Stoic Thinker

Seriously mate, you need to calm down .

You don't seem to see the flaw in your approach - In a perfect world, there would be an ideal situation for humanity, where everyone could live happily and go dancing in the fields with daisies in their hair, etc.
Unfortunately, between the liberal fantasy world and the world we actually live in, pesky reality has an irksome habit of intervening and showing the middle finger to such dreams of utopia.

The mistake you are making is that of thinking you know what is best for humanity. But, I ask you, who has ever fully understood humanity? No-one. Thus, who is qualified to say that they know the best course for humanity? Again, no-one.

There probably is no best course. Why? Because we live in an imperfect world, and we all suffer from the same human sickness. We will always be killing each other, stealing from one another etc. Deal with it.

Consider Communism, for example. As I view it, the basic premise of Communism is that all injustice and suffering in this world is a result of imperfect societies, and that if the perfect society were to be built, then you would have a true heaven on Earth.
The mistake Communism makes is to believe that our human weaknesses are a result of corrupt societies rather than being innate in us. Communism believed that in a Communist society there would be no robbery, murder, jealousy etc. Well, we all know what happened. It turned out far worse than the society it set out to replace.
Seriously, if I didn't believe that we are all inherently capable of evil, I would be a dedicated Communist.
As it is, I know that we are, and that therefore the idea of paradise on Earth is a contradiction-in-terms, and that any attempt to create one is bound to fail by default (as seen with Communism).
Yet, I believe that, in the beginning, many Communists truly believed in what they were trying to achieve.

Therefore, one should be careful of trying to achieve what is 'best for humanity'. (I'm sure the Nazi's believed in their own actions in the same way the Communists did).

The bottom line is that nobody knows, and nobody will ever know.

There is nothing wrong with acting in your nations' best interests. It only becomes a problem when patriotism becomes nationalism, and hatreds arise etc.
Again, I truly believe that a world without nations would be a better place, but I am realistic enough to realise that such a concept can only exist in cloud cuckoo land.

Yes, our treatment of other countries may have been less than ideal, but we have also done a lot of good for the world. Name me one empire which has not committed mistakes. The world is a brutal place - get over it.

Again, like it or not, the world is split up into different races and different patches of land. I'm sorry, but nations are a natural and logical fact. In an ideal world, all humans would look the same, and the world would be one connected patch of land (with no islands ). But it's not.

I appreciate that you may have spent several months developing your opinions, but that is no reason to react with anger and hostility when they are challenged.

__________________
"How fortunate it is for the leaders of the World that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Joseph Stalin

Stoic Thinker

I tend not to describe myself as anything in particular, as I believe all political theories are flawed in one way or another, and hence are to be approached with caution. But, yes, in some ways I might describe myself as such.

Nope, I've not read the article on tea. I'll read it when I've got some time - thanks for the link

__________________
"How fortunate it is for the leaders of the World that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Joseph Stalin

BonnieDundee

To be honest Akria I think that is ********. Life is lived locally at the human scale, you cannot know humanity or the globe because it is beyond human facilities to do so. Even South West England is a massive stretch for someone. As Edmund Burke suggested feelings should begin and largely stay with our small platoons; our families, our communities and our region. This would be alot better for the world than internationalism and nationalism being based on a real human measure.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

BonnieDundee

Me too in some ways. Have you read anything by Peter Kropotkin?


Kropotkin's Collected Works

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Unionist

Stoic Thinker:

It is true that humanity is beset with problems, but to be fair Akria never said otherwise. He was merely advocating looking at the bigger picture rather than thinking just in terms of narrow self-interest.

It is also true that nation states will likely not disappear from the planet, and in fact would be preferable if they did not because they offer a bulwark against totalitarianism. On the other hand, the existence of nation states does not mean that we are thereby contained by them exclusively. I happen to think that for moral, political and strategic reasons we should confront totalitarian regimes wherever practicable. Strictly speaking, that is not acting solely in the national interest (although it may be argued that it reflects our long-term interests).

