America's Dangerous Obsession With Invincibility - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15257129
Rich wrote:
I can't speak for everyone who supports America, but as a general rule I have not got the slightest interest in the united States ceding power to Russia or China. I supported Russia in Syria over America, but that is the exception.



Interesting!


Rich wrote:
It was Syria by the way that caused me to switch my support from Hilary to Trump in the 2016 Presidential election and caused me to shift my support from Sanders to Trump after the Zionists closed down the Democratic Primary in 2020 and Sanders dropped out .



Is that still a 'democracy' -- ?


Rich wrote:
Previously I did support Russia in Crimea and the Donbas, but Putin's behaviour this year has caused me to withdraw even that support. If America could take control of the Siberian gas fields from Russia I would now support it.



Is that an enlightened *humanitarian* interest there, like Bush's non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction' -- ? Freelance pro bono consulting for NATO -- ?


= D


Rich wrote:
Personally I have no need to idealise the United States, past or present. There are many places in the world where American policies are not the ideal, but in almost none of them would greater Russian or Chinese influence be an improvement.

So yes there is an imbalance in the power of the United States relative to Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Maduro. I would like to see that imbalance grow bigger.



Sorry, BRICS are on the rebound, I would say. (Look at international petroleum shipments.)
#15257131
ckaihatsu wrote:Is that still a 'democracy' -- ?

As a general rule I support democracy, but in Syria for me the needs of the Atheist, Pagan , Christian, Alawite and Druze minorities took priority. That's why supported majority rule in Iraq but not in Syria. The only way that things can really be improved in Syria that I can see is if some how a land Bridge from Israel to the Kurdish territories could be established.

Sorry, BRICS are on the rebound,

I'd very much like to see India becoming both a member of NATO and a permanent member of the UN security council. One of the great tragedies of the Cold War was that India ended up de-facto aligned with the Soviet Union while we ended up in bed with Pakistan, Mao and the Khmer Rouge.
#15257132
Rich wrote:
As a general rule I support democracy, but in Syria for me the needs of the Atheist, Pagan , Christian, Alawite and Druze minorities took priority. That's why supported majority rule in Iraq but not in Syria.



Okay.


Rich wrote:
The only way that things can really be improved in Syria that I can see is if some how a land Bridge from Israel to the Kurdish territories could be established.

I'd very much like to see India becoming both a member of NATO and a permanent member of the UN security council. One of the great tragedies of the Cold War was that India ended up de-facto aligned with the Soviet Union while we ended up in bed with Pakistan, Mao and the Khmer Rouge.



Premium. Can I just call you 'Mr. NATO' from now on -- ?
#15257167
wat0n wrote:Because those carrier groups can be used offensively. Missiles can also be used offensively, and much of the missile tech has both offensive and defensive uses.


Hypersonic missiles are a very expensive solution to the problem of carrier groups and missile defense shields. Saying that carrier groups can be used offensively is the point - the US is acting in a way that makes other nations uncertain about their intentions and continues to refuse to tolerate the sort of compromise that would be useful in building trust between rivals (or allies, given how much they spy on their own friends).

The US obsession with responding not just to the threats of today or tomorrow but also the threats of next week, month, and year - the US obsession with invincibility and no-risk security environments - make it impossible for trust and goodwill to be established and breakdown any trust in international institutions as anything but another weapon in the American arsenal.



wat0n wrote:Also, Russia and China could choose to do so to deter actors other than the US. China needs to deter other nuclear powers (India), Russia and China have themselves fought military conflicts with each other in the not so distant past. So pretending all their own missile programs exist solely to deter the US is nonsense.


But they don't. They are responding to US defense policy. The only one pretending anything is you. It is telling how much of defense for US policy here comes down to hypotheticals. "What if China were the global hegemon, they'd be just as bad?" "What about other actors?"

China's biggest geopolitical rival other than the US is India - both India and China refuse to equip soldiers in their border regions to avoid military escalations, they both have adopted NFU policies. What other nation is going to nuke China? Pakistan is a Chinese ally. Russia and China have no strategic disputes. North Korea is a Chinese ally. Israeli nukes are a "I die, you lost button." Who's that leave? France? The UK?

