I do not believe in countries: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » I do not believe in countries » I do not believe in countries

I do not believe in countries
Break out the ancestral hammer

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

I do not believe in countries

James.Aaron.R.A
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/14/08 - 08:37 AM: Subject: I do not believe in countries	#1
I begin with a thought experiment Example 1: There are 2 groups: A and B A is 50% strong B is 50% strong If their is conflict between the two, then there will be casualties on either with neither side gaining an upper hand. The result is simply the weakening of their innitial state which was obviously stronger. Example 2: There are 3 groups: A and B and C A is 25% strong B is 25% strong C is 50% strong If A and B were to conflict the result would be their deminished capacities. However in this example not only would they weaken but C would gain more power from simply staying out of the conflict. Logically, A and B will eventually have to combine if they are to have any chance of surviving against C. Now switch the variables to A and B being 'Humans' and C being an unknown yet - according to many enviormentalists, anarchists, atheists and pessimists - inevitably powerful force i.e Aliens, Nature in the form of Global Warming, Human Nature itself For the sake of visual acknowledgement see it this way. Humans vs Human = Human Loss Humans (Deminished from conflict) vs C Variable (Global Warming for example) = Less Chance of Human Survival Humans (United) vs C Variable = Optimal Chance of Human Survival Well, thats just a really simple way of saying: "If humans are going to survive, they must stop seeing themselves as seperated factional groups (no matter their size or self image) and start to look at the human race as a whole. So, how are we to accomplish this? First things first, kill countries. Now, to deal with those who say "Impossible, we cannot out do human nature (relative to Hobbesian view of the state of nature, and our need to conform under, blah blah blah)" Put it this way, we either overcome human nature or it will overcome us. Adam Smith said: The greatest gain comes from every individual doing his best to his own benefit. John Nash said: The greatest gain comes from every individual doing what is best for him AND the group. I say: The greatest gain will come from every individual doing what is best for himself AND the group, but not only the group in a fragmented sense, but as a whole. On Adam Smith The problem with Adam Smith is that through capitalism which if at best will lead to a few people still living when all is said and done at the top. Which might have some sway because of the fact that, the masses are beginning to lose their power. The mass is only important now in so far as it is a market with which those at the top are able to maintain their position and grow capital. But when their is no need of money, there will be no need for the masses. There is still time however for the mass to take hold of themselves. On John Nash The whole "AND the group" is where we start to take things the wrong way. Our view of the "Group" is one called in the end, a country. The realization I am trying to deliever here is that one country will not overcome human nature on its own. Despite its strength, if there is more then one "Group" there is bound to be conflict. What then to address: "Even if there was no countries, there would still be conflict amongst humans." The state of nature we think of when we actually think of the term "State of Nature" is archaic, nomadic, brutish, the one that Hobbes would of seen. The state of nature was simple really: There was dogs, and birds, and fish, and humans. NOT dogs, and birds, and fish, and Canadians, Austrailians, French, etc. Human nature is to fight and exploit (according to Nietzche), and in reality if you take off your rose colored glasses its true to the heart. Up untill this point humans had no one else to fight and exploit but themselves, and nature. Lets face it, Nature is going to put her foot down one day. It almost makes me wish that the aliens from Independance Day were real and they came to kick the nothingness out of all of us. That way, all of us would unite, and in the words of one John Lennon, "COME TOGETHER"

Cap
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 07/14/08 - 04:16 PM:	#2
It's a beautiful utopia. I see some technical problems though... People must group to survive... Theres anotther nice song of John Lennon it's called "Revolution" I'll quote it: "You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out Don't you know it's gonna be all right all right, all right You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well, you know We're doing what we can But when you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell is brother you have to wait Don't you know it's gonna be all right all right, all right Ah ah, ah, ah, ah, ah... You say you'll change the constitution Well, you know We all want to change your head You tell me it's the institution Well, you know You better free you mind instead But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow Don't you know it's gonna be all right all right, all right all right, all right, all right all right, all right, all right "

