One nation is a solution for war

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say that I force them to join. It is through education, discussion,... that we should convince them to join one nation.

Well, let's see how you'd make that case.

Imagine I'm a Somali pirate, or a Palestinian terrorist, a Quaker farmer, a Chinese Party member, or an aboriginal person...explain to me why I ought to stop using my language, depending on my culture, or choosing my nation over others, and join yours instead.

I am not saying that we should use force.

Well, if you can make a case, I'll believe you: but I think you'll find that force is all you've got going for you.

The idea is attractive since it leads to wealth and peace instead of poverty and violence.

I don't think that's remotely obvious. In fact, history shows the opposite: that it leads to domination, loss of rights, economic collapse, bad central planning, starvation, ruin of minorities, oppression and death. Look at Communist Russia, or China, or Nazi Germany...all totalitarian "one nation" ideologies, and none of them led to good things. Sure, if one nation had managed to tyrannize all the others, that would have ended war...and started purges, pogroms, torture chambers, re-education camps, gulags...

So you're going to need to make the case, not just assert it and hope people will just buy in.

[bahman]

Well, let's see how you'd make that case.

Imagine I'm a Somali pirate, or a Palestinian terrorist, a Quaker farmer, a Chinese Party member, or an aboriginal person...explain to me why I ought to stop using my language, depending on my culture, or choosing my nation over others, and join yours instead.
Well, if you can make a case, I'll believe you: but I think you'll find that force is all you've got going for you.

The idea is attractive since it leads to wealth and peace instead of poverty and violence.

I don't think that's remotely obvious. In fact, history shows the opposite: that it leads to domination, loss of rights, economic collapse, bad central planning, starvation, ruin of minorities, oppression and death. Look at Communist Russia, or China, or Nazi Germany...all totalitarian "one nation" ideologies, and none of them led to good things. Sure, if one nation had managed to tyrannize all the others, that would have ended war...and started purges, pogroms, torture chambers, re-education camps, gulags...

So you're going to need to make the case, not just assert it and hope people will just buy in.

They had two main problems, the type of government and the way they approached people.

[Immanuel Can]

The idea is attractive since it leads to wealth and peace instead of poverty and violence.

I don't think that's remotely obvious. In fact, history shows the opposite: that it leads to domination, loss of rights, economic collapse, bad central planning, starvation, ruin of minorities, oppression and death. Look at Communist Russia, or China, or Nazi Germany...all totalitarian "one nation" ideologies, and none of them led to good things. Sure, if one nation had managed to tyrannize all the others, that would have ended war...and started purges, pogroms, torture chambers, re-education camps, gulags...

So you're going to need to make the case, not just assert it and hope people will just buy in.

They had two main problems, the type of government and the way they approached people.

Then you're going to have to make the case that you are going to do otherwise. What "type of government" are you advocating, and what is the way to "approach people" that they are bound to all accept?

[bahman]

I don't think that's remotely obvious. In fact, history shows the opposite: that it leads to domination, loss of rights, economic collapse, bad central planning, starvation, ruin of minorities, oppression and death. Look at Communist Russia, or China, or Nazi Germany...all totalitarian "one nation" ideologies, and none of them led to good things. Sure, if one nation had managed to tyrannize all the others, that would have ended war...and started purges, pogroms, torture chambers, re-education camps, gulags...

So you're going to need to make the case, not just assert it and hope people will just buy in.

They had two main problems, the type of government and the way they approached people.

Then you're going to have to make the case that you are going to do otherwise. What "type of government" are you advocating, and what is the way to "approach people" that they are bound to all accept?

I think that Social Democracy is a suitable form of government. How we should approach people? By educating them, by challenging their beliefs,...

[Immanuel Can]

They had two main problems, the type of government and the way they approached people.

Then you're going to have to make the case that you are going to do otherwise. What "type of government" are you advocating, and what is the way to "approach people" that they are bound to all accept?

I think that Social Democracy is a suitable form of government. How we should approach people? By educating them, by challenging their beliefs,...

Social Democracy is an extremely rare and contested form of government. Most polities in human history and in the world now do not practice it. It's certainly not obvious to everybody that they should. So you're going to have to make your case: why do we all owe it to each other to become Social Democrats?

[bahman]

Then you're going to have to make the case that you are going to do otherwise. What "type of government" are you advocating, and what is the way to "approach people" that they are bound to all accept?

I think that Social Democracy is a suitable form of government. How we should approach people? By educating them, by challenging their beliefs,...

Social Democracy is an extremely rare and contested form of government.

Actually, it is not that rare. Many civilized nations chose that type of government such as Sweden, Germany, Norway...

Most polities in human history and in the world now do not practice it. It's certainly not obvious to everybody that they should. So you're going to have to make your case: why do we all owe it to each other to become Social Democrats?

From Wiki: "Elements of direct and representative democracies are combined in a form of participatory democracy. It also adopts a mixed economy combining the principles of a capitalist free-market and economic or social interventionism. Social democracy rejects the "either/or" phobiocratic/polarization interpretation of capitalism versus socialism. Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, public transportation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly. Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers. Contemporary social democracy advocates freedom from discrimination based on differences of: ability/disability, age, ethnicity, sex, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social class."

[Immanuel Can]

I think that Social Democracy is a suitable form of government. How we should approach people? By educating them, by challenging their beliefs,...

Social Democracy is an extremely rare and contested form of government.

Actually, it is not that rare. Many civilized nations chose that type of government such as Sweden, Germany, Norway...

That's not true, actually. Norway, for example, floats its elaborate social services on its oil industry. Most countries cannot do that, and it's pretty capitalistic of them. A country like Denmark, another famed "Social Democrat" country, is actually more free in regard to enterprise than the US is. But if we don't even question these countries, it's still a tiny minority of the world's population, and an anomaly in terms of world history.

