Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 3:16:26 GMT -5
"In and of themselves" that is true. But they will be a beginning and there must be a beginning if anything is to be brought about.
But what comes next is only an incomparable display by the champion leap-frogger of southern England:
Irrelevant. No one in this thread has mentioned politicians or is likely to.
Equally irrelevant. Wait for the axioms!
The idea may or may not even be the concern of the "majority of the population" - we shall see. As for "affordable" - no, it has already been pointed out that there will be no "money" in our Eutopia. The reasons for this will in due course be discussed in the thread entitled Money and its Abolition.
I disagree. The same was probably said to Marx, Engels and Lenin; but the "foreseeable future" for the first two was only about sixty years, and for Lenin it was done in his life-time. Think of yourself, Mr. H, as the Engels of the present day . . .
Exactly. So do please hold your horses and temper your enthusiasm!
Here the Member has leap-frogged into the distant future and it is all impossibly speculative. Let us come back to brass tacks and tackle Eutopia one point at a time.
And now in my next post I will propose four fundamental principles, and I will not respond to any more speculative leaps until we have discussed those principles and reached some sort of agreement based upon the input of all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 4:00:33 GMT -5
What is an axiom? Members will probably be aware that it is something along these lines:
"A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well-established or universally-conceded principle. A self-evident proposition, requiring no formal demonstration to prove its truth, but received and assented to as soon as mentioned."
For our purposes in this thread I would like to propose four axioms, in the hope that we might achieve universal acceptance of their self-evident nature.
The Axiom of Equality: all persons are entitled to the expectation of equal treatment in every respect (even if they are not in fact equal).
The Axiom of Fairness: all persons are entitled to be treated fairly (no fear or favour, that is to say).
The Axiom of Freedom of Movement: all persons are entitled to move to any part of the world without hindrance.
The Axiom of Equal Power: no person has a right to exercise power or authority over any other person.
Perhaps, with particular reference to the fourth axiom, we should also define "person"?
Do members agree that these four principles should provide our foundation, as far as the abolition of nations is concerned, for the building of Eutopia?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 23, 2014 5:33:05 GMT -5
"In and of themselves" that is true. But they will be a beginning and there must be a beginning if anything is to be brought about. They would, rather than will, but they will be not only a beginning but also an end because there's almost no will or means to put it into practice! But what comes next is only an incomparable display by the champion leap-frogger of southern England: I don't undertand what or whom you mean by that. Irrelevant. No one in this thread has mentioned politicians or is likely to. have mentioned them in this thread and, until and unless all other members reading it declare that they will not do so, you cannot be certain that they will so desist. That said, who else besides politicians do you suppose would or could be in a position to try to implement this project or indeed be expected to take charge of doing so, then? At present, the world has a couple of hundred or so governments and you want it to have just one, which won't be possible unless all the present governments agree to the principles and terms of that merger. Equally irrelevant. Wait for the axioms! I don't mind waiting for them, of course, whatever they may be - and I will read and consider them when they're posted - but the will of the majority of the population would nevertheless of necessity be behind this because it can only be brought about by people, assuming sufficient of them favour it and can agree on how to implement it; after all, the entire purpose of it would have to be to benefit people! The idea may or may not even be the concern of the "majority of the population" - we shall see. The possibility that it "may not" be so is surely absurd! The world is governed by people, it would still be so under your proposed régime and the change from the present situation to that which you propose can be brought about by people alone, in what is surely the most unlikely event that sufficient of them agree to try to do so. As for "affordable" - no, it has already been pointed out that there will be no "money" in our Eutopia. The reasons for this will in due course be discussed in the thread entitled Money and its Abolition. But there is money now so, unless you can secure the agreement of the majority of present-day countries to abolish it before attempting the kind of merger that you advocate, money will be necessary in order to bring such a merger about; in any case, even if such majority agreement to abandon currency as we all understand it can indeed be reached, there will need to be a substitute for it (on which, again, most people would have to agree) and a massive expenditure will still be required to bring about the change that you seek, whether it be in money or in whatever might thus substitute for it. It can't just suddenly happen overnight without immense effort and to achieve it would take years - probably many years. Anyway - here's that first person plural again, this time in possessive form; should I take your use of the word "our" here to mean that said Eutopia will belong only to those members of this forum who agree with it in principle, just as you earlier clarified that that your use of "we" in the same context refers to said members? Yes, I'll read what you propose in the form of "axioms" when you post this, as I said I would but, at present, all that I am able to do is comment as I have above and elsewhere. I disagree. The same was probably said to Marx, Engels and Lenin; but the "foreseeable future" for the first two was only about sixty years, and for Lenin it was done in his life-time. Think of yourself, Mr. H, as the Engels of the present day . . . I shall do no such thing! - but that's rather beside the point. What Marx, Engels and Lenin advocated was in any case nothing like as far-reaching as what you appear to propose, nor was it reealistically intended or expected to encompass the world's entire population as does yours. Furthermore, look where the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin ended up in terms of practical application! Exactly. So do please hold your horses and temper your enthusiasm! I have no horses but will indeed be patient as you ask; I also have no temper and, at least at present, can feign no enthusiasm for any of this. Here the Member has leap-frogged into the distant future and it is all impossibly speculative. Let us come back to brass tacks and tackle Eutopia one point at a time. You're back onto this leap-frogging again! You have admittedly made no mention of the timescale in which what you propose could be brought about and, on that basis and given the sheer overarching complexity of that, yes, I accept that it would likely be only in the distant future that such a change could be completed; I also accept that it is all impossibly speculative, so we (that's to say you and I) are least in agreement there - but then that's a substantial part of the problem! And if there's no money, who's going to make, market and retail those brass tacks?... And now in my next post I will propose four fundamental principles, and I will not respond to any more speculative leaps until we have discussed those principles and reached some sort of agreement based upon the input of all. I shall wait for and consider these when you're ready to submit them. There will in the meantime be no speculation or leaps from me (although I cannot speak for anyone else) - indeed, I think that I've said all that I need to say about it in advance of reading your "principles". That said, however, you refer to a situation in which "we have discussed those principles and reached some sort of agreement based upon the input of all"; there are but 13 members of this forum, of which at least one cannot conceive that your idea could possibly be made to work and only one other has in any case responded to what you have written about this so far, so even a quorum on the forum remains a distant prospect! |
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 23, 2014 6:26:44 GMT -5
What is an axiom? Members will probably be aware that it is something along these lines: "A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well-established or universally-conceded principle. A self-evident proposition, requiring no formal demonstration to prove its truth, but received and assented to as soon as mentioned." For our purposes in this thread I would like to propose four axioms, in the hope that we might achieve universal acceptance of their self-evident nature. The Axiom of Equality: all persons are entitled to the expectation of equal treatment in every respect (even if they are not in fact equal). The Axiom of Fairness: all persons are entitled to be treated fairly (no fear or favour, that is to say). The Axiom of Freedom of Movement: all persons are entitled to move to any part of the world without hindrance. The Axiom of Equal Power: no person has a right to exercise power or authority over any other person. Perhaps, with particular reference to the fourth axiom, we should also define "person"? Do members agree that these four principles should provide our foundation, as far as the abolition of nations is concerned, for the building of Eutopia? I had not seen this when responding to your previous post. Your first axiom seems fine to me other than that expectation might not necessarily always translate into reality; being entitled to expect something and also exercising that entitlement cannot of themselves guarantee that said expectation will always be fully met. No problem with axiom 2. None with 3 either, other than that certain people with terrorist motivations or the like might be subjected to such restrictions. Axiom 4 is more problematic because, whilst it sounds fine and idealistic in theory, the abnegation of all authority would in practice risk resulting in there being no viable government, so it could perhaps be improved by the insertion of "undue" between "exercise" and "power", although a judicial system would need to be entitled to and capable of determining what is due and what is not; I do not see any particular need to define "person" in this context. That said, I cannot see how these axioms alone - for all that they may well elicit broad agreement from members of this forum - could of themselves lead in any meaningful, let alone inevitable, way to the changes that you propose, fine as they (the axioms, that is!) might be in themselves; in other words, whilst they might largely be accepted at face value, they have no inherent connection with the notion of the abolition of nations, because they have their own values irrespective of such a notion. What's therefore needed from you at this point (now that you've presented yourr axioms) is the next stage of your argument which needs clearly to set out its stall by identifying not only why the merger of all nations and abolition of currency would be a good idea but also - and perhaps far more importantly - how either or both of these conditions could be brought about and by whom, axioms or no axioms; furthermore, mention needs to be made of what you would propose as a replacement for money and how you believe that it might be possible to achieve this and make it work in practice for the benefit of individuals and of society as a whole. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 10:09:46 GMT -5
Immanuel Kant once argued (1795) that true and worldwide peace is possible only when states organise themselves internally according to ‘republican’ principles, when they organise themselves externally in a voluntary league for the sake of keeping peace, and when they respect the human rights not only of their citizens but also of foreigners. Kant argued that the league of states should not have coercive military powers because that would violate the internal sovereignty of states. Sydney seems to be going even further than Kant, arguing for the abolition of nations and money, based upon four premises or axioms, concerning equality, fairness, freedom of movement and equal power. Of course, if Sydney's axioms were followed, the current situation in Calais, for example, would not exist. The UK would not exist, nor the borders! The Telegraph - UK must do more to help Calais, says town's deputy mayorI suppose that in Britain's long history, there have been periods when nations have not existed, but they have generally been regarded as dark ages rather than ages of enlightenment. There was a time after the Romans abandoned Britannia, for example, when money was not minted, so you can look at the fifth and sixth centuries CE/AD as a period without nations in north-western Europe. Despite the apparent sophistication of our global civilisation, it is possible, some would say inevitable, that all nations will eventually collapse! Is this what you are proposing, Sydney? |
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 23, 2014 14:59:08 GMT -5
Despite the apparent sophistication of our global civilisation, it is possible, some would say inevitable, that all nations will eventually collapse! Is this what you are proposing, Sydney? Only Sydney could possibly answer that (and it remains to be seen whether and/or how he might do so) yet, even if certain nations do indeed "collapse", it does not follow that such collapse/s will lead naturally or otherwise to the kind of global unification which Sydney appears to advocate, a scenario that could not have a hope even of pertinence unless and until not merely a handful of nations but all of them actually collapse and then as a consequence decide to agree upon a Sydney-type propoasl - and maybe not even then! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 18:17:34 GMT -5
It is an unexpected pleasure to find a degree of agreement coming from the H direction; the hypnotic power of my words may well win him over in the end.
What I had in mind in saying that we may have to look at defining "person" was the child problem. They cannot be left to their own devices (with the probable results described in George's Children of the Morning and Golding's Lord of the Flies) and authority is very necessary. (Note that we have not yet said whose authority - it may not be the parents' - our axioms so far do not give them any right to ownership of their child.) The best way will probably turn out to be a reversion to the old system of rites of initiation when a certain age is reached or when the child is capable of answering certain questions to the satisfaction of the wise men. But I am glad that Mr. H agrees that axiom four is "fine in theory" which is all we can be concerned with at this early stage.
Correct kleines c!
I have not suggested or advocated their "collapse" (that may well happen but it would be very messy); I have said that a time will come when it will be a crime to speak of them. It will very likely be a case of "dismantling" rather than "collapse"; let us defer the consideration of all such practicalities until all the principles have been firmly established. Our task here is to reconsider the first principles of everything. Should there be nations or should there not - that is the question.
