addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 388
"No man shall rule over another," it could take a few thousand years, or perhaps only 43 days for this to become mantra.
Ben Forbes G.
Epicurean306
Orlando, FL
Post #: 245
While I agree that people should not be unfairly "ruled" (i.e. they should be citizens rather than subjects), the fact remains that people must be governed: often not nearly as wisely or as well as we would ideally hope, I will certainly grant you, but they must be governed nonetheless.
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 389
Can people self govern and successfully interoperate without the use of the concept of 'they'?
Ben Forbes G.
Epicurean306
Orlando, FL
Post #: 253
In-group versus out-group is a major issue in political philosophy, especially for those (like me) who hope for increasing international cooperation and that humankind will eventually achieve one world government (and preferably not a fascist state imposing world government by force)... but I'm not sure precisely what you mean by your question Rami... By "they" I was simply referring to people, in general.

Concurrently, even IF anarchism worked in small-scale collectives (as it arguably has at least a few times in recorded history), it would ultimately only be a recipe for inexorably getting conquered and subjugated by more powerful and dangerous types of government organizations...
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 403
A trouble with any one world government is that establishment of such reduces the possibility of escape from lesser qualified individuals endowed with unnecessary degrees of power, and the bureaucracies which serve under them. The pattern from history is of course Empire:


If you have not already read the short story by science fiction author E. F. Russell, And Then There Were None, along with the political principles subsidiarity and distributism then I recommend doing so now...
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 404
and then, Why and how do we engage? Simran Sethi at TEDxCibeles

Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 405
Can people self govern and successfully interoperate without the use of the concept of 'they'?
In another post, Ben, I saw you give mention to the insider/out problem so I know that you have an idea of what I mean by 'they'. On page 614 of doctrine.org the same type dichotomy is referenced and explicit: sheep and goats,. Robert Fisk in his 14 August 2013 article Cairo massacre: After today, what Muslim will ever trust the ballot box again? paints a picture of the dichotomy between Islam and western democracy. But I don't want this conversation to devolve simply into commentary about religion. I am asking what does it take, and which divisions are worth spending energy upon, so as to heal breaks among people? Certainly not every cause is surmountable in a single lifetime. Healing takes time and is a process which takes place inside of people first.
Ben Forbes G.
Epicurean306
Orlando, FL
Post #: 255
True "self-government" would require more "direct" democracy (i.e. a modern version of something like the best aspects of what classical Athens tried, only with equal rights for women, no slaves, etc. — and using information technology to facilitate remote electronic voting on multifarious issues from homes and/or local centers like libraries on every issue of consequence on a massive scale: i.e. greatly expanding concepts like the referendum / ballot initiatives to be a regular part of adult life and the duty of every citizen to stay informed about and participate in).

Even under such a scheme, however, some degree of representation would almost certainly be necessary to propose and debate initiatives (even with an automated petition to referendum system), perform/administrate cabinet/departmental government functions (which no large government can do without), and run the day-to-day minutia of government bureaucracies (even if we were to randomly choose and pay citizens from public funds to serve limited terms for some of these jobs). As an élitist and a supporter of meritocracy, however, I don't trust average (randomly chosen) citizens in positions of power, and instead I would prefer extreme measures of campaign finance reform (i.e. getting private money out of political elections entirely) in the hopes that the best and the brightest could be elected to limited but substantial terms (with recall options in place) by winning free and fair competitions of ideas with equal and mandatory airtime and debate as well as much shorter election cycles.

As for potential world government that is not totalitarian or imperially imposed, I imagine some sort of federal system would be the most practical / desirable possibility to attempt to build.

And, of course, the other important issue is constitutional... how easy or hard to change it should be — and, most importantly, how it protects against tyranny of the majority while upholding and protecting ethically crucial rights and freedoms for everyone, including minorities.

If you ask me, Islam has little (if anything) constructive to contribute when it comes to democratic ideals and much to learn about more secular and progressive forms of government springing from classical Western traditions. That said, the potential structure for world government I have in mind here (as well as any relatively free democracy worthy to be thought of as such), should definitely support people's right to any voluntary free exercise of any religion, according to First Amendment style principles (and only barring religious practices that are egregiously/criminally harmful); however, I don't think it should be legal for parents to force their child to wear any sort of religious clothing or to engage in any religious practice whatsoever against the child's will (and if they persist in trying to pressure/force the issue it should be grounds for legal emancipation if the child wishes). I also support a completely and strictly secular government and public education system — as well as taxing profitable religious organizations at the same rates as equivalent corporations, including property taxes as well as income taxes (for those that cannot demonstrate nonprofit status with open books and identical auditing policies to those applied to secular nonprofit organizations).

Anyway, speaking of us/them or in-group/out-group problems, sectarianism is the enemy of freedom and lack of freedom can lead to violence. You ask what it takes to heal divisions... I think it takes tolerant pluralism and freedoms of speech and religious practice by law, combined with strictly secular government under which theocracy (in terms of even the smallest sorts of religious establishments imaginable) is illegal.

P.S.
I can see merit in some aspects of the political philosophy of distributism (and could see parts of it as compatible with the goals of a modern, mixed, and progressive economy) — but I really can't get on board with subsidiarity (I'm a big supporter of anti-trust laws and enforcement of them, but smaller is not always better — and economies of scale have evolved in many areas because they work better than artisans producing everything). I also do not think that subsidiarity (or some similar project of attempting to return to simpler and more localized times) is a necessary or ideal means of trying to achieve the crucially important goal of environmental sustainability.
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 416
"Once God is eliminated, men turn to government." As for your first paragraph www.public-voice.org­

With regard to government, I am open to open systems. This is because while we cannot always know the hearts of men, we can at least "read" their declared intent.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy