Would you say to the face of a Zimbabwean or a Peruvian "you are not competent enough to manage your own affairs, you need wise people like ME to tell you what to do"?
this is a good counter argument. I ask the same question about the individual vs city vs state vs nation scales. though I dont think you agree it applies.
A global CO2 tax assumes that you're violating everyone else's right to life by being alive yourself. So they sell rich people carbon(sin) indulgences while the poor eat shit and die.
Lol finally we get to have an actual interesting discussion. I'll answer in depth when I get out of work later.
It's unlikely you'll violate someone else's rights on the other side of Earth. That's why CO2 crap is pushed. Then, just the act of being alive means you're robbing the whole world.
Yes, environmentalism is a (clever) wedge used to dictate the lives of people around the world.
So your "rights" are also other ppls rights which makes them also your *responsibility*. You don't get it both ways. The question then becomes, who are you most likely to encounter?
Not sure I follow here. Eg freedom of speech doesn’t foist a responsibility on anyone. Unless you’re thinking of two people respecting each others right to free speech?
Like my freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of respecting your freedom of speech?
I think of it as a hierarchy where the individual is at the top of the sovereignty pyramid gradually moving to humanity in general where you only have basic responsibilities.
So you can start with geography. The US federal government is waaaaaay too big for it's britches. To our founders credit though, it's almost 250 years old and still no perma dictators.
Agree 250 years is a pretty good run.
The founding rally for the American revolution was "no taxation without representation". It was basically anti-globalism - you don't even live here so why do you get to run our lives??
same could be asked of people in America (US gov way to big etc.), why should someone in Maine make decisions for someone in California (or even Ohio).
It's not a B&W dichotomy of the individual vs. collectivism it's a question of, who is the group of people who you're associated with enough to concede some authority/give up freedoms.
Do you have an example in mind? Like, associating with the global BCH group what freedoms do we concede?
My main qualm with the hyper-individual sovereignty angle is that, basically, it assumes that a society can exist without ANY identity groups whatsoever. Like not even a
family.
I dont think it has to go all the way to the individual level (though I’d like it to) even city officials could be more accountable.
think the issue now is that with the internet, identity groups are no longer just those around u. BCH group is spread world wide but must still conform to (arbitrary?) geographic lines
So the focus isn’t abandon all identity groups, it’s lets reorganize along identity groups you chose (family, interests, religion, sports, etc)
& citizenship happens to be one you cant choose.
No and I have said nothing like that. What are you talking about?
I'm describing how Globalism works practically.
