30
31

Why is nationalism frowned upon? (self.PoliticalDiscussion)

I_amWEB が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Commodore_Obvious 7ポイント8ポイント  (14子コメント)

In my opinion, the United States is the best country in the world, mainly because no other political/governmental system is organized in such a way that better protects individual rights, at least as far as I can tell. If another country does a better job of limiting government power over individuals, I'd say that one is the best. From my vantage point, there is a pretty clear correlation between the protection of individual rights and median per capita PPP income over the past few centuries.

[–]DeSoulis 27ポイント28ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's IMO a type of nationalism that's not inherently bad because it's civic rather than ethnic nationalism (unless you start being very gunho about exporting your system to other countries by force which unfortunately America did try to do).

What I tend to have a problem with is ethnic nationalism because it's by it's very nature exclusive. To put it another way, if I'm Chinese and I get a US greencard, and I agree with the idea that free speech, democracy and capitalism are great things, I'm basically meeting the definition of what an American is. If the same Chinese goes to Germany and get permanent residency and does the same thing, you don't meet the definition of what a German is.

[–]Dekar2401 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you believe in Freedom, then as far as this American is concerned, you 'Murican too.

[–]Commodore_Obvious 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a good way of looking at it.

[–]jaypeeps 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree that guaranteeing the rights of individuals and having a free democratic society are huge pluses. However, I think to say that those are the sole reasons America is so powerful is a massive simplification.

First of all, most Americans had no rights for well into the US's existence. I think you could make a case for a good portion of Americas success coming directly off of the backs of enslaved black people. America also scooped up a lot of mostly unexploited land due to manifest destiny. The U.S. continued snatching up land from the crumbling Spanish empire. With the world wars, the global power concentrated in Europe almost completely shifted over here. Then you have the Soviet Union collapsing and now the U.S. has had world hegemony ever since. Point is, it's a complicated issue that involves luck, timing, exploitation, as well as the feel good things like you mention.

I think that if the cards had been dealt even slightly differently, the balance of power in the world would be very different. I also think it is just a matter of time before power shifts again and hopefully (being a U.S. citizen myself) we land gracefully into a position like current other democracies around the world are in. I don't really get nationalism and my reasoning boils down to: most of it is chance or ruthlessness anyways. When all the glory and power inevitably begins imploding on whoever is winning the game, nationalism can cause those people to lash out desperately. I doubt it is possible but I personally hope the world can somehow reach a stage where we are all on the same team.

[–]bongklute 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

From my vantage point, there is a pretty clear correlation between the protection of individual rights and median per capita PPP income over the past few centuries.

Correlation does not imply causation.

It is exactly statements like yours that "feel good" but are in fact either meaningless or subtly untrue that cause many to cast nationalism in such a negative light these days.

[–]Commodore_Obvious 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Correlation is not causation.

True, although in this case I would argue that the relationship is causal (not all correlated relationships are causal, but all causal relationships are also correlated). I don't see how a government can effectively control complex human interactions, at least in a way that produces a net-positive outcome. The protection of individual rights and freedoms is essentially a show of deference to that complexity.

Look at the problems associated with Obamacare right now. The root of the problems is that the designers overestimated the ACA's ability to incentivize young healthy people to buy health insurance. As a result, the risk pools for policies on the individual exchanges have a larger than expected proportion of sick people, to the point that many are unprofitable without unrealistic annual increases in premium payments. It was complete hubris on the part of the designers to think that they understood the complexity involved in healthcare provider/consumer decision-making well enough to avoid something like this, but this is what happens when people believe it would be better for the government to impose rules on individuals as opposed to individual consumers/companies making decisions for themselves.

There is too much complexity involved in decision-making and human interactions for governments to make one-size-fits-all legal frameworks that essentially dictate how things must be done. That's why I think countries that protect individual rights and freedoms tend to have higher median per capita PPP incomes.

[–]DeShawnThordason 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I usually see people (and economists) talk about the relationship between a government's efficacy and GDP. A government that is too weak, corrupt, or inefficacious cannot protect the "rule of law", including protecting life and property and being the final arbiter of contracts. In addition, we see a correlation between high GDP and quality infrastructure (electricty/water/transportation) and education (skilled workers), both of which are considered, in these countries, part of the role of the governments.

In these explanations, the government provides a beneficial environment for business. For me, this is interesting because you interpret the best environment for economic success as maximized freedoms and minimized government intervention, but I see it as one where a government intervenes as needed to create that superior foundation for businesses.

Broadly speaking, that seems to be the difference in goals between the economic left and right: The left seeks to create greater opportunity and the right seeks to create greater choice, similar but different. (And the right considers the valuation of choice more important partially because they believe that trying to maximize opportunity is too inefficient, which is your point).

And as for that point, I don't have a strong opinion about the ACA. It doesn't seem to be successful, but I'm also pretty confident that the previous system was also really poor.

[–]bongklute 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you could prove it, that would be an interesting thesis.

As it stands, we have an anecdote about Obamacare not being ideal (I agree) and your opinion.

I essentially agree with you on most points though.

[–]rem1473 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the basis for Adam Smiths Invisible hand. Read Milton Friedman.

[–]ShouldBe_Working [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well i think your best choice would be Anarchy.

It has the least power over individuals as a government type.

Not very effective though.....

[–]SaintOdhran [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Just out of curiosity, what are your feelings on limiting the power of non-government entities over individuals, like say, large corporations?

[–]Commodore_Obvious [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think the best way to limit their influence is by pursuing policies that maximize entrepreneurship and competition. The thing about regulations is that they are a double-edged sword. They impose costs on businesses, and larger businesses are better able to cope with those costs. So while regulations are intended to provide a check against powerful corporations, they have the effect of making them less vulnerable to losing market share to a growing smaller business.

Large corporations are more likely to act in the best interest of society when not doing so would mean losing substantial market share. If you look at the most regulated industries (banking, healthcare, oil & gas, telecommunications), they are all dominated by a few large corporations that have to really, really mess up to lose substantial market share. Those industries are not very competitive, some because of high capital requirements and having conditions that give rise to natural monopolies, like telecommunications, but also because of the added barriers to competitiveness created by regulatory costs. These industries would not be this consolidated if they were more conducive to competition from new market entrants.

I don't see how large corporations can be kept in check while simultaneously increasing their probability of survival and their likelihood of gaining market share. Competition and entrepreneurship are crucial for maximizing the penalty for acting against the interests of the rest of society, because that allows other competitors to gain more market share when a company behaves badly, which makes wrongdoing more costly in terms of the hit to shareholder value.

[–]GrahamSmitWellington [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When you’re 45th in civil liberties, 19th in economic freedom, 1st in prisoners per capita, and generally known as having disastrous worker's rights in comparison to other developed western nations, I am not sure that it qualifies as "the best country at protecting individual rights".

http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm

https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/01152015_FIW_2015_final.pdf