AaronMk

Brexit

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Revanche said:

 

Other countries likely wouldn't go to war with the U.S. government if it went evil. Furthermore, they don't have the kind of power of which you speak, after all, the people who actually enforce their will, cops, soldiers, etc., would likely be opposed to evil actions on an ideological basis (although I don't doubt their capacity for such actions).

 

Maybe I should just post my political views in order to get it out of the way.

I can guarantee that soldiers and police will not rebel against an evil ruler because if they do they will most certainly be killed. This is why North Korea hasn't fallen to pieces from the inside. If the U.S. became evil I can guarantee that most western european countries would declare war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MoltenKitten said:

I can guarantee that soldiers and police will not rebel against an evil ruler because if they do they will most certainly be killed. This is why North Korea hasn't fallen to pieces from the inside. If the U.S. became evil I can guarantee that most western european countries would declare war.

By who? The soldiers and the police? And this is US specific, I'm talking about, where the people know enough and have the values necessary for this kind of reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that soldiers do not rebel against their employers, then let me remind you of a few prominent historical cases that prove that presumption wrong.

 

Zimri of Isreal who committed suicide to prevent himself from being killed by his own commander Omri

Julius Ceasar's crossing of the Rubicon

Emperor Gaozu

Napoleon

George Washington

Benedict Arnold (Twice!)

General Santa Anna (several times succeed and deposed himself)

Robert E. Lee

The Black Hand

 

Direct service to a government does not entail loyalty in the government and there's no absolute measure to promise total loyalty to the government so that its own security forces and military will not - whether in part or in whole - revolt against it. Modern post-enlightenment nations now-a-days are built on ideology being at the minimum an identity of who they are ("This is the country of the X") or they can go further into greater ideas (democracy, republicanism, communism, fascism) which they identify to. In these cases the army is indoctrinated to that, and when the system is failed or the identified system is under threat internally or there is a perceived threat by the military or police to the ideology they were sword to protect they will step in; and usually that state ideology will be the moral compass of what is good or bad.

 

To draw a modern comparison, the Military since the time of Ataturk has been considered the bulwark to defend Ataturk's legacy of Democratic-Republican rule in Turkey through the greater part of the 20th century and on today. This year's failed military coup against Erdogan was another episode in Turkish military history to attempt to reel in who they saw as a despot and to restore Ataturk's vision on Turkey. This isn't unusual. Of course it failed, but it serves to underscore that.

 

The US Civil War too was a case of ideological conflict based on geographical lines drawn. Of course that may be a simplification because there was a great deal of political conflict in Washington in the decades leading up to it (involving such episodes as the Mexican-American war), and economic conflict around slavery (the north was a much more powerful economic region by embracing modern non-slave industry). But whichever the case, one of the specter's that loomed over the conflict could be described as old Jeffersonianism with its emphasis on small decentralized government and then-new Republicanism (which by today's political standards is much akin to today's Democratic Party).

 

The Russian Revolution itself turned from protest against the Tzar to open revolution when the Cossacks - the elite go-to men for the czar in military and police affairs, infamous for pogroms against the Jews and expanding the Russian frontier - turned their backs on the czar and swore to defend the people they were ordered to police on Nicolas' behalf.

 

In post-war Europe, change of government in Italy and Germany was in part forced by the ideological differences of the defeated army of the two powers or its veterans who had subscribed to the extreme forms of Fascism as an answer to their defeat in the Great War. It didn't matter that they at the time served or had served the government in the war; the state had failed them by simply loosing. And they donned the Black Shirts and adopted the Goose Step and rallied around to seize power in their own ways.

 

In cases where ideology isn't as strong then the capacity for the army to give a shit comes down to how they can get paid. As is the case in Africa the central government is generally weak and doesn't keep the army on a big payroll. Or alternatively the central government can not provide as well for  the general populace as the army can which lays the foundation for a cycle of civil war and usurpation with a much more popular army overthrowing the government, becoming the new government and then finding themselves in the same situation as they fought in in another ten years when the new army discovers it's a much better provider for the people than the government which promised change never delivered.

