Posts on Personal Ontology 1.0 alpha on BFO-list
Posts:
0. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/pont
Original:
https://groups.google.com/group/bfo-discuss/browse_thread/thread/433bfa9718cae15?hl=en
Updates from December, 2010 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
mazsa
mazsa
A story of political equivalence in logical order
[The current version: http://j.mp/ius-inter-personae]
[The version 6750:]
Ius inter personae
The story of political equivalence in logical (not necessarily historical) order:
1. us vs. them
1.1. partition of a set of humans into 2 parts (members of a society of humans vs. not members)
1.1.0. humans are members or not members of a given society of humans
1.1.1. we as members of our society (e.g. our group or tribe) are equivalent to each other
(based on that http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )
- http://upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/Leges/twelve_Girard.html Tabula IX (in English: http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ –> Lingua Anglica –> Twelve Tables, Table IX)
- “Gemeinschaft” Tönnies,1887 http://www.zotero.org/mazsa/items/39498383
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/dawes-messick-2000
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/beyond-geography
1.1.1.1. they (the not members) are equivalent to each other and they are less than we are
2. cuius regio eius religio (1555.09.25)
2.1. partition of a set of humans into more than 2 parts
- http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/two-kinds-of-people
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio
2.1.0. humans are members of one of the societies of humans
2.1.1. members of a society in a regio are equivalent to each other
members of a part of the partition of humans, i.e. humans in a regio, are equivalent to each other
(based on that http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )
- “Gesellschaft” Tönnies,1887
2.1.1.1 they, regio by regio, are equivalent to each other and they can be ranked, regio by regio
3. cuius regio eius religio (1555) + ius inter gentes (1532)
parts of the partition of humans, i.e. states, are agents
3.1. states as agents and humans as members of states as agents are partitioned
3.1.0. humans are members of one of the states
3.1.1. inter-state order (1648.10.24)
(states are members of the inter-state order: they are “inter-states”)
(based on 3.1. and http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )
a set of states as agents are equivalent to each other
all states as agents are equivalent to each other (1960.12.14)
3.1.1.1. nationalism
3.1.2. humans as members of states as agents are equivalent to each other
3.1.00. Partitioned (and equivalent) are:
- states as agents,
- humans as members of states as agents
- - e.g. humans as members of state1 as an agent, and
- - humans as members of state2 as an agent, …
3.2. [declared] persons are declared by the states as agents or by humans as members of states as agents and able to speak with one voice by means of the states as agents
- Cf. (declaration) Hobbes (1651): Leviathan, Chapter XXII http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#2HCH0022
- Cf. (one voice by the states as agents) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruption_of_1843
- (Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca4 )
4. cuius regio eius religio (1555) + ius inter gentes (1532) + ius gentium (160)
humans are agents
(humans are agents not based on a hypothetical ius inter homines but on ius inter gentes + ius gentium)
4.1. humans as members of states and humans as agents are partitioned
4.1.0. humans are members of humanity
4.1.1. (3.1.1.)
4.1.2. (3.1.2.)
4.1.3. human rights (1776.07.04)
humans as agents are equivalent to each other (while humans as members of states as agents are equivalent to each other based on 3.1.2.)
(the equivalence of humans is not based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule but on the partition of states as agents and humans as agents)
theorethical scope: an inter-state (the United States)
practical scope: an inter-state (the United States, 1789.03.04)
theorethical scope: global (1948.12.10)
practical scope: global: (not yet)
4.1.3.1. cosmopolitanism
4.1.00. Partitioned (and equivalent) are:
- states as agents,
- humans as members of persons as agents
- - e.g. humans as members of state1 as an agent,
- - humans as members of state2 as an agent, …, and
- humans as agents.
4.2. [declared] persons are declared by agents (e.g. states or humans) as agents or by humans as members of states as agents and able to speak with one voice by agents as agents
5. cuius regio eius religio (1555) + ius inter gentes (1532) + ius gentium (160) + ius inter personae (2008.08.27)
states are persons
(based on 3. and 3.1.1. and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca3 )
humans are persons
(based on 4. and 4.1.3. and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca3 )
[there can be other "social" persons as well based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca3 ]
declared persons based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/axiom/ca4 are persons
5.0.1. persons can be persons as agents
e.g. states can be states as agents (cf. 3. and 5.), humans can be humans as agents (cf. 4. and 5.)
5.0.2. persons (optionally: as something/somebody) can be persons as persons
(based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/preamble/cp4 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
e.g. declared persons can be declared by persons as persons and can be able to speak with one voice by persons as persons
5.1.0. persons can be members of persons
(based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/preamble/cp2 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/statement/cs2 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
e.g. persons can be members of persons as agents (based on 3 and 3.1.0. and 5.)
e.g. persons as persons can be members of persons as persons (based on 5.0.2. and 5.1.0)
5.1.0.1. members of persons as persons are persons as persons
(based on 5.1.0. and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/preamble/cp4 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
e.g. members of states as persons are persons (e.g. humans) as persons
5.1.1. (3.1.1.)
5.1.2. (3.1.2.)
5.1.3. (4.1.3.)
5.1.4. persons as persons are equivalent to each other
(based on http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/statement/cs4 and http://theunitedpersons.org/constitution/declaration/cd2 )
specifically, states as persons and humans as persons and declared persons as persons are equivalent to each other
e.g. persons as persons and its members are equivalent (based on 5.1.0.1. and 5.1.4.)
- “Personschaft” or “Personenschaft” (vs. “Gesellschaft” vs. “Gemeinschaft” of Tönnies,1887)
5.1.00. Partitioned (and equivalent) are:
- persons as agents
- - e.g. states as agents, and
- - humans as agents, and
- persons as members of persons as agents
- - e.g. humans as members of state1 as an agent,
- - humans as members of state2 as an agent, …, and
- persons (e.g. states and humans and declared persons) as persons.
(based on 3.1.1. and 3.1.2 and 4.1.3 and 5.1.4. and http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/partition-is-necessary-and-sufficient-for-equivalence )
mazsa
States: let them prey on atoms but not on bits!
Our bits — including our intangible goods and services — should be managed independently from states.
Possibly states are the appropriate political units for organising and managing our atoms — including our tangible goods and services. But definitely not for organising and managing our bits — an embarrassing effort of a new cartel of all the states of the globe was launched at the very end of the last year.
While we are inclined to acknowledge the right of the individual states to tax anything they can lay their hands on (that is, tangible atoms), we deny the right of their cartel to tax anything else (that is, intangible bits).
Extending political framework
The speed of travel and communication diverged more than a century ago.
Since then, at least in theory, a new space has evolved: “communication space”. Borderless and real-time at global level, communication space is principally different from “travelling space” where we are limited by our physical body and slow motion.
With the rapid development of the internet at the end of the last century, communication space and travelling space levelled out.
In the meantime, our political system was becoming based on, and locked in, the partition of “travelling space” (the dry land of the planet) into distinct states.
We suggest that we should extend the logic of the present political system, the partition one step further, adding distinct space (the communication space) to distinct states as well.
It is our endeavour to constitute political units, spatially and functionally independent of states, operating in the communication space (internet) as their infrastructure, and make them work.
The original function of these new political units should be to manage bits — as opposed to atoms that would continue to be managed by states.
Respecting achievements
States are right in that intellectual achievements should be rewarded, creativity must pay off in the long term. Whether or not a public issue at all, rewarding need not be the task of states: it should be dealt with directly in the jurisdictions operating in the communication space, through a public process. Dealing with the issue of bits should be our task. States may prey on tangibles, we need to achieve better management of intangibles.
We understand states’ insistence on regarding bits as “intellectual property”: unless bits are intellectual property, trading in bits can not be taxed.
However, it would be unjust to blame states simply for seeking their own solutions: if there are no other players around, why would they not try to colonize our favourite place, the internet? And if they are unable to do it by themselves, they will do so by establishing a cartel.
Breaking down harmful tax cartels
We aware that the global cartel of states monopolizes taxation. Every kind of taxation, including the taxation of intangible goods and services. By the end of last year, all disobedient states gave up resistance.
We do not know whether the organized monopolization of taxation implies the transformation of the international political system into an integrated political unit called “the global state”. But we believe in competition markets as opposed to freely monopolizable markets. And we believe in tax competition (labelled “harmful tax practices” by states) as well.
We believe that the global tax cartel of states extended to intangible goods and services would be harmful.
Consequently, we must consider it to be our responsibility to break down this proposed cartel.
Working on common strategy
The strategic points are:
1. Helping to constitute our own companies for the management of intangible goods and services, run on the jurisdictions of our new political units on the communication space, in return for tax — somewhere around the cost of PayPal. We should make our infrastructure to be able to manage distinct jurisdictions and taxation: hard wired laws, secure p2p communication, e-cash, etc.. We should foster tax competition: break down both harmful tax cartels and double taxation by any other political unit.
2. We need to offer average users a kind of user experience as Apple provides, and we need to keep this system open to advanced users, like Linux.
3. We should begin to feel allegiance towards our new, freely chosen political units run on the communication space. We should attract allegiance like the states do we happen to born into. We should know that we have an ethical basis for taking part in tax competition, proud of what we do, and defend ourselves in case of attacks. States may not be nice to us when we break down their cartel.
Future
As we, the first internet generations of planet Earth, grow up, we shall take control of this place. That is sure as death and taxes.
We are how we are together. We are our states. We are our companies. We supply and demand our own products and ideals. Our responsibility is how we organize ourselves.
I think states and companies operating according to their jurisdiction are not willing, and what is more, not even able to meet all the basic needs which originate from our very personship. States may be sufficient for our atoms, yet neither necessary nor sufficient for our bits, spirits and communities.
We need a vivid net of political units operating in the communication space, able to help find the right place of states in our lives. Evolution will show which of the new political units will survive.
We seek to make The United Persons one of them.
We wish to live in a world where we constitute our own alternative online political units,
- worthy of our love and loyalty,
- that help manage our bits if and when required, on Earth or among the planets of the solar system when this time will come, and
- able and willing to pacify any attacking entity.
What do you feel is the true political unit of your choice?
How can you help us all to constitute it?
Internet, January 1, 2010
mazsa is discussing. -
mazsa
“Atoms would like to be free, too, but they’re not so pushy about it.” Chris Anderson http://www.amazon.com/Free-Future-Radical-Chris-Anderson/dp/1401322905 p.241.