However, framing the whole political dichotomy as a battle between the individual rights and collectivist rights is a difficult task for various reasons. First of all, few people know about the concept of collectivism in the first place. Secondly, people think they what individualism means, but in this context it's not about consumerism. It is more or less about depicting a structure of society one could call as anarchism or volunteerism where as some would call it the ultimate free market capitalism for all social interaction based on consent. This would inevitably throw a monkey wrench in the discussion, since there is a lot room for misunderstanding. For some individuals, it seems that anarchy and free markets don't mix, at least not inside their cramped minds. Unfortunately, for many, anarchists seem to equate with Antifa hooligans and rabble. That is the sorry state or the frame from which the fruitful discussion should begin.
The political left and right, liberal and conservative are mere distractions in this fight. My group versus your group. That is how the primitive mind likes us to associate. Therefore, we must stay cautious and be weary not fool yourselves into the numerous ideological and cognitive pitfalls in our path.
Democracies are for the most part collectivist states. Statists see people's right deriving from the state entity itself and therefore it can take away or grant privilege to certain parties. This is the way many countries around the world work even though they pledge to protect the UN human rights. Individualists see human rights as a priori in nature or god given rights, yet there is obviously some room for interpretation. The Natural Law principles as depicted in many works such as the Bible would include the inverted golden rule: Don't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done unto you and so forth. This is depicted in libertarian thinking as well for instance in the non-aggression principle. However, one must not be fooled by labels and titles, since many people calling themselves libertarian are nothing but opportunists. The collectivist thinking likes to label people and treat them as members of the group. Whereas this is very much understandable is does not compute to imbue these group traits or profiles onto individuals and give them moral value. Saying things like men are bad because they are men, or whites are racist because of white privilege is just straightforward stupid. Gross generalization always leads us astray.
It is more or less about the philosophical constitution of a society that the question of individualism versus collectivism touches. We have come to think ourselves as members of certain groups and in group members do get preferential treatment. This is of course natural when we think about our tribal ancestry. Calls for more segregation are a throwback towards a more primitive society.
Saudis eyeing military intervention to thwart Qatar
I can think many reasons why. The terrorism reason is a bogus one in the sense that other Gulf states sponsor Sunni terror as well. Maybe the levity towards Iran is the main reason. However this move might have other motives behind it. For instance, bullying Qatar and a brief military confrontation would inevitably raise oil and gas prices. In the long run, Saudis think they might be able to extort Qatar to relinquish any positive plans towards Shi'a Iran.It is either us or the terrorists. Your favorite collectivist choice.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-06/saudi-arabia-gives-qatar-24-hour-ultimatum-analysts-warn-military-confrontation
Saudi Arabia could also conquer the nation and annex their natural resources, although it goes without saying that this plan would be extremely high risk and could endanger the West's support to the cruel regime. In that sense, I think the Saudi can afford to go morally broke because it's not like they care to get their hands dirty as long as oil revenue is secured. Nevertheless, a military conflict would risk global economy and a risk of contagion to neighboring regions. I can already see pivot towards Iran.
 |
| Qatar 2022 World Cup host duty on the line |
Now it seems, according to CNN, that Russian hackers are to blame. MSM is going for broke. Let no crisis go to waste. CNN's track record after London Bridge fabrication is not improving at all.
One academician told the local news here that Saudis want Qatar to choose between them and Iran. I can see that this is indeed the case. It will be difficult though to put terror genie in the bottle and for this reason I expect that Saudi et al have to make a decisive and symbolic move to cut one head of this Hydra as a litmus test to prove they are serious about quelling terrorism.CNN: Russian false story behind Qatar crisis! Are Russians also behind the fake Omran story & thousands of fake Syria stories as well?! pic.twitter.com/dLCGiA0Ndr— Fares Shehabi (@ShehabiFares) 7. kesäkuuta 2017
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/the-saudis-demand-total-surrender-but-qatar-may-not-fold.html#more
 |
| If Brazil was a miss, Russia and Qatar might be even worse |
This will also be seen as a litmus test for the markets. I'm anticipating a noticeable reaction. This could, if escalated, prevent the Fed from making the anticipated June rate hike. Companies investing in Qatar might take a hit if the 2022 World Cup is relocated. I wonder what will happen to FIFA bribes. The future looks uncertain.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-whats-going-on-with-qatar/5593642?platform=hootsuite
No comments:
Post a Comment