World, Writing, Wealth discussion

85 views
World & Current Events > Uniting or separating?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 54 (54 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments We are witnessing both tendencies: countries forming and joining unions and partially waiving their sovereignty and countries breaking up, attempting to or exiting unions. Foundation of EU, uniting of Germany, defeat of independence votes in Canada and Scotland belong to the former, while break-up of USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Brexit belong to the latter.
Not something new. Along the centuries borders and countries were often reshaped: through conquest, marital unification, colonization, liberation movements, insubordination and so on. Along the history, countries were often divided into tiny counties and then reunited again into formidable states. Probably every major state went through this process. Some tiny places remained (semi) independent like Monaco, San-Marino or Lichtenstein, while many united into bigger states..
Some still crave or struggle for independence, like maybe Basques or Irish or Chechen. On any occassion there is always, rather big percent of supporters.
So what's the trend: unity or seperation? Or there isn't just one and reshaping of adminsitrative, territorial, ethnical self-governing is a natural process with its own tides?


message 2: by Mehreen (last edited Oct 17, 2016 07:46PM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Well, the geographical boundaries have always been redefined by historical movements. For the purposes of migration or annexations, people have shaped and re-shaped such boundaries. Separation in one place by default means uniting another. It is one world after all and there is no other place to go to. Brexit or not. The bottom line is there is no exit. That's what the existentialists will argue anyway.


message 3: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Mehreen wrote: " The bottom line is there is no exit...."

Some say galactic colonization shall commence this century.... and I hear people actively buy land plots on the moon and maybe elsewhere -:) and rather cheaply I hear.
Who thinks it's a good investment, btw, and whether someone done due diligence?


message 4: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "Mehreen wrote: " The bottom line is there is no exit...."

Some say galactic colonization shall commence this century.... and I hear people actively buy land plots on the moon and maybe elsewhere -..."


In their dreams Lol. Who's going to live on the moon? Not me.


message 5: by GR (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments The problem, as I see it, is sharing, helping, communicating, understanding. The reason for separation or dominance is not seeking equality. If there is no equality in society, it will cause dysfunction. Everybody is for themselves, not for anybody else.

Years ago while living in Los Angeles county, there was a problem with the northern part of the county. They wanted to separate and make a new county and call it Canyon County. The problem, they believed, their taxes were not used to benefit their area, but the area of the city of LA. I see this with nations. The dominant area dominates the less dominant areas. The less dominant areas have less say or voice in the process. Likewise with the USA when it broke away from England. Likewise with the economy. The people have less of a choice than the status quo. Whenever the minority has a voice over the majority, it causes a problem. We saw it in 1930 Germany. We saw it in South Africa. We saw it in Eastern Europe and the USSR. We saw it in Yugoslavia. Between the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. We saw it in the 1960-70s in US Negro relations in the South. Now the States in the US are wanting to break away from the Federal Government. They see the Federal Government having control over the state and people, and less benefits from their taxes. The masses pay more taxes, and they see the wealthy paying less. And, taxes are being used for special interest, and not for the benefit of society. They pay for their benefits separate from their taxes: medical, education, and retirement. While Europe, everything comes out of their taxes, unless they want special types of insurance.

The US has entered into the haves and have-nots, much like any 3rd World country. There is no middle class anymore. It either is the rich or the lower middle class, and soon the poor. The US is a debtor nation. There isn't anybody I know that isn't without debt. People no longer own their homes, cars, and other possessions--it's all on time payment. And if you don't pay your taxes, everything can be taken away. It is pure insanity that's going on in the US.

And I don't think Donald Trump is going to solve anything, neither will Clinton. She has to battle congress. DT has to battle the status quo. I see the US crumbling into: what did we do wrong? Or, what did we forget?


message 6: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments GR wrote: "The problem, as I see it, is sharing, helping, communicating, understanding. The reason for separation or dominance is not seeking equality. If there is no equality in society, it will cause dysfun..."

Couldn't agree with you more. It is a self-serving society.


message 7: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Mehreen wrote: "In their dreams Lol. Who's going to live on the moon? Not me...."

You'd be surprised, but this is for real, Mehreen. People buy cosmic real estate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrate...
Can be just a con, can be for real, but it's happening


message 8: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments GR wrote: "If there is no equality in society, it will cause dysfunction..."

