RE: Trump's Immigrant Agenda
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
My question about the plandemic just made clear that there is no unanimity between people within a society. Btw, thanks for giving me an answer.
I did not talk about democracy but about government (or governance). Since large numbers of settled people must govern to keep things in order. Can you agree on the premise, that things do not sort themselves out just so?
I asked you about a different concept, about range and radius, for example. So far, the answer I perceive is that you are saying "everyone on his own" (thinking that you have a gun and a place to retreat when shit hits the fan). Now, while that may be a concept for some, it's a non option for others.
In a group of people in every day life you are always faced with those, who cannot defend themselves and with others who take advantage of that.
Do you agree that to govern such reality means that you organize police, courts and other institutions?
In oder to do that, do you agree that you need people who act as such and who in turn, need to be corrected and checked upon? You need an organization?
"Everyone on their own”, I see as a concept of survival, not a concept of living and governing together.
Obviously you and I are not in favor of how power is currently exercised, but as far as I can tell, this form of abuse of power needs to be met on an equal footing. Those are big pockets, currently the only means to get to the places of power and influence them. Since it is reasonable to assume that you don't have a pocket in which you keep billions of cash, at least I don't, the only chance is to change the system to one that has bugs only and is not the very function.
Unless, one favors that the powerful need to be destroyed and murdered through violence (instead of using milder means), for which you'd need the command over the military or organize an army with equal forces - which is not what I would call a success. Or, you favor a reset, which is even more drastic (total destruction).
This view - to change the system from feature to bug - needs all the support it can get. But when people - amongst themselves and outwards through media and social media - complain and whine all day long, want the cake and eat it, too, cannot wait, change daily their minds, formulate never ending demands etc., those who might be willing to reduce the system to some bugs, might shrug off the populace voices and continue to do what is the most convenient.
Corruption is by no means a characteristic of the powerful. It is found at the bottom to the same extent as it is found at the top. As long as a population is unable to behave within the smallest natural unit - the family - according to rules that benefit it instead of disturbing it, destroying it, it cannot absolve itself of mistakes such as envy, greed and corruption, etc. If a populace wants a savior instead of wanting to mind their business, this society might fail in its undertaking to subvert the abuse of power.
We are always in the middle of a story and the outcomes are not certain.
First, you seem to conflate two distinct ideas. Government is a group of people who claim a territorial monopoly in violence, and this is consistent with even maonstream political science definitions. I would define governance as voluntary, consensual agreements between people to organize cooperation, economic exchange, and dispute resolution. The latter does not require the former. In fact, I argue that society operates through a web of decentralized organizing forces of interwoven consenting structures today, not because of government, but in spite of it.
Second, you persist in mischaracterizing my rejection of government as rejection of society. Individualism in its rejection of government coercion is not rejection of society any more than abolitionists rejecting chattel slavery were rejecting economic production. Your range and radius concept is completely irrelevant. To make another analogy, it's like asking how large a church parish should be. We have overlapping religions, denominations, and congregations interspersed with nonbelievers now in spite of the pervasive belief in the need for a single dominant religion even in Europe a couple centuries ago. If you can see why England does not need to enforce Anglicanism or Spain does not need to enforce Catholicism for society to function, then you can perhaps also see how that applies to other aspects of society, too.
You mention police and courts as essential, but you are ignoring the rampant corruption and abuse in government monopolization of these services now, the already widespread use of alternatives today, and the possibilities we could have. I can direct you to theorists and arguments in more detail if you like. As it stands, your position is no different from, "but without slavery, who would pick the cotton?"
Youu assume we need to resist government on their terms with money and power. Again, my tactic is to undermine it. That means discussing ideas with statists such as yourself in an effort to persuade you peacefully in contrast to the political method of coercion, and build alternatives to government systems. Cryptocurrency is one example of the latter now that governments have monopolized money. We overcome the state by building better options, not by seizing control of the established order. We need abolition of slavery, not kinder slavemasters.
Stating complaints and decribing problems with the systems around us is not "whining." That's a lazy cop-out to avoid the problem instead of discussing it. The Internet today is the equivalent of broadsheets and pamphlets 200+ years ago when people were discussing the problems of monarchy and empire. Would you have been a royalist or a liberal then? Would you have accused people of whining and rejecting society if they dared question the divine right of kings?
