redvbooks Chapter 111: The Vision Of The City-State, The Eyes Of The Common People. (5)
Chapter 111: The Vision Of The City-State, The Eyes Of The Common People. (5)
Many people forget that public power is actually composed of each person's individual rights, that is, human rights.
Public power is a synthesis of countless individual rights.
In the Western discourse system, this point is perfectly ignored.
They deliberately guide people not to think in this direction, the purpose is to achieve opposition.
And under such an operation, the country and the country cannot go beyond the security dilemma and the fate of war.
In the end, the so-called democratic elections, referendums, and representative governments from the people in various countries [completely become the ultimate place for international capital control and exploitation.
tool.
Many people always feel that public power needs to be restrained and someone needs to watch it.
Otherwise, it would be like receiving great persecution.
But what if public rights represent the rights and interests of all people?
Then why be restricted?
To put it bluntly, restraint is a false proposition. The reason why they need to be restrained is because their public rights have never been composed of individual human rights.
And it was never human rights that were constrained.
They intentionally entered into a chain of suspicion, so as to facilitate these guys who can perfectly switch between the identities of public power and human rights at any time, to operate in it and generate massive benefits.
Look around the world and you will find it.
Many areas that are hotly contested are, in essence, all of the same origin.
It's just that in the later development, the reason was divided into various races.
Putting on all kinds of labels, they finally fell into cannibalism.
In fact, the concept of the nation-state is only applicable to the scale of countries at the cutting-edge of Western modernization.
Their layout is actually that big.
Look at the history of the West.
The chaotic and disorderly history is doomed, and the lessons and experiences that the whole group of people headed by the West can learn from history are very few, if any, on a small scale.
Like the historical records of ancient Greece and Rome.
Let's just take them as real.
Even if it is believable, you will find that their political units are extremely small.
For example, Plato, who is said to be miraculous.
The ideal country in his mind only needs 5040 people.
To put it bluntly, can this also be called a country?
The scale of a small village in Longguo is not limited to this.
Aristotle studied the constitutions of the one hundred and fifty-eight city-states of Greece.
He can study so many countries. Well, let’s count these city-states as countries. It sounds like there are many.
But it is also enough to explain what kind of individuals these countries are, and how small they are.
What kind of environment shapes what kind of pattern and vision.
Therefore, he also believes that the country cannot be big.
The constraints of the city-state vision.
It is the pattern of Western political thought.
Short-sightedness, that is really not seen too much of the world.
This can not blame them.
After all, the pattern shaped by the environment is there.
Although Rome looks very big, in terms of system, it is nothing more than the head of a small city-state on top of a huge empire.
They don't have a big structure at all, a huge ideological structure that dominates the world, cars are on the same track, and books are on the same text.
Their vision and structure doomed their thought structure to be only so big.
In modern times, Europe rises.
But city-state undertakings, their history, still limit their institutional imagination.
The most famous thinkers in their history.
The layout and vision are only so big.
Rousseau advocated a small country with few people.
Montesquieu also recognized the theory of the superiority of small countries.
Only for the survival of the country, he proposed the vision that small countries can form a large federation based on the national experience of the Netherlands, Germany, and Ruili Federation.
However, these are the thinkers who should be able to think the most and dare to think the most.
Their political vision is only a little bit, let alone other people.
As for why they only have such a vision.
After all, they have never experienced what a highly institutionalized large-scale state looks like.
Cognition has restricted their thinking.
Under such an environment, they can't even imagine how a country with hundreds of millions of people operates and exists.
They see only so much, and only so much.
And this severely constrains their political imagination.
A country like Rome is the limit of their imagination, and they think it is the best political system.
I've been looking to return to that state for the rest of my life.
Where can I understand and imagine, on another continent of this planet.
What about the super miracle created by the first emperor, where the books have the same text and the cars have the same track?
They dare not even think about it. No one has succeeded at all. In their view, it is impractical and impossible.
That's how big they are.
What thinkers put forward is also to maintain the principle of the original political system, that is, to maintain the territory of the original political system.
To put it bluntly, there is little love but no carelessness.
The vision and pattern limit their imagination.
It is completely incomprehensible to say what that kind of unified dynasty looks like.
The kind you can't even imagine.
And go further, to Harrington with Ying and hone these thinkers.
They began to associate the republic system with the modern state beyond the federal scale.
One of the important reasons for this is that the nation-state was formed during this process.
Then the western political philosophy was forced into the era of the nation-state by the political reality, and it is today.
He is still stuck in this era.
For example, a scholar in France has a book called A Comparison of Countries.
In it, he mentioned that after comparing various aspects of the size of the country (getting money is good), he came to the conclusion that outside the field of state relations, political system and size have nothing to do with each other.
Such a conclusion is ridiculous.
It can be seen how obsessed Western thought is with small-scale political thought.
Of course, this is no wonder they.
The limitations of marine civilization are doomed.
Their vision is focused on the plunder in front of them.
without thinking about long-term development.
They can't imagine how a population with a population of hundreds of millions, or even a billion, will survive.
Where do so many creatures come from to supply?
The layout is only that big.
And with development.
After the emergence of state-level superpowers such as Da Mao and Liberty Beacon.
There is no doubt that they are a little dumbfounded.
This simply refreshed their three views, and had an extremely powerful impact on their concerns. .