human rights and national sovereignty

 Ben et fils nets <foisy@total.net> wrote:


> With this kind of cynism and relativism, Mr. Borodinsky, I understand more
and
> more
> this quote from Russell :
> "Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education."
> -- Bertrand Russell
>
> Not saying that you`re stupid, not at all. Just saying that anything is
possible

> with human kind, anything. Just use creativity and desire.
> So, what`s to do from here, what can we do to improve our world?
> "Nothing: it has always been like that...."
> If you feel nothing is to be done, you`ll do nothing, and nothing will be
done.

With my lifetime passing in the real (once) and former (now) USSR, I pray
for some mercy for my stupidity. Could hardly expect that obviously ironic
brief remark on yet another hope for the paradise regained would cause such
lively reactions. But I suppose emotions are poor aids.
It would be more productive to agree on terminology - what is meant by
community, self-sufficiency, sustainability (that received *cold welcome* in
the third world), change (supposedly, for the better) and many other words
(they will remain "words" unless they receive a clear definition). And I
feel I have a notion of these terms that differs from yours.

> If you want some succesfull examples of self-managing communities,
> mutually cooperative etc., you`ll find plenty in history. Just find them
by
> yourself.
> I could give you the Arawak people, some form of Kibbutzim,
> some communities from the Spanish Revolution ect etc.etc.
> But I`m losing my time with these examples cause
> I know by experience with apologists that, if you really think
> it`s part of human nature to live in hierarchal societies, you`ll find
> something in my examples that is matching the way you see the truth,
> your Truth: the desire to believe it is against human nature to be
> free within a collectivity.

To turn a blind eye on reality would be really stupid. But what is meant?
These communities existed, exist and will appear (and disappear in future)
WITHIN larger communities - states, in common language, insofar as the
latter will be prepared to tolerate them.
They are cells, though different, but still cells of the state. At a risk of
causing another upheaval I would compare these communities to bacteria the
human organism is full of - most of them innocent and many useful - when the
immune system is healthy. And killing the body if otherwise. (Sorry, I am
somewhat ashamed of writing such commonplaces). There are other
communities - self-sufficient, hiding somewhere in the jungle, Siberian
taiga (I've read of one recently), or in the mountains. They require energy,
effort and sacrifice beyound what a grass-root will be prepared to exhibit,
but normal for a group of people obsessed by the idea. Which proves nothing
but the strength of ideas and inexterminable hope. And may be, this keeps
the world going. So far. But, sorry, I will not rely on any type of them as
"bricks" of world social infrastructure.
As to freedom...
I'd rather stop as I start laughing at myself.



> By the way, freedom is not an idea or a concept you implement.
> There`s no recipe or model for that.
> It`s like saying, I`ve got for you a recipe for happiness.
> Anyway, I wish my english could be better, I`m sure it`s
> not all clear. Sorry for that.
>
> Respectfully,
> Ben

Finally, I think the list was organized to exchange ideas on possibilities
of at least modeling schemes of global coexistance in view of growing
fragility of the present world.
And sorry for this way of expression. Hope, nobody will flame.
Respectfully,
Konstantin Borodinsky