French political system

The French political system is doomed to be regionnalist, elitist, technocratic and conservative.

It is simple to see that the french higher education is an elitist one. Students fight each other to be accepted in Grandes Ecoles, they are enslaved, worked till they bleed. They are taught the all the beauty of the french system, its magnificient history, how proud they can be of themselves. "Only the best can achieve it. ( Let s not give doubt on how people mature, everybody is equal in every aspect in the french system)"

Of course, the best prepared students come from cities and well-off families: since they have a standardised bacchalaureat at the end of their scolarity, which gives an illusion of equality, only the good schools prepare the students whose parents payed the fees for a good preparation.

So once in this Grandes Ecoles, the supposed elite of France get to learn a little bit more, and get offered a job in the civil service. Most of them become civil servant, having more or less important job depending on their results. Perfect working machine are ready to serve.

Then come another comic point of the french system: civil servants are pushed to be in politics. During elections, if they present them-selves, they are still paid, they have the security to find their job back if they fail. They have all the advantages possible, and political parties recruit in the civil service.

So i have already shown how elitist-educated and technocrats come to power. I still have to show why they are bound to be regionalist. Politicians in France are allowed to accumulate mandates, and they do. They all start at the bottom, building bastion in town, to then grow in region and then on nationnal level. But if they want to keep they popularity, they have to keep in mind where they come from, and satisfy their voters, and their own power in a region or in a town. Nationnal interrest, and god forbid world interrest, are not that important to a politician, except if it conflicts with its own interrest or the interrest of their voters. They are regionnalist.

So voters are important to satisfy, but it is easy to see politicians are, most of them, populist, just look at Sarkozy. Also, the fact that they are all part of the system before-hand make them able to vote for legislation so technical that they actualy don't change much the system. It is an illusion of satisfaction given to the voters who are willing to see changes. For example, a constitutionnal amendment is proposed, that would allowed citizen to ask the constitutionnal council to see the interpretation of a law,but it would be possible only in a very very specific case, therefor it will never actually happen: Illusion of change - Conservatist values.

So most the politicians are big-headed, with nationnal values, without real perspective, heartless technocrats, with only the wish to keep their power, and great at manipulating people....

Good luck France !

Free Country - Utopia 2

Here is the all famous first article of the universal declaration of human rights, adopted by the U.N. in 1948. Countries are asked "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories" :

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

We are all aware that this is not the case, but still, we should be abide by that principle. We are not born equal in rights because of the where, when and of whom we are born. It is an injustice in this world that people do not seem to realize. " Fuck'em all, my parents worked their ass off for me to live this way" seems to be a good argument for not adopting a spirit of brotherhood. Of course, not everybody has such radical thoughts, but we do accept radicalism, because of our history, from which we seem to only keep the habits but not to learn the lessons. If you'd take a look at Italy now, you can observe another wave of extreme-right wing thought directed towards romanian gypsies, which scandalize countries like the U.K., Germany or France, which are actually no better, except that they are politically correct. Italy just adopted a law which said that illegal entry is an offence, just as the european countries mentioned above do, the difference of Italy though is that it has also allowed its mayors to expulse european residents judged unfit to live on their sacred land.

I could take the attacking position that everybody takes and propose the idea of putting an embargo on Italy, to let it realize how much it needs its foreigners, or not allowing Italians to reside in our "open-minded" countries. But we are not as good as we seem. We are still deeply stuck in our concepts of identity, nationality, protection, and fear of the other. We don't believe a bit in human rights. "Fuck humanity, I love my country." ( I'm sorry if I'm vulgar in this article, it's just that it is a sensitive issue to me. I sincerely don't swear often).

My country would have open-borders. Well, no borders except for the one the neighbouring countries would install. Even if everybody would be scared to see terrorrists coming in, lazy people profiting of the system or people stealing their jobs, I'll confront them with humanity and the help it needs. Coming from a inter-cultural environment, I can tell you that nothing gives such an open mind as that. Colliding cultures do push people to accept the other, and recognize the lacks in our own culture. I don't believe it would leave the country in chaos, because no-one emmigrates for no reasons, or for bad ones at least. So why should we think that immigrants create problems ?

It's a simple principle. Why would we, westerners, be allowed to live almost everywhere we want, and we are still so restristive on who's allowed to live in our countries. Supposedly we are richer so we have more to protect, but fuck that, we've distroyed cultures with our money(look at South-America, where the average family will spend more on a t.v. than on education), we stole the gold of our colonies and we still abuse deloping countries because we help them to have a better economy."But god forbid they try to live a better live next to us, they are savages". I don't know, I feel guilty for us, we are lucky to have our history, we are in a region that gave us the oppurtinity to develop like we did, and we don't share any of it, I don't think that's fair. I would allow everybody in. Anybody ready to live surrounded by others, and not in his well protected fish-bowl where he grew up, is good in my book and a true brother of mine.

100 people

well now more than a hundred people visited my blog. I can now say: it's a big step for me and a small for man-kind, but it's still a step. Thank you my readers !

Utopia 1

Tax, sponsorchip and pubs

Equalities of chances is still a major problem in our society. There is no economic or social ladder. For that I do, maybe too easily, blame the consumerist system. Governments try to bring a little bit of fairness in this world. Invest in the education, the health and the culture, some better than others. The work they do is supposed to be visible but that's mainly because our cars look better and planes are bigger. But there is still a little amount of distribution between poor and rich people, the gap is actualy growing. There is a large middle class, where we can make distinction through what they purchase, but the poorer are getting poorer and the rich richer. We are not all born equal, but is fair to wish to be so.

The governement is an institution that feels faraway now, even the local one. We see them everyday one the news papers or watch them on t.v. but we don't feel anything, we are not really thankfull for what they do for us- at worst, we hate them for what they take from us, mainly because we don't see where it goes.

That's why in my dream land, if I was a marxist dictator that would innstall highly corrupted institutions ( it's the only scenario I came up to, also with this one: I am the appointed leader of a planet discovered on a Star Trek episode if you wish), I would install a sponsorship system. It would consist on not taking taxes on the revenue, but making rich family sponsoring poor family. They'd meet everyweek in a social place, the pub seems the most convenient, it is where people from different social grounds meet and try to discuss about everything and nothing. The rich family would have the responsability for the health and the education of the poorer family, or more ff they have a real bond together and want to do more. We'd bind every kind of social background people to recognise the other and accept him.

I guess that at the beginning, before the meeting at the pub, every couple of family would have a supervised session where the complaint or praise would be made. And we'd see if the families really help each other. We'd explain to the rich family shouldn't feel superior and understand their chances and distribute it - and to the poor family to understand they are responsible to repay by doing everything so the rich family can be proud of them and consider each other as equal. I find that perspectives are always a way for evolution.

Of course we'd have to consider the cost of not having less money on the infrastrure of the state, but less money in the army and the war on drugs, taxing the enterprises on their profits. Also, I guess that lots of families maybe will refuse to help, or being helped. It would be a personnal choice that bring lots of conveniences. The rich family will have tax on the revenue, that will be estimated in consideration of not helping an other family, and the poor family could still receive an allowance, but not as high as the one from a rich family. There again, the amount of help given can be a choice.

In the future, I'll talk more about my utopia. A bit far stretched ideas to rebuild a somehow better world. I thought such a dream should somehow be expressed. And of course I hope I'll be able to build a small of activist that I can brainwash so they help to make a coup d'etat and I'll be able to do whatever I want.And I also hope to be captured by aliens.

( by the way, I know my ideas are coming from real numbers, but i like to stay general, so I don't get lost in the details even if they are somehow interesting to go in depth, so if anyone can tell me how certain ideas can be done, economic-wise, mathematically-wise,or if they go against certain principles of law that shouldn't be broken, or are more than approved, please write a message, you have my gratitude if you do so)

First real contreversial idea

I had this discussion recently. I was with a friend watching the news. The theme was the return of injured soldier from a war. My friend said he was sorry for the soldier, and I replied that pity wasn't the feeling I felt.
I can't feel pity for a person who's choice was to be ordered to kill and be shot. It is a matter of personal choice. As I can't feel sorry for someone not overcoming an addiction. I know that some of them do want pity, but I'm not ready to give it to them. Pity is deserved to people who don't deserve their treatment. I don't say that we should leave them with their pain. Help is only fair, but not as pity, but as an offer for them to obtain their redemption from their bad choice. I know my vocabulary is rather religious- but I'm only talking about ethics.
My friend then answered that it was maybe not a choice, that the army is sometimes the only way for social or economic elevation. I will not deny that his got a point. But then my pity is toward a society that permits that. How can we promote still an army today. I understand that we do try to make less casualties now, but only on our side. It is good that we only have volunteers. But we shouldn't send them to gratuitous war only if they conscent. And then I shouldn't feel any pity. Pay them less and see who's coming. If we invest less in the simple soldier in the army, but as an elite of conflict resolution, I'd say that I'd feel pity if they'd come back really injured, only maybe.
I won't feel pity again for selfish reason. I dream of a warless world, and I guess most of the sane world do too. If we'd think about all doing it, won't we feel safer ? If i was a head of state of a powerful country. I'd start by stopping our nuclear weapon program. Lead by example. That's one of the only motto I really like. I hope I may be understood for my lack of compassion for the crippled soldier.

No more cars in the city

I know that as a second articles, it's not my most impressive idea, but i think it should be more considered. I want to ban private cars from the city. I don't mind a parking outside the city, letting in the city only the delivery cars, the ambulances, the fire trucks and the public transport. People should go back to walking a lot more, and getting rid of the will to use a mind-corrupting machine like a car for small distances. It would also push governments to augment the capacities and lower the prices of public transport.
I don't like cars, it's true that it is a highly subjective point of view. But when i think of a car, i see a dangerous instrument. I see a symbol that makes men vain. I see a system taking power on our mind. A car is useful, but why should be such a highly valued private property exist likes it exist in our society. Everybody admit it, inside a car, their mind do change. Couples do fight more often in a car. People take credits in banks to get a car that they'll have to replace in ten years time maximum and no one get more profit than they pay for it. I don't know. Our society grew dependent of them, and addictions are not always good. We fight addiction everywhere, except their. Again, i don't want to sound like an easy alternative guy, but only the big powerful countries make profit out of cars. So just like Kyoto, they'll take their time to change to such an idea if they don't see any win. I know, another impossible idea, but i thought it should be put on the table.
I'd love to walk through beautiful capital cities that don't have so many noises, without the smell of carbon, and without being afraid everytime i cross the street. I don't know, i think we'd win more without so many cars in our city. I don't want to tax them more, that would be the easy option: let the rich ride cars.No, let's ban cars, please ?

Infra-structure for my thoughts

Well, I'm not that organized, but i like to have some base for my reasoning. Just like Descartes, but i won't go as far as him, since he did it, no need to go back. What he said is my mind is there, it can question everything. I firmly believe that our mind contains secrets and capacities. And that's why i believe in humanity. I know it is a common faith, but not practised that much.

My faith in the capacities of humanities led me to think about a few changes so we could live in a better world. But this faith toward humanity has often been attacked because it is an idealist believe. People won't believe in these ideas because they don't trust each other. Wise-guys, in history, always profited from the system, and made us suspicious of everyone. People getting money from tax payer without doing anything are a good examples. They are actualy the terrorist of my idealist work. Why do i call them terrorist is because they take in hostage the rest of humanity. Like terrorist, when we see them at work, we want to change the system so it doesn't let them profit from it, even if it is to our lost, like we try to limit our liberties after terrorist intervention. Not trusting humanity is giving power to the people who will disapoint us.

Another question of base in ideas is the old question of ethics. Should i tend for an ethic of consequences or an ethic of conviction. Well i always naturally believed that principles, if they are profundly good, should always overcome an idea that base itself on consequences. Of course having a new principle can have consequences. The order goes like that for me, if a principle is good, it should be followed, no matter the consequences ( there are exceptions for eveything, i'm only talking of theories). Principle should lead our life, they don't have to determine every aspect of our life ( it's impossible, and if we do it, we'd look like a boring utopia), but our moral decisions and political decisions should be based on them.

So an idealist hopes and principles are the base of my ideas. I'll try to be as open-minded as i can on every subject I'll post, and I invite you to reply to my ideas, because dialogues bring evolution to ideas, it is important. I might contreversial sometimes, but that's only because i do believe our world could be so much better, please don't take it as a sign of easy alternative anarchist position. Thank you very much !