thomas nagel

Mærkelige politikere; urart

Af og til bliver man når man påpeger, at der faktisk er kræfter, de aller sorteste rød-fascistiske kræfter, der aktivt arbejder for at udslette nationerne og deres folk, og at det især er vestlige hvide mænd disse kræfter har på kornet for deres påtænkte folkemord, udskreget som konspirationeteoretiker m.v.

Hvad angår udslettelse af nationer og folk lader en repræsentant for disse kræfter nu selv fingrene løbe over tastaturet og kommer med hvad der nærmest er en blank indrømmelse. Der er tale om en top-rådgiver for den berygtede nazistsøn og chef for EUSSR kommisionen Jean-Claude Juncker, Claus Haugaard Sørensen, der på altinget.dk i en klumme ønsker sig mindre magt til nationerne og omvendt mere magt til overstatslige organer. Fra klummen:

Vi beklager os tit og ofte over, om regeringer kan levere varen: fuld beskæftigelse, smart transport, Femern-forbindelse, hofteoperationer, kloge børn og glade nydanskere – eller slet ingen nydanskere.

Ny global regeringsform?
Bekæmpelse af internetkriminalitet, menneskesmugling, narkotikatrafik. Beskyttelse af torskebestanden. Bemestring af finansstrømme. Skatteundvigelser. Ozonlaget og drivhusgasser. Bekæmpelse af krig og konflikter. Syrien, Irak, Libyen.

Alt sammen emner, der ikke kan håndteres gennem en national tilgang, og som endog rækker langt ud over, hvad stormagter som USA, Kina og Rusland kan håndtere alene, og da slet ikke hvis de ikke er bare en lille smule enige.

Vi er nok ved at nærme os et punkt, hvor ressourcepresset og de politiske og befolkningsmæssige jordskred i verden enten fører til et kvantespring frem mod en ny global regeringsform eller en rutsjetur tilbage til små eller større konflikter. Kernen er at finde en metode til at bringe parterne sammen og forlige modsætningerne. Der er ikke rigtigt nogen mellemvej.

I tænketanken var stemningen dyster. Forsamlingen af lærde professorer, statssekretærer, mediefolk og tænkere fra hele verden havde svært ved at give et bud på, hvad Europas rolle i den globale regeringsførelse kunne blive, hvis man allerede den 23. juni så, at Europa mistede et af sine vigtigste medlemmer, nemlig Storbritannien.

Men de globale tal skræmmer: 125 millioner mennesker lever i absolut nød. I øvrigt de fleste ret tæt på Europa. I Afrika, kun fem timer i fly fra Europa, er vi vidne til en befolknings-eksplosion, der med vandstress, misvækst og pickuptrucks vil ramme Europa.

Og hvad gør vi ved det? Smider vi penge og pigtråd efter problemerne, eller finder vi frem til en samlet gennemtænkt forebyggelse, politisk, økonomisk og socialt, for at give de stakkels mennesker et egentligt fremtidsperspektiv, så de kan overleve i deres eget land? Det er jo nok det, der skal til.

men med velmenende og bestemt nyttige løfter fra masser af organisationer, virksomheder, lande og individer, der gerne vil gøre godt, men som også er sig pinligt bevidst, at skal det komme til bindende beslutninger, så er chancen for total blokering på grund af enstemmighed i FN-systemet en garanti for, at intet vil ske.

Så bedre undgå en konfrontation. Og tale pænt sammen. Finde løsninger fra sag til sag. Samle penge ind til at undervise børn i flygtningelejrene. Bygge udrykningshold af læger til at bekæmpe zika eller ebola. Opfordre til forebyggende diplomatiske løsninger. Men er det nok? Har toget allerede forladt stationen på autopilot med kurs mod afgrunden?

Nu er det jo sådan, at hvis borgerne ser, at der ikke er løsninger, og at problemerne tårner sig op og skyller ind over os, så kravler de op i det nærmeste træ, nemlig nationalismetræet, og sætter sig helt deroppe, hvor man tror, katastroferne ikke kan nå op.

Man stemmer på mærkelige politikere, der sælger nationale løsninger,…

Ikke rart at tænke på. Og forunderligt, når man tænker på, at der aldrig har været så mange veluddannede, internationalt orienterede, kloge mennesker, der kan finde på løsninger, og aldrig har der været så mange almindelige mennesker, der sådan set bare gerne vil leve i fordragelighed med hinanden og have tingene til at fungere. Det er, som om vi er fanget af en nationalstatsromantik, der stammer fra tidligere tider, men som er helt ude af trit med de opgaver, verden står over for. Og som tit og ofte stiller sig i vejen for de løsninger, der skal til.

