And We Could Run Away, If We Could Run Away

In response to Brian - Full post here

Anyhow, my answer is generally something akin to this:

Firstly, not all people who notice that something is wrong flee from it. Many people would rather stay and raise awareness and try to fix the issue.

Secondly, that's not actually what America is about. Freedom is the right to disagree with a majority. If you are forced to agree with a majority, you are not free. I will thereby exercise my freedom by disagreeing and choosing to stay here.

Thirdly, living here and receiving my education here, given that I was born here, is the most practical thing for me to do at this point in my life.

Fourthly, I plan to leave as soon as it is convenient.

You ARE an Internationalist, Darn it! Swallow This Pill!

In response to Skyla - full post here

People, I think, can value peace and justice but fully support the notion that countries are very different. Maybe they support peace and justice, but also support self-sufficiency and would thereby never want to aid another country.

Overall, I think it would be better to not force labels on other people. Especially seeing as how labels have different meanings to different people, and different implications with which some people may not actually agree. To relate it to your example, if I decided that masculism meant supporting gender equality, I could proceed to tell other people that individual x is a masculist even if that person dislikes the connotation.

As another example, I could say that any two people together are a couple of people. I could then, unfairly to those people, go around saying that person X and person Y were a couple, which obviously means something different to other people.

Personally, I do not identify as feminist. I support equal rights, and I realize that feminism, to many people means supporting equal rights. Even if that meant empowering men and women equally, I would not use that term. Feminist comes from Latin femina meaning woman. Personally, I object to this on the same grounds that some feminists might object to calling themselves masculists if masculist meant promoting gender equality. The very nature of the word is not equal. I prefer egalitarian.

Additionally, forcing labels on people negates the positive effects of the movement. Calling people internationalists against their will, may cause them to view the internationalist movement more negatively. The same thing could happen to the equal rights movement if we are not careful.

BECOME INTERNATIONALIST OR DIE!!!

Question: To what extent should we promote internationalism?

This is rather a difficult question to answer, and it may be easier to answer with what a country should not do to promote internationalism. I do not think that a country should force internationalism upon any other country, and especially not by means of violence.  Even the more peaceful missionary style of promoting something seems contrary to the goals of internationalism. Both methods stem from and lead to the belief that one country is better than another for whatever reason. This, of course, leads to ask exactly how a country ought to promote internationalism.

I think that countries ought to promote internationalism by example. That is, they ought to aid other countries when those other countries ask for aid. That serves beyond aid and encourages other countries to act similarly. This does not give the impression that one country believes that they are better than another.

Standing Armies

Question: In countries that support nationalism would it be appropriate to have standing armies?

I am not entirely sure on my answer to this one. I am inclined to say no; countries that support internationalism, peace, and justice would have no need for a standing army. History has shown us that countries with standing armies and manufacturers producing weapons have the tendency to look for reasons to use the army and the weapons. Doing so, however, would not be in line with the ideas of internationalism, peace, and justice. On the other hand, it seems obvious that nations need a means to defend themselves and other countries, should one other country decide to take up the offensive.

It seems like the best idea would be for nations, so long as there are nations, to have an army reserve/national guard. If countries did this, they would be in a ready defensive position, and would also be in line with the ideas of internationalism, peace, and justice. This would allow countries to send out troops to defend themselves or another country.

Sure, it's likely that some countries could abuse their reserves by claiming that it is in the name of defense, but I don't think that it would be a good idea to entirely get rid of all forms of armed fighters. It seems childish to say that one nation won't give up an army until others do, but it's also foolish to make yourself completely defenseless.