So what I wish to suggest is that the narrow nationalism, and in particular the isolationist foreign policy that many advocate, is ultimately self-defeating. What happens in the world beyond our borders is our business and we should treat it as such. If that is taking decisions on the basis of how they affect 'humanity' then so be it.

To think in this way involves no rose-tinted view of the world. On the contrary, it means confronting the difficult issues rather than ignoring them and letting them fester. We may not always get it right but if we show not interest or conviction in tackling the worst aspects of the contemporary world then we will deserve to be dragged down into the pit ourselves.

Akria

I was being calm.

I don't believe a perfect world exists, nor that it could exist. It was that which made me turn from Communism as being fundamentally unworkable.

You're telling me nothing I don't already know.

No-one is best qualified, and I didn't claim that anyone was. As I said, though, when choices are made the decision-maker should do what they think is in the best interests of humanity - whether they are right or wrong.

I dealt with it a long time ago. That doesn't stop me trying to make things better.

As for whether there is a best course, there is one. That doesn't mean we know what it is or even what it was, but it doesn't stop us from trying to achieve one.

I agree.

As would I.

I agree.

I'm sure the Nazis also believed that what they were doing was wiping out a large portion of the human population, which I am sure humanity as a whole would agree was not good for it.
It is at that point that we rectify the mess made by them. As I said earlier, the mess is tidied up when wrong decisions are made.

I would have no other world but one with nations. Nations avoid world government, which is the only way the people would be prevented from changing the system (and as said earlier in that part of my essay, the inability to change something is truly the worst thing that can happen to humans). They also prevent anarchy.

You are attacking non-existent points.

I have never said that the world is not a brutal place, nor that any empire has not committed mistakes, nor that we have not done a lot of good.
Just look at what we did for agriculture in India.

Once again, I have not said anything contrary to that.

It was neither angry nor hostile.

I agree and disagree with you.

I agree that one cannot know humanity or the globe.
I disagree that feelings should stay with 'our small platoons'.

I would argue that you need not know something very well to try and do what is best for it.

__________________
http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

BonnieDundee

By small platoons I mean mostly your family, your property, your local community and regions, your close friends etc not England or Germany or even the West country or Cornwall.

I agree with you but I don't think you let it interfere too much with your life nor should such feeling be very intense. I also think it would be very hard for you to know what is best for it, in fact it is bound to be contradictory.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Stoic Thinker

This is the problem - you keep repeating that everyone should act in the manner they believe best for humanity. Yet I say that such a view presupposes that one knows what is best for humanity. OK? For if you do not know what you are trying to achieve, why should you have the courage to act on your convictions? And you admit that nobody is qualified to know the answer to this question.

You believe, underneath, that if everyone did act in this manner, then they would share your views. The problem is that everyone else tends to think the same way (i.e. that their views are correct, and not yours).

If you accept that Hitler and Stalin believed in what they did, you would endorse their actions?
When Stalin said: "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem", maybe he believed that he was acting in the best interests of humanity.

I repeat that the Nazi's believed their actions were for the benefit of humanity - yet since their aims do not correspond with yours (or mine), you claim they were not sincere (for what else can you claim?). I say they were absolutely sincere.

I'm not saying we should not work for a better society, but the moment one believes that a perfect society or anything like it is possible, then things turn scary.

__________________
"How fortunate it is for the leaders of the World that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Joseph Stalin

Stoic Thinker

Nope, but I'll have a look. Thanks

__________________
"How fortunate it is for the leaders of the World that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Joseph Stalin

Unionist

I know you were not addressing me but I should like to respond to a couple of your points.

Quite so. What would make them limit themselves to actions only in their national self-interest? Why should the anti-totalitarian cause be self-limiting when our opponents are not?

Is confronting totalitarianism the same as believing that a perfect society is possible? I think not.