Skip to content

state of future

03.05.2014.

Autor Petar Bosnić Petrus

Djelovi knjige Država budučnosti.

Sa Hrvatskog na Engleski prevela

prof. PETRA ŠĆUKANEC

Stranica 1 od 7
WORLD STATE
One species, one planet, one law.
POLITICS, LAW, STATE
NEW FOUNDATIONS OF THE EU
Contents
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Motto ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
A Note on the Actual Problems of the EU …………………………………………………………………………. 2
Prolegomenon ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Basic Concepts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Foundations of Society ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
High-Management Work Efficiency Control Law (Blueprint) …………………………………………………
Administration and Authorities’ Efficiency Control Law (Blueprint) ……………………………………….
Efficient Household Management Register Law (Blueprint) ………………………………………………….
Education Efficiency Control Law (Draft) ……………………………………………………………………………
World State …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
What can I know?
What ought I do?
What may I hope?
_______________________________________________________________________
What is Man?
Immanuel Kant
Bona lex aere perennius est.
…………………….A Note on the Actual Problems of the EU
Still early in its existence, it appears that the EU is experiencing the relapse of the socio-political and economic disease that plagued the French monarchy and its society during Louis XVI’s reign.
The administration struggles and fights in an attempt to fix and improve the social situation – however, their expensive and futile actions evoke rolling in the mire: we are sinking ever deeper. There is nothing that rises other than expenses, debts and problems.
The reason for this is that the EU Even at its beginning the EU is faced with problems that normally harass societies at their downfall. The reason for this therefore is that The EU was created by merging old local little countries, inheriting in the first place their infirmities of age – weaknesses typical of worn-out, decadent, old societies.
As indicated above, the EU was created from obsolete, ill material in a pro-union spirit held alive by the expectation that the countries of Europe would improve and alleviate their respective economies as well as strengthen their political position in the world. This expectation was actually a mirage because what had not been dealt with were the deep-rooted shortcomings of the countries’ societies and their national economies. These shortcomings are characteristic of all contemporary civil societies from Japan to the USA; they represent a threat to the global economics and, correspondingly, the civil society in general. By forming the EU, the shortcomings of individual countries were not removed or appeased, but were set ready to affect the entire territory of the EU. Only the movement of workforce, goods, capital and services within the EU has been made easier. This, however, is no great gain because it is only a temporary trend that will be devoured by the growing system of administration ensuring that all programs of movement are properly registered and are legally performed.
Funny enough, the Devil not only likes to play tricks with the intentions and actions of politics and politicians, but also with the destinies of entire nations.
Kad smo već kod šale, primjetit ćete da se i ja volim našaliti, premda nisam nikakav Đavao. Volim kratke i povremene ekskurse u područje apsurda, i mislim da mi se to može opraštati i tolerirati. Ta i velikom svijetu o kojem pišem toleriraju se povremeni i mali ekskursi u pravcu smislenog i razumnog ponašanja. Jasno, dok se bavim ovim pravnim stvarima, ne možete od mene očekivati da budem još i neki Aristofan, Voltaire ili Molliere i nadam se da ćete se zadovoljiti ponekom skromnom ludorijom koja će umanjiti monotonost i suhoparnost izlaganja.
No, da se mi ipak vratimo poslu, a?

