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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (9162)	5/20/1999 12:44:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

You are incorrect because you misunderstand the term sovereign. Your position only works if you deny the right of a sovereign state to give up any of its rights and powers. By your definition there is no such thing as a sovereign state in the world, since every nation has SOME treaties, membership in the World Bank, UN, WTO, etc. by which it accepts both the benefits and the costs of allowing another body to govern certain of its behaviors. The US regularly wins and loses cases in the WTO; do you contend that we are therefore not a sovereign state? If you want to take the sterile position that there is no such thing as a sovereign state and probably never has been in the history of the human race, then your are technically correct but your position is meaningless and devoid of any intelligent meaning. If that is your position, you win the argument, but you have removed yourself from any ability to discuss issues that exist in the real world.

To: D. Long who wrote (9162)	5/20/1999 9:57:00 AM
From: Stormweaver	Respond to of 17770

>> sovereign state precludes world authority. True for domestic matters of any sovereign state. There is no such thing as "World authority" otherwise the U.S. would have to answer to someone for their actions. What there is though is international law (U.N. doctrines) which are not enforced by offensive means but are for now a code of ethics that we can all agree upon ; a stepping stone toward building global unity. By breaking those doctrines we are in effect stepping backward since we are saying (NATO nations) "we are the law, f*ck the doctrines". This is unacceptable no matter how justified NATO nations feel they are to act. >> If you stand to argue that the UN has real, international >> authority, than you are arguing that the UN has a relation to the >> countries of the world analogous to the authority of the >> US Federal government to the US State governments. Bad analogy since we're not at that stage yet where an international body has been granted enforcement rights. As I said we're on one stepping stone and that is we can all agree to the international law doctrines. >> So it is ludicrous to say that any country is a sovereign >> state, but >> the UN has authority over it. Sovereignty precludes any >> higher legal authority. That is sovereignty, by definition. Sovereign within their borders (period) ; that's what sovereign means. The UN or NATO has no authority to act within a sovereign nation. If it wishes to act then the doctrines should be ammended by all parties to the organizations first prior to one of them breaching it ? /James