 

In the case of North Korea and why it hasn't fallen to shit is because the army is the only benefiting party in the whole thing. The Kims rule by force of the army and patronize the army to such an extent there is no way they will revolt. To go further, the propaganda system and style of censorship in North Korea ensures that no one knows any differently. It's very hard to go into open ideological revolt when no one knows about the alternatives.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the event that soldiers, police, or civilains decide to rebel the most important factor is power. Majority of rebellions fail due to the rebels being outnumbered, outresourced, or outgunned. The American Revolution was successful due to the inability of the crown to effectively communicate with its armies in the colonies and being outnumbered. 

 

I don't know why armies are even being brought up considering a nationless society would have no need for a standing army. An army would only be brought up if the rulers feared a rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MoltenKitten said:

In the event that soldiers, police, or civilains decide to rebel the most important factor is power. Majority of rebellions fail due to the rebels being outnumbered, outresourced, or outgunned. The American Revolution was successful due to the inability of the crown to effectively communicate with its armies in the colonies and being outnumbered. 

 

I don't know why armies are even being brought up considering a nationless society would have no need for a standing army. An army would only be brought up if the rulers feared a rebellion.

If there's no army, the cops must be the one's to enforce rule, and they;re even less likely to side with their ruler over their ideology.

If the police (and military) were to turn against the present rulers, who would there be to outnumber them, exactly? Especially with the public's support.

 

As for the American revolution, that was less down to communication (it was something of a civil war, with military leaders of both sides in America) and more down to tactical errors on the behalf of the British, the involvement of other nations and the Brit's desire to consolidate power in other parts of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MoltenKitten said:

What are the benefits of a nationless society?

The notion of nations and borders divides people and encourages irrational behaviour, prejudice and an "us and them" attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Revanche said:

The notion of nations and borders divides people and encourages irrational behaviour, prejudice and an "us and them" attitude.

Nations exist because of irrational behavior, prejudice, and the us and them attitude, it does not cause them. Everyone has different beliefs which is why every country has a different way of running (although some are almost identical). How would you like to live in a place where for instance the majority believe you shouldn't eat fruit? You're more than welcome to leave the country (unless it is one of those countries that forces you to stay) but where would you go if it was the only country? What if the majority thought something more malicious than just eating fruit and decided that people with blue eyes were to be segregated into a place where their water is dirty and they could only grow potatoes?  If you don't like it you can't move to some place else because there is no place else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in a world without borders would't mean having to live as the majority does. Most people are fine with fruit, but people aren't forced to eat it now. And we get terrible rulers nowadays, anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Revanche said:

Living in a world without borders would't mean having to live as the majority does. Most people are fine with fruit, but people aren't forced to eat it now. And we get terrible rulers nowadays, anyways.

The only way to not live as the majority does would be if there were no nations and as an extension no laws which means anarchy and survival of the fittest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Revanche said:

No. People can "live and let live".

 

"I don't like fruit."

"I do like fruit."

"I'll eat it."

"And I won't."

 

Simple.

This isn't about fruit. A world without nations is a world without law and order. This means people who like murdering people won't be punished for it and will continue their spree until they run into somebody capable of slaying them. If you have ever played the fallout games I think this serves as a pretty good simulation of a nationless society if you ignore the fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made it about a fruit metaphor.

 

A world without nations is not the same as w world without government.

 

Fallout isn't at all accurate, if people were like that, we wouldn't have gotten to the civilised stage in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Revanche said:

You made it about a fruit metaphor.

 

A world without nations is not the same as w world without government.

 

Fallout isn't at all accurate, if people were like that, we wouldn't have gotten to the civilised stage in the first place.

Ok here's the 3 scenarios i'm getting from you

 

A nationless society with no centralized government and a bunch of states which in reality is just a bunch of different nations and exactly what we have now.

A single nation society which would fall onto a majority rule in which a majority could decide insane and bad things such as that no one should eat meat and anyone caught doing so be killed.

A nationless society of anarchism where there is no one to tell you what you can and cannot due and thus criminals can do whatever they want with no repercussions.

 

So which one is the perfect one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D) None of the above.

 

While no system is "perfect", the most logical, objective system, to me, would be a system in which that which is legal and illegal is determined based upon the registered  beliefs of indiviudals at an individual level.

i.e.

 

Bob's registered ideological principles conclude that stealing is wrong. Alice's registered ideological principles conclude that stealing is wrong.

  • If Alice was to steal from him, she would be committing a crime. If Bob was to steal from Alice he would be committing a crime.

 

Bob's registered ideological principles conclude that stealing is not wrong. Alice's registered ideological principles conclude that stealing is wrong.

