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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124091)	1/31/2004 6:09:44 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 281500

Slavery was abolished over a long period of time, earlier in some nations [or parts thereof], later in others .... it's not reasonable to expect nations to learn to cooperate overnight at some grand conference, it's far more likely to come bit by bit, smaller alliances of democracies being founded more on principle, hopefully, than on immediate self-interest, then expanding outward from that core Calling it 'world government' is not helpful, the term will put everyone off, and cannot be accurate .... we like being nations, distinct peoples, vive les differences ..... in fact it is to secure our sovereignties that a system of deciding things like elective invasions of nations is necessary The english constitution remains unwritten as a comprehensive document, it has evolved into what it is, and works well, this is probably a better model than expecting people to sit down with either a Bush or Chirac and agree on precise wording of terms ..... you start smaller than that, with something fundamental from a group who are able to agree on certain points, like the Magna Charta .... somebody has to begin, show some leadership, surely there is a kiwi or a dane or irish or canuck out there capable of standing up to the Powers That Be And you have to back up your decisions - those nobles who forced not only king John's signature but his compliance as well, could do so because they were armed ..... turning the other cheek would have lost them their heads, real quick

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124091)	1/31/2004 10:58:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jacob, the analogy with slavery is good. I read that article you linked and indeed, common acceptance of an immoral, unethical, MADness is as endemic today as was slavery then, and cannibalism. Nine out of ten men couldn't vote, and no women could, in those bad old days. Today people act all shocked at the idea of cannibalism, and a single German cannibal captures the world's attention even though it was a very benign cannibalism, with the consent of the eaten rather than the usual post-conquest cannibalism. Today, if I recommend we declare brown and black people unfit to live in certain neighbourhoods, have a vote, be able to own property [let alone themselves], or that they be enslaved, or that women should be chattels of their husband, people would be appalled. Yet those were considered normal ideas until not very long ago. Life is much better for a great deal more people with an ethical way of life, which considers people to be self-determining with their value determined in free exchange with others. What seems normal now in international relations and relationships between the state and individuals would seem as barbaric as cannibalism, slavery and women as chattels, if considered from what is currently thought of as a Utopian ideal of worldwide law and civilization. Now we have 20 megaton noocular bombs, fleets of huge submarines good for nothing other than blowing up opposition, swarms of aircraft devoted to nothing other than killing opposition, millions of soldiers armed to the teeth with sophisticated killing devices and techniques, armadas of aircraft carriers and other vessels capable of destroying whatever is left. Individuals are slaves of the state, with very limited self-determination. It really is insane. All that power to destroy and force is only necessary because the imagination needed to create a system similar to that which works quite well within the borders of many countries, doesn't exist to extend that conceptual framework of law and political stability to a broader border = that within the geostationary orbit, or perhaps the Moon's orbit. Most people are too busy just surviving the daily exigencies they confront so they can buy the groceries and stuff they need to get by and enjoy life a little. Those people would be perfectly happy if there was a better system so they didn't also have to fund a pointless military menagerie. It's not that they are in favour of the existing system. They just haven't been given the option. "Yes, they really did used to have bombs big enough to blow up whole cities full of people. They actually did that a couple of times. Describing what goes on now in the way of "Keeping the peace" would be like describing a surrealistic MADness. It's been a fairly fast transition from warring agricultural and hunter-gatherer village-sized tribes to now, and progress has been particularly rapid over the past 2 centuries. So it shouldn't be a stretch to imagine some more substantial progress over the next half century, or even quicker. Sometimes things go with a bit of a rush - such as the end of the slave trade and chucking slaves overboard to collect the insurance on jettisoned 'cargo' which was necessary to protect other human 'cargo'. Emancipation of women has been fairly quick too, though Omar and his Taleban mates weren't too keen on it, and Nigerians were set to stone to death a woman for having a baby outside the usual rules though the father was to escape unscathed. Paradigm shift happens and major paradigm shift happens quickly too. Look at China for how quickly a shift in thinking can improve the lot of a billion people. Ditching Maoistic mania was the key. It wouldn't be a great strain to improve the lot of 6 billion. It's really just an idea that's needed. The USA is the country in a position to promote the improvement and would perhaps be the country which would most benefit from the improvement. A vastly improved world economy would be feeding profits into the USA companies which are positioned to benefit from the integration and civilization of 6 billion people. That is similar to Great Britain benefiting from the civilization of the countries reached by British Empire and law, with habeas corpus, contract law, free trade and individual protection of property rights. The locals did well out of it too, but Britain went from a pokey little North Sea backwater to the richest country on Earth. Old Empire countries are still keen to stay in the British Commonwealth and remain good mates [Mugabe notwithstanding]. Bring it on. I mean the NUN, not the PNAC. Though the PNAC in revised form is not mutually exclusive with the NUN. The USA could have the best of both worlds. It would be a lot better than a constant stream of body bags and $100 billion regularly going down the drain to maintain the flow. Mqurice

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124091)	2/3/2004 6:33:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The fact that arguments A,B and C, have been made against idea X, and are now being made against idea Y, do not mean that idea X and Y are similar. Also the arguments aren't even really the same. The only argument that is the same is "Also I doubt that you could get a majority of the people in the world to support world government." In 1750 you could have substituted "abolishing slavery" for "world government" and that statement would probably be true. But that's a flimsy reed on which to hang the idea that opposition to world government is like opposition to slavery. Primarily my argument was one about greater freedom and protection of individual rights. Slavery is exactly the opposite of freedom and respect and protection for individual rights. Tim