Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Regionalism and Freedom to Roam
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Ilya Shambat
May 16, 2012, 2:25:34 AM5/16/12
to
There are many people who believe in regionalism - the right of each
part of the country to have its own character. Regionalism however is
not complete in and of itself. Within each region there will be people
born who do not fit into that region and would do better elsewhere.
Which means that accomplishment of freedom - at both regional and
individual levels - involves freedom for regions to be what they are
and an affirmation and protection of people's freedom to roam.
Texas has right to be Texas; California has right to be California. In
the same way, the people who are born in Texas who would do better in
California should be able to go to California; likewise the people who
are born in California who would do better in Texas should be able to
go to Texas. This is the case regardless of age and gender, and as
much as the right of regions to be regions should be affirmed, so
should be the right of people to move between the regions.
There are people in any given region who fit in, and there are people
in any given region for whom life in that region is inappropriate.
Allowing regional autonomy along with freedom to roam would fulfil
both parties. Those who like life in their region would be able to
enjoy life in that region. And those who don't like life in that
region would be able to go elsewhere.
The existence of different regions with different characters gives
people a meaningful choice of lifestyle. This serves liberty. The
prescription however is incomplete if it omits the right of people to
move between the regions and pick a region that is compatible with
what they are or what they seek. The complete solution is regional
freedom combined with a vigorously defended right to move among the
regions. This will serve both the people who like life in their
regions and the people who would be better off somewhere else.
Thus, a full prescription for liberty: Right for regions to be what
they are and right for people to move between regions. And this will
serve liberty much more than either imposing cultural homogeneity on
regions or regions having absolute power over people in them.
part of the country to have its own character. Regionalism however is
not complete in and of itself. Within each region there will be people
born who do not fit into that region and would do better elsewhere.
Which means that accomplishment of freedom - at both regional and
individual levels - involves freedom for regions to be what they are
and an affirmation and protection of people's freedom to roam.
Texas has right to be Texas; California has right to be California. In
the same way, the people who are born in Texas who would do better in
California should be able to go to California; likewise the people who
are born in California who would do better in Texas should be able to
go to Texas. This is the case regardless of age and gender, and as
much as the right of regions to be regions should be affirmed, so
should be the right of people to move between the regions.
There are people in any given region who fit in, and there are people
in any given region for whom life in that region is inappropriate.
Allowing regional autonomy along with freedom to roam would fulfil
both parties. Those who like life in their region would be able to
enjoy life in that region. And those who don't like life in that
region would be able to go elsewhere.
The existence of different regions with different characters gives
people a meaningful choice of lifestyle. This serves liberty. The
prescription however is incomplete if it omits the right of people to
move between the regions and pick a region that is compatible with
what they are or what they seek. The complete solution is regional
freedom combined with a vigorously defended right to move among the
regions. This will serve both the people who like life in their
regions and the people who would be better off somewhere else.
Thus, a full prescription for liberty: Right for regions to be what
they are and right for people to move between regions. And this will
serve liberty much more than either imposing cultural homogeneity on
regions or regions having absolute power over people in them.
Zerkon
May 16, 2012, 10:24:43 AM5/16/12
to
In article <aeb3169e-0836-4f13-b13c-1f54a0843397
@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>, ibsh...@gmail.com says...
@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>, ibsh...@gmail.com says...
> Right for regions to be what they are
>
unless I decided what they are is not right
>
Dare
May 16, 2012, 11:39:31 AM5/16/12
to
"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:aeb3169e-0836-4f13...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...
It usually costs money to move...especially if it's a family.
> There are many people who believe in regionalism - the right of each
> part of the country to have its own character. Regionalism however is
> not complete in and of itself. Within each region there will be people
> born who do not fit into that region and would do better elsewhere.
> Which means that accomplishment of freedom - at both regional and
> individual levels - involves freedom for regions to be what they are
> and an affirmation and protection of people's freedom to roam.
It seems this must include economic freedom as well...
> part of the country to have its own character. Regionalism however is
> not complete in and of itself. Within each region there will be people
> born who do not fit into that region and would do better elsewhere.
> Which means that accomplishment of freedom - at both regional and
> individual levels - involves freedom for regions to be what they are
> and an affirmation and protection of people's freedom to roam.
It usually costs money to move...especially if it's a family.
tooly
May 16, 2012, 7:44:56 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 2:25 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thus, a full prescription for liberty: Right for regions to be what
> they are and right for people to move between regions. And this will
> serve liberty much more than either imposing cultural homogeneity on
> regions or regions having absolute power over people in them.
Several question arise however.
>
> Thus, a full prescription for liberty: Right for regions to be what
> they are and right for people to move between regions. And this will
> serve liberty much more than either imposing cultural homogeneity on
> regions or regions having absolute power over people in them.
First, exactly what is the 'tie that binds' people together that they
identify themselves as 'a people'?
Is it simple geography? We found in old Yugoslavia, that a loosely
held regional federation had been FORCED upon the people there for
over a century by socialism, and when power was relaxed when the old
Soviet structures fell apart, the 'whatever it is that is the 'tie
that binds', pushed people to civil war to regain some sense of their
national integrities [here, not meaning geographic, but as people's
themselves]. Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia...the factions and
history too complex to understand from a casual view, except it came
down to essentially to ethnic background, where Albanians, which were
significantly muslim, striving against a more 'western' cultural
people in the Serbians.
Why couldn't this land 'come together' as a 'single people', even
after so many years of intense FORCE by communist oversight?
