When in Rome ...

[Heyo]

This is going to be a philosophical, political and religious debate as all those areas could potentially benefit from the idea.

The idea is called federalism, you may have heard about it. In politics it is already implemented, although badly. Many democratic countries are also republics. The general structure is that local affairs should be handled local, state affairs are handled by the state and common affairs are handled by the country. A good setup in theory only handled badly in praxis, partly because there is discord about what are local, state and federal affairs.

But that is only one fault. The other is human laziness. People don't like to move so there are conflicts everywhere and no real diversity.
The same goes for religious/moral groups. Some have managed to stick their claims and hold on to them. But most are in the diaspora and cause dissonance.

And then there is the fear of losing power. The will to dominate is strong in some humans. They would never allow a group that was once under their thumb to have their own community.

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

 

[Tambourine]

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

In my opinion, a large number of conflicts in the world revolve around just such lines in the sand, and where they should be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

Won't work, because of the level of technology and the effects of that. Now if you kill of a huge amount of humans, change the human psychology and get the rest to live in anarchistic self-sufficient agrarian village, then yes.
Good idea, wrong species and level of technology.

 

[Piculet]

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

No, that's stupid. When your child wrongs another child, you don't say, "This child of mine will be a different kind of a human being, for whom it is obligatory to wrong other people. Let him have his rights! He chose to be evil!"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that's stupid. When your child wrongs another child, you don't say, "This child of mine will be a different kind of a human being, for whom it is obligatory to wrong other people. Let him have his rights! He chose to be evil!"

No, you got it wrong. Your child is not a real human, because my beliefs say so and if you say I am wrong, you are intolerant. In fact you are suppressing me and I am justified in killing you. /reductio ad absurdum

I decide what is right and wrong, because it is based on my beliefs. I learned that from you.

 

[Piculet]

No, you got it wrong. Your child is not a real human, because my beliefs say so and if you say I am wrong, you are intolerant. In fact you are suppressing me and I am justified in killing you. /reductio ad absurdum

I decide what is right and wrong, because it is based on my beliefs. I learned that from you.

Let the OP draw a line between me and you and between my people and your people. If they intermingle, they shall be shot.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let the OP draw a line between me and you and between my people and your people. If they intermingle, they shall be shot.

Yeah, because we are both Right and the other is Wrong. It works in both directions and that is the absurd part of it. Of course you probably get that differently because as far as I can tell, you actually in effect believe that you are Right. I don't believe in that, I believe in Universal Human Rights and that include all humans. Yes, women, homosexuals and what not. We are all children of God. That is my belief system and in it, none of us are Right or Wrong. I leave that to God.

 

[Secret Chief]

Let the OP draw a line between me and you and between my people and your people. If they intermingle, they shall be shot.

This is going to be a philosophical, political and religious debate as all those areas could potentially benefit from the idea.

The idea is called federalism, you may have heard about it. In politics it is already implemented, although badly. Many democratic countries are also republics. The general structure is that local affairs should be handled local, state affairs are handled by the state and common affairs are handled by the country. A good setup in theory only handled badly in praxis, partly because there is discord about what are local, state and federal affairs.

But that is only one fault. The other is human laziness. People don't like to move so there are conflicts everywhere and no real diversity.
The same goes for religious/moral groups. Some have managed to stick their claims and hold on to them. But most are in the diaspora and cause dissonance.

And then there is the fear of losing power. The will to dominate is strong in some humans. They would never allow a group that was once under their thumb to have their own community.

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

Better than expected, six posts before we're shooting each other. Thankfully there aren't 7 billion like us RFers.

 

[Heyo]

No, that's stupid. When your child wrongs another child, you don't say, "This child of mine will be a different kind of a human being, for whom it is obligatory to wrong other people. Let him have his rights! He chose to be evil!"

You don't understand. Your child can't wrong another child because they'd be in different parts of the country.
You and your children get to live where it is morally OK to use violence.
Me and my children live where it is not OK.
When you visit here, nobody will harm you but we ask that you don't harm anybody while you're here.
When I visit the other side of the line I'm prepared that violence will be used and to use it myself.
We both can be happy where we are and we do as the Romans do when we travel.
Isn't that a better solution than bickering if use of violence is OK?
It's OK where you liveand it's not OK where I live.

 

[Piculet]

No, that's entirely immoral. Don't you care about anyone but yourself?

 

[Heyo]

Won't work, because of the level of technology and the effects of that. Now if you kill of a huge amount of humans, change the human psychology and get the rest to live in anarchistic self-sufficient agrarian village, then yes.
Good idea, wrong species and level of technology.

I don't think that technology or population density have anything to do with it. Except that technology help you move and population makes it more possible to find a fitting community.
Now, human psychology is another thing. As I said in the OP humans are lazy and power hungry. We'd have to teach them that moving is fun and that respecting the others culture in their house benefits us when they respect our culture in our house.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that's entirely immoral. Don't you care about anyone but yourself?

Try be caring about those you don't want to care about. All the wrong ones and care for them as equal humans. In effect it appears you only care for those who do as you like. The hard part is to accept and hold those you don't care for as equal humans.

I struggle with that everyday. It never stops, but that is how it is with "Love thy enemy". Now as long as you in effect judge some humans as less, you can do so and I accept that you do that. I just try not to do it myself.

 

[Heyo]

No, that's entirely immoral. Don't you care about anyone but yourself?

Morals are subjective. I accept that fact. The most peaceful solution would be when we all accept it and let those with other morals have their part and we don't intervene.

 

[Piculet]

Try be caring about those you don't want to care about

I don't really know what you're talking about, but I care about all people(s). Internal struggles are useless without correct beliefs.

 

[Piculet]

Morals are subjective. I accept that fact. The most peaceful solution would be when we all accept it and let those with other morals have their part and we don't intervene.

So, you're blind and you think everyone else should close their eyes too.

 

[Heyo]

So, you're blind and you think everyone else should close their eyes too.

How so?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't really know what you're talking about, but I care about all people(s). Internal struggles are useless without correct beliefs.

The correct beliefs. I have given up on that notion long ago, because that ends in other people with wrong beliefs. There are different beliefs and within those, there are the beliefs, which apparently are Correct.

All of those Correct beliefs I leave to God. The correct beliefs are God's. The beliefs of humans are something else.
What you are witnessing is the effect of being a skeptic and religious. I have tried and I can't find the correct beliefs. So instead I look at God's work, the world and try to figure it out based on how the world works. And in the world I am not Correct and you are not Wrong or so in reverse.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

Here is an analogy: we are like electrons, and you have proposed a superconducting medium.

Where has this been tried? Something like this once existed in the islands now known as French Polynesia which includes Tahiti. If you didn't like culture on one island you could paddle to a different island. Possibly the Bedouin have lived something like this, wandering about in the deserts.

This was supposedly how Abraham lived, the storied patriarch of the Jews. He eschewed cities and their controls opting instead for a dangerous life in the wild. He was always in danger from pirates, from beasts and famine and and by people claiming land where they were such as wells they had dug.

How could this be implemented on continents? People could wear clothing that allowed them to live without housing. All could become migrant populations which could go anywhere, and we could ban absolute control of land by individuals and declare most lands roving lands, end large scale agricultural practices where possible. This would be possible in temperate regions and through population control.

I don't know if its practical. I'm just brain storming where it has been tried and how it would be implemented.

 

[Piculet]

The correct beliefs. I have given up on that notion long ago, because that ends in other people with wrong beliefs. There are different beliefs and within those, there are the beliefs, which apparently are Correct.

Harmony is nice, but when your need for comfort supersedes your will to find the truth, I call it cowardice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Harmony is nice, but when your need for comfort supersedes your will to find the truth, I call it cowardice.

And with the judgment we are off. You really do enjoy judging other humans.

I don't believe in the truth like you do.