I don’t understand putting king before country. Without the country the king is just some guy yelling maniacally at people on the street. Without the king you find a new king. The country goes on. We don’t have a king but I can’t imagine anybody putting our PM above the country. The PM’s job is to serve the people. At least in theory. A no confidence vote means little to a king but it’s essentially the same job.
Her Whole Darkness In Motion
Venom of Asps
Fortnight in the Philippines
IDF Operations after Typhoon Haiyan
Letters To Friends
You know you want to buy a few copies
3 comments:
I do not know you but I think I can make a presumption. You have made this list as an answer rather than the beginning of a question.
I still see this list though as a question for philosophical reasons or at least something basic enough to require some careful thought.
You are a westerner. This seems clear and the question itself (ok, the list) reflects this and is in fact the starting point of Western political philosophy. What a country is, is dependent on this distinction I think and this distinction implies an understanding that sovereignty and law are made legitimate by the consent of those who must obey them or in your case, is willing to obey them. Your willingness must extend a good distance since you seem to have pledged your life if needs be. A comment, not a judgement.
A philosopher has written that "we... show this consent in two ways: by a real or implied “social contract,” whereby each person agrees with every other to the principles of government; and by a political process through which each person participates in the making and enacting of the law."
Tahiti is french and I think still under the rule of law although there have been problems of late even if women are or at least were free enough to wander around without blouses. It is still a western place though and I think consistent with your list although tahiti would be different than say, Saudi Arabia.
The right and duty of participation is what we mean, or ought to mean, by “citizenship,” in a country and in this regard, and back once again to what the philospher has said " the distinction between political and religious communities can be summed up in the view that political communities are composed of citizens and religious communities of subjects—of those who have “submitted.”
I think a country has to have a sense of order that confers security and freedom in exchange for consent. As such, for me who has made a choice about which country I wish to live in since retiring as I have at the age of 44, Country is first since this allows me to have family, religion, god or not god (I do not believe in god). This choice that I have made is important so God is right up there for me as well since its negation implies my right to enjoy or at least bear this view. My freedom does not make me happy but it makes me able to make choices and even lists.
Congratulations on your list and the force of will you demonstrate by making such a list. Pompous old fool eh Mia?
Philosophically I'm far more Western than Eastern. Studying eastern philosophy is well and good but once you live in a place like China you see just how completely different their way of thinking is from those of us in The West.
I think in many ways and at many times political communities are the ones that submit and religious communities are the ones that participate. Ideally they should all be citizens.
YOu want the truth? You can't handle the truth.
Post a Comment