Edit: I forgot to respond to your first paragraph. Again, you obviously wasn’t reading that I am separating liberals and left. In any case, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the spectrum, both liberals and left are still seen as smug and NIMBYs because of these idiots, and it is not without merit. Even Slavoj Zizek made similar observation. Those idiots may give the both ideologies bad name, but unfortunately they are not insignificant numbers, especially during the height of “snowflake” college in mid 2010s, and it adds ammo for the right.
Well, how are social democracies able to deal with other countries that are not fellow social democracies, because the latter have different values, laws and regulations? You obviously ignored the part where I said other countries don’t have legal jurisdictions on other countries’ labour laws. Precisely that’s why there needs to be a world government to streamline the laws and processes.
That being said, in a utopian ideal of what anarchy is, it is self-organising society and independent or autonomous from each other. Well, what do you think are nation states? Isn’t it already an entity with a self-organising society? As we speak, the supposed international order and rules-based order are neither ordered nor have rules. If you read the fine print, many legal definitions are not actually legal. For example, the word “guarantee” is not actually guaranteed. “Agreement” is not actually an agreement. In international “law”, those latter words do not have legal weight. Parties can break them without penalty. In essence, these types of deal are based on principle and mutual understanding, and therefore no actual arbitrary penalty for breaking. That’s why in many cases, international courts could condemn individuals but do not have the power to actually arrest and prosecute them, because they have no legal power-- out of jurisdiction. The global agreement on climate change is the same. There is no legal punishment for any countries that failed to follow the guidelines to reduce carbon emissions. Nicaragua was right about it when they initially refused to sign the Paris climate change agreement because it did not go far enough. As I mentioned, it is simply an “agreement” after all. Many countries in the global south received grants to improve their infrastructures to reduce carbon emissions and build renewable energy technologies, but findings reported that much of those money went to building luxuries like hotels deemed to be carbon-neutral because it has solar panels and whatnot. The only case where an international deal have legal and serious repercussions is if the agreement is actually signed as “treaty”. But the Paris climate change is not a treaty because it is by intention.
Anarchism only works on small scale with similar-minded folks. But as you can see, much of the world at the moment are not like-minded. The world is too big for it at the moment. Bigger societies (read countries) bullying smaller ones, it is impractical. International “laws” are not respected because there is no legal teeth to enforce them. Perhaps if future technological advances allow for improved communications and transportation to allow better cultural exchanges, which facilitates different cultures to coalesce and converge into one common culture, then why not. I would be an anarchist if I wasn’t a social democrat. But like I mentioned, we are already in anarchy, but it’s the one you imagined and it’s not pretty as no doubt you cannot deny.
The reason why the UN is powerless is because they are not given power. You complain about the UN being useless, but would you approve to give them power in order to stop wars and enforce global wide laws in order to stop climate change? I thought so. Most people don’t realise about this farcical contradiction but now you know.
Indians are not the only immigrant groups. There plenty of other nationalities with different mindsets because of different cultures. I worked with Somalis and they work too hard (and I assume you probably already know what is going on in their home country so you get the idea why they work too hard). One hasn’t even taken holidays for the entire year and was forced by management to take all of it before the year ends. But it’s not even Somalis, other immigrants also even make you feel guilty if you do not do overtime almost almost seven days. I think is tinge of envy and think I am rich. I am not by any stretch of imagination, but I have enough savings as safety net and I don’t live beyond my means (unlike most people from my experience). And I think a lot of immigrants neither have a concept of hobby nor do other activities outside of work, because I work to live not living to work. And it makes sense, most immigrants come for economic reasons. Although, work is meant to put food on the table, put roof over my head and afford the occasional frivolties and fund my hobby. I value my own personal happiness first than some CEO’s yearly bonus.
Edit: I forgot to respond to your first paragraph. Again, you obviously wasn’t reading that I am separating liberals and left. In any case, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the spectrum, both liberals and left are still seen as smug and NIMBYs because of these idiots, and it is not without merit. Even Slavoj Zizek made similar observation. Those idiots may give the both ideologies bad name, but unfortunately they are not insignificant numbers, especially during the height of “snowflake” college in mid 2010s, and it adds ammo for the right.
Well, how are social democracies able to deal with other countries that are not fellow social democracies, because the latter have different values, laws and regulations? You obviously ignored the part where I said other countries don’t have legal jurisdictions on other countries’ labour laws. Precisely that’s why there needs to be a world government to streamline the laws and processes.
That being said, in a utopian ideal of what anarchy is, it is self-organising society and independent or autonomous from each other. Well, what do you think are nation states? Isn’t it already an entity with a self-organising society? As we speak, the supposed international order and rules-based order are neither ordered nor have rules. If you read the fine print, many legal definitions are not actually legal. For example, the word “guarantee” is not actually guaranteed. “Agreement” is not actually an agreement. In international “law”, those latter words do not have legal weight. Parties can break them without penalty. In essence, these types of deal are based on principle and mutual understanding, and therefore no actual arbitrary penalty for breaking. That’s why in many cases, international courts could condemn individuals but do not have the power to actually arrest and prosecute them, because they have no legal power-- out of jurisdiction. The global agreement on climate change is the same. There is no legal punishment for any countries that failed to follow the guidelines to reduce carbon emissions. Nicaragua was right about it when they initially refused to sign the Paris climate change agreement because it did not go far enough. As I mentioned, it is simply an “agreement” after all. Many countries in the global south received grants to improve their infrastructures to reduce carbon emissions and build renewable energy technologies, but findings reported that much of those money went to building luxuries like hotels deemed to be carbon-neutral because it has solar panels and whatnot. The only case where an international deal have legal and serious repercussions is if the agreement is actually signed as “treaty”. But the Paris climate change is not a treaty because it is by intention.
Anarchism only works on small scale with similar-minded folks. But as you can see, much of the world at the moment are not like-minded. The world is too big for it at the moment. Bigger societies (read countries) bullying smaller ones, it is impractical. International “laws” are not respected because there is no legal teeth to enforce them. Perhaps if future technological advances allow for improved communications and transportation to allow better cultural exchanges, which facilitates different cultures to coalesce and converge into one common culture, then why not. I would be an anarchist if I wasn’t a social democrat. But like I mentioned, we are already in anarchy, but it’s the one you imagined and it’s not pretty as no doubt you cannot deny.
The reason why the UN is powerless is because they are not given power. You complain about the UN being useless, but would you approve to give them power in order to stop wars and enforce global wide laws in order to stop climate change? I thought so. Most people don’t realise about this farcical contradiction but now you know.
Indians are not the only immigrant groups. There plenty of other nationalities with different mindsets because of different cultures. I worked with Somalis and they work too hard (and I assume you probably already know what is going on in their home country so you get the idea why they work too hard). One hasn’t even taken holidays for the entire year and was forced by management to take all of it before the year ends. But it’s not even Somalis, other immigrants also even make you feel guilty if you do not do overtime almost almost seven days. I think is tinge of envy and think I am rich. I am not by any stretch of imagination, but I have enough savings as safety net and I don’t live beyond my means (unlike most people from my experience). And I think a lot of immigrants neither have a concept of hobby nor do other activities outside of work, because I work to live not living to work. And it makes sense, most immigrants come for economic reasons. Although, work is meant to put food on the table, put roof over my head and afford the occasional frivolties and fund my hobby. I value my own personal happiness first than some CEO’s yearly bonus.