First, I suspect that someone may react against me here in Norway grandly prescribing the break-up of the U.S. .Take my opinions and speculations for what they are worth. That said, some further remarks. Michael Lichter replies to me: > the U.S. isn't a bunch of cobbled-together set of > historical nations in the way that the ex-USSR was/Russia is. First: Then you must have some sympathy for the idea of substituting the Russian superstate with smaller nation states? Secondly: IMO it isn't a prerequisite for the establishing of a nation that the territory is clearly different from adjoining territories in culture, language, history etc. IMO an argument for not-too-large national territories is simply that the larger the unit the less democracy, and therefore also worse economics and welfare. This as a very general rule of course, with a lot of exceptions in the real world. The Taiwan/PRC example already introduced by me is an example of the above: They have milleniums of common history, similar language, culture, etc., and should by those criteria be a self-evident part of the mainland-based nation. In spite of this, IMO, they should not today be fusioned without the consent of a clear majority in both countries, expressed in a referendum after a democratic and informed discussion. (If there are Chinese or Far East researchers on this list, I am very interested in their comments). > > > (me:) Btw, does the silence on PEN on my support for a "two-China" solution > > mean that all you other left-wingers support that view? If so, > > interesting... > > (Michael:) I didn't know this was an issue for anybody but the Chinese. Now, Michael, what did you intend with this remark? I choose to exclude the possibility of sarcasm, and take this up on its face value. Do you by this mean that participants on this list who are not Chinese should abstain from discussing and voicing opinions on the PRC/Taiwan issue? If so, you must mean that one shall abstain from discussing any issue that one is not able to influence, or have the right to decide. Being a political animal, I disagree enormously. > > (me:) Why not break up the MNC's also?? > > (Michael:) How? > Well, in Norway our relatively small on world scale, but large in Norway, MNCs Norsk Hydro and Statoil are state-owned, so they may in principle be broken up by gvt. decision. But this is not very interesting, since they are medium-sized on a world scale, and the really large MNC's are private. I don't think it is easy to break up MNC's, but I have given a challenge to penners who disagree with me to explain why it is impossible for nations to control such MNC operations as unfettered capital flows and foreign takeovers. I am waiting for replies. If such controls are implemented worldwide, IMO it is not of any great negative importance if a corporation remains large and multinational. > An increase in formal > democracy is not necessarily an increase in substantive democracy. It > depends on the context. Of course, but this has no bearing on our disagreement. > Further, you can accuse me of imposing my > "moral superiority", ... I haven't and I don't. > ... but I'm not so postmodern .. Neither am I, believe me! > ... that I don't have > principles that can't be compromised. Of course again, don't we all have? The question of _how_ to choose how to influence wrongs in other parts of the world is not answered by your statement. in earnest non-postmodernism, Trond ------------------------------------------------- | Trond Andresen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | | lecturer | | Department of Engineering Cybernetics | | The Norwegian Institute of Technology | | N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY | | | | phone (work) +47 73 59 43 58 | | fax (work) +47 73 59 43 99 | | private phone +47 73 53 08 23 | | | | http://www.itk.unit.no/ansatte/Andresen,Trond | -------------------------------------------------