Og uden løsninger kan man ikke fortænke bekymrede borgere i at trække dynen over hovedet. Hvad venter der os mon i 2040?

Ude på de filippinske øer havde nyvalgte (men endnu ikke tiltrådt, sker 30. juni) præsident Rody Duterte blandt flere bidende kommentarer (hvad der tricker Duterte er journalister der bliver myrdet, hvilket lokalt i en hel del tilfælde er et resultat af AC/DC journalistik dvs. en betalt side forretning som går galt), denne om FN:

MANILA, Philippines – Controversial president-elect Rodrigo Duterte has launched a profanity-laced tirade against the United Nations while criticizing it for being too weak to fix problems in the Middle East and Africa.

In a seemingly unprovoked attack on the UN at a Thursday night press conference, Duterte vented his anger in response to a question about foreign media groups that were critical of him.

“That’s the trouble here, they’re always raising fears about this or that United Nations convention,” Duterte said, even though the journalists’ criticism had not been linked to UN protocols.

“Fuck you UN, you can’t even solve the Middle East carnage… couldn’t even lift a finger in Africa… shut up all of you.”

Duterte, 71, had been incensed by the criticism of foreign and local media groups to his comments earlier in the week that corrupt journalists were legitimate targets of assassination.

Mht til en overnational regering som svar på problemer, hvad enten de indbildte, et udslag af konspiration mellem sjovnalister og magthavere eller reelle så har filosoffen Thomas Nagle i artiklen “The Problem of Global Justice” set på sandsynligheden for at det kan fungere i praksis. Han bedømmelse er et nej. Fra artiklen:

On either the cosmopolitan or the political view, global justice would
require global sovereignty. But there is still a huge difference between the
two views in the attitude they take toward this conclusion. On the polit-
ical view, the absence of global justice need not be a matter of regret; on
the cosmopolitan view, it is, and the obstacles to global sovereignty pose
a serious moral problem. Let me consider the issue of principle between
the two conceptions. While we should keep in mind that different views
about the content of justice can be combined with either of these two
conceptions of its scope, I will continue to use Rawls to exemplify the
political view. But most of what I will say is independent of the main dis-
agreements over the content of domestic justice—political, economic,
or social.
The implications of the political conception for world politics tend to be
conservative, but that is not the end of the story; the conservatism comes
under pressure from powerful forces in the other direction. The source
of that pressure lies both in existing global or international institutions
and in the increasingly felt need to strengthen such institutions and to
create new ones, for three types of purpose: the protection of human
rights; the provision of humanitarian aid; and the provision of global
public goods that benefit everyone, such as free trade, collective
security, and environmental protection. Institutions that serve these
purposes are not designed to extend democratic legitimacy and
socioeconomic justice, but they naturally give rise to claims for both, in
respect to their design and functioning. And they put pressure on
national sovereignty by their need for power to be effective. They thus
present a clearly perceived threat to the limits on claims of justice
imposed by the political conception.
This poses a familiar dilemma: Prosperous nations have reasons to
want more governance on a world scale, but they do not want the
increased obligations and demands for legitimacy that may follow in its
wake. They do not want to increase the range of those to whom they are
obliged as they are toward their own citizens; and this reflects the con-
victions of their citizens, not just of their governments.
But this, I believe, is not the main issue. Multilingual and multina-
tional states have their problems, and they may have functioned most
successfully before the era of democracy. But if there came into being a
genuine European federation with some form of democratically elected
representative government, politics would eventually develop on a Euro-
pean scale to compete for control of this centralized power. The real
problem is that any such government would be subject to claims of legit-
imacy and justice that are more than the several European populations
are willing to submit themselves to. That reflects in part a conviction that
they are not morally obliged to expand their moral vulnerabilities in this
way. (The recent expansion of the European Union, by increasing its
economic inequality, will almost certainly inhibit the growth of its
federal power for just this reason.)
Yet in thinking about the future, we should keep in mind that political
power is rarely created as a result of demands for legitimacy, and that
there is little reason to think that things will be different in this case.
If we look at the historical development of conceptions of justice and
legitimacy for the nation-state, it appears that sovereignty usually
precedes legitimacy. First there is the concentration of power; then,
gradually, there grows a demand for consideration of the interests of the
governed, and for giving them a greater voice in the exercise of power.
The demand may be reformist, or it may be revolutionary, or it may be
a demand for reform made credible by the threat of revolution, but it
is the existence of concentrated sovereign power that prompts the
demand, and makes legitimacy an issue. War may result in the destruc-
tion of a sovereign power, leading to reconfigurations of sovereignty in
response to claims of legitimacy; but even in that case the conquerors
who exercise power become the targets of those claims.
Unjust and illegitimate regimes are the necessary precursors of the progress toward
legitimacy and democracy, because they create the centralized power
that can then be contested, and perhaps turned in other directions
without being destroyed. For this reason, I believe the most likely path
toward some version of global justice is through the creation of patently
unjust and illegitimate global structures of power that are tolerable to
the interests of the most powerful current nation-states. Only in that way
will institutions come into being that are worth taking over in the service
of more democratic purposes, and only in that way will there be some-
thing concrete for the demand for legitimacy to go to work on.

