of race or creed. Imagine a world where no-one was vilified because of their colour or their belief. Imagine a world where no-one died because of some silly line drawn on a map.

Not the end of nationality, but the beginning of unification.

Imran, you say you don't want it? Imagine if the world was united, with the best forms of government melded into a world body. Where brother helped sister on the streets, where the "developed" countried sent their surplus food to the starving nations in Africa. And you don't want this to happen??? Well, that would be sad.

Sadly, I can't see it happening in my lifetime. There is simply too much hatred and mistrust in the world. Mankind is too petty to ever do something like this.

Brother Greg.

posted 11-20-98 08:33 AM ET            

correct me if i'm wrong, but won't there be a uniform VAT in the EU? If it is so, it eliminates the possibility for coutries to compete.

Could you as well explain the framework (I'm not exactly an expert on EU taxes) for capital gains and dividend taxation and witholding tax for capital outflow from the EU. Will there be anything at the discretion of member states? Again, I want to demonstrate how the federalization of the world would make the competition among states weaker, at a loss of people all over the world.

The ECB will govern the monetary policy of EU. Again, competition among CB's of EU coutries will disappear. Where will the gales of creative destruction go? There will not be any in Europe, that's for sure.

posted 11-20-98 09:46 AM ET            

Ok. I hope this one goes thru:

On CB competition - imagine an investor willing to invest in Europe. Ok, what have we got here? France, Germany, Italy, Benelux.... Which one offers more currency rate stability? Which one is the most transparent? Where will I get a better interest rate? How about banking and securities regulations? Ok, country XXX looks best. So here I come in with my ...000,000,000 investment.

Now imagine this - ehmmm... Europe... nah, now they are so big they cant manage everything. The euro is very volatile (might actually happen), so I'll invest in US.

posted 11-17-98 08:38 PM ET            

Give us some more money, you bastard.

May the seed of your loins be fruitful in the belly of your woman.

-neil

posted 11-20-98 10:31 PM ET            

However, an "internationalist" is anyone who supports international institutions for the purpose of cooperation between nation-states.

In the event where internationalists argue for a super-national governing organization, they almost exclusively are speaking about a confederation type system, heavily federalized. The only centralized functions would be those that are better centralized than apart, such as defense, environment, various international research development projects (alternative energy resources, space exloration, and other pursuits), and limited economic information monitoring (to insure validity of economic data to prevent international trade fraud. These systems are already being put into place). POSSIBLY a centralized bank with eventualy unified currency, but this is not necessary at all. If anything, separate currencies allow for the system to attribute to different costs of living and values in different places. PERHAPS the formation of an international banking system more complex than the current one for controlling intrest rates, money supply, and lending supply (like the federal reserve in the U.S.). However, this is highly unlikely any time soon, as such economic controls would likely be hottly rejected. I could see the political, scientific, and defense concerns being more imediate.

Being an internationalist, I don't think we're going to see any significant strengthening of international institutions to a confederation/loosely federalized system until the world has a more uniform political culture. Until then, the concept is quite nearly impossible. Economic integration, as in the case of Europe, would be near to impossible unless you had less economic development difference between states. This may take even longer than bringing political cultures closer together.

posted 11-17-98 08:59 PM ET            

Who would have thought Israel would seemingly enter into serious negotiations with Palestine? And peace in Ireland? Now if they come off I might begin to think seriously about unification, because miracles would be in the air.

posted 11-17-98 09:03 PM ET            

Still, wouldn't fit in too well with SMAC.

On the topic, I received this by email yesterday:

> Subject: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:19
>
>
> To celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights, Amnesty International is collecting signatures for a pledge to
> support this very important United Nations declaration. Amnesty
already
> has 3 million signatures (real and virtual) world wide, and wants 8
million
> (which would be a significant proportion of the world's population of
> around 6 billion). The UN Secretary General has already agreed to be
> present either in person or live by satellite to receive the pledge as
a
> tangible statement of the people of the world's commitment to an
> international agenda of human rights.
>
> The most simple way to add your name to the pledge is to:
> Send an e-mail to <[email protected]>
> Put YOUR NAME on the SUBJECT line,
> Put the following text in the message: 'I support the rights and
freedoms
> in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for all people,
everywhere'.
> Amnesty also offers the opportunity to sign up via the Internet.
> <http://rights.amnesty.org/>
>
> PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN.

