>As for "*economic necessity", isn't politics and war merely economics by other means? Isn't warfare the final result when political decisions, primarily driven by economic agendas, transcend mere competition and rivalry?
"Blood for Oil" isn't a simplicistic translation for this, is it? And let's not forget, in warfare, very often "economic agenda" is driven by the economic agenda of some individuals determined to self-enrichment.
But what I really tried to say is that after studying historic, political maps of Europe, it's striking how little effect all those terrible wars had. An unbelievable waste of energy and life.
When I study Vietnam, is there a justified trade off today? Or if I imagine the USA without Civil War: maybe still unified today or again? Maybe two states loosely coupled, with a distinct southern and northern political and social culture? Who knows? Was it worth the price? I don't know. Do you?
Many times, the price paid for war and violence ist far too high. Most times, it's level is completely absurd.
I'd really like to see a world, where the people and the people only has the right to decide whether to go to war or not.
>In fact, I say that the world MUST unify itself based upon a consensus of mutually held values (and compromise)
Then let's work on the base of mutual respect. Let's evolve and transcend the vision of Montesquieu, Hobbes, the Founding Fathers and many others on a global level.
>The US (imperfect as it might be currently be) is a microcosm, IMO, of what the world can one day look like under a world government.
Don't forget, the US model had never to address serious, historic ethnic problems (or more precise: the way they have been resolved is not an example for the world).
That's why I say: the US model is necessary, but insufficient.
My little country, OTOH, had to address a lot of such problems. It's worth studying:
ni4d.us
Or adti.net
"What would the Founding Fathers say about direct democracy?," Howell asked.
"Well, they were nervous about all democracy, even representative, as is borne witness by their adoption of a mixed system," Fossedal said. "If you take their principles in 1787, however, and adapted them to present circumstances -- widespread learning, affluence, and most important, the ubiquity of low cost information -- they would be satisfied and gratified."
“The people can never willfully betray their own interests,” Fossedal quoted from The Federalist. “but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people."
"That's in The Federalist?," Howell asked.
"That is a direct quotation from Federalist 63, sir," Fossedal said.
"That is powerful," Howell said. "That is a powerful statement."
"It's probably no accident," Fossedal concluded. "The Swiss played a role, directly and intellectually, in forming our constitution in 1787, and we did in theirs in 1848. Hence we have often been called the 'Sister Republics.' If we now take a page from the Swiss, and empower people with a direct vote on key laws and cosntitutional rules, it would not be a brand new collaboration -- but the extension of an old one that has grown richer over time."
Hawk, let's have a dream! |
