Discussion»Questions»Politics» If you believe in strong borders and national sovereignity does that make you a natural for State's rights and put you at odds with one-worl
No, becaues only a tiny minority of people who use such language have actually thought about what those terms mean and why they believe what they do.
Otherwise, the invocation of "states' rights" or "strong borders" is simply a rationalization for whatever ideological goal the person seeks to accomplish.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this was prior to the Civil War when the Confederate states defended the institution of slavery vehemently on the basis of "states' rights" but whined like bitches for a national law preempting states who wanted to declare any former slave in their jurisdiction as automatically free.
99.9% of all "states' rights" or "strong borders" arguments are similarly hypocritical.
Those of us who have actually thought about what these terms mean and why we believe what we do, know it naturally puts us at odds with one-world government globalists. Sorry if you are in the majority who do not and swing either direction as pragmatists often do. Thanks again for re-affirming my belief that Liberals cannot make a point without playing the race card or pushing emotional hot buttons.
This post was edited by O-uknow at November 27, 2016 12:08 PM MST
@O-uknow -- Well, yes, in broadest terms someone whose ideas of nation-state and "antiglobalism" are no more sophisticated than "America...F*** YEAH!" can be said to have "thought" about the question.
But I have not seen ANY indication from you that you've thought in deep fundamental terms about what constitutes a "state" (in the US internal definition), or a "nation" (in the geopolitical sense of the word), what gives those entities legitimacy, why their current geographic boundaries are what they are and why that should be so (instead of some different arrangment where, say, the Alsace is part of Germany or the northern border of the USA is at 54 degrees 40 minutes latitudeinstead of the existing 49 deg. 50 min.)
In the absence of such thinking, you are left with rationalizations for whatever it is you want for other reasons.
Any federal union will always debate which powers should be reserved by the states and which powers should be delegated to the federal government. That's a normal and ongoing discussion. Federal government is by definition a fudged compromise between centralization and decentralization. If you don't see value in both, you don't even believe in the concept of the U.S..
The U.S. sets the right of states to autonomy in direct conflict with the right of the federal government to dictate to the whole union. It's not hypocritical, it's just how the system works. Both state governments and the federal government are a check on each other. The contradiction is deliberate.
Federal power is a sword and states' rights are a shield. You only see this as bad because you're ideologically unable to see the benefits of conflict and competition.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at November 28, 2016 8:41 AM MST
Yes. Naturally if you are pro National sovereignty (insert your country here) you cannot support a global government which would end that national sovereignty.
It shows you as a person who looks BACK - not FORWARD..
In the beginning, tribes had borders. Since then, we've been expanding them to include more and more people. It's how we progress. It's NOT gonna stop. It's the way we are.
OldSchoolTheSKOSlives 