It has highly influenced my understanding our our social dilemmas, prompting many questions such as yours. I find myself writing about what appears to be the conditioned insanity instilled in an unknowing populace through their blind participation in authoritarian systems. These systems are everywhere and all seem to be competing with each other for collective control of our personal convictions and decisions. Religion, sports, government, corporations, comic book clubs. It’s up to all of us to stay vigilant and be sure that we are always working in our own interests when following the guidelines of our authorities. Many are not practiced in the art of criticizing their leaders, and this inevitably leads to poor leaders who are not used to accepting criticism.

There also is the problem of how to get food to the areas of the continent that need it. Southern Ethiopia, the Sudan, Somalia are all virtually devoid of stable food aid operations. Food Aid is sent to these places – but it is immediately hijacked by nefarious state actors, or warlords, who either resell it on the black market, or use it to feed their private militias. The Clinton administration attempted to stabalize food distribution operations in Mogadishu – though we obviously we needed a larger military presence. Even journalists can’t get near the city today. It’s the like trying to hand out $20 bills on a street corner in East LA – though your efforts may be heartfelt – you aren’t likely to last very long.

“I recently heard a quote from the world food program, that $30US can
feed an African for a year. If every American could spare $30 a year
to support an African, we could cure hunger. Shoot i could even
support two, and im pretty poor right now.
I thought about posting that after your comment, but then i didnt want
any of your friends knowing that im enough of a loser to actually read
your blog.”

Little things like that really make me think about what a selfish piece of shit I am. When I was in college I use to support two africans for a couple years. I think I am going to sign up again. http://www.africaaid.org/?gclid=CNm3w8St8pICFRM-IgodnTcxwg If you would like to join me here is the first site that came up on my search.

Corey – I was shooting from the hip on a lot of those comments, as usual. I will now try and respond and see if I still agree with my original assessment.

“What did you, or I, or Parker do to deserve American’s fine resources?”

I certainly agree that we don’t deserve any of the fine advantages we have. My point is that I don’t know if deserve should matter.

As worthless and undeserving as a newborn baby is, I think there is some value in the system we currently have where families and communities build for their childrens future. That is how we end up with successful societies. I don’t think it makes sense to just wipe the slate clean with every newborn and throw them to the masses. If you create a societal (is that a word?) and political system that allows people to live in a comfortable way, I don’t think that should mean that you owe something to the rest of the world’s communities. That successful community should be embraced and encouraged to continue on in that way, and others should follow their lead.

“I believe that America and the rest of the industrial nations could EASILY provide basic life needs to everyone in the world.”

I completely agree that everyone in the world should have access to basic life needs and support us helping that cause. I also think it is economically sustainable. I thought we were talking about inviting everyone to America with open borders and giving them full access to all of our resources.

“It seems so sad to hear it would be too big of burden for people to give up wealth in order for people to survive or have a chance. Also our wealth and exploitation is one of the major things that hold these “burdens” down so low.”

Again I am fine helping to provide basic needs. I also am not a supporter of any exploitation of other countries.

I think that creating a working society is one of the greatest and most important challenges in our world. I happen to think it makes the most sense to do it at a national level. Or under your hypethetical system at the state level, but whatever. Distinct bordered communities with common values and goals working together to achieve the best society possible.

I like your idea a lot – I have been hyping a less formal version for a long time. I think all modernized countries should unite under a worldwide governing body. Such body would set certain standards that all countries must live by to be a part of the group. If you are not a part of the group, then the group would refuse to trade with you. So basically we should all get together, create the necessary human rights, environmental, etc. policies, and then use our combined economic weight to encourage all countries to join. Also, all military action must be authorized by the entire group. No 1 man shows.

- Beef I hope to be seeing more of you in the future. I feel you might just have the answer to some of my questions about the world. I also feel like you might be one of my questions about the world. Either way good to hear from you.

-I really enjoy everyones comments and feel like everyone brings a different perspective to the discussion. I try to not value my opinions anymore than anyone else’s. Sometimes there is a comment that just doesn’t make sense for me. Usually, almost always actually, those comments come from that Capitalist maniac Parker, but in this case one came from my good friend the BigDog. It was the following paragraph:

“Although it is sad and unfair that some people are born into poverty with virtually zero chance to succeed, I do not think that means that they all should get equal opportunity to America’s resources.

