Are patriotism and nationality still relevant in today's world?

  • News
  • Thread starter Jacky817
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the relevance of nationalities and patriotism in today's world, with some arguing that they are still important while others believe in embracing internationalism. The idea of a global government is also brought up, with some expressing skepticism about its feasibility. The conversation also touches on issues of racism, cultural identity, and global governance through networks of power.
  • #106
brainstorm said:
Why should something have to be beneficial to anyone except the person/firm engaging in trade? What do their respective countries have to do with it?

I think you are misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying anything about private parties. They can obviously do whatever they want. I'm talking about a government-government level using tax dollars.

But you're assuming that the trade relationship that allowed them to pay for it wasn't a favored relationship to start with.

I have no idea what this means. Americans pay taxes, which go to national labs that do scientific research. That research belongs to the country, and serves to benefit its people - who paid for it. If others want access to it, they can buy it (if its available for sale).

Then why shouldn't everyone have to build their own appliances from scratch, no matter where they live? Why should some people get privileged access to consume technology and other people have to "take care of their own problems?" Who's really getting the handout? The person who gets access to technology through national projects to forge relationships between innovators and consumers; or those who have to make due with neglect from technological innovators?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'get privileged access to consume technology'. I can buy a computer here in the USA, or that same computer in Europe, or Asia, or the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. You are arguing a straw man that simply doesn't exist. It's not about who can 'access' technology, it's about who can afford to buy it. Countries with no national investment can't afford to develop and 'buy' their own scientific research - stinks for them. They should get their act together and fix it, if they really care. It's easily doable, provided they have any form of industry to build it on. Got oil? Invest in scientific research for oil exploration. Use the profits to build up other areas of science. Got Ethanol? do the same. Got wind, ditto. Solar? You got it. Wanna sit back and twiddle your thumbs expecting me to bail your country out of the stone age? Don't count on it. And hey, guess what? Do a good job and we'll buy your technology.

Fundamentally, there is a finite amount of resources available to a (person, company, government, society). Of those resources, a fraction can be set aside for projects that involve helping other countries. It should be apparently obvious, then, that every dime invested should, ideally, yield the largest return. Both to the person investing, and the person receiving the money. I will happily invest in 3rd world country if it means they can build an infrastructure and produce a good or service. The people and government get a higher quality of living, with (ideally) fair wages, hours, and labor laws. In turn, I get to buy their product cheap because their relative economic dollar is low. Over time, their dollar can gain strength. Everyone wins. On the other hand, it would be quite moronic and irresponsible to entertain the notion handing out money like it grows on trees with no strings attached.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
38
Views
6K
Replies
134
Views
19K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
5K
Back
Top