« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: responding to the age of the earth

By: DigSpace in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 22 Nov 12 11:28 PM | 96 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 11904 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 11902 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I was trying to convey what was rattling around in my brain when using those words.

Debating the value of the concepts is a separate matter.

Certainly the right to travel exists e.g., although I do not know how that would develop in the case of succession.

Obviously the point about balkanization is just to briefly mention a geographic concept, and not whether as applied towards Yugo is was a good idea or not.

I don't believe one can reasonably argue that Yugo ever organically developed a Federalism with anything resembling a moral covenant. I think that the US, Canada, the UK and so on are different than Yugo. Similarly the USSR lacked the qualities of a developed consensus. I'm not saying folks in Scotland don't have issues with the crown, (although devolution in the UK may be a model for places like the US one could imagine if over time a more devolved status is sought).

Perhaps my notion is best served by the whole troubles thing. Can the crown walk from NI?, say 30 years ago, or was NI a legitimate member of a covenant, and then, what if NI had gone say 65:35 for seperation? what then and what of the 35?

I think what you are saying is that they could just move. And that is true and as I said it is a very difficult matrix to parse.

In the end I think it is, until it isn't.

So in the case of the US, I think that, all things taken in, that the circumstance of federalism based on a few choice words as their moral underpinning exists. As longs it is, it is. And as long as it is, I believe in obligation. Certainly relocation, cleansing, .... all these things ... they happen, perhaps they happen sensibly, perhaps not.

So you did make a point that I see as a solid one and one I truied to tip my hat too originally and obviously failled to articulate:

yours:" i think your federal morality is more of an argument than a moral case"

On this I can only say I fell morality is rather plastic, but n that argument I believe that affording a local majority rule within a membership unit in the federalism without profound consideration of the minority within those localities to a failure of obligation and I am willing to codify it as moral failure.

I do not accept the notion that a reasonable solution for palastinians is that they simply move to Jordan. Jordan might not want them, and they might not want to move. I would not be surprised if similar circumstances were to arise in the US where 30% of Alabamans were to so relocate.


- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: responding to the age of the earth
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Thu, 22 Nov 12 11:05 PM
Msg. 11902 of 54959

okay. get it.

but haven't the balkans just proved the opposite of the theory of balkanisation?

that people with separate interests are more successful in an unmerged form rather than being jammed together in an unsuccessful union.

also, i think your federal morality is more of an argument than a moral case, against which a theory of a majority (or supermajority) decision is a reasonable rebuttal.

it's not like the minority is being punished. if they want to move to a different bloc, they may do so.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next