Not quite what we are talking about, but a good cause nonetheless I believe...

posted 11-21-98 03:33 AM ET            

Brother Greg - Yes, global nationalism (globalism?) would be a great thing, but there really isn't anything to contrast the Earth to presently. Not yet... at least.

posted 11-17-98 09:31 PM ET            

"My daddy can beat up your daddy because he's better. He's strongest."

They'll never open their eyes up to the possibility that your opponent's father could probably open up a can of whoop arse on yours. Eventually you get older and realize your mother can beat up your old man.
Well, the same goes for your country. You live in your country, you respect it, and you defend it. You won't recognize other countries for what they are.

"You guys live in mud huts, don't you?"

I predict the urge of nationalism will go away when we realize that your country is (for lack of better terms) crappy. Bad education, economy, health care, and every other universal.
Now, if I could only get my self to do that....

posted 11-17-98 09:44 PM ET            

Heck, even when most people do recognise a flaw, they tend to say "but it is better than anyone else has got". Which is just denying making it better.

Still it is is possible. Just our prejudices are ingrained into us at birth, and overcoming them is harder than just recognising them.

Brother Greg.

posted 11-17-98 11:55 PM ET            

I think the world will unite after a major war. Think about it, half the population dead. Food scarce, radiation zones, cities to rebuild, etc. You'd have to be pretty dumb to try & fix all that by yourself!

I hope to be an old man when the world unites, unlikely, but I wanna be part of the 'country' Earth rather than the country America. No matter how short a time it may be. 1 day would make me happy, they unite officially, then I die the next day, that's how I think it will be. Or hope, I don't wanna worry about all the early problems of a unified Earth!!

posted 11-18-98 12:00 AM ET            

1. The EU has taken the reins of world leadership away from the United States in many areas in the international community because of the current U.S. administration's adversion to taking any sort of stand on foreign policy.
(However, when it comes to military matters, European states seem to lack confidence in taking care of regional problems like Bosnia without U.S. military involvement.)

2. The United States has continued to fail to pay its U.N. dues.

3. The United States, while claiming to support human rights, liberty, freedom, and justice for all, has supported many oppressive regimes throughout the cold war and still supports many others. For instance, only 3 weeks ago did the members of the Human Rights Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives manage to push through a resolution calling for the push for democracy in Indonesia (after this country has spent over 40 years propping up the brutal military dictatorship and opposing opposition to it in the international community). There are countless other examples of this.

4. Large elements of the United States have an obsession with social matters and allow their obsession with such matters to blind them to the importance of all other matters.

5. The United States has not only one of the lowest voter turnouts of any developed state, but also has the lowest polled political efficacy of any developed state.

6. A full third of the U.S. population cannot identify the United States on a world map.

7. The United States scores consistently lower than many European states and Japan on various science and math tests.

8. A large amount of the U.S. population seems to have an "ideological" objection to doing something about environmental problems, as though ideology had anything to do with science. The United States is the world's largest greenhouse gass emitter and has done the worst at doing anything about it (the problem continues to escalate, we just love our S.U.V.'s)

9. There are many within the United States who would like to raise tariffs, withdraw from the U.N., and close our borders. This "populist" movement is spurred in part by both by members of the religious right (social conservatives) and the labor unions (the economic left). This could have a disasterous effect on the country's economy and the state of the world.

And the list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. . .

posted 11-18-98 01:31 AM ET            

And what if the world could join with the US, and be just as good as the US is now? All the benefits (democracy, freedom of speech, etc), and even improved upon? You'd reject that, simply because you love your country so much? The USA as a separate country just for the sake of the USA?

