4 ms·

This sounds more like a platitude than a thought I can actually agree or disagree with. What does it even mean? You want to abolish rule of law? You want everyb

by chc 12y ago

This sounds more like a platitude than a thought I can actually agree or disagree with. What does it even mean? You want to abolish rule of law? You want everybody to be ruled by the Communist Party of China (now the Community Party of The World)? You just want everybody to behave the way you imagine people ought to behave in a utopia?

Zigurd 12y ago
Many parts of the world had not formed into modern nations states 300 years ago. Surely there was the rule of law in many places without the current idea of nations. There is no a priori reason the current political organization of people is eternal, or even very durable.
- chc 12y ago
  Your comment seems to hinge on the nuance of phrases like "modern nations", "the current idea of nations" and "current political organization of people", but I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean and what you're trying to distinguish it from. If you mean that the precise set of nations and territories that exists today is not fundamental or permanent, that's obviously true, but it doesn't seem to have any bearing on anything.
- vacri 12y ago
  By 'not durable', do you mean 'the concept stretches as far back as we have written records'? Yes, 'nations' meaning 'something that gives you a passport' haven't been around long, but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself. And what do you mean by 'rule of law'? Do the decisions of tribal elders count? That doesn't suggest consistency, which is the spirit of the term.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    >but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense have only existed since the 17th Century in Europe[0], and much later in other parts of the world[1]. Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization
    - vacri 12y ago
      This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense Well, I said 'nations', in response to the parent saying 'nations'. I didn't say 'states'. If you are going to be pedantic, then be pedantic correctly. Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people. I guess places like Egypt, the Roman Empire, and Ming were all 'small groupings of people'? That somehow 'Rome', that stretched from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, was merely a 'city state'? Even after the capital was moved to a different city half a continent away? That despite having a complicated system of senators, emperors, provincial governors (or that they even had the concept of 'provinces'!) and so forth, that there was no 'political organisation'? In the context of the conversation, the OP's 'nations and borders', there's nothing wrong with what I said - 'nations' and 'borders' have been around for as long as we have records.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    City-states are not comparable to modern nations in their scope, budget, police powers, military powers, surveillance powers, etc. A return to smaller political units that don't have the resources to mount, for example, pervasive surveillance and large-scale incarceration might make us freer than we are now. In other words, maybe national politics needs to be refactored into smaller units to be more tractable and maintainable.
    - vacri 12y ago
      "A return to"? You make it sound like the empires of old simply couldn't be oppressive, simply because they didn't have hi-tech surveillance. Not to mention that industrial-scale slavery existed in quite a few places well before the modern era. "Returning to" the ways of the past is very much not guaranteed to reduce our oppression.
krick 12y ago
I agree, that statement is too vague, so I wouldn't comment on it, but for what it's worth I also have an opinion on that matter, so let me reply. Personally, I don't want to be "ruled" by anybody and I don't really believe in "law". However, I don't assume possible to believe that people actually would be kind to each other and live in utopia: it is very likely that there will be somebody who will want to make use of other's unprotectedness, so the society will have to regulate it somehow. But the real problem is there is a lot of tasks to be done by the members of the society "together" (like building roads and stuff), and the most active/authoritative people in this society are practically the government, so there will be governments. And who has power, can abuse it. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much I dislike current governments: it is as it is, no use to talk about that. However, it is relatively fair to want "not to be touched as long as you don't touch others". So I don't really care how those, who are "the government" will solve questions like who controls some territory: as long as there's no war between these countries and I'm not doing anything that was allowed in the first country, but not in the second one (like carrying a gun on the street) I'd like to never notice I actually "left country". Somehow it is possible in Europe (to certain degree: to the less degree that I can wish for, by the way, but nevertheless), but not between USA and Canada, who aren't fighting with each other, AFAIK. Also, it is trendy to justify everything with some "dangerous aggressive nation out there, being terrorist menace for us". But as it happens, things usually have some reason to happen. And "aggressive nations" aren't that aggressive unless you abuse them somehow: say, by invading their country or at least drawing (without any real purpose: just because you can) obviously offensive pictures on public resources about people they love and respect.