  • If Alice was to steal from him, this would  be a crime. If Bob were to steal from Alice, this would be a crime.

 

Bob's registered ideological principles conclude that stealing is not wrong. Alice's registered ideological principles conclude that stealing is not wrong.

  • If Alice was to steal from him, this would  not be a crime. If Bob were to steal from Alice, this would not be a crime.

 

I don't believe anyway else has the right to tell Bob and Alice in the third example that what they are doing is wrong. Frankly, it's nobody else's business. This sort of system is designed to objectively take into account any number and any manner of ideological principles.

 

Naturally, law would be enforced by the police force of a universal governing entity, though not one of absolute power by any standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flexible law system is not enforcible. If Bob thinks murder is a crime and Alice doesn't so she murders him how are we supposed to know if it's a crime?  What about If this is an OR statement than what if Bob thinks eating fruit is wrong and Alice doesn't, is it still a crime for Alice? 

And then what if there's more than two people involved in the situation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally, people register their ideological standards.

If Bob registers as thinking that eating fruit is wrong then it's a crime for him to do it, since it pertains to him, but it is not a crime for Alice.

If there's more than two people involved, nothing changes. i.e. Bob, who believes theft is wrong steals from Alice, who thinks it's acceptable, who in turn steals from Kate, who also thinks it's acceptable.. Bob is the only one to have committed a crime.

This thread has gone a little off topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Revanche said:

The notion of nations and borders divides people and encourages irrational behaviour, prejudice and an "us and them" attitude.

Well humans are naturally tribal creatures. We tend to get together wit those who understands each other.

Plus, in a "nationless society" Who's standards takes precedence?

Who?

 

Had the EU not have been an undemocratic overbearing mess. This wouldn't have happened.

Different people have different needs, despite being members of the same species.

 

 

Globalists are crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MoltenKitten said:

Nations exist because of irrational behavior, prejudice, and the us and them attitude, it does not cause them. Everyone has different beliefs which is why every country has a different way of running (although some are almost identical).

Applying the line of thought proposed by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel: the development of the nation-state at many levels is the development of kleptocracy where a certain individual or class of individuals managed to acquire enough wealth or power in their society during the transition from primitive hunter-gathering to sedentary agriculture where an advanced economy can flourish. Whether by wealth or force of arms these individuals enforced their rules on the greater whole.

 

For a long time ancient societies (city-states/kingdoms) would be identified by the person or persons operating them (the city-states of Assyria and the early fertile crescents across the world, all the way up to the Arab kingdoms in the middle-ages [eg. Abbasids and Ummayads, each of these being kingdoms ruler by a family with expansive rule over abstract and foggy territory]). But if rule is identified with how wealthy or powerful a ruler is then anyone who acquired more wealth or power could easily usurp the former ruler when his or her kleptocratic nature is revealed or realized (Kleptocracy being to rule on a single person's benefit, always the king/queen/dictator).

 

Some sort of order abstract or solid isn't irrational by any means and some sort of ruling structure - no matter how small - is prevalent in even the most primitive societies. Tribal groups in New Guinea and Indonesia for instance have no real village chief, but rule by a common consuls where certain individuals have more power over the others based on qualifications of communal respect or age. The more notable you are the more influence and sway you have in village consuls. While everyone has equal voice to determine policy on an issue, folk tend to listen to these more respectable people.

 

That said, when society took the step out of primitive egalitarianism and defined rulerships arose these classes needed to define the right and reason they should hold rule. In the classical era  they might pas off the right to rule a geographical reason based on a principle of divine right where a local church supports their claim on behalf of the Gods by receiving patronage from the kings. The divine right of kings was universally applied and invoked in policy on behalf of the king to make every decision higher than themselves. In this case they used the 'irrationality' or religion to back up their decisions to use it to appeal to a certain level of public rationality, or to re-direct the blame.

 

But the level of behavior that we associate today with the nation wasn't developed until the 17th or 18th century with the advent of the European Enlightenment which came to realize many things that created the modern nation-state. Starting with the end of the Hundred Years War in France the French people began seeing themselves as less people of their localities abstractly related by language, but more as  being French people. This spread across Europe in a wave of liberal nationalism which birthed the whole idea of national identity.

 

Arguably it existed  before in cases like Rome and China (China's identity is even older than Rome's), but these were relatively isolated examples on a whole where groups defined their identity based on family and personal connections. But on the whole the us-versus-them dialog is still very new relatively. And this became the new means through which all government now appeals to when going into decision making.

