You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Scientist: End of nations: Is there an alternative to countries?
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Model
Reception
Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" system which features a blend of capitalist economics and socialist values.[37] Lane Kenworthy advocates for the U.S. to make a gradual transition to an economic system similar to those of the Nordic countries.[38] United States Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described democratic socialist, has been a strong proponent of the Nordic system.[39][40][41] Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has noted that there is higher social mobility in the Scandinavian countries than in the United States, and argues that Scandinavia is now the land of opportunity that the United States once was.[42] American author Ann Jones, who lived in Norway for four years, contends "the Nordic countries give their populations freedom from the market by using capitalism as a tool to benefit everyone," whereas in the United States "neoliberal politics puts the foxes in charge of the henhouse, and capitalists have used the wealth generated by their enterprises (as well as financial and political manipulations) to capture the state and pluck the chickens."[43]
Last edited:
Might be, I guess just might be, more of a variety of small-scale Civic Nationalism for individual states, of which all are under a World Constitution in order to resolve/co-ordinate mainly global issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
With small scale state government, the administration structure and running costs for a state would be kept to minimum.
Every state can simply mind it's own business. With minimal interference from other states. Nor trying to apply any unnecessary interference to any other states.
Elections would be basically limited to only state elections. Maximum transparency of government activities. Minimum corruption can be seen.
No more superpower nations!
With small scale state government, the administration structure and running costs for a state would be kept to minimum.
Every state can simply mind it's own business. With minimal interference from other states. Nor trying to apply any unnecessary interference to any other states.
Elections would be basically limited to only state elections. Maximum transparency of government activities. Minimum corruption can be seen.
No more superpower nations!
Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism
Main article: Civic nationalism
Liberty Leading the People (Eugène Delacroix, 1830) is a famous example of nationalist art.
Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[78] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily referendum" (frequently translated "daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people to continue living together.[78]
Civic nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[79][80][81] Ernest Renan[82] and John Stuart Mill[83] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives,[84][85] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[86][87]
Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation must be voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's classic definition of the nation in What is a Nation? (1882). Renan argued that factors such as ethnicity, language, religion, economics, geography, ruling dynasty and historic military deeds were important but not sufficient. Needed was a spiritual soul that allowed as a "daily referendum" among the people.[88] Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France.
German philosopher Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach does not think liberalism and nationalism are compatible, but she points out there are many liberals who think they are. She states:
Justifications of nationalism seem to be making a headway in political philosophy. Its proponents contend that liberalism and nationalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that they can in fact be made compatible. Liberal nationalists urge one to consider nationalism not as the pathology of modernity but as an answer to its malaise. For them, nationalism is more than an infantile disease, more than "the measles of mankind" as Einstein once proclaimed it to be. They argue that nationalism is a legitimate way of understanding one's role and place in life. They strive for a normative justification of nationalism which lies within liberal limits. The main claim which seems to be involved here is that as long as a nationalism abhors violence and propagates liberal rights and equal citizenship for all citizens of its state, its philosophical credentials can be considered to be sound.[89]
Last edited:
Why should a citizen's daily life and rights, including abortion/LGBT/legal drug/gun control/schooling/medical treatment/etc as well as other issues for minimum wage/immigrant nurses number/etc, who is living in Los Angeles California, be designed/decided/controlled/dictated by some bodies who are living and working 10 states far away by 3,700 km/ 2,299 miles from Washington, D.C.?
Is that truly democracy? Liberty and freedom? That we really want and like?
Is that truly democracy? Liberty and freedom? That we really want and like?
The People
Frank Luntz: Americans Trust Their Own States But Not Washington
Frank Luntz
Feb 25, 2017
http://time.com/4682090/frank-luntz-america-relationship/
Voters of all stripes simply trust their governors far more than they trust their leaders in Washington. The number one reason among Democrats and Republicans alike: “State leaders are more responsive because they are closer to their constituents.” In a time when trust is scarce and with Americans demanding real progress right now, state governments and governors represent the best hope to win back to confidence of the voters and get the job done.
