∞ ⋈ ∞ ∞ ⋈ ∞ ∞ ⋈ ∞

"Unity" and Self-Determination

First published: 14 May 2019

Ideal unity happens when no justice system needs to exist because no-one does evil. In such a system no need to do evil exists, because all people survive without doing evil. Such systems are the most creative systems, because the ideas Truth and Love are prioritised above all, against idolatry. A definition of creativity is necessary, which for starters should exclude deceit and hate. Any doing which requires deceit (non-correspondence) and includes hate (doing evil to others like selves don't want evil done to) is non-creative. A problem with current systems of fallacious "Unity" is, doing evil, is regarded necessary to survive with dignity.

A fascist wants despotic "Unity", whether it is "Unity" of "his" party or "his" country or "his" globe. "He" can be a socialist or capitalist or communist. It implies "he" thinks "he" is always right and will never admit, different opinions are relevant. Despots do not distinguish between what they think and what they know, because the idea Truth does not mean correspondence between words and reality to them. They regard what they each think, true. Honestly, i have seen it myself during testimony. It sounds simple to distinguish between fact (truth) and fiction (thinking), but the distinction is first of all dependent on a true definition of the idea Truth, and separation between the idea Truth and its effect (correspondence). Wrong definitions of the idea Truth, hinder distinction between knowing and thinking.

The idea unity is about power and joy. i.e.. During the time of kings when they "United" areas, under their rule, "Unity" was about power primarily. Noble means honest, therefore the idea Truth was most important. It implies submissiveness was relevant, primarily due to despotic truth. Submissiveness, is a type of self-determination, but it can be improved upon. The Law of social contract theory, is the source of true unity. If all do not do evil to all others, then true unity is possible. That is why the Leviathan (the sovereign) was historically the source of despotic "Unity". With fear "he" instilled "Unity". Like Rousseau and Hobbes explained, all people in a territory gave their self-determination to revenge, away, to the sovereign, and the justice systems, took over, the self-determination, to revenge. Because the sovereign was the most powerful and everybody were scared of "him", despotic "Unity" prevailed, due to fear. Obviously if a justice system does not work, the question is raised; does self-determination to revenge return to each individual? Basically, if self-determination to revenge returns to each individual, a society lapses to pre-monarchical times, when every person was responsible for his/her own safety, which implies revenge. John Locke wrote, when such circumstances occur society has right to revolution to overthrow failed governance. Intequinism promotes a non-revolutionary system in the sense, constant gradual changes should be allowed, in order to hinder paradigmatic revolutionary change.

Self-determination is a democratic idea, relating to the idea Love, because it opposes the despotism of the sovereign, forcing people to do things. Love came to balance despotic truth. Like Mill wrote, good Laws, in line with self-determination, only enforce not-doing evil. Doing evil is the only type of self-determination, which may be limited by the Law. If only not-doing evil is hindered, then true unity is possible. Forcing people to "do good" is evil, because it infringes on others' self-determination to not do anything, which is also not-doing evil. People have the right to self-determine their doings, whilst not infringing on others' self-determination, which includes, not being done evil to. It is therefore clear that self-determination has to include others, when a whole is considered. The whole world is always relevant therefore, not-doing evil to all is always relevant.

An important question is, how can self-determination be arranged most effectively. Would negotiations among parties in a parliament, or would negotiations among folks/groups in one party in a parliament, be most effective. After second thoughts, any answer to the question would be a non sequitur, because different self-determination parties are necessity, due to despotism of "Unity" self-determination parties. A self-determination party can be despotic when the leader or leaders do not allow enough self-determination of each individual in the party. The leader of a country, without a monarch, and with a party political system, comes from one party and his/her interest is with his/her party. When a party represents different groups, for self-determination, i.e. Divided Party (DiP), the party head has all the groups' self-determination at heart, primarily. Therefore self-determination among different folks/groups can be negotiated most effectively in one party, or a state of national unity. The unity of a party is more cohesive than the despotic "Unity" of a parliament, in which only one party determines the workings of the justice system, for example. Basically it depends on the independence of the one or the group who promotes the party unity or national unity. Parliament does not promote unity. Parliament promotes party divisiveness. I guess that is why parliaments, overseen by independent monarchs function better than parliaments on their own.

But we are past monarchical times. How else can cohesive unity be implemented? A first thought is with a government of national unity. A second thought is, what are the realities? Are people divided or not? If they are divided, a government of national unity will automatically be despotic, unless enough self-determination is allowed in different territories. A hypothetical aim of Divided Party (DiP) is a nation parliament of national unity, with different parties, each representing a folk region. Such a folk can be multicultural or unicultural. Within each region different parties can be reality, but from all parties in a region, a united group can be chosen to represent the region as a unity in the national parliament. That looks similar to the European Union system.

A bottom line is, if the Law of the whole does not protect each individual in it, against criminal gangs, division is necessary. Intimidation and crimen injuria are two basic criminal offensive tactics, gangs use. These offenses have to do with religious freedom because the-religious use it to influence those who do not conform to their dogmas. Currently the-religious are free, but the individuals they victimise are not. The Law of the largest valid whole is backed by God, partly, the most honest and loving group with power, who certainly do not use intimidation and crimen injuria to attain their goals. The interaction between unity of the whole and accepting authority of it, depends on implementing the Law effectively. If the Law is not effective, whilst not protecting "the-individual" from despotism of "the-group", division is necessary. This is currently relevant with regard to, for example, laws about academic freedom and murder, which are supposed to prohibit the sacrificing of "God himself", who are partly many good people, currently being disadvantaged by a corrupt system.