As in if you were in charge of the USA when the world became unified, you'd keep the USA out? May I ask why? And no, I don't consider the fact that you love the USA to be a reason.

posted 11-18-98 02:40 AM ET            

Imagine that we were all citizens of the world. Not a particular country, but the world as a whole. Imagine that everything that was decided by the Planetary council was for the good of the WHOLE world. No factions, no countries, no hatred, no war.

With all the best laws, constitutions, anything you could think of.

Basically, the entire world living as one country, in peace and harmony. Every single person working towards the good of mankind. i'm talking something much more than just a simple council like the UN, I am talking truly unifying every country, under a just and right rule. One that does what is right for mankind, not just a single country.

Wouldn't that be something worth joining?

And while the USA knows what is good for the USA, this unified planet would know what is good for everyone.

I'm not saying it is likely that it would happen, but I have to support the idea behind it. Heck, just changing all the hatreds in the world would be a miracle. Changing all the selfishness would be so hard to believe that I can't see it happening. But I sure as hell wish that it would...

posted 11-18-98 04:35 AM ET            

Imagine a single world state. Imagine a dictatorial junta seizes power. Where do you seek asylum? There will no longer be Israel or Britain or US to escape to. T H I N K about it.

My dream is that the world opens borders, and people move freely (look up my previous posts), along with their assets, and they are not bullied by any nation because they are different. If that is what you meant by unity, Brother Greg, I take back the "down with unity".

"With all the best laws, constitutions, anything you could think of."
- what's best for you might not be best for me, therefore I would want an alternative state to live in, and move myself and my assets and my talents (if any) along. Unity of the world takes away the alternative from the minority. And that is, ahem, nazism.

posted 11-18-98 08:22 AM ET            

I think some of the counter argument should take into account that a world government would not be a centralised, but a federal system - leaving enough room for states where they can decide what is better for them -"subsidiarity".

We are on a (very) slow way towards such a government. The UN security council has a lot of power on paper (only); but it may grow in reality into the role laid down in the charter.

More ranting later - gotta go to a meeting...

posted 11-18-98 07:35 PM ET            

Surely the whole system itself forms the deterrent???

Anyway, I really don't want to argue about the logistics. I support the ideal, and I'll leave the details to better minds than mine. If we could really unify manking, get everyone believing in the good of manking, no selfishness, no greed, just doing what is good for manking, why would anyone want to rebel?

Frankly, only those that were greedy or selfish would feel the need.

It is as much about re-educating the people of the world as it is about breaking down borders. Make them believe in the common good of man, and truly unify the world. Then you wouldn't have the malcontents needed to back a dictator.

And as I said, I don't see this re-education happening. Too many people are too selfish, too greedy, and too full of hate for me to believe that it would happen in my time.

But imagine turning your nationalistic pride to world pride. And then imagine if we could get the whole world to think that way. Imagine Indians embracing Pakistanis, Irish embracing English, Serbs embracing Croats. Not as members of a country, but as members of the human race. No nations. No colour. No discrimination.

Sure, there'd be problems to iron out. I'm not saying this would be easy. And I really am not qualified to argue out the details of the planetary council, or how you'd stop a dictator coming to power. But believe in the ideal at least.

What other real hope have we?

posted 11-19-98 05:32 AM ET            

USP: "but I think that 1/3 of our population not being able to identify their own country sounds unbelievable to me."

Sounds very believable to me. I don't have anything about this at hand, just something similar:

Andrew Shapiro, "We're Number One", 1992 Random house New York, quoting a Gallup poll:
Percentage of people aged 18-24 who know that the population of the US is between 150 and 300 million:

Sweden: 46 %
Mexico: 46 %
Germany: 42 %
France: 35 % (that should hurt!)
US of A: 32 % (!)

posted 11-19-98 01:46 PM ET            

But I do not hate any nation, race etc. Am I the only one? I don't think so. I could as well be selfish, greedy and loving (love of customers - read some Tom Peters) in my business/work/job matters and just loving in others. I think people will never work more for the sake of their brethren than they do for themselves. It's just the way we are. Charity and pulic service is another matter - I think that there should be more of these things, but ONLY VOLUNTARILY.

