On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM, glen e. p. ropella
<[email protected]>wrote:
> I have a clarifying (to me) question: When you say "MC" and
> "integration" and "The US has eschewed xyz", what scale and mechanisms
> provide your context?
>
> By scale, I mean spectra like from interpersonal <-> US culture and city
> ordinance <-> Constitution, borrowing tools from neighbors <-> credit
> default swaps, etc. By mechanisms I mean things like your two examples
> of common currency and agreements like the EU, but also things like
> common law, options for incorporation, tax-exemption, licensing, guest
> worker programs, the electoral college, etc.
>
> It's just not clear to me where your question's coming from.
>
In terms of where these two questions come from, they came from thinking
about the recent discussions about two events:
- The shootings in Norway
- The debt crisis/crises in US & Europe
... and generally while reading the Economist magazine which appears to have
reasonable opinions and analysis.
I'm not sure there is, exactly, a spectrum .. although thinking about your
examples, I can see that there might be.
On MC: I really don't think of this as having a spectrum. I think of
"integration" is a point signifying, relative to immigration (and race here
in the US), that on some level people are judged equally. This is not a
value judgement, and indeed not necessarily "just". (And indeed, within
race (and even within culture .. such as university admission), there are
non-equal laws called affermative action which attempt to create a broad
experience of race and culture.) Basically, in countries that have an
integration approach to immigration, the immigrant is expected to align with
the existing culture into which they are immigrating.
MC, as I understand it, feels immigrant cultures
should flourish independently, proud and with strong identity. This even
extends into rights and privileges. But as Eric suggests, the downside is
much like the "separate but equal" phase in US racial history.
If I were to attempt a spectrum, it would be the strength of expectation of
the immigrant shedding their culture at least as far as law and desire to
adapt the culture of the country they are coming to.
In terms of the EU monetary policy, there may a similar spectrum, but I
wasn't thinking of it. (No monetary affermative action for the various EU
countries!) But you have a point: there may be tighter financial
integration without having complete political integration. I.e. you can be
federated with the idea of "state's rights". But it appears the EU is
attempting a union solely on currency, with the minor addition of an initial
debt to GDP ceiling requirement.
I do think its possible for the EU to succeed but I don't have a clue what
would need to be changed. Maybe if I *did* have a spectrum, I'd be better
off. But it seems to me that until there is a stronger federation
politically, the EU will be troubled. I think the only reasonable solution
will eventually be a United States of Europe. Yup. German and Italian
voters voting on (some of) the same things. Why? Because what they vote on
will impact fiscal health.
So if there were a spectrum, it would be individual EU countries and voters
having a say in each others policy. I suppose that would mean a
scalar quantity measuring degree of federation.
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