My questions would be why not? Why shouldn’t every person have the possibility to succeed? What did you, or I, or Parker do to deserve American’s fine resources? We haven’t done shit in our lives. The fact my great grandpa found in World War I in my opinion entitles me to absolutely nothing. I don’t understand this inherent birth right.

That being said I think the point of nonnationalist view point would say that they don’t have equal opportunity to America’s resources but equal opportunity to the world’s resources just like every other person on the planet.

“America is wealthy – but not even close to wealthy enough to support all of the poor in the world.”

I believe that America and the rest of the industrial nations could EASILY provide basic life needs to everyone in the world. In fact I would be willing to wager that Americas military budget would put us well over half of the way.

“It would be unwise to set up a system where the productive people/countries of the world had to constantly sacrifice all of their wealth to the unproductive. It is just too big of a burden”

That quote is the major thing that makes no sense to me at all. What is the value of “wealth”, it seems very unlikely you could morally put wealth above a human beings basic needs. It seems so sad to hear it would be too big of burden for people to give up wealth in order for people to survive or have a chance. Also our wealth and exploitation is one of the major things that hold these “burdens” down so low.

I am not trying to pick on the BigDog at all, I just really don’t understand that mindset and when it comes from someone who I respect it really makes me think.

-Here is my idea for a non nationalist world.

You make the entire world like the United States (Just in the form). You would have a federal body and each country is a state. You could also make the US into 10 or 20 different states to make sure their needs were being taken care of. So the SouthEast and the Northwest which have nothing in common would quit being put under the same rules and regulations. The big difference being you give each state much stronger rights that our federal government offers to our states. Each state could have it’s own customs, language, soccer team, and sense of pride. In fact they would effectively be just like the current countries are today. The world would just have a federal body that connected it together. It could be voted by the world’s people, and could control a few key things: military (just like states each country can’t have military), health care, food supply, currency, etc.

To me we already live in a world economy why not just make it official. Stop letting the rich decide everything with an amoral standard and let everyone have a piece of the preverbal pie. There is a lot more to the idea, but that plants the seed.

I think it is natural that nations are born from violence. When enough people care about something to unite and all put their lives on the line and fight for it, then it makes sense that that country might find some pride and stability afterwords. Arbirtarily drawing lines and assigning people by region wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

Spencer – the country could learn a thing or two from Delta Chi. Let’s do speeches, some pros, some cons, some pros, some cons and get this presidential election overwith.

Although it begins to lose meaning when applied to a group of 250 million people, nationalism is basically a false sense of comradery. People are proud to be Americans for the same reason that you were proud to be a member of delta chi. The only difference is that America is a wonderful country in many respects, while delta chi’s only asset was Hot Pepper Hallway.

The fact is that Nationalism DOES make sense to a great many people. There are currently countless ethnic movements in the world crusading for independence – all waiving the banner of nationalism. The Balkanization SE Europe was just a predecessor of a trend that is likely to repeat itself Russia’s North Caucasus and the (ahem) middle-east. National boundaries in Africa NEED to be redrawn reflect ethnic boundaries (and nationalist sentiment). Unfortunately, most of this will all have to be accomplished violently; as violence (or threat of violence) is the only historically proven method for implementing large-scale political change.

Clearly there is something about nationalism that people identify with, and what that something is, needs to be explored, not dismissed. Pegging Nationalist dogmas as propaganda fictions of a wealthy elite is woefully naive. Those Robber Barons of the Shamal Darfur would probably agree with me, so too would everyone’s favorite theocratic dictator, his holiness, The Dalai Lama.

I think that Nationalism likely arises from man’s inate desire to feel unique – independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty – ideas that you guys so often herald on this blog, are exactly what give rise to the political philosophy that you are now ranting against. (please note that I put down my Ayn Rand in 8th grade, so don’t draw any conclusions Big Dog).

Which brings us back to Shaw – I think that Patriotism is what Cojo doesn’t understand. And that’s OK, many people don’t. Certainly people have in the past – I believe that Cicero, Brutus, and Cato Uticensis understood patriotism – though many of their contemporaries would argue that they did not. I hope that I understand it, at least from my own narrow perspective. But perspectives, much like self-identities, are always subject to change. I would be a fool to deny this; Nations rise and fall, new nations are born out of the ashes of the old. Ideas – your patriotisms and nationalisms – are the only eternals.

It’s been a good chat gentlemen, but I must leave you now – for come morning I ride.

“Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise…”
” Moreover, I advise that Carthage should be destroyed.”