I don't think it is a red-herring, because your original suggestion was that people be able to protect "their" societies. So If we simply allow a theory that any group can define itself and then 'protect' themselves by harming others, we have only created a theory that 'might makes right'. What I am looking for is a theory of human well-being that manages to address the well-being of all, and does NOT allow particular groups to seize particular advantages that enable them to exploit others, or at least not to let them do so under cover of a theory that seems to make their behavior legitimate.
We have many instances of such particular groups arrogating to themselves particular rights that operate to the detriment of others. It is time to put a stop to the apparent and self-claimed legitimacy of theoretical constructs that enable them to do so. I am not impressed with the nation-state idea. It has allowed many countries the appearance of legitimacy under state sovereignty principles to seize land of others, to kill 'foreign' populations, to exploit the military weakness of others economically and politically, etc. The nation-state, as I see it, is no better than any other definition of the boundaries that people use to separate themselves from others, thus promoting the emotional distance that allows one group to mistreat another. Boundaries between people are thus, as I see it, part of the contemporary political problem, and perhaps the determining part. Until we solve this, we will continue to see in the world these problems. Embracing the nation-state definition of "their society" (or any other definition) only postpones the day, I think, when the world achieves a self-understanding that makes war, exploitation and oppression unconditionally unacceptable. And until we achieve this, we will have war and acts of 'terrorism', or 'liberation' -- as you prefer. Cheers, Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 4:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: defining groups Lawry deBivort wrote: > So, to come back to the initial question: when it comes to protecting one's > 'self' though harming others, what unit of geographic area makes such > protection, at any cost, presumably, legitimate? Traditionally, that unit has been the nation-state, and as long as this is the largest forum of democratic self-determination, it probably stays that way. The problems arise when control of nations slips out of the commons and into the hands of a particular group. All the wrongs that were mentioned in this thread, are the result of such a situation. Splitting hairs about group boundaries/definitions is a rather red herring. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
