Gabi offered his consulting services for the Romanian presidency -- I think it's a considerate offer, even though some think it's foolish, we need more of those, we need quality people getting involved. It actually reminded me of the old "don't ask what your country does for you but what you can do for your country". And it is a good example. And btw, Basescu specifically declared that he intends to gather the Romanians from all over the world to stick to the same cause.
Comments
Do you have anything to say? Fill in the below
Regarding "don't ask what your country does for you but what you can do for your country"... the same sentiment was also in fashion in another time and place: Nazi Germany, in the 1930s. The context was different but the goal was the same; the subjugation of independent individuals to collectivist goals via the poisoned offering of nationalism and/or group identity. Stop with all this Nationalism! Last time I checked, it was SELF-esteem, not NATIONAL-esteem. A country, its State actually, is nothing more than an institution - one that should exist as long as it serves its citizens; not the other way around. It is troubling to see intelligent people who "voted with their feet" falling in love for a populist like Basescu and forgettng the truth. Yes, Basescu is yet another populist, with a mainly negative campaign. Was he better than the other populist he ran against? Undoubtly, but that changes nothing! At this time, in Romania, the promises of "social protection" AND modernization are incompatible. Perhaps what we need in Romania is not more flag waving and messiah-like figures, but perhaps less willingness to sacrifice for various causes. Romania, historically and contemporary, is the result of too much sacrificing.
Obviously your individualistic approach doesn't fit when it comes to civic spirit or the idea of a community. Moreover I think you have a wide shot making the parallel to the Nazis. Too wide I'd say and I put this on a combination of youth and lack of experience in the real world (at least) in countries/environments other than Romania or the like. I strongly recommend you travel more and, if possible, live for a while in a different country - Scandinavia is my most recommended. Then probably you will understand what that old saying really means and why I quoted it. And dude, honestly, it's not "falling in love" with Basescu it's simply seeing a better choice than Iliescu, Nastase and the clique. Why is it so difficult to get it? We're not talking about idealistic perspectives, rather about the realistic ones. Try to get out and talk some more with people from the real world. No pun intended. :)
I do agree with timbru.com when he says that valuable people should involve themselves, especially since the newly elected president lacks a solid formal education. Not that the previous president had one, but at least he was well trained in the political and diplomatic warfare. Maybe T.B. will manage to grow into a genuine intelectual, and the easiest way of doing that is to let himself guided by truly qualified people.
My experience is that it's like in business -- the team effort will always prevail to the individualistic approach. And each of the three times Basescu won against PSD he had a strong team behind and he always acknowledged it. Labeling him as an intellectual or non-intellectual is very dangerous -- he needs to be a leader, as simple as that. He's proved it at the city hall, we shall see if he is going to raise to the important posture of being the president of Romania. Being skeptical beforehand without giving him at least a slight chance simply means you had lost the war before even starting it.
The concepts of community, team and so on require *no sacrifice*. The meaning of economic freedom is exactly that the individual *chooses* the way he integrates himself with the rest of humanity. This integration should be done by the way of agreements and contracts and not by blind allegiance to immaterial concepts (race, nation, party, etc.) Instead of making these ad hominem commentaries (about my age, how much I've traveled --as if you knew-- and whatnot) why don't you try to *actually address* my point, which, if you don't remember, was that the appeal to nationalism over ther recent elections victory of Basescu is misguided and dangerous. Nazism is just social nationalism or national socialism (whatever you prefer) taken to its logical results. And, in a sense, I'm not against "doing things for your country" (I consider my comments valuable in this respect) but I'm against a policy of ideological "belonging" of individuals to the State, via nationalism.
Gabi, I don't want to start a polemic � I just think there is a big difference between a practitioner and a theoretician. Your discourse indicate exactly the latter � you say "what it needs be done", you use words such as "should be done", "require", "must" and so on. Those are strong words and indicate very categorical opinions and my experience is that in real life there's rarely black and white as those words may suggest, it's more of a grey situation. I actually have been in these shoes early in my life and learnt my lessons, so take it as my 2 cents and don't get offended � it is definitely not what I meant. To exemplify, I would just start with your first phrase from the last comment: "The concepts of community, team and so on require *no sacrifice*." How do you know that? Do you have empirical data supporting this case for Romania? What piece of evidence shows that the concept of community is not affected by other variables (internal or external) that would reflect on the sacrifice level? Again, what is the situation like in Romania? How do you know that what's good in a community context is similarly good in other contexts? Or otherwise? How about communities of communities? Do they require sacrifice? How do you know that an individual actually choosing to be part of a community doesn't make a personal sacrifice? And of course I can go on, but that's not the point. I would like you to think about the following scenario for a moment: suppose you'd be in Basescu's place (or in any powerful leader's) and also keep in mind all the everyday idiots that keep giving you (and me) frustrations. And they're many, I hope you agree that is a fact. :) How would you deal with them in applying these categoric principles? How many do you think they would follow you? Why? How would you overcome their resistance? How would you get to them in the first place? What kind of language? What kind of approach? I think you will agree that it is a very complex context that requires more than a black and white solution. Personally I had faced these types of situation several times in business contexts and I found it very difficult. But perhaps you have some experiences to share that would indicate that it is simpler that that, I would love to learn from your experience in this respect. Being more specifically now and in the above posting context, I was simply saying that right now it is a critical moment and Romania needs all its valuable resources to stick together. And that involves the diaspora as well I hope you agree with that. They should be needed first of all and they need to learn that as well � the signal should come from Romania and not otherwise given the careless way the previous administration treated the matter. As such, Gabi Radic's gesture is remarkable given that it is the other way around � he offered himself to give a hand. That was simply my point and I hope now you understand why I believe that the Nazi parallel was a bit misplaced. It has nothing to do with the "policy of ideological belonging of individuals to the State, via nationalism." � I can hardly believe that "gather the Romanians from all over the world to stick to the same cause" may have indicate to you other than its exact meaning. Moreover, I never implied that sacrifices need to be made - I didn't even suggest those things and this makes me believe you jumped to the wrong conclusions. Yours,
Sacrifice is not a cost. Sacrifice is specifically choosing the worse alternative because of duty, accepting a loss on ideological basis. A cost is accepting a loss because a perceived profit. With cost, you risk it for profit, with sacrifice you just suffer because an idea of duty. My idea is that sacrifices are never necessary. No correct ideology would ever require sacrifices. You said "civic spirit and community", which automatically imply the idea of sacrifice: accepting losses so that the community may thrive. This is the idea I'm fighting against: the idea that people (local or diaspora) have a duty (moral or otherwise) to suffer to the sake of one institution or another (State, etc.) This is also the spirit of the quote which started the discussion. A discussion of JFK's politics and ideology is out-of-place here, but he was asking for sacrifices. Hitler was also asking for sacrifices. The idea of the national state was the sacrificial post. JFK is not Hitler, and Basescu is neither. The concept of sacrifice is the same, though. Regarding gray areas: I'm all for negociation and agreements and contracts and team work. What I am against is moralizing and forcing people into sacrifices and taxes and other forms of expropriation and abuse. There's no middle-ground between poison and food, nor is there any between legality and illegality. One is a business owner who respects the rights of employees and his contractual obligations, or one isn't. Anything else, and he shouldn't call himself a businessman, but a thief.
Just a brief comment -- you're making a separate distinction between two overlapping concepts: sacrifice and cost. And one doesn't exclude the other, any sacrifice is a cost whether you call it an ideological loss at free will or whatever. It may involve (or not) an assumed choice but it's still a cost. Moreover it is not a zero-sum game as you assume it, on the contrary the civic spirit and community means primarily value creation and not value distruction. (as sacrifice would involve in your acception) Community doesn't necesarily means a duty, it can very well involve a vision, a mission or a common purpose - a glue that sticks everybody together. That's the reason the tribes were the first communities that have ever emerged for. :) I cannot help noticing that again you are theoretizing and that is why I will not comment further as I am more oriented towards down-to-earth solutions rather than philosophical arguments. I just don't have the time and the patience for those :) In a way you remember me about a book I have read when I was 18 or so written by Petre Tutea, I can't recall its name now unfortunately.