Sup /pol/acks, I hope this thread will show some proof the shills aren't TOTALLY dominating the board.
To the point guys, I've been wondering how effective it is to apply the concepts of a Federal structure, to a large group of far right Nationalist states.
The thought process (or lack there of) is that if all the nations (this is a pure hypothetical) were run by their respective ethnic groups, then they would be doing what is best for their own home nation. Now, with this idea established, would the practice of Federalism be most beneficial? Where Federalism applies in this, is the application of a Master Nation, or World Gov't. (This can be elaborated in another thread). Which, will be the main leader, arbiter, and law maker of this group of Nation states. The federalist aspect of this is seen in the American model, in which powers of the National gov't are in charge of policy making, and ensuring peace between the states. However, continuing this model, the National gov't cannot directly interfere in matters of the State, leaving them to handle their affairs on their own.
Part (1)
Part (2)
So! Can this model work? Can a group of Nation states (Germany, France, China, India, etc) be helped the most by the application of a Master Nation? Nationalism as we know is terrific in it's ability to encourage self promoting interests and policy. But, in the spirit of open competition, we will eventually run into the situation of these Nationalist states eventually warring and conquering one another. This will either destroy the conquered ethnic people of the defeated nation, or create a hot bed of great terrorist, and or rebellious action within the land. So! My belief is that with the Master Nation, we can see these competing nations be prevented from the aforementioned scenario. But, I do see some main issues concerning the application of Federalism in this. Mainly, issues of who will be the Master Nation, how much power can the Master Nation have? How will peace be enforced between the multiple Nations?
And lastly, how does this differ from EU, UN, and other Globalist organisations? The claim I make, is the fact that the Master Nation will be the undisputed arbiter, and judge of this collection of Nations. Not a group of equals with some being the first among them (USA, Britain, Russia).
As you can see lads, I'm quite unsure of this. Understandably this is all hypothetical, and basically as likely to happen as OP NOT being a faggot. But I'm curious as if this can be viable in it's theoretical mechanics?
Could this be the answer to our needs? Or am I just full of shit /pol/?
Watcha talking about, gringo?
>>77985499
It's like this:
Master Nation (Insert who ever your favorite is.)>Nations (Germany, France, whatever)>People (of the specific nation).
So since we're both from the U.S, imagine Germany as California, paying respect and tax to the Federal gov't. Got that? Now imagine all the nations of the world are like that, except they hold actual power over their specific nations' interests, except they wouldn't be getting dicked by the nation gov't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVkP8leANw
>>77986029
I like it m80.
>>77986329
Okay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc1E_QIJIwo
Come on /pol/ don't leave me dry here.
At this point I'll keep memeing until some discussion happens.
Do I need to reformat my posts /pol/?
Or is /pol/ just busy with other shit?
Ill help you meme op to bump for discussion
But ill be honest. I didnt even read your post. I just looked at the triangle
>>77991251
Fair enough.
What did you think of the triangle? Did it make sense to you?
So, how's /pol/ doing this Monday night?
You're killing me /pol/.
>>77984436
>>77984492
Have you not just described Animal Farm? It sounds a bit "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others".
I do like it in practice but it seems too idealistic and, dare I say, communist.
Would like to thank OP for a thread on /pol/ that is actually about politics for once.
>>77994866
I suppose this does sound similar to communism, or more specifically USSR. Didn't notice the connection mate.
The main concept, is in fact not to preach a false sense of equality. Rather, in fact that this collection of Nationalist states would require one Master Nation to lead, and settle dispute. Because ultimately, with such a large collection of nations ultimately serving their own race and people, over the interests of rival nations would cause high tensions. Thus, the role of a Master Nation would be to prevent inter-nation conflict, yet not to stifle a pure competitive spirit between these nations.
And in terms of plausibility, why yes I recognize this is about as possible as Aliens coming to visit earth tomorrow.
>>77995354
Okay I understand more about where you think the Master Nation would fit into this society of competing nationalistic countries now.
My next question regarding their mediation of any conflict- is this military intervention? If so who pays for it? Would the member states pay some kind of tax to the master nation to fund their peace-making.
I think the transfer of funds could be where the problems would stem from. Let's assume on earth that the nation chosen to be the Master Nation was the United States, as they probably have the biggest influence on the world right now. It would follow logically that countries such as England and Germany, being rich and relatively peaceful (inb4 world war) would pay more than unstable and poor countries such as Libya and Iraq. I would imagine this would generate some kind of reluctance from England and Germany to pay their taxes to stabilise other nations, which could potentially cause an alliance between the nations and a mutiny against the Master Nation.
>>77984436
A question, if i may
You said that one of the main reasons that you wished for a master nation to control a specific group of nations is because of the chance of competing nations to go into war with each other.
However, what's to stop one Master Nation and its subsidiary nations to go into war with another Master Nation and that nation's subsidiaries?
Nation states of vastly different cultures, ethnicities, and goals under the power of a "Master Nation." Where would this master nation derive it's power? Is it elected? If so, by who? Either way this doesn't sound plausible to me. Highly bureaucratized and inefficient.
See: European Union
>>77997803
Nothing really. The main reason this entire theory/hypothetical is impossible, is the assumption that there can only be ONE Master Nation. In the scenario you provide, I would imagine it would be similar to WWII, in terms of destructive might.
>>77997449
Good point. I would assume any conflict between the Nations would be possibly over resources, and border disputes. In this, the Master Nation would be pressured to solve this dilemma by diplomacy. If not, I would suppose a military neutrality must be established. MN troops on the border, in the government buildings to ensure peace.
In terms of potential jealousy, I'd imagine the best solution would be to rely on the nations being, well Nationalist. Offer no social programs, benefits, or direct MN effect using Nations income. That way the Germans may be happy to pay their tax, knowing it will not be wasted on incompetent Somali or Libyan workers.