 

Now, is this valid? Probably only as a stepping stone from feudalism to the next step of society. Just because it's the current reality doesn't mean it should be the eternal reality. Nationalism and the Kleptocrat arose as a matter of reality for the evolving times they were born from. The kleptocrat out of the rising bureaucratic specialist class farming permitted to exist, and the nationalist out of the continuing economic advancement of the economic conditions of the nation; particularly in Europe where the true middle-class started to evolve and class distinctions such as high-blood v. low-blood was becoming irrelevant and second place to the notion of being French or British to make the middle-class feel involved.

 

The advent of the internet in the passed couple decades and mass  global migration in the passed century puts the world on the threshold of change as humanity experienced in the days far preceding the common era and the 17th century in Europe. There's a much greater social network that transcends national borders and so much cultural exchange that given time everyone's culture will be so diffused  that the notion of being culturally French of culturally American will be almost an anachronism. The evolution of the global economy also  ties more nations together than ever before in the passed two-hundred years. Arguably the role of nations is becoming slowly irrelevant. What remains standing in the way are the policies and self preservation of the ruling classes who'v enforced the division of identities on geographical borders for the pass ed three to four hundred years. There's still a lot to be done across the world to  reconcile identity issues (some more than others), but it can be an achievable goal.

 

I'd go further that the old structure of the current economic model is aging fast with 3d printing permitting the possible existence of garage-based home-spun industry allowing anyone to produce anything at home or in neighborhood workshops; and what needs to be tackled before it gets too late is legislation that grants individual and community end freedom to produce whatever they want without interference from the small top-end of society because building my own iPhone would be a threat to the CEOs at Apple. Otherwise what we may need to do is prepare to expand welfare to accommodate for the potential onslaught of suddenly unemployed people, low skilled and high skilled.

 

/essay

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lord Seraph said:

Well humans are naturally tribal creatures. We tend to get together wit those who understands each other.

Plus, in a "nationless society" Who's standards takes precedence?

Who?

 

Had the EU not have been an undemocratic overbearing mess. This wouldn't have happened.

Different people have different needs, despite being members of the same species.

 

 

Globalists are crazy.

Really, in ancient society it was considered taboo to marry within your own tribe and people often went out to find a wife or husband from the nearby tribes. These tribes spoke different languages or different dialects of the same language. And the resulting couple would be multi-lingual by neccesity to function and the children they raise would be born into a bi-lingual house-hold, knowing - fluently - the language of the father and mother and later acquiring the languages of the extended family by contact with these parties or on their own independent escapades.

 

A lot of "primitive" societies which might be used as the model to support the thesis that humans are tribally introverted actually interact with each other very regularly and swap language on a regular basis. In New Guinea for instance there are hundreds - if not thousands - of different languages with at least three different language branches and an untold many different dialects. These tribes do interact and on the basis of finding wives or husbands will be able to communicate and mingle with one another and swap information as much as words when needed. Language really defines the area you live in there as opposed to the person you are as a part of a community. If you moved to live or visit one homeland or another you would change language to match that.

 

You can raise anecdotal evidence on the matter in Australia where aboriginals will change from one language to the other based on who's land they walked into. There's no one native Australian language and each tribe has their own language. So when they move about to trade or marry they switch their words readily. They call this "speaking the language of the land".

 

This is also the same for Gods, but that's a whole other matter.

 

In modern times too it's still very prevalent to have countries or societies that speak multiple languages. In South Africa it can be very useful to speak not only English as the official national language but also Zulu and Xhosa because that's who you're parents are. Afrikaans also becomes helpful because they exist as a large and possibly still influential demographic.

 

The notion that any one language is "superior" to the other and thus identity evolved out of European nationalism in the 1700's when the ruling class and/or broader government sought to differentiate themselves from the other nation next door by strictly speaking one true language and adapting one true identity and as such the other languages there began to suffer and were regarded as second and third-class (Occictan which is spoken also in northern Italy and Spain as well as Southern France was labeled as being an inferior language because it wasn't French by the French government, as well as the Celtic Breton which was more closely associated with Welsh and Irish in the British Islands to the north).

 

So really, it's not the internationalists that are crazy: it's the nationalists for trying to ignore over a thousand years of cultural and lingual mixing by many and all peoples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now