There is no equality at least in the economic sense and I argue it's impossible under capitalism. Equality is a feature of communist or socialist society, but I'm not sure human nature lives better with equality or with meaningful competition breaking such equality with tangible results..


message 9: by Kevin (new)

Kevin Kuhn (kevinkuhn) | 45 comments I'm not a believer in isolationism. Temporary answer only. Relentless education, understanding and peace is the only viable way forward.


message 10: by Michel (last edited Oct 18, 2016 11:46AM) (new)

Michel Poulin Nik wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "In their dreams Lol. Who's going to live on the moon? Not me...."

You'd be surprised, but this is for real, Mehreen. People buy cosmic real estate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex..."


It IS a con, Nik! Nobody, not even the NASA, can predict accurately when we will be able to establish permanent human outposts outside of Earth orbit. Even the timing of the first manned mission to Mars (which will be only a temporary visit) is still the subject of (optimistic) speculations. As for actually buying real estate, it is made impossible by the fact that a World treaty on the use of space clearly states that no nation, even less so individuals, can claim ownership of any extraterrestrial body or piece of body, including the Moon. This is on the same level of fraud as the enterprise selling space for a one-way trip to Mars to people wishing to colonize it.


message 11: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Michel wrote: "It IS a con, Nik! Nobody, not even the NASA, can predict accurately when we will be able to establish permanent human outposts outside of Earth orbit...."

It may certainly look this way... But as I understand treaties cover national appropriation, while - hardly that of commercial entities; and space law in general is very young and developing...
We have a lot of artificialities and assumptions, which can be true or con under different circumstances or depending which way it's more comfortable.
Some believe in bitcoin, others claim it's a con. US dollar was supposed to be backed by gold, but when French asked to trade paper for metal, it appeared it wasn't -:)
May well be that some centuries ago appropriation of land parcels in the New World wasn't exactly regulated at first and was done through conquest and contract alike..
When space travel shall become practical rather than theoretical - a lot may change.... Maybe those deeds will be worth nothing, maybe a penny..
As of today, I doubt lawyers advise buying moon properties and hardly banks accept Moon deeds for collateral -:)


message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10763 comments The discussion seems to have split in half ;-) Taking the second half, I regard the selling of land on another planet, or the moon, as a con because the seller does not have ownership. The land is terra nova, and it is here the Roman concept of imperium applies. The land initially belongs to whoever is there and controls it. Thus suppose someone claims a section on Mars, and I go there and settle on his land, what is he going to do? How did he get to claim it?

My guess is the current trend towards fragmentation, e.g. Brexit, is simply a consequence of bad governance. If the wretched authorities want to impose their own emotional feelings on the others, then either they have imperium or they do not, and if they do not, and what they claim is tested, then those who are disgruntled walk. Once a whole lot of ISIL fighters join the Syrian refugees, I think you will find the current EU liberal attitudes will change dramatically, or the EU will fragment as a whole.


message 13: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "Michel wrote: "It IS a con, Nik! Nobody, not even the NASA, can predict accurately when we will be able to establish permanent human outposts outside of Earth orbit...."

It may certainly look this..."


Hahaha. Who are the realestate agents dealing with moonlands?


message 14: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Ian wrote: "The discussion seems to have split in half ;-) ..."

We are also separating and uniting here -:)


message 15: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Mehreen wrote: "Hahaha. Who are the realestate agents dealing with moonlands?..."

You can goole something like 'buy land on Moon' and I'm sure it'll return with some results -:)


message 16: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "The discussion seems to have split in half ;-) ..."

We are also separating and uniting here -:)"


That's inevitable. As long as we are friends, all's good.


message 17: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Hahaha. Who are the realestate agents dealing with moonlands?..."

You can goole something like 'buy land on Moon' and I'm sure it'll return with some results -:)"


I'll most certainly do that.


message 18: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Michel wrote: "As for actually buying real estate, it is made impossible by the fact that a World treaty on the use of space clearly states that no nation, even less so individuals, can claim ownership of any extraterrestrial body or piece of body, including the Moon. ..."

While this is easy to enforce when we can't actually establish settlements, how much is this treaty going to be worth when companies actually make settlement viable? Maybe at first you could embargo those companies, or fine them, or whatever, but what happens if such a company becomes self sufficient and ceases to rely on Earth to function? If they create a large enough colony and hence their own off-world market, what are Earth governments actually going to do about it? It's not like we're going to commit troops to Mars to clear out their colonies.


message 19: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Who owns the Moon? Seriously.


message 20: by GR (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments Nik wrote: "GR wrote: "If there is no equality in society, it will cause dysfunction..."

There is no equality at least in the economic sense and I argue it's impossible under capitalism. Equality is a feature..."


Nik, come and live in Germany for 5 years, and you'll know why you want to stay here.


message 21: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments GR wrote: "Nik, come and live in Germany for 5 years, and you'll know why you want to stay here. ..."

Thanks, GR, I'm fine where I am -:), but I have to admit Germany offers a nice economic 'bundle' of low consumer prices, high median income and vast social security. Our TV likes to lament why exactly same products are three times cheaper in Germany.
Being there half a year ago, I couldn't help taking photos of the same products as in our supermarkets, sold considerably cheaper..


message 22: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10763 comments Mehreen wrote: "Who owns the Moon? Seriously."

It should be Terra Nova. Of course various politicians will say all sorts of things, but the fact of the matter is, if someone goes to there (or Mars) and sets up a colony, short of going to war there is nothing anyone can do to stop them.


message 23: by Mehreen (last edited Oct 19, 2016 04:03PM) (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Ian wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Who owns the Moon? Seriously."

It should be Terra Nova. Of course various politicians will say all sorts of things, but the fact of the matter is, if someone goes to there (or Mars..."


Yeah right. When I die transport my body there. The moon could be my burial ground. The dead take up far too much space here on earth. At the end of day, we don't even own the earth, come to think of it.


message 24: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Mehreen wrote: "When I die transport my body there. The moon could be my burial ground...."

That might be a little bit expensive. You should leave some substantial funds aside -:)


message 25: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "When I die transport my body there. The moon could be my burial ground...."

That might be a little bit expensive. You should leave some substantial funds aside -:)"


I will and I will also assign you to do the task lol.


message 26: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Thanks for the trust, Mehreen. I think Alon Musk or Rich Branson are a little better equipped for the mission, as they have interplanetary vehicles -:)


message 27: by GR (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments Nik wrote: "GR wrote: "Nik, come and live in Germany for 5 years, and you'll know why you want to stay here. ..."

Thanks, GR, I'm fine where I am -:), but I have to admit Germany offers a nice economic 'bundl..."


I couldn't agree with you more. I had an experience back in 2007-8. I had to get some medication while I had a short stay in Georgia, USA. My prescription was filled, and I paid 10-times what I had in Germany for the same product. Why? Plus, you get 100 pills in Germany. In the States you get 90.

The argument is Research and Development. That's BS. It's gauging, chiseling, taking advantage of LIBERAL deregulated laws. Pharmaceuticals here in Germany do fine with regulated cost. They are not subsidized as many have said. They get their revenue from the world. They have a world market. All medications are produced in Asia, regardless who does the R&D and marketing. I doubt if the USA manufactures anything. It may assemble things (by robotic), but they don't manufacture.


message 28: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1911 comments Nik wrote: "Thanks for the trust, Mehreen. I think Alon Musk or Rich Branson are a little better equipped for the mission, as they have interplanetary vehicles -:)"

Hahaha.


message 29: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments So, does the future belong to patriots or globalists? What do you think?


message 30: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10763 comments Whoever is stronger at the time :-)


message 31: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments It depends on your definition of patriots. By my definition, patriots are out of favor in the States, and globalists have the power.


message 32: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments I guess Brexit can be viewed as somewhat patriotic


message 33: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Scout wrote: "It depends on your definition of patriots. By my definition, patriots are out of favor in the States, and globalists have the power."

How do you define a patriot?


message 34: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Nik wrote: "I guess Brexit can be viewed as somewhat patriotic"

Remain could be seen as patriotic too.


message 35: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments Well, PapaP, I feel that patriots fight for their country, its ideals and its welfare, against others who would destroy it. Country first. But then it can be very subjective, what one feels is good for the country, as you guys have pointed out about Brexit. I thought America First was a good idea, but others didn't. How would you define patriotism?


message 36: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10763 comments Patriotism itself can be good or bad. A call for patriotism can be a leader's plea to get people to do things that should not be done. Loving your country, though, is fine.


message 37: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Scout wrote: "Well, PapaP, I feel that patriots fight for their country, its ideals and its welfare, against others who would destroy it. Country first. But then it can be very subjective, what one feels is good..."

Standing up for your country for what you feel is for the good of the country. So you can have two totally different views of what is good and both be patriotic. That is the problem with patriotism, it can many different things.


message 38: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments What about allowing illegal immigrants into the country without vetting them and circumventing the immigration laws? They'll disappear into the country never to be heard from again by immigration authorities. I don't understand the motivation behind this. Is it meant to be uniting or separating Americans?


message 39: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments We have an emerging issue in UK where vaccine take up in ethnic communities is lower than in the white population - adding to this is the number of people trying to get vaccinated who have no NHS number e.g. unregistered. This does not mean they are illegals as an NHS number is not equivalent to a Social Security number or even for UK a National Insurance number.