It is a question the world should ask with a very sobered mind, for
the same precedents could be taking place in many 'regions' of the
world [as Illya terms it], where the 'tie that binds', whatever it is,
has been 'overrun' by political faction to FORCE uncommon and unlikely
'combinations' of people to co-exist under some falsehood of
geographical locale.
In Pat Buchanon's new book, 'Suicide of a Superpower', he outlines a
predominant movement in the world away from 'multiculture' toward
'ethnic integrity', whenever the people themselves are 'allowed' to
FREELY coalesce as they so see fit 'without political interference'.
So, yes we want 'freedom of movement'. But, 'we the people' also want
to protect the essentialy identity of propriety of a given region,
territory, or state...'once that identity has been
established'...through 'culture, heritage, language, and historical
struggle'.
What is an Englishman, for example, I always ask? Intellectuals will
always double back and twist out some contorted logic to support their
rising hegemony of a 'single world', where 'multicultural' is
vindicated.
But...to the sensible mind, the sobered eyeview...an Englishman is a
DISTINCT kind in the world. His heritage, his makeup, his culture,
his 'ethnicity' well established over millenia of strife and struggle,
and come to well anchored in a particular part of the world, ENGLAND
[and Britain in general; and yes, I include Welsh and Scots and even
Irishmen in that connotation as a 'kind'...though I'm sure they'd all
fight anyone who made that connection].
'The tie that binds'.
Complicated for sure. But not so much as we make in today's world.
There IS a common sense to it. Just as when I see the national soccer
team of England play, I not longer see it populate by ENGLISHMEN, but
by a menagerie of Yugoslav-like federation of people. Like I always
say, when I watch the Olympics, I always find myself 'silently'
cheering on the Scandanavians [I'm American]...for when I see the
American sprinters, I do not 'sense' any 'tie that binds'.
That could just be me of course. But I don't think so. There was a
reason Yugoslavia 'had' to break up into the various lands it
did...and I argue, today's intellectuals and political bullies are
forcing the world into the same 'tense force tolerance' of many
peoples under the same roof, that CANNOT stand the test of time.
No matter how much we want it to. Old world Alchemists could not make
gold out of lead either.
tooly
May 16, 2012, 8:19:17 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 7:44 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 16, 2:25 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But...to the sensible mind, the sobered eyeview...an Englishman is a
> DISTINCT kind in the world. His heritage, his makeup, his culture,
> his 'ethnicity' well established over millenia of strife and struggle,
> and come to well anchored in a particular part of the world, ENGLAND
> [and Britain in general; and yes, I include Welsh and Scots and even
> Irishmen in that connotation as a 'kind'...though I'm sure they'd all
> fight anyone who made that connection].
>
> 'The tie that binds'.
>
Crap, I know this will be a bone of contention by any UK types who
> On May 16, 2:25 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But...to the sensible mind, the sobered eyeview...an Englishman is a
> DISTINCT kind in the world. His heritage, his makeup, his culture,
> his 'ethnicity' well established over millenia of strife and struggle,
> and come to well anchored in a particular part of the world, ENGLAND
> [and Britain in general; and yes, I include Welsh and Scots and even
> Irishmen in that connotation as a 'kind'...though I'm sure they'd all
> fight anyone who made that connection].
>
> 'The tie that binds'.
>
might read this. I understand no welshman or scot or Irishman want to
be seen as an 'englishman' by identity and will take great offense at
the very label...and that was not my point. That these people CAN
bind into a single nation, Britain, is my point [unlike Yugoslavia,
where the various peoples simply did not have much in common at all].
Hell, I'd add in the USA [its foundations anyway] to that 'englishman'
identity as well [as I meant it]...and perhaps Aussies too.
Granted the 'further' afield we throw this 'net' I cast, the lesser
and lesser is the 'tie that binds'. But...it IS still there.
Until you get so far afield that true disparate character takes place;
where opposites now exist under the same roof...like Muslims and
Christians for one. That combo will NEVER fly; there can only be
struggle for dominance under that combo. But intellectuals today
simply ignore it; say it doesn't exist; will push square pegs into
round holes until the knuckles bleed 'just to prove how right they
were'. [not].
There are combinations that are even more volatile and unstable than
Christians and Muslims as well.
But today's political hegemony and political oversight [populated by
liberal zealotry] 'attack' any common sense arguement with ad hominen
labeling such as 'racist, xenophobe, bigot, or fascist'. And thusly,
there is not even a discussion going on; a dialogue, a debate or an
alternative. It's all been 'shut down'; FORCED...and declared
'Mission Accomplished'. Well watch on kiddies as the Trayvon case
unfolds to Zimmerman's acquittal. We already saw how an entire
'people' within cheered, clapped, and celebrated in OJ's acquittal.
And how we stomached the Rodney King riots in LA upon cops
acquittal.
We have Albanians 'ruling' the roost right here in America now, and
Serbs being slowly 'disempowered' [wealth transfered]...uh...no...I
mean, I'm sorry...that was Yugoslavia now wasn't it.
Something's gotta give. Maybe this november?
Ilya Shambat
May 23, 2012, 4:01:44 AM5/23/12
to
conquering everyone.
If you think that openness to other cultures is hurting America, then
consider that America is a nation of immigrants, and much of what it
has was borrowed from other cultures.
What you're talking about has more to do with global economy (which I
support, despite having been on both winning and losing sides of it)
than it does with any kind of a national suicide. The biggest
hypocrisy is that nobody on the Right made an issue of this when inner
city and Michigan were losing their jobs to the flight abroad, but now
that it's affecting them oh the horror.
0 new messages