posted 11-19-98 02:20 PM ET            

I think Saras has made a good point. We need to be able to choose what kind of State we want to live in. I'm not French, and I live in France, and I think this country sucks, so I want to leave the second I'm 18 to the US or Israel (I have all three nationalities), which are two countries I like. If I don't like the world, I can't go to Alpha Centauri like in this game.

posted 11-19-98 02:20 PM ET            

"- Powerful nations of today don't want to give up their power."

Ok, they don't want to, but in a global economy they are losing power regardless. And profit so far has persuaded many to give up a bit of sovereignty.

"- Western nations don't want the majority of the population (3rd world) to get power (for obvious reasons)"

Depends on the voting system. In a federal system, you can ahve a second chamber not based on population, where eg regional vetoes may be possible (by two thirds of the western states, for example)

"- Can you just about imagine the bureaucracy (It is bad for the EU, but a world state would be about as movable as a blunt smoking sauroopod)"

posted 11-19-98 04:17 PM ET            

I speak myself four languages: Finnish, English, Swedish and German. Of those four German would be the best for a world language. It's quite easy to pronounce and it doesn't have a lot of exceptions, like Swedish. And also lots of people speak it.

posted 11-20-98 02:22 AM ET            

Look at nations such as Australia, the US, Britain, etc. Our wasted food would come so very close to feeding the starving people in this world. And yet we let it rot, bury it, or use it as compost. Why? Selfishness and greed.

Oh the wonders that we could do under a unified world. NO WARS. After all, everyone is your brother (or sister), so why go to war with your brother. Everyone shares the wealth. So, no need to go to war over goods.

Imagine America lending Russia it's industrial knowledge, not for commercial gain, but because they are our brothers, and we wished to help them. But of course, they wouldn't be Russian and Americans. They'd be humans.

I suppose it is something similar to communism (or is it socialism) in it's purest form. From everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs. On a global scale. Which even I admit is fine in theory, but would never work in practice, due to greed, hatred and selfishness.

As for choosing which state to live in? Why would you bother. We would be living in utopia, a very garden of eden.

And yet, even here, even just talking in theory, people can't agree. It is a sad indictment on human society that we can't even agree on something so simple and pure as that ideal.

So, the biggest reason there can be no God: If there were, he would look down on us, and smote us into oblivion in disgust at our own stupidity and greed...

Brother Greg.

posted 11-20-98 07:53 AM ET            

"Roland, you contradict yourself in our argument of bureaucracy. You say it won't worse than for a country, only on a bigger scale."

That's why I put the " " there. However, the number of bureaucrats would have to "administer" a larger number of people, so the burden per citizen would not neceessarily change. Maybe decrease - see below.

"Can you imagine how many people you would need to ensure that everyone pays their taxes. And you'd have to about 100 million police officers."

Well, you have them now already. They are employed by the states, and that could stay that way. A world state could never be a centralised state, it would have to be very decentralised. Just a small "world police" for the "world crime" - coordination, info gathering etc.

The real argument about bureaucracy is: how much do you get in addition by adding another "layer" of government. The EU has, IMO, reduced bureaucracy: its regulations have replaced 15 different national regulations (which are usually just as detailed and partly stupid - some of ours are so stupid they make the cucumber curve regulations look like a brilliant idea), and it has done away with most border related bureaucracy.

posted 11-20-98 08:54 AM ET            

"Roland, correct me if i'm wrong, but won't there be a uniform VAT in the EU? If it is so, it eliminates the possibility for coutries to compete."

Yes and no. There are uniform standards for VAT and a minimum rate of 15 %. Actual rates go from 15 or 16 up to about 25 %. There has been a long discussion about a unform rate; may come somewhere in the future.
On competition: I don't think countries should compete on VAT. When they do so, they severely distort the competition between enterprises, especially in border regions. I prefer a level playing field for companies rather than a tax competition among states.

