Here's one to think about a little

[MysteryMeat]

Try to put aside your nationalism for a moment and approach the following objectively:

Since the US Presidency is currently 'the most poserful position in the world', and is greatly responsible for supplying much of the world's medicines and technologies as well as being indirectly responsible for a nice chunk of the world economy via import/export practices (as well as sanctions), do you think (objectively) that the rest of the world should have a little more say in whom should be elected/appoint the post?



To start things off: I'd say there should definitely be input from other nations, because the power of that position could greatly affect their respective countries in the following 4-8 years of a given president-elect.

[Led]

The power that our president holds come from the power that our nation has given him. Our power has come from years and years of efforts to advance past other nations. Hence, they had nothing to do with putting us in power, so they should not have influence on putting the president in power. They could do the same for themselves and then their leader could be seen in that light. Does that make any sense?

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by Led
The power that our president holds come from the power that our nation has given him. Our power has come from years and years of efforts to advance past other nations. Hence, they had nothing to do with putting us in power, so they should not have influence on putting the president in power. They could do the same for themselves and then their leader could be seen in that light. Does that make any sense?

See, but I believe our ability to rise to the position we have is due mainly to geography (being significantly separated from the rest of the world). Russia's power was due to sheer size; China's power due to sheer numbers. The EU will be interesing to see come into fruition, which is actually what I'm basing the question on.

[Dionysos]

Off the top, I'd like to state that I'm thoroughly against that idea. Putting that aside; if other nations are going to have a direct say in who runs our nation, I think it would be only fair that we get a proportional say over who runs their country as well.

[Big Andy]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
See, but I believe our ability to rise to the position we have is due mainly to geography (being significantly separated from the rest of the world). Russia's power was due to sheer size; China's power due to sheer numbers. The EU will be interesing to see come into fruition, which is actually what I'm basing the question on.

Agreed.




Does anyone really think the US is so powerful just because "we're the best!"? We found a bigass unclaimed piece of land and colonized it from shore to shore. That coupled with a decent government/economic set-up has let us grow to the position we are now in. I don't think we necessarily deserve any credit just because we got a good start.


Let's not forget that we are a rather young country compared to many others on the planet.



I wouldn't have a problem with a system giving a little say outside the country, based on your ideas, Thomas. However, I would rather see our own system reformed in such a way that wouldn't put so much global power into the hands of one office holder.

[Krash]

Originally posted by Dionysos
Off the top, I'd like to state that I'm thoroughly against that idea. Putting that aside; if other nations are going to have a direct say in who runs our nation, I think it would be only fair that we get a proportional say over who runs their country as well.

World government: Bring it on.

[Funkenstein]

Originally posted by Krash
World government: Bring it on.

And thus the way to Apocalypse begins . . .



". . .and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. . ."

Its absurd to grant authority to govern our nation to representatives we did not elect.

It is absurd to permit non-citizens to vote.


Now - learning to place nice with others - agreed - we need to work on that.

Originally posted by Krash
World government: Bring it on.

hippy

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by Krash
World government: Bring it on.

I'm down with this, for sure. That's why I'm so interested with the EU and how they work out. If you think Americans are nationalistic, try a country that has been established for easily 10x longer. Yet, they're working together and I believe they will be a major economic force to be reconed with in the coming decades if they can keep it together.

Of course in a utpian, perfect society we would all be involved in each other's political selection process to make the world function as a whole, but due to each country's greed, nationality, and cultural differences, it is impossible to ever achieve such perfection. Outside involvement in our political selection process would only lead to more conflict, unfortunately.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by cureperry
Of course in a utpian, perfect society we would all be involved in each other's political selection process to make the world function as a whole, but due to each country's greed, nationality, and cultural differences, it is impossible to ever achieve such perfection. Outside involvement in our political selection process would only lead to more conflict, unfortunately.

No one's asking for perfection, but like say, I'm modeling the question around the EU situation. All those 'greedy, nationalistic, culturally different' countries are putting those things aside and unifying for a greater good.

[Keith P]

The nation state will eventually disappear. If we survive that long I'm sure we'll find nationalism has caused more harm than good.
Not gonna happen anytime soon though.

[Adam D]

I think nation-states should be dissolved entirely.

[Krash]

Originally posted by Adam D
I think nation-states should be dissolved entirely.

I'm of the opinion that the nation state will just end up being a convenient way to administer earth in years to come, I think it will be a while though.