'@heksesang' Have thou ever stopped to think about why thou would want such unity? of what it will archive?
I am motivated by Good and Evil, by Right and Duty and by Vice and Virtue, which is all objective moral traits.
We need a good world, where people's Rights are respected, Rights such as Life, Liberty and Property.
If thou agree to these goals, if thou agree that humans are inherently Good, then there is such a thing as an optimal size for a state.
The state needs to be big enough to be sovereign, but not larger then it adequately represent the will of the people.
While people can and do disagree on most things, there is one thing that everyone must agree on, and that is the will to remain a member of the union.
Anyone that is a member of a union or a "club" as thou put it, that don't want to be, and is bared from leaving, is a prisoner and a slave.
The purpose of the state is to protect the nation from outside aggression, it is its one purpose, inside aggression can be handed by much smaller subunits and everything else should not be dependent on the violence of the state.
Because states are violent, it is force, it can be legitimate, but most often it is not.
Why should we make a state unnecessarily big and powerful?
It makes it harder for the smaller parts to control it, (making state oppression much more likely and harder to escape)
It makes it less unified. The European nations share neither language nor culture, the only thing they have in common is Christianity and the EU is openly hostile towards it,
And it increases not decreases the chance of a catastrophic conflict. Unions throughout history increases tension. They are always expansionist and they can only expand to a certain extinct before they hit the sphare of influence of another powerful external force. At that point the only options are desolation or war.
Looking at the anti-Russian propaganda it is obvious what the EU wants, but I do not want nuclear winter and I bear no allegiance to a union that is openly hostile to my faith and my own national interest.
The other thing thou said about the Kalmar union is a good idea, but for different reasons. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are not powerful enough to have their own independent strategic defence policy, but united as Scandinavia, they would be. We don't need the capacity to launch expensive foreign ventures, we only need the capacity to protect our own shores, without any outside help, that is what sovereign means.
As for the rest of Europe, just because we are not in a union with them, doesn't mean that we cannot trade with them, and be friends with them. But there is no need for state violence, it should all be on a voluntary basis.
Free trade is simply, it is simply about states doing nothing, free trade agreements is always about intrusive regulations that only benefit the regulators and big business and never the little guy.
Friends to all, allied to none, that is the basic of peaceful coexistence.
0
'@heksesang' Have thou ever stopped to think about why thou would want such unity? of what it will archive?
I am motivated by Good and Evil, by Right and Duty and by Vice and Virtue, which is all objective moral traits.
We need a good world, where people's Rights are respected, Rights such as Life, Liberty and Property.
If thou agree to these goals, if thou agree that humans are inherently Good, then there is such a thing as an optimal size for a state.
The state needs to be big enough to be sovereign, but not larger then it adequately represent the will of the people.
While people can and do disagree on most things, there is one thing that everyone must agree on, and that is the will to remain a member of the union.
Anyone that is a member of a union or a "club" as thou put it, that don't want to be, and is bared from leaving, is a prisoner and a slave.
The purpose of the state is to protect the nation from outside aggression, it is its one purpose, inside aggression can be handed by much smaller subunits and everything else should not be dependent on the violence of the state.
Because states are violent, it is force, it can be legitimate, but most often it is not.
Why should we make a state unnecessarily big and powerful?
It makes it harder for the smaller parts to control it, (making state oppression much more likely and harder to escape)
It makes it less unified. The European nations share neither language nor culture, the only thing they have in common is Christianity and the EU is openly hostile towards it,
And it increases not decreases the chance of a catastrophic conflict. Unions throughout history increases tension. They are always expansionist and they can only expand to a certain extinct before they hit the sphare of influence of another powerful external force. At that point the only options are desolation or war.
Looking at the anti-Russian propaganda it is obvious what the EU wants, but I do not want nuclear winter and I bear no allegiance to a union that is openly hostile to my faith and my own national interest.
The other thing thou said about the Kalmar union is a good idea, but for different reasons. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are not powerful enough to have their own independent strategic defence policy, but united as Scandinavia, they would be. We don't need the capacity to launch expensive foreign ventures, we only need the capacity to protect our own shores, without any outside help, that is what sovereign means.
As for the rest of Europe, just because we are not in a union with them, doesn't mean that we cannot trade with them, and be friends with them. But there is no need for state violence, it should all be on a voluntary basis.
Free trade is simply, it is simply about states doing nothing, free trade agreements is always about intrusive regulations that only benefit the regulators and big business and never the little guy.
Friends to all, allied to none, that is the basic of peaceful coexistence.