When it comes to current social and economic shortcomings (which used to be assets) of European national states and their economies, we refer primarily to fundamental social, economic and political relations that produce either prosperity and progress or misery, debts, stagnation in development and even deterioration – if the above relations have worn out.
The present-day Europe (EU) is nothing else than some kind of great social and political pain-killer for the civil society(:. It) does not treat or ward off the disease, it only alleviates the pain that the civil society has to endure if it does not change. itseflf
In other words:
Contrary to the expectations, the EU has turned out to be a sort of an almshouse for the old. On the other hand, as far as Europeans are concerned – better an almshouse than the street. ( 2 Nations put into this institution can, after all, Could be revitalised and rejuvenated,) (1 unlike individual people,)
However, regardless of all criticism, flaws, and illusions of progress, I think it is good, very good that this Union was established: it proves that a kind of (reasonable) sensible and benevolent if (although) sterile i izvanjsko, integration of little states that had hitherto been enemies is possible.
Stranica 3 od 7
***
As noted above, the current European administration shares certain similarities with the administration of l’ancien regime of Louis XVI. The latter achieved nothing but made matters worse.
The then problem was solved by the Jacobins who formed new, productive, ontogenic civil relations that had either been pushed aside by the feudal system’s administration or were openly smothered.
The Jacobins achieved this by the means of revolution. The guillotine, cannons and barricades solved the problem that had been beyond (power of) the administration (Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old Regime and the Revolution).
In order to realise any kind of progress, in the words of Adam Smith, the mind uses rewards and punishments. The common phrase for the same phenomenon nowadays is carrot-and-stick policy that is employed by the mind to accomplish progress.
Is the current EU also in need of some kind of “stick”, i.e. revolution?
Do not fear. The current, i.e. contemporary problems should be solved in different ways – in the so-called peaceful manner – adding only the occasional and moderate use of batons.
The reason for this follows below:
Feudal society, a modified type of slavery, was only a halfway stage, the antithesis of social development and it had to be overcome, while today’s civil society represents the synthesis, i.e. the desired result or achieved aim of social development, so it has to be preserved.
What should be changed or modernised is only the form of maintaining civil society, which cannot be done by revolution, but by the proper reform of the legal, lawful foundations of the society in question, i.e. by evolution.
Not by force, therefore, but by mind – creativity.
Whatever creates misery today, whatever accumulates debts, unjust and perversely great ownership gaps between the social classes of “developed” civil societies, and those between nations and entire continents, whatever causes legal, economic and the like insecurities, is not the product of the nature of civil (bourgeois) society itself, but stems from the obsolete, non-functional or directly dysfunctional manner in which its foundations are perpetuated.
***
In order to avoid the misinterpretation of the above as yet another pain-killer or some petty apologetic approach to civil society, I must refer the reader to the concepts that I developed in my previous works, on the basis of a dialectics more developed than Hegel’s or Marx’s.
Civil society, I assert, has been the aim of social development of the human species since the beginning of history, and today it represents the level of synthesis, i.e. its achieved result. Being the genuine result of development, furthermore, what the human species has been aiming at since the dawn of its ontogenic praxis, it cannot and should not be revoked, as was Marx’s demand. Civil (bourgeois) society must be able to preserve itself, and this can be done only if it is able to discover ever Stranica 4 od 7more functional ways of self-preservation – or, to put it simply, if it is able to evolve. (According to Aristotle, the power of self-preservation is the highest and the real result of every being’s development. In his later works Shelling shares this view in his opposition to Hegel’s triadic system of dialectic, i.e. his (Hegels’ erroneous) notion of development as some sort of permanent revolution.) Self-preservation of the results of development is not a matter of rigidity – quite the contrary, it is in progress owing to flexibility – by inventing ever more effective and appropriate means of preserving itself; by adjusting, evolving (Spencer, Darwin). (Moj zahtjev, za promjenom načina samoodržavanja društva, tj. zahtjev našeg vremena, kojeg ja samo dovodim do riječi,)… This is also in line with tetradic dialectic that refers to evolution as epithetic development.
Unlike (In difference to) all natural species, which adjust to the changes in the environment that occur by chance, the human species is “adjusting” by inventing new, more perfect and more adequate means and methods to accomplish its aims set long ago. Generally speaking, and also much more precisely, ontogenic species do not adjust to the environment – they adjust the environment to themselves. Man’s environment – natural and artificial, i.e. created by man: on a material, spiritual and moral plane, is no more than the means to accomplish the aims of the species – the means to be perfected constantly, or else the key aims of the human species cannot be realised.
And now for something crucial.
Even though civil society is in fact the synthesis, the realised result of the development of the human society, it nevertheless represents only the finalised and adequate organisational or political means – the necessary tools, organon, organum, or the instrument to achieve crucial goals of the human species.
In order for these tools ( society) to serve their assigned purpose, as suggested above, from time to time they have to be mended and perfected – adjusted to the tasks they are to perform.
It is now necessary to ask an awkward but inevitable question.
Are the peoples of the EU ready and willing to fix the very foundations they built their societies on?
In Civil Contract (Du Contrat sosiale) Rousseau points out that old societies hate to have their weaknesses addressed.
*** Stranica 5 od 7
World State
A world state founded on the above described principles and laws would be the first real, i.e. complete state entity on this planet: in a real, fully developed or, as Aristotle put it, fully self-sufficient state every one of its key social elements (an individual, family, company, and the authorities – the state itself) should pursue their interests and realise their respective aims in such a manner that the interests and aims of the society as a whole as well as those of the entire human species are simultaneously realised. It is imperative to ascertain and control whether the aims of every above mentioned element are realised by realising the aims of the society and the species. If this is the case, then one must also be able to determine the extent of this unanimity, which is particularly important when it comes to bureaucracy, authorities and government.
There is another reason why this is going to be the first real state entity: it will be based on nomocracy: all social entities, especially those in power will be subject(ed) to one specific and good law. The law will control both the state authorities and the local or national ones. The law in question is, of course, The Administration and Authorities’ Efficiency Control Law.
However, nomocracy is not only about controlling the efficiency of authorities, i.e. their efficiency in realising the aims of the species. Its role is also to control if authorities (or state) enable nations, individuals, families, companies and other social entities to pursue their respective interests and realise their aims in a just manner, as well as to control if they perform their respective functions well enough and efficaciously.
If the aims of the species were to be achieved by sacrificing the above social entities or their interests, this process would be pointless and vile, even if it were possible. The fact is it is not, for which theoretical evidence has been provided above. Besides, the said impossibility was demonstrated clearly in practice: communist or the so-called socialist societies serve as its empirical (or experimental, if you will) proof.
As shown above, capitalism and liberal civil democracy were based on customs requiring individuals, families and companies to pursue their interests in such a way that was conducive to the realisation of the aims of society. The governing authorities i.e. the state was exempt from this system and rules, which is precisely the reason why civil society is experiencing corruption: it first affects the authorities (“the fish rots from the head down”) followed by the decay of all other social entities. The result of this is the current democracy in which individual interests are for the most part being pursued at the expense and damage of the society and the entire humankind including its future.
By establishing nomocracy liberal civil democracy would no longer be based on customs, mores or consietudines – leges imperfecta – but on laws – leges perfecta – a written code of conduct of a sort, regulations that would encompass penal measures or sanctions. This has not been characteristic of the present democracy, which is in large part the cause of its corruption and decay.
Without a nomocratic state system – nomocracy being no more than a perfected democracy – one cannot seriously consider the prospect of a new, better, more humane and more functional world or social order, let alone the realisation of the aims of the human species.
Another thing that is important. Without nomocracy it is impossible for a simple local state to function productively, even more the case with any kind union or federation.
A brief mention of the terms “nomocracy” and “logocracy”, which I have used before.
They both refer to the same phenomenon. Nomos is a Greek word for a human, social law, whereas Stranica 6 od 7 logos refers to a natural law. The efficiency criteria employed in nomocratic laws are deduced from the methods and laws (logos) of the exact social and natural sciences. Seeing that the criteria of efficiency of all social entities and their functions in a society or state are inferred from the exact sciences, and by applying their methods, in my former works I used the terms logocracy and the logocratic rule for what I now call nomocracy. The latter, however, appears to be more suitable for social matters.
The same as logocracy, nomocracy is nothing more than perfected democracy, as I have stated a myriad times before. In addition, it is the most humane, the most natural, functional or adequate way in which, at the present time, the human species and the human society can govern themselves with the purpose of attaining their well-being and realising their aims.
The above remark aims at preventing confusion surrounding the two terms, and emphasising again the value of nomocracy.
***
The standards or efficiency criteria would be established by the world government and they would apply to all subjects on the planet.
As I have explained several times before, this is important for the following reasons: it makes it possible to determine the factual differences in the amount and value of the contribution to the realisation of the aims of the society or species; furthermore, it enables just remuneration for the subjects’ contributions. When there are no common standards, there is no possibility of comparison and true differences cannot be recognized: what is smaller may seem bigger, what is better may seem worse, etc.
***
No subjects should be exempt from certain laws.
Consider, for example, The Environmental Pollution Prevention Law.
If some countries were to be exempt from this law, they would be in a position to misuse high efficiency of their economies and big profits at the expense of nature and the future generations of the human species. Such exemption from the law would thus provide advantage and privileges to those doing harm, whereas law-abiding countries would be punished by being put in a weaker position, making less profit, receiving not as high rewards, etc. This would clearly be unjust, harmful, and would have a discouraging effect on those doing a good job.
Let me give you another example.
In 2013 Switzerland tried to place restrictions on the autocratic and ruthless practice of managers rewarding themselves to the cost of the entire nation. This initiative was rejected on the grounds that managers would flee the country and substitute it for the countries that do not impose such restrictions. This was, unfortunately, a sound argument, but if these restrictions were imposed globally, there would be no place for incapable, dishonest managers to go. They Stranica 7 od 7would therefore be forced either to do their job well or to resign from it.
Alas, in a disunited world a good law can do damage to a small country that attempts to enforce it. Such a law would surely prove edifying in the long run – not, however, without the benefit of considerable good judgement, faith and patience.
***

……………..

Oglasi

From → Nekategorizirano

Napiši komentar

Komentiraj

Popunite niže tražene podatke ili kliknite na neku od ikona za prijavu:

WordPress.com Logo

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš WordPress.com račun. Odjava / Izmijeni )

Twitter picture

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Twitter račun. Odjava / Izmijeni )

Facebook slika

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Facebook račun. Odjava / Izmijeni )

Google+ photo

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Google+ račun. Odjava / Izmijeni )

Spajanje na %s

%d bloggers like this: