6 ms·

Yay even more groupism. Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough. I think we should move towards a more integrated Earth, not more partitioning.

nathias 4y ago
partitioning is the way how we make societies more integrated
- henearkr 4y ago
  No. World-widely adopted laws are the way to go (thus, with world-wide enforcement organ too). Any other method leads to workarounds and relocation of what was meant to be curbed.
  - nathias 4y ago
    you know that there are quite a few of us that don't like the imperial boot on our face, and will always oppose it?
    - henearkr 4y ago
      I am not talking about imperialism, but about an Earth-scale democracy. I am as opposed as you to imperialism lol, if it was not clear enough from my posts. By the way, I think that what can be put in the category of "traditions" is not touched by laws, so my proposal does not hurt cultural differences. However it does ask to some traditions to go, because they are just objectively harmful. Just to hit the nail a bit further: you see cultural variety INSIDE existing democratic states, for example regional customs and traditions, etc. So there is absolutely no hint of imperialism in building a world-wide democracy.
      - nathias 4y ago
        That would be a good goal, but how can you make it witout imperialism? Not through nation states or representative democracies but through voluntary networks that can compose.
        henearkr 4y ago
        I think it is possible. Maybe a way to do it would be through world-wide petitions? Or more realistically through some world-wide voting system, as participating to such a petition overtly could lead to political persecutions. Then the problem is the verification that people are not voting several times. And then the problem of allowing people to vote (in some states like in China that problem will be difficult to solve)...
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        If you had a world wide petition, you'd have 1 of 2 things: 1) everyone participating in one giant binding petition, in which case you're already imposing worldwide democracy on them without asking them (the act of making them vote on it in the first place is an undemocratic act), or 2) individual nations and groups being given the option to have a vote on the matter, in which case you'll certainly be left with nation states that say "no". People don't want what you're proposing. Is it not then undemocratic to impose it on them in the first place?
      - betwixthewires 4y ago
        So under this proposed "traditions" umbrella, what can fit? Can a group perform FGM? The Maori committed a genocide on the Moriori and justified it with tradition, would that be allowed? Or is the "tradition" reservation something superficial and of no substance, with this global democracy reserving the right to determine what tradition is and therefore touch them with laws?
paisawalla 4y ago
> Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough. Please no. I would like to exit the bureaucracy of mother hens pecking me to death as they enforce ever-narrowing boundaries of permissible thought -- that is, when they are not decking my neighborhood and workplace with messages demanding my homage to the current thing. You, apparently, would like to make that the universal condition. Some people read "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever" as a compelling vision, and not a warning.
- henearkr 4y ago
  I am light-years away from what you say. I am as horrified as you of "boot stamping on face" so I don't know what you're talking about... have you misread my posts??
  - nominusllc 4y ago
    You put nationalism in a list of bad things, as if it too were a bad thing. I don't think you consider what you're saying before you post it.
    - henearkr 4y ago
      Yes to "consider the well-being of one's own nation before the well-being of all of the other things on Earth" is bad in my opinion. It is bad because you could end up exterminating everyone (or polluting everything) for the sake of a few lucky ones. Happened a couple of times already. Anyway it's bound to fail, as on this planet we share the same atmosphere, oceans, and almost all living species have no borders (including viruses). PS: you should tone down your prejudice that I didn't think a lot about what I'm writing, it's... wrong and hurtful.
      - paisawalla 4y ago
        The whole point of exit is that there are too many people, such as yourself apparently, who consider their underdeveloped and underinformed notions of society to be universally applicable -- under force of law if necessary. Put bluntly, I don't want a world where you can tell others whom they should value more than others. That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant proposition and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
>a more integrated Earth yes, that's the ultimate fate of our civilization - becoming a gray biological mass of consumers without identity, culture, or allegiance to anything other than global corporations I'd prefer us to go extinct, and it is thankfully certain that we will
- henearkr 4y ago
  You misunderstood me. I mean partitioning or integration of LAWS. This is exactly what "creating a state" means: having one's own law, which I think is bad. Good laws are most effective when they are enforced without borders. Of course I did not mean to uniformize people!! As for the link with groupism: partitioned laws are the starting point, you say "people from this state have those rights, people from other states do not have these rights even when they interact with our state". With this notion of network state, it is even unclear to me how they can discriminate what law apply to who, because there is no more "person X is geographically present on the land Y so Y law applies" principle.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    You are missing the point though. Some people prefer certain laws, and other people prefer different ones. And there can be a case whether neither set of laws is automatically "better". For example, private property rights in an interesting topic. Personally, I prefer strong private property rights, but I have no reason to deny another country from choosing something completely different. If people in another country, instead prefer socialism, or more collective ownership of property, that is fine by me if they do that, as long as they let other people who disagree, choose something else in other countries.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    Good laws are most effective when they take into account the needs of those being governed, including their self actualization as a need. The way that people in Mongolia, Bahrain, Angola and Norway want to live are very very different. "One set of laws" means authoritarian tyranny to most people of earth. Would you like to live in a world governed by one set of laws, which include theft being punishable by the amputation of a hand? Or in your perfect world with one set of laws, do you see yourself as the entity dictating what the laws are? If I am unhappy with your set of laws, is that just tough shit for me? If you found yourself in such a system and didn't like the laws, would you want a way out?
ipiz0618 4y ago
Sounds like dystopia to me. At least now we could flee to another country from tyranny.
- henearkr 4y ago
  Ugh to your credit I should have precised that I do NOT envision this integrated Earth to be anything else than a democracy. Sorry, it was obvious for me.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    A democratic earth would stand a decent chance of marginalizing your social-political-religious group. There's a while lot of demographics on Earth. Think about a random sampling of all humans. Most are in Asia, esp India and China, and most are traditionally religious. Would women's rights be a priority? Fair employment? Gay rights? I do think that an integrated and conscientious Earth is important, especially with reasonable immigration and emigration rights, but I'm not sure I want to vote in a Earth President election.
    - henearkr 4y ago
      Gays are a minority in every democracy, and this does not make them marginalized in all those countries. To the contrary: democracy makes it more likely that they are tolerated and included. So your argument is not at all compelling. Also, to help you see it: take European Union as an example. It is only a loosely integrated democracy, but still, we elect EU MPs etc. EU does not prevent at all to have traditions and to "respect" the existence of geographically distinct "samples" of humans (its member countries, or its member intrastate regions, etc).
      - wbsss4412 4y ago
        > To the contrary: democracy makes it more likely that they are tolerated and included. There is a correlation here, but it isn’t causal. Democracy has been around in countries that support gay rights for much longer than they supported gay rights. What’s made the difference has been cultural shifts wherein the majority supports gay rights rather than opposing them.
lazzlazzlazz 4y ago
"More integrated earth" sounds like there are no options, no alternatives, superficial diversity, no escape if you don't fit. I will resist that to the end.
m0llusk 4y ago
People encourage free trade and travel among states while still believing in and committing too states for their living and identity.

