Jump to content

SWkwisatz

Fremen
  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by SWkwisatz

  1. Personally I thin that <i>Why care for minds of the others...</i> easily can be seen as both egocentric and authoritarian, but especially as egocentric. I see egocentrism as an attitude a person can have when he/she only concentrates on his/her own thoughts and needs and ignore others. It seems you are doing exactly that in that sentence. I wouldn
  2. Caid, please let
  3. Hm, I can
  4. Ahhhh yeees, the good old days when we had a sweet combination of swastikas, war, death, rushing tanks, pain, sorrow and ethnic cleansing. What is it to be mesmerized about? And don
  5. Well if by natural you mean certain things that can be classified as natural behaviour then national territories aren
  6. Mere good taste? I think science has proven pretty well that there are no races within the human race, so no I wouldn
  7. You have every right to claim that book and borrow it at a later moment. Just because you can
  8. Personally I find it a bit terrifying that you reduce the Nazi ideology to a comparison between Nazis and Emo
  9. Well I am not all that good at stoic philosophy and the view of property, but the idea I have of Panaetius when it comes to private property is from Cicero's <i>De Officiis</i>. Anyway in this source it says
  10. Ahhhh sweet good old fox news... they just never stop to amaze me.
  11. Ah ok, then I see. But, as mentioned before, the thing is that I don
  12. You can make products with natural resources
  13. SWkwisatz

    Viva la Vida

    Hall
  14. First bread isn
  15. Nope, and I haven't said so either. I'm not talking about personal views really. I'm talking about changing basic views and ideas, and with that totaly changing the idea of personal interests and so on. Abolishing nation-states and replacing it with a global order (as mentioned before) will most probably change the view of natural resources and historical or cultural predispositions. With changing the view of natural resources I mean that just because you are born at a place that has a multitude of something it doesn
  16. I was going to say something very similar to Sneakgab, I agree that: and, and, If by
  17. I thought that was clear? I want to erradicate national borders and the idea of making us feel as a part of something by making an
  18. Hey HOMERRRRR! Well I'm not playing dune, but I recently started hanging around here. I'm going to try to find my cd at my parents house and convince my brother to come play some dune. Ahhh dune, those were the days. Ultim8...I think I remember that name from Alman. I don't think we ever spoke though.
  19. An organic part of society… I make sudden associations with late romanticism. Because you said that “laws, money and borders are…social constructs, not somehow genetically predestined necessities…” and that “they cannot be "taken away" without a proper recompense“, I know that you didn’t mean it like that. Still you make it sound as an inherent necessity to human society (or very close to impossible to change) when you say that they “take an organic part of the society”. Stranger things than the abolition of national borders have happened in human history. Yes the term of what is within and what is outside isn’t something new, it's probably as old as humanity. The idea of what is “inside” and what is “outside” has always been different though. The process of building borders (as we know them today) began slowly with the Peace of Westphalia and the early process of nation building (of course there are several other types of borders, but in the discussion of “illegal” immigrants I concentrate on national borders). Giving the once inside certain rights that the rest don’t have isn’t new either. The Greek polis, for example, already gave certain citizens (the term of citizen was profoundly narrow) several rights while it kept others (the majority) outside of this system of rights. So yes this isn’t anything new, I think we all can agree on that. The system/construction of maintaining this order (of rights/no rights and of inside/outside), reproducing it and (most importantly) strengthening it is what I call the politics of today. Laws, norms and ideas do change over time though. During the middle ages no lords were discussing weather we should have democracy or not (well even though we talk about it today I still don’t think we have any real democracy today, but that’s a totally different discussion), 100 years ago women had no right to vote and 50 years ago segregation in schools, public places, and employment was common practice in the US (I know I’m totally focused on western liberal democracies here). Even though people (and especially a majority of the ruling elite) were against these changes things changed over time. So I think ideas, norms, institutions and laws do change over time, and these changes take a specific direction if we want them to. I’m not saying that it’s simple; I don’t think anyone thinks that. The few examples above weren’t realized just over night, they took time and enormous effort from the people before they changed. Of course the eradication of national borders will produce a new system with new problems arising from it, but should the fear of new obstacles and problems make us stop from wanting to change things? My own answer is simply no. We must never stop trying because of fear of what might come from change.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.