Corruption is absolutely characteristic of power. Lord Acton's famous quote states, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." Many other thinkers have echoed the same sentiment as well, and their reasons for reaching that conclusion are based on simple observation and historical analysis alike. Biblically, we are told David, the "man after God's own heart," even had a man killed so he could take that man's wife as his own purely because he could. We also have numerous psychological studies on the nature of authoroty and its destructive effects. The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment are the most famous, but not the only examples.
When I switch from my phone to my computer, I can provide links to other sources and additional evidence if you would like. I know my conclusions fall outside the mainstream, but I arrived at them only after wrestling with a lot of preconceptions.
agreed.
agreed.
I disagree.
In order to "organize cooperation, economic exchange, and dispute resolution" you are facing a hierarchy.
By government I mean the original concept of a nation state, which by definition deals with a reality beyond its sphere of influence (ergo the next border/problem it encounters), and whose core task is therefore to deal with foreign policy matters. In this sense, central government must be drastically downsized to its core function.
The hierarchy is the family, the municipal administration, the city administration, the state parliament, the federal parliament.
Each of these units regulates coexistence according to its internal and local affairs. Participation is voluntary and people stand for election. The use of funds for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure has a limited radius and influence due to the nature of the hierarchy and funds. If the influence of a municipal administration extended beyond its own territory, it would no longer be called a municipality. If the local residents want an indoor swimming hall, a public library or a fire department, they need not to ask the state government, they decide for themselves. Or so, it should be.
With regard to the hierarchies, it is clear that the respective influence is limited. Where a municipality comes up against a large city, it is not the municipality that determines what should happen in the city, but the city that wants to do it; though they may want to throw together their competences and work with one another.
Where the city ends, it is surrounded by lands and other cities (groups down and up the hierarchy) and where all cities are found in a particular region, they must work together to decide on projects that affect an entire region, such as the construction of a dam, for example.
How do you as a family member or as a community member want this matter to be decided when you as a family or as a community are already fully occupied with the matters closest to you?
But who is supposed to guard the border when neighboring states line up as enemies? Who should establish diplomatic relations with neighboring countries if a conflict threatens or has broken out?
Who should defend a country that is under attack in an emergency? Should the family, the community that is inside a country wait until the problem builds up right on their doorstep? What should they do against an army or other invaders and exploiters coming close?
You may wish to have no border, and the country next to yours may also wish to have no border, but at some point you will encounter a state that wishes to have a border and maintain a more closed system for reasons we are not entitled to judge, as that nation may be thousands of miles away and have a past that causes them to do so. We may find that reason unreasonable, but we have no right to impose on them how they should govern. I am talking facts, do I not?
Before the EU, we had national borders in Europe that were manned. But you could travel to any European country and not have the impression that the border was a frightening experience where you had to cower in your car seat at the sight of soldiers armed to the teeth. There was no such sight. The overwhelming majority of travellers never had an experience of oppression and violence at these border crossings.
Therefore, the border crossings can become very permeable over many years because the neighbouring countries maintain a good friendship and see no need for hostilities. They welcome mutual tourism and trade with each other. And that's how it was as a matter of fact here in Europe for many, many years. I witnessed and experienced it myself, since I am old enough.
That follows your no border concept as much as it is reasonable and doable. These borders existed but they operated as if such border was not really there. To the extend that the atmosphere and the circumstances change, the border changes its state of relaxation or tense. Why would you have anything against this flexibility?
So, a strong border is necessary just in (bad) case. If peace is disturbed, if conditions become dangerous, if a major conflict arises. You also would want to have a well-trained, well-equipped fire brigade in case a fire breaks out, don't you?
@jacobtothe
I want to add to the paragraph where I said earlier that
They also welcome new residents, hence foreigners, as becoming long term members of their societies.
They cannot possibly maintain such welcoming culture when they are taking in masses and masses of immigrants in very short times, and are disabled of having a coordinated flow as in normal times, as a consequence. Which was my original argument.
Border controls are carried out at random in relaxed times, they identify the criminals and treat them properly strict. But they cannot operate normally if they are flooded with refugees and illegal immigrants. This is irresponsible towards both the locals and the immigrants. No one is being treated with justice or dignity here.
The fact that so many people are crossing the borders is a strong expression of dysfunction in the countries of origin of those seeking to enter the country. This dysfunction is not reduced by letting in all these people, on the contrary, it causes a never-ending stream of new arrivals. A neighboring country or the neighboring country of the country that allows criminals to traffic in people, brutalize its internal conditions and must not be further encouraged to simply get rid of this problem by treating people like cattle.