"keine mensch ist illegal", no person is illegal ...........

[Michael Nagel]

This thread on the concept of "No Man Is Illegal" came from Michael Nagel's orignal posting here.

I repeat the particular set of pictures that sparked the debate that follows.


Here is the batch of six. This is just for showing, I do not want to start any political discussion with this. Take it as it is and let us discuss the visual impact if anyone feel inclined to discuss the shown.

Big Brother 2.0




FREEDOM




CAPITALISM(TM)​

No human is illegal (literal translation from below):

​

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

Here is :
No human is illegal (literal translation from below):

​

Michael,


We're very grateful for such simple and simplistic posters as they are really about basic respect for the humanity in everyone.


I'm glad you bring these 6 pictures to us. this one is the mother-load icon of them all!


I'm not taking sides in politics but am grateful for the sages over eons of human literature that have insisted on the essential value of us all. This goes from The code of Hammurabi, the 10 commandments, the English Philosophers of the Enlightenment and the ill-fated orators and writers of the French Revolution. Lastly I'd add Napoleon Bonaparte who's armies helped force and engrain these unpopular values on much of Europe.

We need reminders and these street artists are doing a great job, despite politics that might be very different from our own.

Asher

 

[Michael Nagel]

... English Philosophers of the Enlightenment and the ill-fated orators and writers of the French Revolution. Lastly I'd add Napoleon Bonaparte who's armies helped force and engrain these unpopular values on much of Europe.

Reading this I have the impression that your view on the above written is either biased or based on incomplete information. Could you elaborate on this?

On preview: Our society needs more of this.

This is a good moral base for any action: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.​

We need reminders and these street artists are doing a great job, despite politics that might be very different from our own.

When you open your eyes and look what is written, painted stuck on walls and other places you see what subjects cause worries and reactions. If you walk through the same part of town again and again over several years you see the changes. This is why I walk around.



The message is clear:

NO WAR​

Comment on the loss of privacy:

SLAVE​

No explanation required:

Financial Advice​

Here you see Che Guevara and Rosa Luxemburg, an unusual pairing...

Hammer und Sichel​

Nice hommage to Soviet Art:

DEPARTMENT OF PROPAGANDA​

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

Michael,

You're walking the streets of Munich documenting wall art bringing to us remarkable commentaries and parables on our societies responsibilities and failings. I couldn't help being especially impressed by the simple expression in one that man cannot be illegal, " in post #97 above. My comments on "The Rights of Man" are centered on the effects of the French Revolution in bringing together, like a central drain, the humanistic ideas of philosophers in Europe and their antecedents. So the orators in Paris were enriched and inspired by a lineage of thought coming from all over europe but most especially from the important much earlier work of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, laying down reasoning for universal rights and then in 1791, (during the opening of the French revolution 1789-1799), Thomas Paine published his "Rights of Man". These English philosophers focussed specifically on rights of man as did Kant* who felt that rights could be derived from reason alone. You challenge me, appropriately, of course for leaving him out*! That was an error, and a serious one, but I din't include Spinoza or Maimonides either. The fiery "life and death" debates in Paris received Kantian and other ideas besides the British and I ask forgiveness for looking at Paris from a Londoners perspective.

The serious transgression of my omission of Kant in this discussion needed to be corrected. Thanks!

....and then why glorify Napoleon in this struggle for The rights of Man? Well, as inalienable or reasonable as these "rights" might now seem, it takes a government to guarantee and enforce such ideas. The disenfranchised minorities living in the territories occupied by advancing french armies, suddenly acquired the rights of being a citizen and all the privileges defined by the French, one of which was the French declaration of the rights of man. Unfortunately, universal human rights are only possible today in the context of sovereign benevolent states. As a result, for example, freedom of religion, or travel are not allowed in some countries. Also people who are refugees or stateless lack defenders and guardians.

So the idea of Universal Human Rights requires further developing so that nation states in the international community must agree to respecting and protecting these values for all people, irrespective of citizenship, national origin, religion or philosophies. World court at the Hague is a beginning for holding powerful entities to account when sovereign states fail to do so. all this from your one picture, keine mensch ist illegal! Thanks for having us consider this topic.

Asher

*Still, if considers Kant's logical imperatives and absolute insistence with "not lying", one has problems with maintaining a society where individual freedoms are respected for all. To me "not lying" removes a barrier to the state or powerful elites from closing down sources of news without which "The Rights of Man" cannot be defended. However, this is a trivial facet of his major contributions to humanistic thought and modern philosophy.