This is not being raised as an anti-immigration issue only a vaccination issue - they are getting vaccinated and NHS registered in one go if they stay to be inoculated.


message 40: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Scout wrote: "....They'll disappear into the country never to be heard from again by immigration authorities. I don't understand the motivation behind this. Is it meant to be uniting or separating Americans?..."

They might be legalized at some stage, because it'll become inhumane to deport their kids born in the US and having no connection to say Guatemala. However, it's not all one way, as the deportation seems to still work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deporta... .
Indeed, it would be more honest to be outspoken about it and invite all better- life -seekers to come slave for some years to gain status thereafter. One scenario - is that all's gonna be alright, others - less so.


message 41: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Nik wrote: "Scout wrote: "....TThey might be legalized at some stage, because it'll become inhumane to deport their kids born in the US and having no connection to say Guatemala. ..."

Children born in the United States are birthright citizens minus a few tightly defined areas such as Diplomats. That is by Constitutional definition. Generally the babies of illegal parents but are born in America are called Anchor Babies as a pejorative. Make no mistake, they are Americans.


message 42: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Scout wrote: "What about allowing illegal immigrants into the country without vetting them and circumventing the immigration laws? They'll disappear into the country never to be heard from again by immigration a..."

Are you asking me as a policy or asking me do I think people that believe your question can be considered patriots?


message 43: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments I'm asking if, as you defined patriotism as "Standing up for your country for what you feel is for the good of the country," the current border policy is good for our country?

And if it's uniting or separating our country?


message 44: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Scout wrote: "I'm asking if, as you defined patriotism as "Standing up for your country for what you feel is for the good of the country," the current border policy is good for our country?

And if it's uniting ..."


You are asking an either/or question and that is not how it works. You can be totally diametrically opposed and both be patriots. You can both hate the others position and think they are idiots and both be patriots. You can both call the other communists and both be patriots, as long as you are doing it for what you perceive as good for the country. You can totally be doing wrong for what you consider the right reasons and be a patriot. Being a patriot is doing what you perceive as good for the country; love for the country.

Joe McCarthy was horrendous and destroyed plenty of innocent lives. Yet, want to bet he was doing what he thought was right.

When the Revolutionary war was happening, it was not a popular cause in the beginning. There were plenty of Tories including Ben Franklin's one son. They stayed loyal tot he crown. If we lose the war, who is the patriot? Oddly in this case, both were patriots. It was honest. For me, it is about honesty in feeling.

Remember, history calls the winners patriots.

Now to answer your questions. I think the now border policy is stupidity of the highest order and it is blowing up in his face. I do not think it is uniting our country, but if it continues, it will unite a large portion. At the same time, the last policy did not unite either.

Do you think both sides of the Civil War thought they were patriots?

I think the problem nowadays is that everyone sees only the black and white and does not understand there is way too much gray. It is all about all or nothing.


message 45: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10763 comments My view is that patriotism is good as an abstract concept, but very bad to be used to leverage your position in an argument. The argument should be decided by reason and facts, not by calling on something abstract like patriotism which works for the first person to use it. irrespective of the position.


message 46: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Ian wrote: "My view is that patriotism is good as an abstract concept, but very bad to be used to leverage your position in an argument. The argument should be decided by reason and facts, not by calling on so..."

What he said


message 47: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14969 comments Keeping country's best interest (as a form of patriotism) in mind instead of private or narrow interests seems rare these days among politicians.


message 48: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments Nik wrote: "Keeping country's best interest (as a form of patriotism) in mind instead of private or narrow interests seems rare these days among politicians."

There does not seem to be many statesmen anymore.


message 49: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5799 comments Nik wrote: "Keeping country's best interest (as a form of patriotism) in mind instead of private or narrow interests seems rare these days among politicians."

You said it better than I did. I'd ask if Joe and the Democrats have the best interests of the U.S. in mind when it comes to immigration, lack of support for police, gun control for law-abiding citizens, putting the country further in debt with their trillion-dollar bills disguised as COVID relief and infrastructure, and insisting that voters not have to present ID in order to vote. For heaven's sake, you have to have ID to drive a car, get Social Security, cash a check, buy booze. How is it racist to require an ID to vote?


message 50: by Papaphilly (new)

Papaphilly | 3287 comments https://www.foxnews.com/politics/demo...

This is going nowhere fast.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04...

The bigger question is why even bring this up when it is dead on arrival?


« previous 1
back to top