>>77998205
That's part of the reason I brought this discussion to /pol/. We can see the failings of the EU, and as far as the UN.
I suppose the issue and bureaucratic hell stems from the fact ALL nations are treated as equals, and standing on the same footing. (Ignoring Major powers like aforementioned UK, Germany).
The solution I propose to have one, singular Master Nation to be the indifferent, neutral force to keep the process efficient and streamlined.
Consider it this way. This is the combination of Federalism and Nationalism. Federalism is seen in the application of the Master Nation. But what of Nationalism? This, would be a means to ensure self reliance and a semi-independence from the world as a whole. Take for example Germany. If we allow the Germans to rule themselves, and only the German nation, then we can assume they will try to compete with their rivals. To, in a sense, strive for being the best among their competitors on the national level. This applies to your question in the way that bureaucracy would be minimized, as the Nations as a whole would either by force or will seek to be self reliant, and not dependent on the MN's teat. (See EU and Greece's debt, and social programs).
Now, on to who is elected, is the issue I am having with this ideology. If by Democratic election, then there would be struggle for power. If by force (World Conquest) then none of the Nations would ever be cordial with the Master Nation.
So, as you guys can see/tell, this isn't God Tier ideology I'm spouting. But so far some good critiques, and maybe this could be one of those Mid tier type of shit. Also bump.
>>77999001
I think the issue you face is the "Master Nation" concept. When it comes to global politics, "neutrality" seems to be subjective. If this Master Nation were to make a "neutral" decision that was not in the interest of a certain party, conflict would then start and assuredly members of certain groups would believe the Master Nation was biased against them.
I think you're on to something in the sense that coalitions of nation states can work. But they have to be between nation states that have similar ethnic backgrounds and political persuasions.
The European Union has failed because it didn't follow these guidelines. If the EU was formed between some Northern European countries and Scandinavia, it probably would have succeeded in bringing about some sense of stability. But inevitably, I think a system like the one you're thinking of is just not feasible. It would have to be democratic and between like-minded people.
>>78002027
I see your point.
But when it comes to these things, If we allow multiple Master Nations representing the various cultural and racial groups, we face issues like >>77997803.
HOWEVER. I think one alternative is if we go even harder into Federalism.
Hear me out. Suppose we have a Nordic/Northern European Union as you supposed. Scandinavia, and the British Isles will be out participants. They follow all the rules and ideology we've previously discussed, and ultimately share the similar cultural bonds you mentioned. However! Let us crown Britain/UK as the Master Nation of this Collection of Nation states. They are the leader of this group, and are the arbiter and judge.
But now, we add the Eastern block, or simply the Baltic nations and Far Eastern Europe. This is a union of the same similar ethnic and racial bonds, but of course they are much different, (if minor) from the Northern Union. Who is the leader? Let us simply choose Lithuania (for no reason). They lead, and are the arbiter.
So now we allow multiple MN to lead and govern their specific cultural sphere. But I propose, that with all of the cultural spheres (since we are basically in the land of hypothetical and extremes) that the MN of these spheres follow and adhere to the rule of ONE Ultimate Nation.
Does this address the issue?
So, any other main gripes?
There's the issue of who becomes the MN,
There's the issue of how the MN rules,
The exact nature of the MN,
How this can avoid the failures of EU, and UN.
Any others? Also bump.
Going to go to bed /pol/
I'm gonna copy this shit into word for later.
Enjoy the side blasting from this last meme.
>>78004658
So basically what you were suggesting is that there should only be one Master Nation right?
But how would a single nation be able to control such a large number of countries singlehandedly?
Even a nation as powerful as, say the united states/russia/uk, etc
I don't think it'd really work out that well 2bh
>>78006796
I agree that there are many issues. Hence why I inherently believe in it's impossible nature.
However as discussed in>>78003070
and >>77999001 the main way I see this occurring (allowing hypothetical again) is either small Unions led by a MN, OR as stated in the first post, all cultural and ethic unions being under one MN, and eventually those MN being under the direct leadership of the Ultimate.
But at this point, we reach complexities and must eventually address how and what the MN does.
Did I answer your question? One Master Nation handling 20 nations, seems much more manageable than say, 120+.
>>78007155
>Did I answer your question? One Master Nation handling 20 nations, seems much more manageable than say, 120+.
Yep but then it spirals back to my original post >>77997803, where I mentioned that having multiple master nations would lead to an all out war
>>78007410
Such is the problem.
Then what are your thoughts on the potential of multiple MN's being led by an Ultimate? Treat the MN as the leaders of their cultural unions, but they in question follow the same rules they inflict on the lesser nations.
This, if we suppose the MN to be successful, would mean they are no more prone to violence and inter-state war like their fellow people. But sadly, who could be the Ultimate?
I apologize if this seems like moving the goalpost. I'm merely entertaining possible solutions.
Actually, it's 1 am now mates.
Thanks for entertaining a crazy anons' political theory. Night y'll.
>>78007777
>Then what are your thoughts on the potential of multiple MN's being led by an Ultimate? Treat the MN as the leaders of their cultural unions, but they in question follow the same rules they inflict on the lesser nations.
Hmm, that idea seems a bit more probable than the rest
How about having MN's for different continents then?
The EU was pretty good until the wrong people started getting into power
If we could somehow prevent something like that from happening, different unions for different continents would be a good idea and lessen the possibility of war as well, considering that war mostly occurs among neighboring countries but if all neighboring countries are more or less part of the same union, war could easily be averted
>>78007951
Good night friendo
Wish this thread could've gotten a bit more attention
There are YLYL threads with a shit ton of replies right now while this one has only 34
>>78007951
Thank you OP
