Posted by nu-monet v9.0 on 07/17/06 04:38

Alric Knebel wrote:
>
> >>>Your extended rant against patriotism was definitely
> >>>taught to you.
> >>
> >>Hogwash. I was merely responding to your extended rant
> >>FOR it.
> >
> >
> > Why don't I believe you?
>
> Because you can't afford to. You have too much at stake.
>

No, it's because I've heard that same tripe before, from
different individuals, some preaching different gospels,
but all, sadly, following the same format.

Actually, about now is when you should become foul-mouthed
and abusive. You haven't mentioned socialism or communism
and if you are neither of those, it would explain why you
hadn't called me a Nazi or fascist yet (thankfully).

But the same concept of evolution applies. If internationalism
is so great, why has it never advanced beyond the theoretical
stage? Its obvious economy of government has been on the table
all the way from the 19th Century, and yet it has never gained
traction.

And indeed it has had some powerful advocates. Some efforts
have been made to institutionalize it in Europe, but already
it has regressed to an elitist model, forced on the people.
Not really its fault, though, it has been compressed into the
pre-existing models long used on the continent.

Let me explain. Europe's legal foundation is split between
extraordinarily different legal systems. But parts of Europe
are so heavily evolved around these legal systems that efforts
to impose multinationalism are encountering tremendous if
invisible barriers.

Britain has Common Law, customs dating all the way back to the
Germanic tribes. The central and southern continent have
Roman and Napoleonic Law. The northern countries are based in
Norse Law, truly odd, with its roots in Viking Law. And last
but not least is Russia, only now rising out of Slavic-Soviet
Law. Or not.

Brussels, attempting to integrate these into a multi-national
partnership, has insisted on fitting all of Europe into its
Napoleonic Law model. This guarantees that internationalism
will fail in Europe. The man on the street will be in utter
confusion unless he is from the parts of Europe where it
makes sense.

A basic difference for example: In Common Law, activities not
specifically forbidden by the government are automatically
legal. In Napoleonic Law, if government does not specifically
create a statute for an activity, it is automatically illegal--
literally everything must be approved before you can do it.

The US, a Common Law nation, has a simple Constitution, and it
needs to do only two things in Common Law. It must define the
basic organization yet limit the scope of government, and it has
a Bill of Rights of the special privaleges beyond the power of
government to take away. Or at least in theory. In any event,
the document can be read in minutes, and except for its
antiquated parts, it can be understood by the man on the street.

In Brussels, with Napoleonic Law, the European Constitution
is a nightmare of bureaucratic nit-picking. It really is an
effort to include everything that is legal in the document.
And yet, though it includes a section for "human rights", it
is just as muddled and unclear and bureaucratic as everything
else. It is no great surprise that non-Napoleonic Law countries
are utterly baffled by it.

Those Europeans who are being forcibly integrated into it are as
lost as if they were ordered to ask permission of some government
agent before being allowed to do things they had been doing their
whole lives. And that exact thing is happening to some extent in
Britain right now. It is odd, extreme, makes no sense, and to
the sensibilities of the common man, terribly oppressive.

Eventually they will rebel against it. Statuatory neglect, if
nothing else. Though it may take the EU as long as the HRE to
dissolve, it will lose its inertia and fade away.

In this case my point is that the legal systems are not the product
of nationalism. The nations instead are the product of these
systems, and many other factors. And it is not a simple matter at
all to just dismiss them and tell people to change for the sake of
integration. It would be much like telling a thousand Microsoft
software engineers that they must now live as farmers, and never
use machines again. They would most likely not be enthusiastic.


--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"It is already like a government job,"
he said, "but with goats."
-- Iranian goat smuggler

[Back to original message]