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2154

Posted 07/14/08 - 09:15 PM:	#3
My father is a pilot. As a kid growing up, I was always amused by borders. You can only see the borders when you look at the map, or if there are big economic differences separating the countries, maybe a fence or two in strategic places. You had to land on the ground, then fill all the paperwork to get permission from the government to cross from one piece of land to an almost identical piece of land on the other side of a fence. I recognized that the idea of "nation" was just a made-up game, like schoolyard games where you draw imaginary lines and goals. I tried really hard to imagine that there was no such thing as nations. It was actually a bit exciting to realize that whatever far-off, exotic, walled-off society was still in the neighborhood. All these foreign people -- characters in mental postcards -- were just as real and as complex and similar as anyone close by. Its a nice dream, but people will all argue about how impractical it is. No matter how many reasons they give for why people need groups, and how you can run the whole world as easily as a small country I notice two things. First, its already one big country except in our minds, (and people come along and exploit the idea in your mind). The illusion creates a kind of artificial loyalty. Second, the only real reason is the same reason our cavemen ancestors had. Breaking up into smaller groups creates competition, which results in short-term progress as long as we can maintain the expenditure. But perhaps recognizing what it is, better ways of dividing people up than land boundaries could be created. More recently, I thought it would be interesting to divide people based on skills rather than location. At least we would be justified in asserting the benefits of having a skillset rather than some imaginary benefit of being in one square of land rather than another.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

James.Aaron.R.A
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/15/08 - 04:11 AM:	#4
"I recognized that the idea of "nation" was just a made-up game, like schoolyard games where you draw imaginary lines and goals." Tell that to all who faught in any armed conflict, any who believe in the right to vote or the laws of their native land. Tell that to culture and religion. A great many of us have died over imaginary lines and goals. "First, its already one big country except in our minds, (and people come along and exploit the idea in your mind). The illusion creates a kind of artificial loyalty." What is more real to someone then the truth that they carry in their mind? Nothing, there are no lies in the mind. So whatever is or is not in the mind - despite how it might be in the real world - is real to the beholder. "Second, the only real reason is the same reason our cavemen ancestors had. Breaking up into smaller groups creates competition, which results in short-term progress as long as we can maintain the expenditure." This is true, and is coherent with the thoughts of Hobbes, but these are no longer such small groups, and the expenditure is getting closer and closer to fatal. What I am trying to suggest is that even if we Humans were to divide and by doing so stimulate capitalist growth (for that is what it would be) we would only be more blinded to the threats which face humanity as a whole. "More recently, I thought it would be interesting to divide people based on skills rather than location. At least we would be justified in asserting the benefits of having a skillset rather than some imaginary benefit of being in one square of land rather than another." Wouldn't this come about with the propagation of a unified human front? The point is to break all boundaries beginning with countries. For example, do you think one country in the world can stop global warming?

Jethro Cothin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 07/16/08 - 12:56 PM:	#5
James.Aaron.R.A wrote: I begin with a thought experiment Example 1: There are 2 groups: A and B A is 50% strong B is 50% strong If their is conflict between the two, then there will be casualties on either with neither side gaining an upper hand. The result is simply the weakening of their innitial state which was obviously stronger. Example 2: There are 3 groups: A and B and C A is 25% strong B is 25% strong C is 50% strong If A and B were to conflict the result would be their deminished capacities. However in this example not only would they weaken but C would gain more power from simply staying out of the conflict. Logically, A and B will eventually have to combine if they are to have any chance of surviving against C. Now switch the variables to A and B being 'Humans' and C being an unknown yet - according to many enviormentalists, anarchists, atheists and pessimists - inevitably powerful force i.e Aliens, Nature in the form of Global Warming, Human Nature itself For the sake of visual acknowledgement see it this way. Humans vs Human = Human Loss Humans (Deminished from conflict) vs C Variable (Global Warming for example) = Less Chance of Human Survival Humans (United) vs C Variable = Optimal Chance of Human Survival Well, thats just a really simple way of saying: "If humans are going to survive, they must stop seeing themselves as seperated factional groups (no matter their size or self image) and start to look at the human race as a whole. So, how are we to accomplish this? First things first, kill countries. Now, to deal with those who say "Impossible, we cannot out do human nature (relative to Hobbesian view of the state of nature, and our need to conform under, blah blah blah)" Put it this way, we either overcome human nature or it will overcome us. Adam Smith said: The greatest gain comes from every individual doing his best to his own benefit. John Nash said: The greatest gain comes from every individual doing what is best for him AND the group. I say: The greatest gain will come from every individual doing what is best for himself AND the group, but not only the group in a fragmented sense, but as a whole. On Adam Smith The problem with Adam Smith is that through capitalism which if at best will lead to a few people still living when all is said and done at the top. Which might have some sway because of the fact that, the masses are beginning to lose their power. The mass is only important now in so far as it is a market with which those at the top are able to maintain their position and grow capital. But when their is no need of money, there will be no need for the masses. There is still time however for the mass to take hold of themselves. On John Nash The whole "AND the group" is where we start to take things the wrong way. Our view of the "Group" is one called in the end, a country. The realization I am trying to deliever here is that one country will not overcome human nature on its own. Despite its strength, if there is more then one "Group" there is bound to be conflict. What then to address: "Even if there was no countries, there would still be conflict amongst humans." The state of nature we think of when we actually think of the term "State of Nature" is archaic, nomadic, brutish, the one that Hobbes would of seen. The state of nature was simple really: There was dogs, and birds, and fish, and humans. NOT dogs, and birds, and fish, and Canadians, Austrailians, French, etc. Human nature is to fight and exploit (according to Nietzche), and in reality if you take off your rose colored glasses its true to the heart. Up untill this point humans had no one else to fight and exploit but themselves, and nature. Lets face it, Nature is going to put her foot down one day. It almost makes me wish that the aliens from Independance Day were real and they came to kick the nothingness out of all of us. That way, all of us would unite, and in the words of one John Lennon, "COME TOGETHER" Yes, this is the ideal form of unity of the world populist and in all reality things would work much smoother, but in order to create this society the prestigious that have developed, over time, in the human mind. Religion is a big part of that. A great example of this is the war in Iraq before we came in. The war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Both follow the same basic religion and land and yet are constantly fighting over subtle differences. Another example would be all the conflict in Israel. In order to unite the world ether religion would have to be abolished or each sect, religion would have to find some way of accepting every other sect or unite the world under one religion. This is just many of the different arias where humanity is not ready to unite as a whole.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2154

Posted 07/16/08 - 05:26 PM:	#6
James.Aaron.R.A wrote: Tell that to all who faught in any armed conflict, any who believe in the right to vote or the laws of their native land. Tell that to culture and religion. A great many of us have died over imaginary lines and goals. They were all fighting for what they believed. They might have even associated their idea of a "nation" with the political system or cultural values they thought was superior. It is possible, such as during a war of independence, that both sides believe they are fighting for a nation and the same piece of land, but disagree simply on the name and boundaries or existence of a nation. For a time, the USA was probably only a nation on paper and in the minds of people who wanted to form it. How permanent is a nation if they can disappear practically overnight? Look at how many fought and died for the ideals of the Soviet Union, only to have it disappear one day. James.Aaron.R.A wrote: What is more real to someone then the truth that they carry in their mind? Nothing, there are no lies in the mind. So whatever is or is not in the mind - despite how it might be in the real world - is real to the beholder. I'm not saying it is a lie, that would be a truth that is held despite knowing that it is contradicted by objective fact. I'm saying it is an illusion -- there is nothing in objective reality which defines a nation. I'm the first to say that illusions are real to the mind of the observer, but by assuming that illusions are the same as objective reality makes you a slave to the illusion. A nation is an illusion that is a matter of consent of a group of people with other groups of people -- when this is realized, you become masters of the illusion. I think it is a powerful, (and maybe dangerous), idea. The idea that people can simply change their mind about what they consider to be their "nation", could create sweeping changes on national authority and rules. Look at the unification of East and West Germany, or the splitting of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. I am currently next to one of the weirdest mind-games in the world. If you see the national parade in Taiwan, R.O.C., (on October 10th), you will see posters showing all of China, (including Tibet). If you see similar posters in mainland China, you will see the same map. People outside those two countries usually think that Taiwan is a nation -- an island between the Philippines and Japan, while China is the rest. But in the minds of the Chinese, there is only one China, which includes the island of Taiwan. The people in R.O.C say that the majority of China is currently "occupied" by communist forces, while the people in mainland China say that Taiwan is occupied by the former "nationalist party". When Nixon recognized communist China, he was implicitly acknowledging their claim to Taiwan, (while America still maintained commercial and military support of Taiwan). James.Aaron.R.A wrote: This is true, and is coherent with the thoughts of Hobbes, but these are no longer such small groups, and the expenditure is getting closer and closer to fatal. What I am trying to suggest is that even if we Humans were to divide and by doing so stimulate capitalist growth (for that is what it would be) we would only be more blinded to the threats which face humanity as a whole. I'm actually looking at any growth, not just capitalist. Some form of competition would be needed to inspire growth even in a fully socialist system. It is a trade off -- if we compete, we grow and benefit, but there are risks. If we cooperate, we don't grow, but benefit from safety and security. It fits well into "game theory" -- which builds a matrix of cost benefits for cooperation verses competition. Being singularly competitive or cooperative are both bad strategies, (if you have typical goals). James.Aaron.R.A wrote: Wouldn't this come about with the propagation of a unified human front? The point is to break all boundaries beginning with countries. For example, do you think one country in the world can stop global warming? That is, assuming that a unified human front would act to do anything about global warming. There may be one interesting side-benefit. Look up some of the talks by Professor Albert Bartlett, from Univ. Colorado. He talks very clearly about the consequences of "exponential growth". Global warming could be seen as a consequence of exponential demand and use of fossil fuels. It is a mathematical inevitability that any growth must hit a maximum -- the availability of resources. When resources are exhausted, people suffer the consequences. Take away the separation of "nation", and you reduce a lot of the competition and reduce growth temporarily. I don't mind the idea, though. If it were possible for everyone in the world to consider themselves citizens of one world-wide nation and reject their local authority, then such a nation would exist.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