by chc 12y ago

Zigurd 12y ago

Many parts of the world had not formed into modern nations states 300 years ago. Surely there was the rule of law in many places without the current idea of nations. There is no a priori reason the current political organization of people is eternal, or even very durable.

chc 12y ago
Your comment seems to hinge on the nuance of phrases like "modern nations", "the current idea of nations" and "current political organization of people", but I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean and what you're trying to distinguish it from. If you mean that the precise set of nations and territories that exists today is not fundamental or permanent, that's obviously true, but it doesn't seem to have any bearing on anything.
vacri 12y ago
By 'not durable', do you mean 'the concept stretches as far back as we have written records'? Yes, 'nations' meaning 'something that gives you a passport' haven't been around long, but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself. And what do you mean by 'rule of law'? Do the decisions of tribal elders count? That doesn't suggest consistency, which is the spirit of the term.
- dublinben 12y ago
  >but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense have only existed since the 17th Century in Europe[0], and much later in other parts of the world[1]. Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization
  - vacri 12y ago
    This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense Well, I said 'nations', in response to the parent saying 'nations'. I didn't say 'states'. If you are going to be pedantic, then be pedantic correctly. Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people. I guess places like Egypt, the Roman Empire, and Ming were all 'small groupings of people'? That somehow 'Rome', that stretched from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, was merely a 'city state'? Even after the capital was moved to a different city half a continent away? That despite having a complicated system of senators, emperors, provincial governors (or that they even had the concept of 'provinces'!) and so forth, that there was no 'political organisation'? In the context of the conversation, the OP's 'nations and borders', there's nothing wrong with what I said - 'nations' and 'borders' have been around for as long as we have records.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  City-states are not comparable to modern nations in their scope, budget, police powers, military powers, surveillance powers, etc. A return to smaller political units that don't have the resources to mount, for example, pervasive surveillance and large-scale incarceration might make us freer than we are now. In other words, maybe national politics needs to be refactored into smaller units to be more tractable and maintainable.
  - vacri 12y ago
    "A return to"? You make it sound like the empires of old simply couldn't be oppressive, simply because they didn't have hi-tech surveillance. Not to mention that industrial-scale slavery existed in quite a few places well before the modern era. "Returning to" the ways of the past is very much not guaranteed to reduce our oppression.

krick 12y ago

I agree, that statement is too vague, so I wouldn't comment on it, but for what it's worth I also have an opinion on that matter, so let me reply. Personally, I don't want to be "ruled" by anybody and I don't really believe in "law". However, I don't assume possible to believe that people actually would be kind to each other and live in utopia: it is very likely that there will be somebody who will want to make use of other's unprotectedness, so the society will have to regulate it somehow. But the real problem is there is a lot of tasks to be done by the members of the society "together" (like building roads and stuff), and the most active/authoritative people in this society are practically the government, so there will be governments. And who has power, can abuse it. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much I dislike current governments: it is as it is, no use to talk about that. However, it is relatively fair to want "not to be touched as long as you don't touch others". So I don't really care how those, who are "the government" will solve questions like who controls some territory: as long as there's no war between these countries and I'm not doing anything that was allowed in the first country, but not in the second one (like carrying a gun on the street) I'd like to never notice I actually "left country". Somehow it is possible in Europe (to certain degree: to the less degree that I can wish for, by the way, but nevertheless), but not between USA and Canada, who aren't fighting with each other, AFAIK. Also, it is trendy to justify everything with some "dangerous aggressive nation out there, being terrorist menace for us". But as it happens, things usually have some reason to happen. And "aggressive nations" aren't that aggressive unless you abuse them somehow: say, by invading their country or at least drawing (without any real purpose: just because you can) obviously offensive pictures on public resources about people they love and respect.