 

Skatteforslag: Indvandringsskat

Politikere har altid været glad for, og istand til at udvise stor kreativitet, når det gælder opkrævning af skatter. Selv dagslys er blevet beskattet. Men poltikkerne har slet ikke været kreative nok, hvorfor vi her på Hotellet nu kommer til und-sætning.

Inspireret af de sidste par dages debat i MSM, hvor der udtrykkes frygt og bestyrtelse over en påtænkt annoncekampagne, ikke mindst fra erhverslivets side, er vi nået frem til, at når nu erhvervslivet efterspørger flere flygtninge, angiveligt fordi det skulle være en god forretning, så bør Danmark og danmarks befolkning, selvfølgelig imødekomme erhverslivets behov.

Men tingene må være i balance. Indenfor den del af statsretten, der handler om øvrighedens ret til at beskatte subjekterne, rejser sig selvfølgelig spørgsmålet om, hvor meget øvrigheden må kradse ind. Svaret er at overgrænsen for skatterne sådan cirka er, at skatter ikke må være destruktive, konfiskatoriske og/eller skævvridende i forhold til subjekterne indbyrdes. Her henviser vi til sværvægtere på området, Juan Ponce Enrile, Mogens Glistrup samt Thomas Nagel/Liam Murphy. En konsekvens heraf, må være, at overtrædes grænsen i kombination med “andet” så som, at politikerne kortslutter en proces der kan rette op på en overtrædelse, så træder borgernes ret til at gøre oprør straffrit i kraft, jf. “oprørsretten”. På det punkt kan ikke mindst Enrile være en inspiration.

Nuvel. Erhverslivet skriger efter indvandring, men følger man princippet ovenfor, så er øvrigheden afskåret fra, at hjælpe erhvervslivet fsv andre subjekter rammes af øgede skatter.

Her har UH så løsningen!

Der indføres en særlig indvandringsskat som pålægges erhvervslivet unisont. Skatten skal, jf. “forureneren betaler” princippet fra miljøretten, dække alle omkostninger ved indvandring. De gevinster, af økonomisk art, der kan tilskrives indvandring godskrives så indvandringsskatten og et eventuelt overskud, og det påstås der jo allerede at være, ikke mindst fra veludannede syrere, udbetales så til erhvervslivet, efter nærmere aftale mellem politikerne og erhvervslivet.

150731 kim jong-un

En kendt statsleder der hænger sit potræt alle vegne

150731 niels due jensen

En anden der hænger sit potræt alle vegne.

Erhvervsleder og indvandringstilhænger.

Mere om ham her, bem. kom. 48, 52 og 54

Tillæg.

Miljøretten nævnes ovenfor. Indenfor økonomi er der en diciplin der af til ses omtalt som “milløøkonomi”. Denne artikel er af en vis relevans. Fra artiklens indledning:

In the Pigouvian tradition, economists have frequently proposed the adoption of a system of unit taxes (or subsidies) to control externalities, where the tax on a particular activity is equal to the marginal social damage it generates In practice, however, such an approach has rarely proved feasible because of our inability to measure marginal social damage.

Man rykker sig

Marxistiske Des-Information bringer en artikel af filosofi professor Peter Singer, hvor han stiller spørgsmålstegn ved Hussein Obamas politik med ikke at nævne terror og islam i samme sætning. Og det er glædeligt, at der er tegn på fornuften indfinder sig, omend det er langsomt. Peter Singer er nok mest kendt for, at mene dyr skal have rettigheder som mennesker. Først lidt fra wiki opslaget på ham:

Published in 1975, Animal Liberation[15] has been cited as a formative influence on leaders of the modern animal liberation movement.[16] The central argument of the book is an expansion of the utilitarian idea that “the greatest good of the greatest number” is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour.