nathias 4y ago

partitioning is the way how we make societies more integrated

henearkr 4y ago
No. World-widely adopted laws are the way to go (thus, with world-wide enforcement organ too). Any other method leads to workarounds and relocation of what was meant to be curbed.
- nathias 4y ago
  you know that there are quite a few of us that don't like the imperial boot on our face, and will always oppose it?
  - henearkr 4y ago
    I am not talking about imperialism, but about an Earth-scale democracy. I am as opposed as you to imperialism lol, if it was not clear enough from my posts. By the way, I think that what can be put in the category of "traditions" is not touched by laws, so my proposal does not hurt cultural differences. However it does ask to some traditions to go, because they are just objectively harmful. Just to hit the nail a bit further: you see cultural variety INSIDE existing democratic states, for example regional customs and traditions, etc. So there is absolutely no hint of imperialism in building a world-wide democracy.
    - nathias 4y ago
      That would be a good goal, but how can you make it witout imperialism? Not through nation states or representative democracies but through voluntary networks that can compose.
      - henearkr 4y ago
        I think it is possible. Maybe a way to do it would be through world-wide petitions? Or more realistically through some world-wide voting system, as participating to such a petition overtly could lead to political persecutions. Then the problem is the verification that people are not voting several times. And then the problem of allowing people to vote (in some states like in China that problem will be difficult to solve)...
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        If you had a world wide petition, you'd have 1 of 2 things: 1) everyone participating in one giant binding petition, in which case you're already imposing worldwide democracy on them without asking them (the act of making them vote on it in the first place is an undemocratic act), or 2) individual nations and groups being given the option to have a vote on the matter, in which case you'll certainly be left with nation states that say "no". People don't want what you're proposing. Is it not then undemocratic to impose it on them in the first place?
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      So under this proposed "traditions" umbrella, what can fit? Can a group perform FGM? The Maori committed a genocide on the Moriori and justified it with tradition, would that be allowed? Or is the "tradition" reservation something superficial and of no substance, with this global democracy reserving the right to determine what tradition is and therefore touch them with laws?

paisawalla 4y ago

> Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough. Please no. I would like to exit the bureaucracy of mother hens pecking me to death as they enforce ever-narrowing boundaries of permissible thought -- that is, when they are not decking my neighborhood and workplace with messages demanding my homage to the current thing. You, apparently, would like to make that the universal condition. Some people read "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever" as a compelling vision, and not a warning.

henearkr 4y ago
I am light-years away from what you say. I am as horrified as you of "boot stamping on face" so I don't know what you're talking about... have you misread my posts??
- nominusllc 4y ago
  You put nationalism in a list of bad things, as if it too were a bad thing. I don't think you consider what you're saying before you post it.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    Yes to "consider the well-being of one's own nation before the well-being of all of the other things on Earth" is bad in my opinion. It is bad because you could end up exterminating everyone (or polluting everything) for the sake of a few lucky ones. Happened a couple of times already. Anyway it's bound to fail, as on this planet we share the same atmosphere, oceans, and almost all living species have no borders (including viruses). PS: you should tone down your prejudice that I didn't think a lot about what I'm writing, it's... wrong and hurtful.
    - paisawalla 4y ago
      The whole point of exit is that there are too many people, such as yourself apparently, who consider their underdeveloped and underinformed notions of society to be universally applicable -- under force of law if necessary. Put bluntly, I don't want a world where you can tell others whom they should value more than others. That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant proposition and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago

>a more integrated Earth yes, that's the ultimate fate of our civilization - becoming a gray biological mass of consumers without identity, culture, or allegiance to anything other than global corporations I'd prefer us to go extinct, and it is thankfully certain that we will

henearkr 4y ago
You misunderstood me. I mean partitioning or integration of LAWS. This is exactly what "creating a state" means: having one's own law, which I think is bad. Good laws are most effective when they are enforced without borders. Of course I did not mean to uniformize people!! As for the link with groupism: partitioned laws are the starting point, you say "people from this state have those rights, people from other states do not have these rights even when they interact with our state". With this notion of network state, it is even unclear to me how they can discriminate what law apply to who, because there is no more "person X is geographically present on the land Y so Y law applies" principle.
- stale2002 4y ago
  You are missing the point though. Some people prefer certain laws, and other people prefer different ones. And there can be a case whether neither set of laws is automatically "better". For example, private property rights in an interesting topic. Personally, I prefer strong private property rights, but I have no reason to deny another country from choosing something completely different. If people in another country, instead prefer socialism, or more collective ownership of property, that is fine by me if they do that, as long as they let other people who disagree, choose something else in other countries.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  Good laws are most effective when they take into account the needs of those being governed, including their self actualization as a need. The way that people in Mongolia, Bahrain, Angola and Norway want to live are very very different. "One set of laws" means authoritarian tyranny to most people of earth. Would you like to live in a world governed by one set of laws, which include theft being punishable by the amputation of a hand? Or in your perfect world with one set of laws, do you see yourself as the entity dictating what the laws are? If I am unhappy with your set of laws, is that just tough shit for me? If you found yourself in such a system and didn't like the laws, would you want a way out?

ipiz0618 4y ago

Sounds like dystopia to me. At least now we could flee to another country from tyranny.

henearkr 4y ago
Ugh to your credit I should have precised that I do NOT envision this integrated Earth to be anything else than a democracy. Sorry, it was obvious for me.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  A democratic earth would stand a decent chance of marginalizing your social-political-religious group. There's a while lot of demographics on Earth. Think about a random sampling of all humans. Most are in Asia, esp India and China, and most are traditionally religious. Would women's rights be a priority? Fair employment? Gay rights? I do think that an integrated and conscientious Earth is important, especially with reasonable immigration and emigration rights, but I'm not sure I want to vote in a Earth President election.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    Gays are a minority in every democracy, and this does not make them marginalized in all those countries. To the contrary: democracy makes it more likely that they are tolerated and included. So your argument is not at all compelling. Also, to help you see it: take European Union as an example. It is only a loosely integrated democracy, but still, we elect EU MPs etc. EU does not prevent at all to have traditions and to "respect" the existence of geographically distinct "samples" of humans (its member countries, or its member intrastate regions, etc).
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      > To the contrary: democracy makes it more likely that they are tolerated and included. There is a correlation here, but it isn’t causal. Democracy has been around in countries that support gay rights for much longer than they supported gay rights. What’s made the difference has been cultural shifts wherein the majority supports gay rights rather than opposing them.

lazzlazzlazz 4y ago

"More integrated earth" sounds like there are no options, no alternatives, superficial diversity, no escape if you don't fit. I will resist that to the end.

m0llusk 4y ago

People encourage free trade and travel among states while still believing in and committing too states for their living and identity.