"Could you as well explain the framework (I'm not exactly an expert on EU taxes) for capital gains and dividend taxation and witholding tax for capital outflow from the EU. Will there be anything at the discretion of member states? Again, I want to demonstrate how the federalization of the world would make the competition among states weaker, at a loss of people all over the world."

For now, there are no such rules. Luxembourg doesn't have a capital gains/dividend tax, other states have up to 35 % or so, I think. This is likely to chnage over the next years. Here I'd however agree with you that competition on direct taxation may have positive effects. A single capital gains/dividends/income tax is however not a necessary part of EU/world "federalization".

"The ECB will govern the monetary policy of EU. Again, competition among CB's of EU coutries will disappear. Where will the gales of creative destruction go? There will not be any in Europe, that's for sure."

Competition among central banks ? What would that be good for ? It only leads to changing exchange rates. Competitive devaluation is destructive - I can see nothing "creative" about it.

VAT and monetary policy competition between states distorts the competition between enterprises. That's why I'm against it -what are the benefits IYO ?

"Ahhhh-emmm, what is the topic for this thread?..."

posted 11-20-98 12:49 PM ET            

French is a very nice language, pleasing to the ear, but it's still not as spoken as English, and lacks many words. The vocabulary is very poor, and a 600 page book in English could easily fill 1000 pages in French.

English, is just perfect. A lot of people speak English, and the language is doesn't sound bad. The vocabulary is extremely rich. Even though the Grammar and relation between pronunciation and spelling are difficult, it would be a very good choice.

posted 11-20-98 10:16 PM ET            

Where German shines is in pronunciation. I agree with Grosshaus that German pronunciation with the words is very easy since a word is pronounced EXACTLY as it is written. This makes pronunciation simple.

However, German is much more complex than other languages in other areas:

1. Like most continental European languages, there are several definitea and indefinite articles that correspond to the "gender" of nouns. In German, unlike most of the other languages with this, you pretty much have to memorize the gender for each **** noun since the vast majority of them don't conform to any patterns (the one tried and true pattern I've seen is -ung endings always being feminine).

2. Number of cases. As you stated, you have the Nominative, Accusative, Dative, and Genetive cases. This is less than other languages, like say Russian (which is VERY complicated), but more than English, which only has Nominative and Accusative (with genetive and dative being done by prepositions used with the nominative and accusative cases). The number of cases is confusing to many non-German speakers.

3. Adjective endings. I haven't taken another language which is so anal about adjective endings and their variance with different cases, plurality, gender and definite vs. indefinite articles.

4. Variance in case and prepositions with one another based upon tense in some cases.

5. More than one past tense form and multiple and irregular verb patterns in both past-tenses.

posted 11-20-98 10:31 PM ET            

However, an "internationalist" is anyone who supports international institutions for the purpose of cooperation between nation-states.

In the event where internationalists argue for a super-national governing organization, they almost exclusively are speaking about a confederation type system, heavily federalized. The only centralized functions would be those that are better centralized than apart, such as defense, environment, various international research development projects (alternative energy resources, space exloration, and other pursuits), and limited economic information monitoring (to insure validity of economic data to prevent international trade fraud. These systems are already being put into place). POSSIBLY a centralized bank with eventualy unified currency, but this is not necessary at all. If anything, separate currencies allow for the system to attribute to different costs of living and values in different places. PERHAPS the formation of an international banking system more complex than the current one for controlling intrest rates, money supply, and lending supply (like the federal reserve in the U.S.). However, this is highly unlikely any time soon, as such economic controls would likely be hottly rejected. I could see the political, scientific, and defense concerns being more imediate.

Being an internationalist, I don't think we're going to see any significant strengthening of international institutions to a confederation/loosely federalized system until the world has a more uniform political culture. Until then, the concept is quite nearly impossible. Economic integration, as in the case of Europe, would be near to impossible unless you had less economic development difference between states. This may take even longer than bringing political cultures closer together.