Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (57224)	11/17/2002 3:00:10 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I see "the job" as laying the foundation for a form of global governance. The job, in your phrase, is to recreate the world. If by “global government” you mean a very basic framework of basic rules for national conduct and commerce, and a mechanism for enforcing those rules, I could agree. If what you mean by “global government” is an institution that will govern the globe, I want no part of it. Government governs best when it governs least, and that will be more true of global government than any other. It is inherently unstable to have global trade without effective global governance. <rant>Please, let’s have no talk about protecting and maintaining stability. Trade is inherently unstable. Human society is inherently unstable. Human societies change, unless they are dead. Change begets instability, rapid change begets great instability. Stability cannot be enforced or imposed, not by any means short of absolute dictatorship, and even there instability wins in the end. The task is not to achieve or maintain stability but to manage instability and to keep its expression within acceptable boundaries. </rant> The job, in your phrase, is to recreate the world. There is an implicit question here that has to be addressed, particularly by unilateralists. Are we going to recreate the world as we see fit, to serve our interest? Do we want to BE the global government? Or do we want to participate in the recreation of the world, and to try to produce a world “government” – or at least a process of governance – that will ultimately govern us in some respects, though we will not control it. The first goal might be achievable, in the short term, but I believe that in the long run – and likely even in the medium term – it would be unsustainable, and that the inevitable collapse of the effort would probably produce global war. The second goal is probably unachievable in any complete or absolute sense, and would involve decades of frustrating and frequently agonizing effort. It’s our choice. I’ve always believed that the single highest moment in our national history came at the close of WW2, where we resisted a temptation that many have succumbed to in the past: the temptation to try to turn a moment of military advantage into world dominion. It was a very noble thing to do, and one that averted a hell of a lot of misery. The credit, of course, does not go to America’s leaders, but to America’s people, who would not have tolerated an aggressive war so close on the heels of the horror of WW2. I think we made the right choice; this is as much an ethical conviction as a political one. We face a similar choice, I think, today. The world needs to be recreated; will we try to recreate it ourselves, by force, or to participate in its recreation. I think it’s an ethical choice as much as a political one. I know what I’d choose; I wonder what choice the nation will make.