 

[Michael Nagel]

Asher,

I don't know if you really recognize how what you wrote can be perceived, so here is a little dissecting of the phrases in question:

the English Philosophers of the Enlightenment and the ill-fated orators and writers of the French Revolution.

Interesting juxtaposition - There were also English Philosophers of the Enlightment, but they were by far not the only ones and what made the orators and writers f the French Revolution ill-fated as their ideas spread and sparked other movements? Their personal fate was sometimes tragic, but ill-fated?

Lastly I'd add Napoleon Bonaparte who's armies helped force and engrain these unpopular values on much of Europe.

Humanistic ideas were already widespread in Europe before Napoleon crowned himself and started to conquer large parts of Europe. So were these ideas unpopular? No! They were just not welcome among the ruling classes. Think Restoration...

Kant was one example - agreed, an important example - the Categoric Imperative is _the_ base for acting in a morally just.

Your objection to telling the truth all the time as implicitely required by the Category Imperative is interesting.
You refer to the state and powerful elites requiring to lie in order to defend the Rights of Man. My question is: Does the state and do these elites always act according to the Category Imperative? History tells another story.

My take on secrecy (this is what you are writing about) is:

• Is there a serious reason to keep something secret? Only if the answer is a clear yes it should be done.
• Does the information prevent accountability of the state organs and the elites? If the answer is yes, secrecy is a danger.

Recent and not so recent history in my corner of the world has taught me to distrust elites until the contrary was proven.
There was and is too much secrecy and not enough accountability for those who rule either with mandate from the people like a government or without like a lobby or large enterprise.
If there is no incentive to act in a responsible way (Category Imperative again), why else this would be done?.

Back to the base for the French Revolution - I do not see any mention of Voltaire, or Montesqieu.

Asher, please try to find a final version before you post, During writing this post your answer changed three times at least and it is a pain to answer to an ever-changing post. Just because I use the preview I could notice this.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

Michael,

Yes, it's best to have the post mature and corrected, but I'm also supervising workmen and I fear having earlier versions lost by the computer. I should compose such weightier posts in MS Word!

My reference to "not lying" is not to allow the powerful elites to have secrecy protected, rather to protect individuals from having to disclose to the state their secrets about dissent or sources of news. We already allow for witnesses, at least in the USA, to refuse to incriminate themselves with their answers. We also should allow the privacy of political beliefs and incrimination of others for political beliefs.

Without Napoleon, Jews in ghettoes would still be excluded.

Asher

 

[Michael Nagel]

My reference to "not lying" is not to allow the powerful elites to have secrecy protected, rather to protect individuals from having to disclose to the state their secrets about dissent or sources of news. We already allow for witnesses, at least in the USA, to refuse to incriminate themselves with their answers. We also should allow the privacy of political beliefs and incrimination of others for political beliefs.

This is because the people in power do not consequently act according to the Categoric Imperative. Here secrecy is something I can deal with, but I do not like the reason for it...

Without Napoleon, Jews in ghettoes would still be excluded.

In Medieval times this was a community within the city, also for practical reasons - butchers, bakers for kosher food, Mikveh, not far from the Synagogue - without any clear separation before it became a walled ghetto.
If it was not Napoleon - he was a product of his time and without the thinking of the ones you mentioned, but even more so Voltaire and Montesquieu as I suppose that this had more weight in France - it would probably have been someone else as the time had come.

Did you read the rest I wrote?

Best regards,
Michael

Afterthought: I would make sense to copy the relevant posts into a separate thread in another subforum without deleting these (this is where it sparked) and continue the discussion there. I will post a few pictures more here in this thread.

 

[Asher Kelman]

This is because the people in power do not consequently act according to the Categoric Imperative. Here secrecy is something I can deal with, but I do not like the reason for it...

Michael,

The Categorical imperative only helps us, societally, when we are intent on deriving rational approaches to issues that matter to us. There's no reason for one in power not to simply exercise their power unless the consequences restrain them. So Kant's reasoning works in academia, law, mediation, cooperative agreements and marriage where power and influence can be subjugated to logic, truth and reason.

In Medieval times this was a community within the city, also for practical reasons - butchers, bakers for kosher food, Mikveh, not far from the Synagogue - without any clear separation before it became a walled ghetto.

This is one view, a romantic one, sounds well. Perhaps some few families started a settlement that way. But really fails to accommodate the facts of the widespread strict legislations throughout medieval Europe that compelled separation of Jews into walled regions with restrictions on professions and trades and no room for growth.

If it was not Napoleon - he was a product of his time and without the thinking of the ones you mentioned, but even more so Voltaire and Montesquieu as I suppose that this had more weight in France - it would probably have been someone else as the time had come.

This worked in Europe but came apart eventually in Algeria, where the incompatibility of imperialism and humanism was ripping appart the French their from the ideals of "The Rights of Man".

Did you read the rest I wrote?

but of course! Just there's a lot to account for.

Afterthought: I would make sense to copy the relevant posts into a separate thread in another subforum without deleting these (this is where it sparked) and continue the discussion there. I will post a few pictures more here in this thread.

I decided to move related discussion to this new thread with enough of the related pictures so it can stand on it's own.

Asher

 

[Michael Nagel]

This is one view, a romantic one, sounds well. Perhaps some few families started a settlement that way. But really fails to accommodate the facts of the widespread strict legislations throughout medieval Europe that compelled separation of Jews into walled regions with restrictions on professions and trades and no room for growth.

I just wanted to point out, that is was dark grey, but not all black. We are getting side-tracked here So I propose to continue to discuss this via PM or on a separate thread. This has just the feel of a can of worms as too many bad things happened and I am afraid that the rational level of discussion could be quickly left behind. I am ready to give it a try, but would prefer to discuss this after my initial question was answered.

This worked in Europe but came apart eventually in Algeria, where the incompatibility of imperialism and humanism was ripping appart the French their from the ideals of "The Rights of Man".

This is right, but I have the impression that this lesson is learnt. There are also other nations standing on a high moral ground having similar issues...
You mentioned The Hague, the list of nations who ratified the treaty is impressive, but it is also interesting to see who is missing on the list.
Also getting side-tracked here.

The Categorical imperative only helps us, societally, when we are intent on deriving rational approaches to issues that matter to us. There's no reason for one in power not to simply exercise their power unless the consequences restrain them...

The keywords are law and accountability. If there are no restrictions like laws, no respect of human rights and no accountability, there is not much motivation to act morally except the individual standards which can vary a lot.
I do not think that this is a desireable situation, we had that already...
So the idea of having one law that applies to everybody has a point here.


Now to the initial assertion and question that sparked the discussion.

... the English Philosophers of the Enlightenment and the ill-fated orators and writers of the French Revolution.

Interesting juxtaposition - There were also English Philosophers of the Enlightment, but they were by far not the only ones and what made the orators and writers f the French Revolution ill-fated as their ideas spread and sparked other movements? Their personal fate was sometimes tragic, but ill-fated?

Please explain the juxtaposition you chose here and the reason for the expression 'ill-fated'.
I failed to mention Rousseau - his ideas were very important and there was Diderot...

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

I just wanted to point out, that is was dark grey, but not all black. We are getting side-tracked here So I propose to continue to discuss this via PM or on a separate thread. This has just the feel of a can of worms as too many bad things happened and I am afraid that the rational level of discussion could be quickly left behind. I am ready to give it a try, but would prefer to discuss this after my initial question was answered.

Well, I had better look at my previous answers then. I didn't realize there was a gap!

This is right, but I have the impression that this lesson is learnt. There are also other nations standing on a high moral ground having similar issues...
You mentioned The Hague, the list of nations who ratified the treaty is impressive, but it is also interesting to see who is missing on the list.

Well, Michael, why should one join one's own execution celebration? There's a major discrimination as to where outrage is expressed. This selective protest and disgust is the reason why the United Nations and the Hague cannot be trusted, as yet. We have no arrest warrants for massacres in Syria, but doubtless there would be long lists for US, Russian and Israeli generals. We have no mass protests for 80,000 deaths in Syria and millions of displaced people in Darfur and countless massacres. The "progressive" dominated U.N. General Assembly sets the stage for distrust of their impartiality.

Still, the fact that The court of the Hague exists is a major advance for humanity.

Also getting side-tracked here.

Word art can be esthetic in itself, like "SEX" or "SCREW". There's shock, effrontery and humor all in one glance. Add to that contrasting color, that can be impressive art. However, I don't think "keine mensch ist illegal" are not just such fun words of a catchy slogan for fun. The very idea of man being of a lesser value or equal value is steeped in discussion, political movements, social protest, literature and hopes for our civilizations.

The concept of "other" in all it's forms, ("illegal", refugee, displaced person, stateless, gypsy, minority, non-muslim, non-christian, non-Jew, non Hindu, non-party member and the like), denotes stratification of humanity. This results in an elite, recognized as "legal", with all "The rights of Man" and the "other" serves them and exists at their tolerant pleasure with less power, privilege and rights.

The keywords are law and accountability. If there are no restrictions like laws, no respect of human rights and no accountability, there is not much motivation to act morally except the individual standards which can vary a lot.

Exactly. We demand of the Chinese to have safe practices for their workers and we have the leverage as we can stop manufacture there or not buy their goods.

Now to the initial assertion and question that sparked the discussion.

Please explain the juxtaposition you chose here and the reason for the expression 'ill-fated'.

We have the capability to look back on the lives of the great orators who helped direct and modulate the process of the French Revolution, but what happened was more than a tragic ending for them under the guillotine. It was a journey of evil fate. The use of death as the solution to the privileged of the past provided the evil tools to consume the powerful of the revolution itself. The currency of a duel was paid in death. So the game was a roulette where the prize was continued life or violent death. That's not tragic, that's evil.

Have I answered as of yet?

Asher

 

[Michael Nagel]

Well, Michael, why should one join one's own execution celebration? There's a major discrimination as to where outrage is expressed. This selective protest and disgust is the reason why the United Nations and the Hague cannot be trusted, as yet. We have no arrest warrants for massacres in Syria, but doubtless there would be long lists for US, Russian and Israeli generals. We have no mass protests for 80,000 deaths in Syria and millions of displaced people in Darfur and countless massacres. The "progressive" dominated U.N. General Assembly sets the stage for distrust of their impartiality.

Still, the fact that The court of the Hague exists is a major advance for humanity.

Well, if you want to improve an institution, you have to play the game, participate in a constructive way and accept temporary setbacks. Simple fingerpointing never helped to change things.
It is not the mass protests that get war criminals arrested, it is rather the nations participating with their military and police force who do this work, but I am sure you looked up Darfur at the ICC before posting. A weak start, but a start.
Regarding the lists for the three countries you mentioned and given the scale and/or the duration of conflicts involved (the list maybe shorter or longer than you expect) would you totally exclude that, as one may say 'things happen'? Btw, the ICC comes into play when nations participating do not manage to prosecute these crimes themselves and the standard is set by the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and related treaties.

As for Syria - it is not clear what is happening where, nor there are names attached to specific war crimes and you ask for an arrest warrant? That's a stretch! On the other hand, there is absolutely no black and white there - it is grey and grey. Why is there no intervention yet? Did you consider the potential outbreak of a major conflict as outcome? Could it be that this evolves into a proxy war?

Exactly. We demand of the Chinese to have safe practices for their workers and we have the leverage as we can stop manufacture there or not buy their goods.

This is a very specific projection on work safety (undeniable a human right) but I think you were more aiming on the power of the Chinese Government. I do not know if you noticed, but there are companies pulling out of China, not necessarily for the same reasons (some are moving to other countries, some are moving back), but this does not compensate the companies moving in yet. What went wrong? A complete answer deserves a separate post, but the decision to transfer production and technology was maybe good if you look the numbers, but strategically we see now what it means. As a company you become dependent and as a country with many of such companies you lose leverage for diplomatic negociations. Bad thing.

We have the capability to look back on the lives of the great orators who helped direct and modulate the process of the French Revolution, but what happened was more than a tragic ending for them under the guillotine. It was a journey of evil fate. The use of death as the solution to the privileged of the past provided the evil tools to consume the powerful of the revolution itself. The currency of a duel was paid in death. So the game was a roulette where the prize was continued life or violent death. That's not tragic, that's evil.

Have I answered as of yet?

I think you missed the central point as you continue to compare your enlightment philosophers with people doing politics at times when you could lose your head which is evil as you write, but you fail to see the four names mentioned who laid the base for the 'Code Civil' you rightfully praised. The comparison as you do it here does not work - you compare two different sorts of people, that's like apples and oranges...


Best regards,
Michael