Most polities in human history and in the world now do not practice it. It's certainly not obvious to everybody that they should. So you're going to have to make your case: why do we all owe it to each other to become Social Democrats?

From Wiki:

No: what's YOUR argument. I can read Wikis anytime.

[bahman]

Social Democracy is an extremely rare and contested form of government.

Actually, it is not that rare. Many civilized nations chose that type of government such as Sweden, Germany, Norway...

That's not true, actually. Norway, for example, floats its elaborate social services on its oil industry. Most countries cannot do that, and it's pretty capitalistic of them. A country like Denmark, another famed "Social Democrat" country, is actually more free in regard to enterprise than the US is. But if we don't even question these countries, it's still a tiny minority of the world's population, and an anomaly in terms of world history.

Most polities in human history and in the world now do not practice it. It's certainly not obvious to everybody that they should. So you're going to have to make your case: why do we all owe it to each other to become Social Democrats?

From Wiki:

No: what's YOUR argument. I can read Wikis anytime.

My reason is the benefits that were mentioned in the Wiki.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, it is not that rare. Many civilized nations chose that type of government such as Sweden, Germany, Norway...

That's not true, actually. Norway, for example, floats its elaborate social services on its oil industry. Most countries cannot do that, and it's pretty capitalistic of them. A country like Denmark, another famed "Social Democrat" country, is actually more free in regard to enterprise than the US is. But if we don't even question these countries, it's still a tiny minority of the world's population, and an anomaly in terms of world history.

From Wiki:

No: what's YOUR argument. I can read Wikis anytime.

My reason is the benefits that were mentioned in the Wiki.

Ah. So you've never thought this through, and just trust that people will believe Wiki?

Good luck with that.

What Wiki supplies is a definition. It doesn't say anything about why the defined form of government is preferable. That's your job.

[bahman]

That's not true, actually. Norway, for example, floats its elaborate social services on its oil industry. Most countries cannot do that, and it's pretty capitalistic of them. A country like Denmark, another famed "Social Democrat" country, is actually more free in regard to enterprise than the US is. But if we don't even question these countries, it's still a tiny minority of the world's population, and an anomaly in terms of world history.


No: what's YOUR argument. I can read Wikis anytime.

My reason is the benefits that were mentioned in the Wiki.

Ah. So you've never thought this through, and just trust that people will believe Wiki?

I thought about this type of government and others.

[Immanuel Can]

My reason is the benefits that were mentioned in the Wiki.

Ah. So you've never thought this through, and just trust that people will believe Wiki?

I thought about this type of government and others.

You gave nothing more than a definition. What you need is an argument that will "educate" people into being Social Democrats. What reasons do you offer them?

[bahman]

Ah. So you've never thought this through, and just trust that people will believe Wiki?

I thought about this type of government and others.

You gave nothing more than a definition. What you need is an argument that will "educate" people into being Social Democrats. What reasons do you offer them?

The reason why I think that type of government is appropriate is within the definition. For example: "Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, public transportation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly." And: "Contemporary social democracy advocates freedom from discrimination based on differences of: ability/disability, age, ethnicity, sex, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social class."

[Immanuel Can]

I thought about this type of government and others.

You gave nothing more than a definition. What you need is an argument that will "educate" people into being Social Democrats. What reasons do you offer them?

The reason why I think that type of government is appropriate is within the definition. For example: "Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights.

That's just definitional.

It's saying, "If you believe in Social Democracy, then you'd be the kind of person who believes in certain social rights." It doesn't say that Social Democracy is better or more moral or preferable in any way: it just defines what kinds of things that agenda includes. It doesn't defend them, or tell anybody why that's better than being a Communist, or Islamist, or Nazi, or capitalist, or autocrat, or anything else.

So if that's all you've got, you've got no way to persuade anybody to be a Social Democrat. Can you do any better?

[bahman]

You gave nothing more than a definition. What you need is an argument that will "educate" people into being Social Democrats. What reasons do you offer them?

The reason why I think that type of government is appropriate is within the definition. For example: "Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights.

That's just definitional.

It's saying, "If you believe in Social Democracy, then you'd be the kind of person who believes in certain social rights." It doesn't say that Social Democracy is better or more moral or preferable in any way: it just defines what kinds of things that agenda includes. It doesn't defend them, or tell anybody why that's better than being a Communist, or Islamist, or Nazi, or capitalist, or autocrat, or anything else.

So if that's all you've got, you've got no way to persuade anybody to be a Social Democrat. Can you do any better?

I just think that one cannot have such benefits in life if one lives under another government.

[Immanuel Can]

The reason why I think that type of government is appropriate is within the definition. For example: "Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights.

That's just definitional.

It's saying, "If you believe in Social Democracy, then you'd be the kind of person who believes in certain social rights." It doesn't say that Social Democracy is better or more moral or preferable in any way: it just defines what kinds of things that agenda includes. It doesn't defend them, or tell anybody why that's better than being a Communist, or Islamist, or Nazi, or capitalist, or autocrat, or anything else.

So if that's all you've got, you've got no way to persuade anybody to be a Social Democrat. Can you do any better?

I just think that one cannot have such benefits in life if one lives under another government.

No Socialist government has ever provided those things. No Socialist government even can provide reasons why those things have to be provided. So there's no reason to prefer a Social Democrat government. They promise all kinds of stuff, and deliver much, much less than they promise...along with a whole bunch of nasty things, like centralized control, central planning, force, economic collapse, and so on.

You've got no case. If you can't even convince somebody like me, then you can't convince people from anti-democratic cultures, for sure.