that is actually a fundamental flaw in my ideology, since there is the dilemma of staying were you are born and raised or migrating to a community with more like minded people. But at least having this opportunity instead of having different flavors of Neoliberalism all around the world would be a huge improvement in my opinion.
Very good points. That reminds me on my thoughts that in the worst case, I would escape to my families house, where my brother lives. Merely the thought that I could choose this option relieves me, though I never may indeed have to take it. To be free to choose from the outset makes the huge difference. In case I'd be forced to leave my whereabouts i'd be difficult for me, as I already took root where I am right now. Weighing up the pros and cons one can afford during peace times. And as I said, most people prefer to stay where they are.
Life unfolds itself by the situation. If I were being forced to change my location I probably would be able to cope to a new situation in trying to make the best out of it. As long as it is not the case, I try to argue reasonably with what circumstances I have to deal with.
Speaking of force: I think there are some different kinds of definition, if the term is taken somewhat flexible. In this funny story, someone kindly provided me with, the "force", used for people who refuse to be part of a community, is not of active but of a passive nature. As not to give those stubborn characters food or shelter if they are unwilling to give their share to the people. If you ask me, only insane or very destroyed people would refuse to take part in such a communal life and are such a minority that it's actually not worth it to punish them actively.
So maybe this can be some alternative to the mentioned dilemma of yours :) at least, theoretically.
The basic codex you talk about, I think, is deeply ingrained in each and every one of us. We learn it as soon as we can talk with our parents as little children and accept those basics as truth, if we are not distorted too much .
Like mindedness seems to be a bit of a problem, for already, the two of us may be seen in their thoughts as "too radical" or "extreme". In my direct environment I only have one to two people thinking the same. Not enough to form a community, not even considering off grid lives.
Yes, I agree with your comment about the UBI. Why I am not actively supporting it any more is that I am sceptical towards governmental abuse of both the term and dependency on it. I don't think it would be unconditional but conditional. And here I am confusing myself :) LOL
War, ... sigh ... , is a topic which is so horrible to us that we tend not to think about it and see ourselves as innocent whether supporting it or not.
I think it is complicated with the term force, like @antisocialist says many would like to reject using force, however everybody is using force if they want to or not. If you smile at somebody, you force the other person to smile back, at least if that person has any social bond with you. Silly example, but force is in many of our actions even though we might not admit it at first. Maybe George Lucas was actually on to something :D.
I think a written out Codex is still good because it represents the Schnittmenge of the values the members of the community have learned since their early childhood. But I have to disagree with you, I think those basic values can differ due to circumstances. A farmer in North Korea, a young Orphan in Rio, a middle aged man in the countryside of Brazil and Barron Trump have totally different outlooks on life, treat people differently, have different values that they see as cornerstones of their lives. That doesn't mean these 4 won't agree on anything, but more that the local customs are vastly different and I would argue the same for morale compasses.
The major thing about UBI is to keep it as simple as possible, the only thing that should be required is citizenship and how citizenship is aquired is exactly the thing I want to leave up to the City/Commune and not the state.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
hmm ...
If they differ significantly, they are no longer very basic principles. I'll also give a funny example: an extraterrestrial life form would probably not be able to do anything with such principles. But earthly human beings, i.e. people living in the present, share these principles, otherwise you would hardly be able to make each other understood. In no country in the world would someone kill you or seriously injure you, or steal from you, cheat you, while you were simply moving along your way, without getting the impression that he was doing something unethical. The perpetrator would know that he was doing something wrong to you and such need not be a written script but has been passed down through generations of evolutionary cultural influence on each other.
My question to you would therefore be, if one knows about these basic principles (even if they differ slightly from each other), why does something have to be put into direct text as an intersection, when it could quite easily also be stated in the oral hearing and on this basis even pick up the individual participants according to their individual situation? Unless there was a bureaucratic superstructure (i.e. laws and the executive) between the two of you?
Especially since we do not need to forget that the writing down of what one accepts as moral principles is very well represented in countless novels, observational records, in art and poetry. Those who know the traditions, fairy tales and anecdotes of their own culture know quite well about the code. That said, I have nothing against contracts that record what has been agreed upon as a memory aid, but should not be used to find and abuse loopholes in the passages. Unfortunately, written texts are extremely well suited to such abuse and make our existence infinitely complex.
Would you say that it makes sense that someone from another culture who has not yet assimilated himself should not first read and hear the anecdotes, stories and traditions of incidents, so that he can then at some point better understand the culture into which he has - mind you - voluntarily placed himself?
Agreed. I see it the same way.
Mhhh, let me try to convince you that basic morals can differ. Like you said it is always easier demonstrated in extremes, so let's take a child literally raised by wolves. He will have learned to kill other creatures to survive and will have no concept of private property, if he is just dropped into the modern world he might hunt our cats for food and would just take what he finds interesting, because he never even encountered the concept of property.
Maybe a more realistic example would be Sharia Law, I am really no expert on that, but in the western world we see physical punishment as brutal and inhuman, but under Sharia Law you lose your hand for stealing.
puh Im really running out of arguments here, but I would resort to something like tempo limit. Driving fast is not inherently bad, but you need to set a limit which is more of an advice to the driver than a clear cut - you going to jail if you are 1mph above the tempo limit.
Like I said I don't completely disagree with you here, I think people are born with a moral sense, but the experience you make will shape it. I do think that some written text should never overwrite the common sense, but I think a guideline on how to manage certain things in the community should be given/ agreed upon.
We also did not talk about policing. I am actually all for having an armed third party to defend those who can't defend themselves. I think leaving justice all up to the individual like many Anarchos claim they want is way too dangerous in my opinion.
But policing and punishment is a whole nother can of worms we gonna open, maybe another time :)
Yes, if you look at it that way, one cannot avoid being forceful.
Please enlighten me, what was George Lucas up to?
Star Wars? xD The Force is some kind of magic power there that is part of everything much like chi/ki