In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers’ Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.[47] This position is countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer’s position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[48] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[49]

Singer’s positions have been criticised by groups, such as advocates for disabled people and right-to-life supporters, concerned with what they see as his attacks upon human dignity. Singer has replied that many people judge him based on secondhand summaries and short quotations taken out of context, not his books or articles.[59]

Some claim that Singer’s utilitarian ideas lead to eugenics.[60] American publisher Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer’s appointment to a prestigious professorship.[61] Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organisers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that “A professor of morals … who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns … is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level.”[62] Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, criticised Singer’s appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organisation’s national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer’s support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.[63] Conservative psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple wrote in 2010 that Singerian moral universalism is “preposterous—psychologically, theoretically, and practically”.[64]

The aesthetics philosopher Roger Scruton wrote in 2000, “Singer’s works, remarkably for a philosophy professor, contain little or no philosophical argument. They derive their radical moral conclusions from a vacuous utilitarianism that counts the pain and pleasure of all living things as equally significant and that ignores just about everything that has been said in our philosophical tradition about the real distinction between persons and animals”.[67]

When Singer tried to speak during a lecture at Saarbrücken, he was interrupted by a group of protesters including advocates for the disabled. He offered the protesters the opportunity to explain why he should not be allowed to speak. The protesters indicated that they believed he was opposed to all rights for the disabled. They were unaware that, although Singer believes that some lives are so blighted from the beginning that their parents may decide their lives are not worth living, in other cases, once the decision is made to keep them alive, everything that can be done to improve the quality of their life should, to Singer’s mind, be done. The ensuing discussion revealed that there were many misconceptions about his positions, but the revelation did not end the controversy. One of the protesters expressed that entering serious discussions was a tactical error.[70]

Filosof kollega Thomas Nagel har fat i nakken på Singer i denne delvist åbne artikel. Det hedder bl.a.:

He has also had a larger practical impact on the world than any other philosopher of our time. His 1975 book, Animal Liberation, led to effective movements to reduce the suffering of animals in factory farming, scientific experiments, and the testing of commercial products such as cosmetics, and it has persuaded many people to become vegetarians to one degree or another.

Singer’s claims about what well-off people in affluent societies should do to help those living in poverty elsewhere in the world have had less effect so far, but he hopes to remedy that with his latest book, The Life You Can Save. “The ultimate purpose of this book,” he says, “is to reduce extreme poverty, not to make you feel guilty.” But making the reader feel guilty is one of his specialties, and a key to his effectiveness as a writer.

The Life You Can Save repeats and develops an argument he originally offered in 1972, in an article that has probably been read by more students of moral philosophy than any other text, ancient or modern. He begins with an example: You are walking past a shallow pond, and you notice that a small child has fallen into the water and is about to drown. Should you wade in and rescue the child, even though it will ruin your shoes and get your clothes muddy?

Og så til artiklen i Des-Information, hvor uddragene kommer fra den originale:

PRINCETON – Last month, US President Barack Obama hosted a three-day summit on “Countering Violent Extremism.” That term has already spawned a new abbreviation, “CVE,” used no fewer than 12 times in a Fact Sheet released by the Obama administration on February 18.

The Fact Sheet also uses the term “violent extremism” 21 times. How many times do terms like “Islam,” “Islamic,” or “Muslim” appear? Zero. There is not even a reference to the “Islamic State.” That entity is referred to only by the initials “ISIL.”

Another reason that has been offered for not referring to “Islamic radicalism” or the “Islamic State” is that to do so concedes the terrorists’ claims that they are acting in accordance with Islam’s teachings. That might draw others, who regard themselves as pious Muslims, to join them.

Finally, the repeated use of “Islamic” as part of the description of enemy groups may make it appear that the West is “at war with Islam.” That could lead more moderate Muslims to fight alongside the extremists, thus broadening the conflict and making it more difficult to end.

Why should Muslim leaders, in particular, make such statements, rather than Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or Hindu leaders?

The answer, once again, is obvious. But it is obvious only because we already know that groups like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Taliban are not obeying the precepts of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or Hinduism.

At the Washington summit, Obama said that “all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative.” At least this statement, unlike the White House Fact Sheet, acknowledges that groups like the Islamic state claim to be Islamic. Otherwise, what would be the relevance of this statement to “countering violent extremism”?

Even for people who are learned in Islam, discharging the responsibility Obama has placed on them will not be easy, as a reading of Graeme Wood’s revealing recent account demonstrates. Wood presents a picture of people driven by a firm belief in Islam, and knowledgeable about its key texts. Anyone familiar with Christian fundamentalism in the United States should be able to discern a pattern in the attitudes taken by religious fundamentalists, independently of the religion to which they adhere.

The Islamic State’s spokesmen insist on following the original precepts laid down by the Prophet Mohammed and his earliest followers, understood literally and with no adjustment for different circumstances. Like Christian fundamentalists, they see themselves as preparing for – and helping to bring about – the apocalypse.