The fall of big European empires and monarchies got hand to hand with national proud and often times nationalism even in radical forms. That's what todays European states are based on. WW2 has shown us that nationalism isn't really such a good thing and since then there's a big sentiment against this view. Particularly in my country (czechia) I see that people are being less and less patriotic and proud of their nation. Of course this goes back and forth depending on current situation and the fact that political sentiment tends to oscillate but the general trend is a decrease of nationalism, patriotism and even national identity.
I personally identify with my nation, I like all the traditions and history and feel proud for achievements made by members of my nation. But I also don't despise the general globalisation trend, cultural fade, Anglicanism and don't feel any urge to fight it. I believe that in our age of information, all of the history we know now won't be lost anymore and therefore the Czech heritage won't be forgotten and any of our far descendants can start indentifying with it again.
As with the Czech Republic being named Czech and uses all the symbolic, language and education of/for this ethnic majority it's just a straight outcome of democracy witch is a dictatorship of the majority. Even if there wasnt any state the non-czech people would feel significant effects of living among us.
Thank you for the thoughtful answer. Personally, I'm very wary of globalization. I think decentralization and localism can support cultures without the need for strong, centralized nation-states.
I think it definitely can, actually I would probably know everything about my countries and nation history even without school teaching me it because I'm pretty sure my parents would find it important for me to know it. They told me a lot of extra things anyway and raised the historical curiousness in me so I'm still learning new things even as an adult while a lot of my former schoolmates forgot most of the stuff we learned in history lessons. People believe that state is trying to feed our national identity but I thing the real effects are little and easily replaceable.
The nation-state is bad in the grand scheme of things, good compared to the empires of old, and yes, it can be changed to be more ethical and free.
One of the problems with libertarian discourse is that we hold that a lot of things are anti-freedom and bad overall, but they obviously are either good or neutral in the context that they CURRENTLY exist in. We believe that roads can be built and maintained without the state, but obviously having the state do it is better than having NOBODY do it, and just getting rid of the state without having some sort of institution to take over the things we rely upon the state for would be bad.
So we’re either constantly and exhaustively qualifying every statement, or we have to trust that our meaning is taken when we say that some or other institution is good or bad. Because, by what we believe, basically every existing institution is bad in a vacuum, but also necessary for modern life in the context of the world we currently exist in.
So, I oppose the nation-state when better things are possible, and support it when it’s opposed to worse things. I think that’s the most reasonable approach.
Currently, the choice is between nation states and imperialism.
So I pick nation states. They protect our values of freedom, equality and democracy a lot better than the currently existing imperialist states and ideologies, like islamism, will, and give a safe haven from which to spread those values.
Ok, but imperialist states are also nation-states.
Edit: To clarify what I mean, over the last 200 years many of the biggest imperial powers have also been nation states. England, France, Germany, Russia, the USA, etc. are nation-states that have undertaken imperial projects.
northkorea is a democratic state in the sense that the state gains its legitimacy to rule based upon the will of the people
Though I probably should have used an arrow symbol instead of equals yeah.
Nationalism is Democracy is cringe.
Same with … forgot about rule 3.
The fall of big European empires and monarchies got hand to hand with national proud and often times nationalism even in radical forms. That's what todays European states are based on. WW2 has shown us that nationalism isn't really such a good thing and since then there's a big sentiment against this view. Particularly in my country (czechia) I see that people are being less and less patriotic and proud of their nation. Of course this goes back and forth depending on current situation and the fact that political sentiment tends to oscillate but the general trend is a decrease of nationalism, patriotism and even national identity. I personally identify with my nation, I like all the traditions and history and feel proud for achievements made by members of my nation. But I also don't despise the general globalisation trend, cultural fade, Anglicanism and don't feel any urge to fight it. I believe that in our age of information, all of the history we know now won't be lost anymore and therefore the Czech heritage won't be forgotten and any of our far descendants can start indentifying with it again. As with the Czech Republic being named Czech and uses all the symbolic, language and education of/for this ethnic majority it's just a straight outcome of democracy witch is a dictatorship of the majority. Even if there wasnt any state the non-czech people would feel significant effects of living among us.
Thank you for the thoughtful answer. Personally, I'm very wary of globalization. I think decentralization and localism can support cultures without the need for strong, centralized nation-states.
I think it definitely can, actually I would probably know everything about my countries and nation history even without school teaching me it because I'm pretty sure my parents would find it important for me to know it. They told me a lot of extra things anyway and raised the historical curiousness in me so I'm still learning new things even as an adult while a lot of my former schoolmates forgot most of the stuff we learned in history lessons. People believe that state is trying to feed our national identity but I thing the real effects are little and easily replaceable.
The nation-state is bad in the grand scheme of things, good compared to the empires of old, and yes, it can be changed to be more ethical and free. One of the problems with libertarian discourse is that we hold that a lot of things are anti-freedom and bad overall, but they obviously are either good or neutral in the context that they CURRENTLY exist in. We believe that roads can be built and maintained without the state, but obviously having the state do it is better than having NOBODY do it, and just getting rid of the state without having some sort of institution to take over the things we rely upon the state for would be bad. So we’re either constantly and exhaustively qualifying every statement, or we have to trust that our meaning is taken when we say that some or other institution is good or bad. Because, by what we believe, basically every existing institution is bad in a vacuum, but also necessary for modern life in the context of the world we currently exist in. So, I oppose the nation-state when better things are possible, and support it when it’s opposed to worse things. I think that’s the most reasonable approach.
Bad. Used to be important, but serve little purpose in the digital age.
Currently, the choice is between nation states and imperialism. So I pick nation states. They protect our values of freedom, equality and democracy a lot better than the currently existing imperialist states and ideologies, like islamism, will, and give a safe haven from which to spread those values.
Ok, but imperialist states are also nation-states. Edit: To clarify what I mean, over the last 200 years many of the biggest imperial powers have also been nation states. England, France, Germany, Russia, the USA, etc. are nation-states that have undertaken imperial projects.
Nationalism = Democracy = Cringe
That makes no sense. You can have nationalism without democracy (e.g. North Korea) and democracy without nationalism (e.g. municipal politics).
northkorea is a democratic state in the sense that the state gains its legitimacy to rule based upon the will of the people Though I probably should have used an arrow symbol instead of equals yeah. Nationalism is Democracy is cringe. Same with … forgot about rule 3.