Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Your favorite UN institution

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Which is your favorite UN Institution?

The World Health Organization: because it eliminated smallpox from the globe, one of mankind's greatest achievements; and because it is fighting for the lives of millions of people who are suffering from poor health all over the globe
7
No votes
The International Court of Justice: because it is the sole body on the planet which tries to protect the human rights of all people, regardless of their race, religion or sex, by holding states accountable for their actions
2
No votes
The UNESCO: because it protects, values and preserves the world's cultures in all their diversity, and works to make education and science accessible to all people on the planet
1
No votes
UNHCR: the only body on the planet that can help refugees in the most appalling crisis situations in a serious way
1
No votes
Unicef: the world's chilren fund, making sure the hope of our world is not squashed by health matters, oppression, war, tyranny or economic and social exclusion
1
No votes
The World Bank and the IMF: although much criticized, these institutions try to help states in creating economic prosperity for their citizens
0
0%
The ILO, international labor organization: trying to establish and protect human dignity in work, by promoting dialogue between employers and employees all over the world
0
0%
The FAO, food and agriculture organization: because it helps people, states and nations in creating a sustainable food production system, by disseminating knowledge, research and capacity building
1
No votes
The UNFPA, because it provides crucial assitance to states in implementing population and reproductive health programs, so that people can create the future in a dignified way
0
0%
 
Total votes : 13

Unread postby lorenzo » Mon 30 May 2005, 10:52:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ECM', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')orenzo wrote:
That is so because I see it as my paternal duty to educate the American children whenever they demand it.

Perhaps you should stop trying to educate Americans. After all we are just following what we learned from centuries of European behavior.


Well, look at us then as your granny. She learned about her mistakes. She doesn't want her grandchildren to repeat them. But she fears they're mildly autistic. She's getting bitter about it all.
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Mon 30 May 2005, 13:28:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'T')hat is assuming of course that the US did decide that it should be the world government instead.


Knowing (not assuming) that this will never happen, what do you think the multilateral world order should look like?


Well...I left out a word in the statement above. It was supposed to say "did not decide". I think the US has essentially decided that it is the new world government. Thus the complacency about waging their new "war on tyranny" without even the rubber stamp of the UN security council. I don't think they will have the capacity to make it stick, but that's another story.

What do I think the multilateral world order should look like? Tribal governments encompassing no more than 100 square miles each. I don't think any government should be permitted to develop any weapon system that it wouldn't allow it's citizens individually to possess. I think that these tribal governments should establish whatever sort of power equilibrium suits them. The more distant government is from the governed, the easier it is to manipulate and exploit everyone.
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby lorenzo » Tue 31 May 2005, 10:48:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'I') don't think any government should be permitted to develop any weapon system that it wouldn't allow it's citizens individually to possess.


Over here in the Free World, we have a totally different view: the State is there to defend its citizens, and it is the sole body that can legitimately use force in order to maintain the law. This is classic political theory of the State, dating back to such greats like Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc...

Let's take your logic to its full consequences:
1. your state develops a weapons system to defend itself against other states; you say: fine, but the citizens should be allowed to possess at least similar weapons
2. suppose another state develops a weapons system more powerful than yours; your state will obviously create an equally powerful system; and you step in, telling the citizens that they, again, should be allowed to posses this even stronger weapon.
3. and so on, ad infinitum.

You are basically advocating the proliferation of weapons in each individual's backyard! How bizarre! This is taking us back to the stone age, back to an era where there was no state at all. Only, your Neanderthalers won't be owning clubs with which to crack open the skulls of their neighbor with whom they have a minor dispute, they now own nukes.

Do you really think this works?

I've watched Bowling for Columbine, and I see that the American state can't even manage the problems arising from the fact that its citizens are carrying ordinary guns.
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Chocky » Wed 01 Jun 2005, 04:01:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are basically advocating the proliferation of weapons in each individual's backyard! How bizarre! This is taking us back to the stone age, back to an era where there was no state at all. Only, your Neanderthalers won't be owning clubs with which to crack open the skulls of their neighbor with whom they have a minor dispute


Wow, I didn't know Belgians were so violent. You mean to say that whenever you guys have dispute, you pick up the closest object to hand and fly into a homicidal rage? What about an argument in the kitchen? Do belgians usually go for the knife block and stab the other party to death?

Seriously, the mere presence of a weapon does not automatically mean violence. Obviously I can't speak for you though. Maybe you don't have a lot of self control.

Oh look, it's a man being protected by the state. Can't quite place the continent, must be America though :P

*Edit

Image

There you go, much better.
User avatar
Chocky
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Land of Do-As-You-Please
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron