- 06 Dec 2022 03:21
#15258123
They 'tried' -- ? How's it going with *Sri Lanka* -- ?
---
I used the following recently with late, at another thread, since he's a statist, too. You're welcome to address it if you like.
---
Not so *simple* I think -- let's take it *up* a notch. What do you think of South Africa -- ?
South Africa’s Descent into Chaos
Private Security in South Africa Comes at a Cost
Unthinking Majority wrote:
That's an extremely difficult question to answer. I really don't know. They tried to solve the issue with the UN and various international organizations like the WTO to bring law to the lawless international realm. It's very imperfect, but maybe better than nothing.
They 'tried' -- ? How's it going with *Sri Lanka* -- ?
2019-present economic and political crisis
Amidst the country's current foreign exchange crisis, former Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa sought a $3 Billion loan from the IMF in April 2022. Opposition party leaders urged Rajapaksa to seek IMF assistance prior to April.[8] The governor of the country's central bank, P Nandalal Weeresignhe, echoed this sentiment.[9] Sri Lanka has also sought an additional $500 million line of credit from India, and began negotiating a credit line of $1.5 billion. Sri Lankan minister of finance Ali Sabry has stated "We are a netural country. We are a friend to all."[8] In May 2022, Sri Lanka defaulted on its debt for the first time in the country's history.[10]
Negotiations between the IMF and Sri Lanka regarding lending to resolve the balance of payments crisis are ongoing. As of July 18, 2022 acting president Ranil Wickremesignhe stated that negotiations were nearing conclusion.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka ... cal_crisis
---
Unthinking Majority wrote:
The UN could maybe work, it just need to be redesigned, and have real teeth for countries that break the law. The EU is kind of a regional model, but may have gone beyond its original mandate.
If you want peace in the world you need collective security: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_security
What should happen in the case of Ukraine is that if any country breaks international law and attacks another then all other countries in the world come to their defense. So every country should be equally fighting to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. No country can win a war vs the entire world, so they would never try. This was the idea of the UNSC, but it's a flawed organization with the vetos. Russia and others can veto anything.
Also, international law should be minimal, because central control can be dangerous and overreach. You call me a statist but I believe in local self-determination where possible and reasonable, even within countries.
I used the following recently with late, at another thread, since he's a statist, too. You're welcome to address it if you like.
Hope strangled again
In a famous passage, Winston Churchill recalled how he met Stalin in Moscow in October 1944 and said to him, ‘So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have 90 percent predominance in Romania, for us to have 90 percent in Greece and go 50-50 about Yugoslavia?’
Churchill wrote down a list of countries with the appropriate percentages next to them, and Stalin wrote a large tick on it.
At length I said, ‘Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner? Let us burn the paper.’ ‘No, you keep it,’ said Stalin.250
It was not the resistance fighters in Greece, Italy and France who decided Europe’s destiny, but meetings such as this. At conferences in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam, Stalin agreed with Churchill and Roosevelt to divide Europe into spheres of influence. The US was not happy with this division at first. It hoped to use its massive industrial superiority to transform the whole world into a single US sphere of influence, free trade providing it with open markets everywhere.251 Churchill, committed as ever to maintaining an empire run exclusively from London, would not countenance this, and neither would Stalin, who had the sheer size of Russia’s army to counter US economic power. Between them they persuaded Roosevelt to accept the division they wanted.
The deals were a death blow to the hopes of the resistance movements. They gave Stalin’s armies a free hand in Eastern Europe. Stalin was not going to let Communists elsewhere upset the arrangement by attempting to lead revolutions, however favourable the mass of people might be. His former foreign minister Litvinov spelt it out bluntly to US representatives in Italy in September 1944: ‘We do not want revolutions in the West’.252
Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 536-537
viewtopic.php?p=15257782#p15257782
---
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Stealing is a bad idea because you can get caught and go to jail. Most places don't just let people steal and get away with it, like far-left loony parts of California. If you feel entitled to steal other people's property feel free, you'll probably get caught at some point and get locked behind bars.
If more theft occurs insurance rates will go up, which means cost of goods will go up. Inflation is not a good idea as we've seen.
The looting thieves like the anarchists during the George Floyd riots are total antisocial morons and took glee in destroying their cities and cost everyone including themselves (taxpayers) a lot of money. The anarchists who created CHAZ/CHOP are also antisocial morons who had no right to commandeer public and private property without the consent of the people, which makes those anarchists tyrants.
Not so *simple* I think -- let's take it *up* a notch. What do you think of South Africa -- ?
South Africa’s Descent into Chaos
Private Security in South Africa Comes at a Cost
- By QatzelOk