[QUOTE=thisispain;47804904]
Thanks, "PragerUniversity" -- the channel set up by Dennis Prager who thinks America is doomed without Christianity and believe Obama is literally a sleeper agent installed by Europe.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are going to support that second claim, you wouldn't try to discredit someone with a lie. Right?
[QUOTE=gudman;47809406]What capitalism has to do with it? It's human nature, we're not ants.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think that large scale authoritarian forces which eliminate accountability and push power upward are part of the vague "human nature" but that's just me.
[editline]26th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sally;47810628]I hope you are going to support that second claim, you wouldn't try to discredit someone with a lie. Right?[/QUOTE]
Like I'd even care enough to lie about Dennis Prager; it's not like anyone needs to lie about him anyway.
[editline]26th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;47808860]Its not possible ever in a large scale or large population system.
In smaller communities, its possible but you also run the risk of isolationist policies, fear of the outside and those not like people in the community which can lead to things such as violence against specific targets.
The Salem Witch Trials is a textbook example of how policing by the community can go horrifically wrong.[/QUOTE]
You say it's not possible but liberal democracy wasn't considered possible either before it came into fruition. That's not a good argument.
And what about all the text-book examples of how policing by a police force can go horrifically wrong? They're a lot more recent than the Salem Witch Trials.
Spheres of influence still exist though. How about China-North Korea?
How about US-South Korea, US-Japan, US-Phillipines, ANZUS, ABCA, 5power, ZPCAS, NATO, CSTO,? Those are simply some of the military alliances/ organisations, but the onion has many more layers of political, economic unions(EU,ASEAN,NAFTA,GCC, EACU, MERCOSUR, USAN etc.), cultural(Arab League), etc.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47810843]I don't think that large scale authoritarian forces which eliminate accountability and push power upward are part of the vague "human nature" but that's just me.
[/QUOTE]
Human nature is "me over others", selfishness, which comes as an added bonus to self-awareness. There will [b]always[/b] be people who strive for power because they think they know better or any number of other motives. And there will always be people who can play the system, whichever it is - there wasn't a society in history where things were different, and there's no sign of change in sight. And some number of those people will be smart and crafty enough to succeed. It is inevitable once a society is at any level of beyond basic survival.
As far as accountability goes, nothing removes it quite like a mob rule. Which is something most direct democracies devolved into - the ones that weren't just overthrown before that could happen. In the most authoritarian state you at least have a group of people to be accountable, albeit a very large one. In mob rule - everyone's responsible. Which is the same as no one at all.
[QUOTE=gudman;47811463]Human nature is "me over others", selfishness, which comes as an added bonus to self-awareness. There will [b]always[/b] be people who strive for power because they think they know better or any number of other motives. And there will always be people who can play the system, whichever it is - there wasn't a society in history where things were different, and there's no sign of change in sight. And some number of those people will be smart and crafty enough to succeed. It is inevitable once a society is at any level of beyond basic survival. [/QUOTE]
I disagree strongly with the idea that there weren't different societies. Many societies did not value selfishness but valued community as a survival tactic; these are societies which lasted for centuries before Western capitalist exploitation. The human nature principle only exists to excuse the current status-quo, even though it is only a status-qou and humans have adopted to many other living situations.
Essentially, human adaptation makes the idea of human nature unrealistic. "Me over others" only works if a society favors such an idea, and many societies did not.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47810843]
You say it's not possible but liberal democracy wasn't considered possible either before it came into fruition. That's not a good argument.
And what about all the text-book examples of how policing by a police force can go horrifically wrong? They're a lot more recent than the Salem Witch Trials.[/QUOTE]
Okay, excuse me a moment while I got back further and further as you would qualify most of the Dark Ages as insular communities self policing.
I'm not even saying its not possible, it works in smaller communities but runs risks. Its not perfect.
[B]But excuse me for forgetting the 8 billion and growing human population.[/B]
[editline]26th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;47811490]I disagree strongly with the idea that there weren't different societies. Many societies did not value selfishness but valued community as a survival tactic; these are societies which lasted for centuries before Western capitalist exploitation. The human nature principle only exists to excuse the current status-quo, even though it is only a status-qou and humans have adopted to many other living situations.
