Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are your thoughts on the spread of both national self-determination and republicanism over the last 250 years? Over the last 250 years, a lot of different ethnic groups have gotten their own nation-states and also there was a widespread abolition of monarchies in many parts of the world. Do you believe that, on the whole, these developments were positive, negative, or neutral, and why?
What are your thoughts on the spread of both national self-determination and republicanism over the last 250 years? Over the last 250 years, a lot of different ethnic groups have gotten their own nation-states and also there was a widespread abolition of monarchies in many parts of the world. Do you believe that, on the whole, these developments were positive, negative, or neutral, and why?
Given the long-term movement of the world towards peace and prosperity over the past 80 years since World War II, I'd say it's been an overall a positive.
However, I don't think it will last. the postwar order that was made possible by the Bretton Woods agreement is pretty much done. At some point, given aging demographics and a host of other complications, a lot of these smaller countries have hit their high water mark in terms of viability. I'm fairly certain that we'll see countries allowing themselves to merge into other, more economically healthy countries in order to survive.
Given the long-term movement of the world towards peace and prosperity over the past 80 years since World War II, I'd say it's been an overall a positive.
However, I don't think it will last. the postwar order that was made possible by the Bretton Woods agreement is pretty much done. At some point, given aging demographics and a host of other complications, a lot of these smaller countries have hit their high water mark in terms of viability. I'm fairly certain that we'll see countries allowing themselves to merge into other, more economically healthy countries in order to survive.
Not the entirety of it, because the EU makes zero sense politically, culturally, and economically. It's been held together by the Germans, but Germany is in a demographic death spiral.
Rather, I think what is now the EU will break apart into smaller, more manageable parts, coalitions that actually make sense based on cultural and economic affinities. Scandinavia, for example. France is actually a country that is demographically stable. The UK is already breaking away and will make common cause with the United States and Canada, if not seek outright union. If Russia continues its decline, Poland might become an emerging regional power, holding sway over eastern Europe.
But in what has been the developing world, it gets a lot harder, chiefly because the client states for export-run economies are rapidly moving from consumer-based economies to investment-based economies. So those countries that went through rapid economic development on an export model might suddenly look up and not have enough customers to go around.
So I'm guessing we will eventually move back to a quasi-colonial system. Not like the old colonial system pre-World War Ii, but more to a handful of strong economic powers and their economic satellites.
If you look at the United States as one example, the US has quietly worked to rejigger its trade agreements for such a system, so that South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Canada, and the UK are now in their own class.
Power corrupts. The best way to deal with that sad fact is to break apart power and set the factions against each other. If all the power is invested in one office or person, then where do you turn to when that one office or person becomes rotten? Democracy, of which republics are a form, handles this by breaking apart a state into small electoral territories governed by officials who don't have power in other territories, and none of whom are strong enough to subdue the others.
Plural power equals human rights. No plural power, no human rights. It's as simple as that.
What are your thoughts on the spread of both national self-determination and republicanism over the last 250 years? Over the last 250 years, a lot of different ethnic groups have gotten their own nation-states and also there was a widespread abolition of monarchies in many parts of the world. Do you believe that, on the whole, these developments were positive, negative, or neutral, and why?
A portrait of Kaiser Franz Joseph hangs in my house. He was good to people of my faith:
Power corrupts. The best way to deal with that sad fact is to break apart power and set the factions against each other. If all the power is invested in one office or person, then where do you turn to when that one office or person becomes rotten? Democracy, of which republics are a form, handles this by breaking apart a state into small electoral territories governed by officials who don't have power in other territories, and none of whom are strong enough to subdue the others.
Plural power equals human rights. No plural power, no human rights. It's as simple as that.
Power corrupts, certainly, and this applies to all regimes and types of governments without exception. Any kind of entity having a greater than fair share of the hegemony is inclined to fall into corruption, and this extends to mainstream media sources or the big tech giants as well. It's inevitable that corruption emerges whenever people realize they have power.
As long as a democracy is able to remain dynamic with frequent changes of government, it's how you keep the corruption from becoming too pervasive. I am not particularly worried about the two party system of American politics, it takes care of itself. But I do ponder more about the establishment media and the big technological giants. They have become little more than monopolies and the corruption is already very evident, as we clearly saw in the 2020 election, and it's because there's stiff barriers to entry from new competition and little internal turnover.
... But I do ponder more about the establishment media and the big technological giants. They have become little more than monopolies and the corruption is already very evident, as we clearly saw in the 2020 election, and it's because there's stiff barriers to entry from new competition and little internal turnover.
Completely agree. I don't see how it's a positive or a value add.
Oh, certainly! Late Austria-Hungary was actually a relatively good time for the Jews.
The last crown prince of the Empire, Otto von Habsburg, was supported by the Jewish community in an attempt to restore the monarchy in the 1930's. Opposing, the Anschluss, he was sentenced to death by the Nazi's. He died in 2011; it was honored by several nations of the former empire with official days of mourning. Its my understanding that at his funeral the Kaiserhymne was sung for the last time at his funeral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.