There is a huge debate concerning the responsability from the UK towards the EU. It has come to the extreme, that Britain considers redrawing from the European Union. What are the default lines of the discussion, and how may we elevate the discussion in a true philosophical understanding?

So far the paradigm of globalization has ruled the skies of sociological theory. Made by mr. Anthony Giddens in the nineties and not really challenged theoretically until now. In its essense it is a true Diogenetian philosophy, claiming that we are all global citizens. Citizens of the world, and hence not a citizen of a polis or a nation.

This tradition goes all the way back to one of the most profilent pupils of Socrates; Diogenes who was quite famed in his time, on par with Plato, who were the other famed pupil of Socrates.

In a sense, there is an included balance inbetween the two philosophers; Plato being the pupil who took the ethical part of Socrates philosophy, and Diogenes the pupil who took the liberal or freedom part of Socrates philosphy and making in into a philosophy of itself.

How does this reflect on the theory of Giddens and the no border, global citizen ideology that the European Union is a realization of. Well it points to the fact, that the freedom of the citizens have been maximixed. There are no borders, there are no limits, everybody can go whereever they want. The ethical part of personal conscience and loyalty towards the nation has been completely abandoned. In theory we are talking about free market and free movement of the workforce, but in theory it is all about freedom.

It has come so far, that all the freedom is showing to be devasting on the national level. The business are no longer loyal to their nations, in fact they are just loyal to the shareholders. The police is not loyal to the nation, but decides against all who are trying to support the nation in a balanced way, at the same time supporting jihadis and IS fighters, because they are global citizens as we, and how are we to judge.

My point is; it is not about prejudice or racism, it is about an inherent lack of balance between freedom and conscience, between liberalism and conservatism, between Diogenes and Plato.

All systems work in a balance between freedom and ethics. This is the wisdom of Socrates. As he said, I am the wisest person in the city of Athens, because I know, that I do not know anything. In other words, freedom can only be justified, as long as it is within the limits of conscience, or personal responsibility.

In economic theory, it can be translated into the theoretical discussion that Adam Smith had about freemarkets vs. conscience. He said that free markets are good, because it gives all the nations the possibility to compete on an equal playing field, but the producers and manufacturers should have a personal responsability towards the nation.

This balance is really what we are dealing with in the EU. Yes we can have a free market to the benefit of all nations in Europe, but complete freedom in all aspects of the national cooperation is not desirable. We have to find a balance between too much, and too little, and the current system is obviuosly too much. It ends up in a tower if Babel, with total chaos. This will, if the bible is true in its analysis of the same phenomenon, lead to warfare, famine and ultimately destruction of the tower. Are we willing to risk that? Pursue a tower of Babel, with all the risks it implies?

Well, it seems to me, that the torys have finally woken up, and are putting their heels in. Good for Britain, and good for the rest of the EU, because, after all, Diogenes ended up as a slave, sold because he had too much debt.

G-d bless the will to find new ways in Europe.

Categories: Politics Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.