Essentially, human adaptation makes the idea of human nature unrealistic. "Me over others" only works if a society favors such an idea, and many societies did not.[/QUOTE]
These societies, that you speak off that lasted longer before Western Capitalism, also had robust bureaucratic systems and policing methods.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47812278]Okay, excuse me a moment while I got back further and further as you would qualify most of the Dark Ages as insular communities self policing.
I'm not even saying its not possible, it works in smaller communities but runs risks. Its not perfect.
[B]But excuse me for forgetting the 8 billion and growing human population.[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey bud we're just talking hypothetica here; theoretically a police-force doesn't need to exist because I don't believe in authority as separate from the community, practically of-course is a different concern.
[editline]26th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;47812278]
These societies, that you speak off that lasted longer before Western Capitalism, also had robust bureaucratic systems and policing methods.[/QUOTE]
Police I'm defining here as authority separate from the community, as is used in the context of the threat title.
Then that's not a police force, that's an occupation force and probably the main contention and issue with the American police force.
However, on the flipside, I do not believe local hegemonies are the best way forward because that's exactly how World Wars 1 and 2 started. That's why the Cold War started.
That's why all the fighting between France, English and Spain occured. That's why both Prussias united together.
Either we strengthen the UN to act as a police force across the world meant to secure economic lines as well as protect human lives.
Or we run the risk of even more horrendous violence because, unfortunately, the deck we have is based around capitalism, and most nations still depend on the United States.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47811490]I disagree strongly with the idea that there weren't different societies. Many societies did not value selfishness but valued community as a survival tactic; these are societies which lasted for centuries before Western capitalist exploitation. The human nature principle only exists to excuse the current status-quo, even though it is only a status-qou and humans have adopted to many other living situations.
Essentially, human adaptation makes the idea of human nature unrealistic. "Me over others" only works if a society favors such an idea, and many societies did not.[/QUOTE]
And I almost completely agree! There were different societies, there were actually lots of them, but the thing is... as you said yourself, "altruistic" community is a survival tactic in smaller groups. The circumstances (hostile environment, limited resources) pushed people to cooperate or basically die, that's human adaptation, yes. Modern societies have moved far beyond survival - resources are abundant, comparatively easily accessible. "Altruistic" behavior is not required.
And then there's size, modern countries are fucking enormous compared to anything the history has seen, the number of citizens is unprecedented. Such a huge community has a tendency to dilute responsibility and accountability due to its sheer size alone if nothing else; any single member's contribution is pretty insignificant.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;47805455]He... he does realize that using Rwanda as a reason why the United States should be the global police is incredibly stupid right? I mean he's just being a manipulative douche, he's not honestly that moronic, right?
You know who else didn't help Rwanda? THE FUCKING UNITED STATES! We were bound morally (and I believe legally but I can't find what treaty or law specifically binds us) to respond to reports of genocide with demonstrable action. The Clinton Administration knew of the Rwandan genocide, they had proof, but officials speaking with the public were told to use the term "acts of genocide" instead of simply "genocide" since if they did use the term "genocide" they would be acknowledging their knowledge to the public. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/10/world/officials-told-to-avoid-calling-rwanda-killings-genocide.html"]THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED[/URL]
Fuck this guy.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Flameon;47805715]The claim to the question of if the United States should be the global policeman cannot be divorced from claims to its efficacy as a "world policeman" - afterall, from 1940 till the cold war the United States enjoyed a status as a great power, and immedietly following the cold war enjoyed its status as a global hegemon. If we are going to critique the U.N. for failing, then let us not be so quick to not leverage similar criticisms to the United States.
500,000 people slaughtered in Rwanda. And what exactly was the United States, oh benevolent hegemon, doing while they were getting slaughtered? Oh right, nothing.[/QUOTE]
You both fail to recognise that infamous series of events in Mogadishu the previous year and the categoric disaster the Somali campaign was (rightfully) pinned as, events US foreign policy was still reeling from come the genocide.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.