This isn’t an academic exercise or an ideological appeal for “federalism.” (Note to reader: Federalism is about taking power away from Washington. Many Americans think exactly the opposite.) It’s not about smaller or more limited government. Almost no one I interview cares about the size of government as much as the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of government. Americans want to empower states and governors to take a more active role in that governance because they’ve given up on Washington – Trump or no Trump.
Last edited:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Churchill
Churchill
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/02.10/bankrupt.html
The Bankruptcy of the United States is Now Certain
Porter Stansberry
It's one of those numbers that's so unbelievable you have to actually think about it for a while... Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt. And that's not counting any additional deficit spending, which is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion. Put the two numbers together. Then ask yourself, how in the world can the Treasury borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year? That's an amount equal to nearly 30% of our entire GDP. And we're the world's biggest economy. Where will the money come from?
How did we end up with so much short-term debt? Like most entities that have far too much debt - whether subprime borrowers, GM, Fannie, or GE - the U.S. Treasury has tried to minimize its interest burden by borrowing for short durations and then "rolling over" the loans when they come due. As they say on Wall Street, "a rolling debt collects no moss." What they mean is, as long as you can extend the debt, you have no problem. Unfortunately, that leads folks to take on ever greater amounts of debt... at ever shorter durations... at ever lower interest rates. Sooner or later, the creditors wake up and ask themselves: What are the chances I will ever actually be repaid? And that's when the trouble starts. Interest rates go up dramatically. Funding costs soar. The party is over. Bankruptcy is next.
The reality is an unhealthy financial stability of the US Treasury debt would easily cause serious huge financial impact of the whole world, including China and Russia.
Probably even worse than a worldwide war!
https://anticorruptionsociety.com/the-bankruptcy-of-america-1933/
The Bankruptcy of America – 1933
HINT: A LOT MORE HAPPENED THAN JUST THE CONFISCATION OF THE PEOPLE’S GOLD!
[The following is excerpted from Judge Dale’s The Great American Adventure – Secrets of America.]
By Judge Dale, retired
Public Trust
On March 9, 1933, House Joint Resolution No. 192-10 by the 73rd Congress, was voted into law, which is the Emergency Banking Act. This Act declared the Treasury of the United States, ‘Bankrupt’, which is an impossible feat since the U. S. Treasury was secretly closed by the Congress twelve years earlier in 1921. The Emergency Banking Act succeeded in abrogating America’s gold standard and hypothecated all property found within the United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank.
https://www.facebook.com/dan.asmussen/notes
THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE UNITED STATES
Dan Asmussen
31 August 2012
The fact of the matter is, the United States did go "Bankrupt" in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and by Executive Order 6260 on March 9, 1933, under the "Trading With The Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, AS AMENDED by the Emergency Banking Relief Act, 48 Stat 1, Public Law No. 1, which is presently codified at 12 USCA 95a and confirmed at 95b. You can confirm this for yourself by reading it on FindLaw.
Thereafter, Congress confirmed the bankruptcy on June 5, 1933, and thereupon impaired the obligations and considerations of contracts through the "Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold clause, June 5, 1933" (See: HJR-192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session).
Last edited:
like reagan said... and trump knows... the good policies are no longer the policies of the democrat party.
How much have the democrats become big gov't commies? Just think that Kennedy would be a true conservative on many issues today. you lefties all would hate him and the establishment would also give him problems.
He was for tax cuts to stimulate the economy
you would call him all the the names you call Trump.
remember - Reagan said he did not change the democrats did.
and that in a nutshell is what wrong with America today.
the democrats and republicans both work for the the people who use to just run one party. there was an opposition party.
Democrats were against big controlling govt that sucked up to corporations.
Remember when you all were against the man?
Now you want the man to give out free shit in exchange for liberty and your thoughts. Something the man will gladly do.
How much have the democrats become big gov't commies? Just think that Kennedy would be a true conservative on many issues today. you lefties all would hate him and the establishment would also give him problems.
He was for tax cuts to stimulate the economy
you would call him all the the names you call Trump.
remember - Reagan said he did not change the democrats did.
and that in a nutshell is what wrong with America today.
the democrats and republicans both work for the the people who use to just run one party. there was an opposition party.
Democrats were against big controlling govt that sucked up to corporations.
Remember when you all were against the man?
Now you want the man to give out free shit in exchange for liberty and your thoughts. Something the man will gladly do.
Trump should be able to make a (say) 10-year trial of introducing a state-wide lower wages for several selective states, in order to rebuild the manufacturing industry in the USA.
Other than processing of farming produce, tourism industry should be also benefited by a differential state-wide minimum wages system.
Trump is just like Reagan, both are originally and actually Democrats, playing the roles as Republicans to run/change the country in such a way that neither the Republic party alone nor the Democrat party by itself can carry out the transformation policies the US need.
Trump saw this was the clear way developing/coming. A conservative party like Republic by itself would not want making changes implemented by a progressive party, by blocking them fiercely.
However, only leaders like Reagan and Trump, the Democrats while playing as Republicans, would be allowed for implementing major transformation policies.
Even some progressive policies that are fundamentally/traditionally of Democratic principle/nature, like tariffs, anti-free-trade, etc.
Therefore, Trump knew that he will be elected for sure. And American now can be possibly made great again!
Only when the Republicans introducing some major Democratic-by-nature policies, possibly some similar policies that Sanders once offered/promoted, by not blocking them as if Sanders were the elected Democrat President!
LOL
Last edited:
https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...in-economic-growth.307186/page-5#post-4414682
An alternative solution from this thread below.
New Scientist: End of nations: Is there an alternative to countries?
https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...-is-there-an-alternative-to-countries.307005/
The world needs to find the source of the illegal immigrants or asylums problem!
Talk to the source, like ISIS, Syria,Israel and Palestine individually, each is entitled to build their own state and its boundary for their own living. No more wars or killings!
Any foreign armies from western countries should be used for separate them as peace keepers, temporarily. Not for killing them or eliminating them. The armies are for backing up the negotiations among them.
In addition, some other new states can be also set up for the potential migrants, who do not want to live in any of the ISIS/Syria/Israel/Palestine states. Otherwise, these potential migrants would naturally and forcefully become real migrants! Many died in the sea before reaching shores alive!
Initially supply of food, water, tents, farming equipment, sewing machine, etc can be provided and coordinated by the UN. Until the residents of a newly established state is able to survive independently.
Schoolrooms, teachers and educational curriculum will be also provided/operated very very very seriously. No more extreme doctrines or dogmas will be allowed for the kids, teens, adults, etc.
Therefore, previously the conventional way of using food and brainwashing classes for kids will no longer effective by the terrorist groups anymore. Like a farming/breeding ground of new recruits for terrorists.
Temporary passports will be provided by the UN for the university students, with scholarships, going overseas for further studies of western-style university knowledge.
If any newly established state can meet a set of criterion designed and approved by the UN, the state can be allowed to issue its own passports. Later even be granted a real world-state status for its citizens.
The criterion should include whether the potential state is able to self sustainability. Including some basic industries. Such as restaurants, cafe, hotels, building houses, etc. for tourists. Even arts, paintings, souvenirs, etc!
Once a world-state status is newly granted, the UN will help build small airport and seaport and rails for the new world state. Attracting more tourists.
LOL
Taxpayers spending $1.3m a day to keep asylum seekers in island hellhole
https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/07/23/630000-buys-an-asylum-seeker-11-months-in-nauru/
Asylum seekers cost taxpayer £100,000 a DAY: 2,000 refugees with no right to remain in Britain have been claiming handouts and free housing for more than a year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tain-claiming-handouts-free-housing-year.html
Asylum seekers cost you £786million: Bill to house and feed migrants soars 46%
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/591760/Asylum-seekers-immigration-migrants-tax-payers
Massive 11th hour migrant influx expected as EU demands Britain open borders until 2019
EU chiefs are to demand European nationals who arrive in Britain over the next two years are allowed to stay permanently.
By Rebecca Perring
PUBLISHED: 10:11, Sun, Feb 26, 2017
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/77...te-EU-nationals-brussels-migration-article-50
Last edited: