The freedom of an individual is the freedom of this latter to emancipate within creation. The freedom of what is usually called a state is the phenomenon under which a state, as an administrative entity capable of massive infrastructural investments, transform the projection of the freedom of its inhabitants into a culture. A state is a geographical entity asserting the cohesion of a culture.
I don’t think that country should be able to make direct investissement into other countries. To me, loans etc. should merely be provided by international institutions. Direct investissements between countries should be forbidden- I think, as of today at least. First it creates a symbolical power dynamic between siblings; second, it is the continuation of system of control over the creation that is not welcome nor participating to the betterment of global cultural heritage.
Within those lines - that are asserting what we think of a state as a cultural context for the creation of culture within its geography, rather than a power existing outside it’s own geography- it should then be necessary to make institutions higher than states. That said, since they are already existing, we could merely transform them to suit that nuance. Those institutions should be the only one allowed to lend out money to the states and the business (used to find lenders within the persona of the other states.)
In a two time
process, I would then suggest the creation of an international passport - that would then be apparent to a cultural passport. The people who would decide to get an international passport could/should (?) get rid of their national passport. The international passport would merely be an identity card archiving the cultures a person would have been to, therefore its influences. Again, all that is under the idea that a state is mostly a zone of cultural influence under which people are free to transform this freedom - through the emancipation within art - into culture.
Having an international passport, stopping with national/limited zone passport is refusing the inherent inequalities hidden under the possibilities given -or not- to certain nationalities.
To cesse the possibility for foreign investment along the creation of an International passport could give a new breath of air to foreign relations, cultural exchange. It would also allow the overlapping of cultures as a possibility.
It is better for peers to be different, than for inferior/superior to be.
Recap: Making foreign investments forbidden, dropping national passport for an international one, streghtening your culture(s) while uplifting the one/or many of others.
Victoire M
Comments