Evening, AFAIK, I just got in from work so apologies for the late reply. Anyway, here it is.
AFAIK wrote:Agreed. How can we modify and influence this system to reduce the states capacity for violence?
By making all the players more politically and economically integrated to the point that they are actually the same country but subdivided into states. There would be a world constitution which, although reasonably descriptive, allows room for manoeuvrability so that at the individual state level, states are free to write their own laws, as long as they don’t breach the highest constitution. This as you might have guessed, is to account for the inevitable problems that differences in geography, population and culture etc would bring about.
AFAIK wrote:I'd be concerned that the politicians would become increasingly remote from the populations that they represent making them less responsive to the negative impacts that their actions have on the population.
It would be reasonable to think that, but this is how it works in a lot of countries already- some members of the government barely ever see the people they supposedly represent. Of course, you always need a direct link to the people of some sort and this is why government is, and would continue to be layered- having certain councillors/politicians who act as the mouthpiece and ear of the higher politicians . I think it’s unrealistic to expect all politicians to be able to be councillor style politicians like we have here in Britain.
AFAIK wrote:Agreed and yes I was referring to WWI + II. I'd like to clarify that genuine free trade agreements are beneficial, not bull-shit misnomers
I would like to add that pacifism and a lack of appetite for violent conflict after experiencing so much death and destruction also contributed. Compare/ contrast with post war Japan.
Yes I agree with that. I think Japan having a certain pacifist constitution basically forced on them by the Americans had something to do with their current attitude to international relations as well. Although from what I read, the attitude of the Japanese is beginning to change in that regard now.
AFAIK wrote:1- Yes, but you have paraphrased- If 1+2=3 does 2+1=3?
2- Fukuyama examined the causes/ processes of political structure formation. Every society that formed a state did so in response to the external threat it faced from a neighbouring state . He was unable to discover a "virgin birth" or "origin of statehood".
3- Yes it is a state but where did those state institutions come from? How/ why were they formed? The 1st state pro-actively become a state. All other states formed reactively.
1)Yes 1 + 2 = 3 and 2 + 1 = 3
2)Well I don’t know to be honest because it’s hard to decide at what point a society becomes a state and history goes back a long way, much further than we have written recording of it. The idea he states though actually sounds intelligent to me. If you look at my first post in this thread, you can see from that that my idea(s) line up quite well with his.
3)The institutions are necessary for a stable and peaceful state. My guess as to how/why they were organised would be that one tribe or group became the dominant group after a lengthy period in a state of civil war (or inter-tribal warfare). This successful group realised that if they were going to remain the dominant group and have the others obey them, stay loyal and basically give up their freedom, they would have to at least provide something in return. This provision came in the form of protection from outsiders, possibly employment and a (very primitive) legal system which is essential to economic prosperity. Add in a nice bit of religion to keep them in fear for their souls and you’re in a strong position.
AFAIK wrote:But this group would be above the law. US president don't indict themselves but they do grant immunity/ pardons to themselves. e.g Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment and was later pardon by a successor.
There would need to be multiple groups responsible for justice. Having just one would no doubt lead to abuses and these groups would need to be distinctly separated from each other to avoid collusion and corruption. In the same way you don’t have the police acting as the judge and jury as well as the investigators and preventers of crimes. The case you mentioned is an American one, I wouldn't use their system as a template for mine.
AFAIK wrote:So a balance of power? When 1 group is massively more powerful then another there is little war as instigators would be swiftly crushed. When groups approach a balance of power the dominated state attacks the dominant state in an attempt to gain better terms for itself. Compare the past 500 years of European history with that of China. Europe experienced a series of civil wars because no 1 group was able to seize and hold the entire continent. In China dynasties were able to maintain hegemony over the political system for extended periods.
Europe was never ruled by one government, you could maybe say the Romans and Napoleon came close, but it’s nothing like what we have now and there is very little chance of war breaking out between the member states of the European Union. As for the one extremely powerful group that’s needed for a hegemony you mention, that would be the World Government itself. As for China, certain dynasties did reign for a long time but do you actually think there was peace, security and prosperity in that country?
Well I'm off out to town now but if you or anyone else replies while I'm out and I check PoFo, I'll see if I can reply while I'm there. Don't know what my friends will think of me being all anti social sitting there typing away a message while they talk about something unimportant and uncontroversial but fuck em!