In regard to the abolition of money, there is a separate sub-forum assigned to this, and it will require its own set of axioms. The four we have set out here in relation to nations will not be sufficient to cover the money question; further axioms will be required there.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 23, 2014 23:59:10 GMT -5
It is an unexpected pleasure to find a degree of agreement coming from the H direction; the hypnotic power of my words may well win him over in the end. I wouldn't hold your breath! I'll admit to agreeing when I do agree, but I still maintain that the wholesale abolition of currency and of borders between nations simply will not happen unless there is a global majority will to implement them - and there's scant evidence of that. What I had in mind in saying that we may have to look at defining "person" was the child problem. They cannot be left to their own devices (with the probable results described in George's Children of the Morning and Golding's Lord of the Flies) and authority is very necessary. (Note that we have not yet said whose authority - it may not be the parents' - our axioms so far do not give them any right to ownership of their child.) The best way will probably turn out to be a reversion to the old system of rites of initiation when a certain age is reached or when the child is capable of answering certain questions to the satisfaction of the wise men. But I am glad that Mr. H agrees that axiom four is "fine in theory" which is all we can be concerned with at this early stage. I've no idea what you're talking about here. "Ownership" of children? As yet unidentified owners thereof whose ownership is to be decided by whom? "The wise men"? Who on earth are they and who decides that they're wiser than any other men or women? Are they the three of Biblical fame? - I thought that they all died some time ago. Or maybe you're thinking of Debbie Wiseman, the distinguished English film and television composer... Correct kleines c! I have not suggested or advocated their "collapse" (that may well happen but it would be very messy); I have said that a time will come when it will be a crime to speak of them. It will very likely be a case of "dismantling" rather than "collapse"; let us defer the consideration of all such practicalities until all the principles have been firmly established. Our task here is to reconsider the first principles of everything. Should there be nations or should there not - that is the question. In regard to the abolition of money, there is a separate sub-forum assigned to this, and it will require its own set of axioms. The four we have set out here in relation to nations will not be sufficient to cover the money question; further axioms will be required there. I can only reiterate that what you're writing about here is wholly fanciful; nothing wrong with that insofar as it goes, of course, but the products of this particular part of your imagination are representative not of any recognisable manifestation of Eutopia but of cloud-cuckoo-land (which reminds me that I still cannot recall who it was that wrote of tht famous Delius work as On shooting the first cloud-cuckoo in spring). Despite frequent invitations to do so, you continue resolutely to omit to reveal how any of what you propose could possibly come about and at whose hands, yet it quite obviously would not and indeed could not until and unless all the necessary efforts to implement it are made by many people supported by an overall majority of others. To your assertion that "our task here [yours and who else's? I must ask once again?] is to reconsider the first principles of everything. Should there be nations or should there not - that is the question" I can respond only that reconsidering principles alone does not bring about any changes and the question is not merely "should there be?" but "will there be?". There's no obvious practical value in debating whether or not there "should" be something if it would in practice make no difference either way. You write of your anticipation of the ""dismantling" rather than the "collapse" of nations. There are two principal aspects of this (albeit theoretical) scenario; firstly, the implication that the changes that you propose and the anticipated events arising from their implementation would be gradual and methodical rather than sudden and catastrophic and, secondly, that it would come about as a consequence of deliberate action by the people of those nations rather than by uncontrolled and uncontrollable accident therein. This might at least appear logical insofar as it goes, but it does hint at the obvious need for people who are willing to implement what you propose if it ever to materialise in practice - i.e. it won't just happen of its own accord. This is where your assumptions "collapse" - because, as I have repeatedly observed, the people who want to do this kind of thing are in a vanishingly small minority and no position of power to do it, so it isn't going to happen. I am reminded of the title of the work by Thomas Adès that caused something of a stir when premièred in one of the Last Night of the Proms events some years ago, namely These premises are alarmed; whilst your premises are of course nothing of the kind, they might at the very least be regarded by namy as alarm ing should efforts indeed be made to put them into practice, so it is a mercy that none actually will be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 0:41:41 GMT -5
the fact that no one could be elected to govern such a nation; can you imagine how the peoples of, say, Canada, Nigeria, Thailand, Norway, Kazakhstan, Brazil and and New Zealand could ever reach agreement to vote for, support and be subject to the same governmental administration?! Well exactly; that is why they should never be asked to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 28, 2016 3:37:57 GMT -5
the fact that no one could be elected to govern such a nation; can you imagine how the peoples of, say, Canada, Nigeria, Thailand, Norway, Kazakhstan, Brazil and and New Zealand could ever reach agreement to vote for, support and be subject to the same governmental administration?! Well exactly; that is why they should never be asked to do so. Quite - so let's leave each to its own devices, then. |
|
