Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #770819
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
11906 Re: responding to the age of the earth
   Hi Dig, I heard John Bolton's idea is Egypt & Jordan should absorb... 		clo   ALEA   23 Nov 2012
 5:59 AM
11905 Re: responding to the age of the earth
   i think one of the best set of examples is probably provided by the un... 		Cactus Flower   ALEA   23 Nov 2012
 3:25 AM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: responding to the age of the earth

By: DigSpace in ALEA
Thu, 22 Nov 12 11:28 PM
Msg. 11904 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 11902 by Cactus Flower)
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.