James.Aaron.R.A
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/18/08 - 04:20 AM:	#7
swstephe wrote: I don't mind the idea, though. If it were possible for everyone in the world to consider themselves citizens of one world-wide nation and reject their local authority, then such a nation would exist. ... and oh the possibilities then...

Timex
Professional Awesomator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: In your head
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 132

Posted 07/18/08 - 08:55 AM:	#8
"If humans are going to survive, they must stop seeing themselves as seperated factional groups (no matter their size or self image) and start to look at the human race as a whole. Nations are essentially just groupings of people based upon common beliefs, and you're always going to have those kinds of groupings, because different groups of people have different ideas about what should be done. Many times, these differences in beliefs are mutually exclusive. A prime example would be an islamic theocracy's incompatibilities with many ideals held by the western world. The very notion of having one religion drive secular policy is at odds with foundational aspects of most western culture. Someone in support of an islamic theocracy may believe that, all rationality aside, a particular way of doing things is the "right" way, simply because it is stated as such in an ancient book. As that decree comes down from God, there's no rational method by which you can sway him from those beliefs, regardless of how counterproductive they may be. But I don't agree with them, and I would refuse to allow myself to be governed by them. How would you go about unifying two such disparate views into a single group? I don't think it's possible.

James.Aaron.R.A
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 26

Posted 07/18/08 - 11:33 AM:	#9
Lets put it this way... kill culture, kill religion, kill countries and let humans live. A truly unified humanism, anthropocentric in every aspect. Tell me, if you had the chance to unify "such disparate" views in a single group would you?

Timex
Professional Awesomator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: In your head
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 132

Posted 07/18/08 - 12:24 PM:	#10
James.Aaron.R.A wrote: Lets put it this way... kill culture, kill religion, kill countries and let humans live. A truly unified humanism, anthropocentric in every aspect. chuckles So you basically want to remove humanity from the humans, so they can be more human. What exactly would you be preserving about humans at that point? You're talking about doing away with major aspects of humanity's existence. Indeed, you're talking about removing aspects of our existence that even other animals demonstrate to lesser degrees. James.Aaron.R.A wrote: Tell me, if you had the chance to unify "such disparate" views in a single group would you? No, I don't think I would.. because such is the goal of a tyrant. That's the kind of goal that the Nazis perpetuated. I am a strong believer in personal freedom, and the fundamental core of personal freedom is the right to disagree with others, and go your own way.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.