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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (95301)	4/21/2003 12:50:34 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Define 'very long'. It's worked for hundreds of years sometimes. Pax Britannica? Pax Romana? Rome and Britain were willing to commit resources to keeping peace because they were sustaining their empires through plunder. Even so, they were not able to hold their empires together (they were also not quite as peaceful as we would like to believe). If we try to earn enough from our hegemony to cover the cost of maintaining it, we will encounter more resistance in more places than we can overcome. If we try to sustain it using our own resources the resistance will come from our own people. A multi-party system is not any likelier to adjust to changing conditions than a hegemonic one. A hegemonic system inevitably creates conditions to which it cannot respond. A multi-party system does not have to do that, though it can. What makes you think a new one would be better? I think a better one could be built, if we adopted its construction as a primary goal and devoted enough effort to it. I have great faith in the ability of the free people of the world to accomplish very difficult things, and I think we owe the free people of the world something a lot better than one more hegemon.