Post by Grew on Sept 28, 2016 17:04:25 GMT -4
Sorry, had forgotten to respond to this.
This is sad. Could you give any examples of the sort of thing that may cause people to be excluded? Do you think this is an inherent factor of that kind of social organisation?
Yeah, fair enough, as am I though from my experience, they tend to use it as some weird excuse for turning a blind eye to corporate welfare ('small government' etc.) or as a way to shirk responsibility regarding social security. It can also be plain xenophobic like the rise of English Nationalism but I wouldn't really class that as being localism. More like parochialism. Also seems to be a way to install discriminatory legislation in the US.
I don't know if I agree with you here. And people have made a habit of invading each other even with the existence of states. I think states, or particularly nation states, have a precariousness about them. Not always but certainly in the way that a particular Western idea of statehood has been imposed almost arbitrarily on regions across the world. How you undo that though, I don't know. Maybe it's best not to anymore.
I'll check it out.
This is very true, and the community I grew up in. You could be excluded for having the wrong kinds of interests. The school where I grew up is notorious for bullying, and people have spoken about their kids dealing with depression for years after a year in that town.
This is sad. Could you give any examples of the sort of thing that may cause people to be excluded? Do you think this is an inherent factor of that kind of social organisation?
I am skeptical of right-wing localists, because they usually want an excuse to discriminate against people. Think "States rights" in the US, used as a racist dogwhistle during the Civil Rights era, and in Canada, advocated to allow provinces to deny French Canadians linguistic rights... and used as a way to allow restrictions on homosexuals and women in both countries. Canada doesn't allow it because we have a strong federalist tradition, but the US they get away with it.
Yeah, fair enough, as am I though from my experience, they tend to use it as some weird excuse for turning a blind eye to corporate welfare ('small government' etc.) or as a way to shirk responsibility regarding social security. It can also be plain xenophobic like the rise of English Nationalism but I wouldn't really class that as being localism. More like parochialism. Also seems to be a way to install discriminatory legislation in the US.
I don't know about stateless societies though. Nationstates do serve to protect people. If we abandoned states, then people would be invading eachother, like in the times before states. But organization within states, yes.
I don't know if I agree with you here. And people have made a habit of invading each other even with the existence of states. I think states, or particularly nation states, have a precariousness about them. Not always but certainly in the way that a particular Western idea of statehood has been imposed almost arbitrarily on regions across the world. How you undo that though, I don't know. Maybe it's best not to anymore.
I posted another thread on "The end of liberal democracy" where Michael Ignatieff talks about criticisms of liberalism and advocates "different strokes for different folks", which is my philosophy.
I'll check it out.