> Justinian I wrote:

> 1. In our country, English should be the national language. And immigrants should assimilate.
2. Immigrants should be selected for their economic value and cultural compatibility with western values.
3. Self-interest should be praised and people judged by their merits, and the government should not force equality of housing, work or education (Investing in education is fine. Quotas are not) etc.
4. The international system ought to be anarchistic. The UN should not be a world government, but a forum to discuss and resolve problems concerning all states. If you disapprove of a member state and choose to intervene by force, then at least have the honesty to admit that it's victor's justice. These legal/"human rights" pretensions are setting a dangerous precedent that insults the sovereignty of other states.
5. Although patriotism/nationalism is dangerous at extreme levels, no politician should serve in a relevant political office if they consider their national identity to be "terran."

1. Assimilation can be done by totally giving up your own identity or by joining the group and altering the groups identity. Which is more important, your own identity or your group identity? If you say the first, you cant advocate assimilation in the harsh first sense. If you say the second, you're a [pro-capitalist] commie (or a fascist (as if there's much of a difference)).
2. I agree if you make a distinction between long term immigration (coming to stay) and short term immigration (for example coming to learn, short term safety from oppression or such things). For long term immigration, those two points are valid, for short term immigration, they're not. Now you could contest the necessitiy of short term immigration of course. I see it as a valueable cultural exchange to have people coming to your country, getting to know it, you getting to know their culture, then going back and share the knowledge. This is the best peace preservation known to man...
3. Self-interest is fine as long as it is not excessive. The problem here lies in the term equality. What kind of equality do you mean? Equality in civil rights, in the justice system and in life chances are fine in my book. To try to make people equal in pay, living standard and the like is ridiculous. I should probably explain life chances: It means that everyone in the country has to the chance (and freedom) to achieve their life goals. To ensure that, you have to for example make ways for the child from a very poor family to receive education, even to the university level. Thats chances. It means that there are ways such a child can obtain a higher education, through hard work, scholarships etc. That also means prevention of racism and the like at the work place. You cant have a system were someone simply cant find a job because of their birth.
4. I disagree if you mean to have the nations as the governing level. I see no reason for nations. Most government could be kept to a communal level. Some things cant be solved there, so there is a weaker regional government level too. I dont see why we cant have a weak world government for things that cant be solved on that regional level. Just talking never gets anything done, esspecially when it includes short-term costs and long-term gains.
5. See point 4. I dont see the need to make the national level of government something special. There is no need for patriotism or nationalism. It is ridiculous and just an extension of the irrational human group identity that was originally for small groups of hunter/gatherers (where it is fine), but is just totally idiotic when taken on a level where you've never met 99.9% of your "group". There is no reason to feel more kinship towards an american you've never met and a chinese rice farmer.

PS: It is very interesting that you choose idiocy over disagreement.

Arachno,

1/2. First, I don't believe that a fixed, non-evolving culture is desirable. Second, I believe that some cultures have value that can benefit me and my country. In some sense, the exchange of cultures is beneficial. An example of a non-western culture that I hold in high esteem is Japanese culture. But other cultures, like some places where recent immigrants come from... are barbaric and are more costly than they're worth. In ripping off a theory from Sam Harris, think of culture as a landscape. Some of them are at high mountain tops and others at low elevations. The elevation depends on how well that culture results in human happiness and autonomy etc. Japanese and Western culture are at high elevations, while shaman cultures are at the bottom.

Immigrants ought to come from cultures at higher elevations, or at least from a liberalized segment of a country with a low culture overall. As far as assimilation of people from higher cultures, I only expect them to assimilate enough to economically participate in our society. For those from lower cultures, if they must stay for the long-run, then they have to be pushed in an upward direction. But overall, I only want people from lower cultures to be here because they are on a work visa.

3. I agree with equal rights under the law and equal opportunity. I also agree with equal opportunity for education, and that it should be fully paid by the state. I don't see it as an expense like many conservatives do, but rather as an investment. However, what I disapprove of are the Liberal schemes that give disadvantaged groups a competitive advantage for university entrance, or large housing subsidies to live in middle class neighborhoods. However, I acknowledge the US has not been consistent with equal opportunity, so I can not blame Liberals too much.

4. Yes. I mean nation-states are fully independent. There should be no international law at all. Any attempts for a world government ought to be ruthlessly opposed. And on this, I am uncompromising. I am not a Terran. I am an American.

To be realistic, the UN's power is ineffective. Ultimately, the major powers can and do ignore them whenever it suits their purposes. I approve of the fact that the UN is powerless without the cooperation of its member states. What I don't approve of is the laughable efforts by major powers to justify wars driven by self-interest under the pretenses of international law, when they ignore violations that do not concern them. And even with this defacto state of affairs in the UN, a lot still gets done. But I'm afraid that this defacto state of affairs could result in a stronger UN because of the ideas we're putting in people's heads.

5. I agree that extreme nationalism is dangerous. But I value being part of an independent country. Call it irrational all you want. In the end, "rational" motives collapse in to values, and rationality only serves values. And I value being an American, and oppose the identity of a "Terran" being imposed upon me.

And this should be an interesting lesson for you. Negotiation/discussion only works to find a solution when all parties have the same values. People often care about their best interests, so demonstrating why your solution is in each of your best interests is effective. But it doesn't work when your values differ. And values are not rational. There's nothing rational about wanting to live. You are simply born, you live, and then you die. Moreover, eventually, humans will probably become extinct.

EmperorHez,

1. Since you love China so much, lets talk about the Qin. Do you think the Emperor imposed a common system of weights and measures because he thought his system was so much nicer? Well, maybe. But the main reason is that it is more efficient for commerce. Likewise, having one national language is more efficient, and it's just more convenient for English to be the national language rather than Spanish.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
While I won't dispute the underlying fact you present (that wars are generally issues of national self-interest, rather than human rights-focused), doesn't the idea of human rights help to prevent some wars?  If the world accepts "wars are legitimate as long as they can help one of the participants in the outcome," it generally gives nations the international legitimacy to go on whatever conquering or counter-conquering sprees they desire.  However, if a nation is ethically required to conjure up some sort of casus belli for their war or risk international legitimacy loss... doesn't that at least allow rallying of nations against, say... Germany-Poland-type war scenarios?>

If they help at all, then I'm sure it only applies to popular support. I am inclined to think that political officials are thinking in terms of national interest, not so much about "human rights." And this excuse for war has been something only used in recent decades, and for thousands of years wars have been justified for other reasons just fine. So it's not essential to justify war, and furthermore I think this excuse for war is dangerous because underlying it is a justification for Terranism. And I hate Terranism.

AdriusAvangion,

1. I believe the people you mentioned, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck lack scholarly values. As for Sarah Palin, she is an imbecile.
2. I hate the GOP
3. I agree with the point of most of your GOP criticisms.

So what is the purpose of your post (currently #8 in this thread)?

the title of the thread was evil liberals. I barely read half the crap that was posted in here.

im sorry if i got the jist of your post all wrong....however....

i still feel strongly about the GOP. Lately ive been hearing alot of crap come out of republican's mouthes and im damn tired of it.

So once again my apologies. I misread your intentions.