Seriously, @wat0n:

Are you against the US:

1) Adopting a NFU policy regarding its nukes

2) Signing the Geneva Conventions, recognizing the International Criminal Court, and otherwise signing an abiding by the international norms of the world order they created?

3) Ending "Two War" doctrine

And if so, why?
#15257168
Fasces wrote:Hypersonic missiles are a very expensive solution to the problem of carrier groups and missile defense shields. Saying that carrier groups can be used offensively is the point - the US is acting in a way that makes other nations uncertain about their intentions and continues to refuse to tolerate the sort of compromise that would be useful in building trust between rivals (or allies, given how much they spy on their own friends).

The US obsession with responding not just to the threats of today or tomorrow but also the threats of next week, month, and year - the US obsession with invincibility and no-risk security environments - make it impossible for trust and goodwill to be established and breakdown any trust in international institutions as anything but another weapon in the American arsenal.


Sounds like the US government is doing its job

Fasces wrote:But they don't. They are responding to US defense policy. The only one pretending anything is you. It is telling how much of defense for US policy here comes down to hypotheticals. "What if China were the global hegemon, they'd be just as bad?" "What about other actors?"


Of course a good defense policy will ask those questions, being our version of "si vis pacem, para bellum". What's so strange about it?

Why would China need to respond to US defense policy? Using your reasoning, at least, it makes no sense for China to wonder "What if the US decides to pursue a far more aggressive policy"?

Fasces wrote:China's biggest geopolitical rival other than the US is India - both India and China refuse to equip soldiers in their border regions to avoid military escalations, they both have adopted NFU policies. What other nation is going to nuke China? Pakistan is a Chinese ally. Russia and China have no strategic disputes. North Korea is a Chinese ally. Israeli nukes are a "I die, you lost button." Who's that leave? France? The UK?


As if India or China itself couldn't change their policy depending on their situation.

Fasces wrote:Seriously, @wat0n:

Are you against the US:

1) Adopting a NFU policy regarding its nukes


Yes, Russia doesn't have one. They've been threatening Ukraine lately, as you well know.

Fasces wrote:2) Signing the Geneva Conventions,


Which ones?

Fasces wrote:recognizing the International Criminal Court,


Other major military powers, Russia and China included, don't.

Fasces wrote:and otherwise signing an abiding by the international norms of the world order they created?


It doesn't?

Fasces wrote:3) Ending "Two War" doctrine

And if so, why?


Why would it do so? The current conflict in Europe vindicates it, if anything. It just takes a single miscalculation.
#15257175
wat0n wrote:Sounds like the US government is doing its job


Disagree.



wat0n wrote:Of course a good defense policy will ask those questions, being our version of "si vis pacem, para bellum". What's so strange about it?


The video in the OP is entirely about this not being good defense policy in the short or long term. Which it isn't.


wat0n wrote:Why would China need to respond to US defense policy? Using your reasoning, at least, it makes no sense for China to wonder "What if the US decides to pursue a far more aggressive policy"?


China doesn't have to wonder. The US routinely and regularly uses violence to achieve political aims abroad, and has plenty of military bases along its border. The US holds that international law does not apply to them, and has zero respect for the constraints it puts on them. They are an aggressive hegemon.



wat0n wrote:As if India or China itself couldn't change their policy depending on their situation.


Yet doing so would not be instant, and would give the other time to react. The very act of having the policy helps preserve peace.



wat0n wrote:Yes, Russia doesn't have one. They've been threatening Ukraine lately, as you well know.


Russia had one until 1994, at least in principle. I won't defend Russian leadership, at any rate - but the US can be better.

wat0n wrote:Which ones?


All of them. The banning on chemical and autonomous weapons. UNCLOS. The International Criminal Court. The US needs to demonstrate a willingness to be constrained by the international system it purports to support, or not be surprised when other nations view it as an artificial construct designed to limit their autonomy but not that of the US.

wat0n wrote:Other major military powers, Russia and China included, don't.


China remains open to joining the ICC if it can trust it. The US has given it no basis on which to believe it won't simply be used as a weapon against it, and the US can help begin the process of establishing this trust by agreeing to the Rome Statute.



wat0n wrote:It doesn't?


No, it doesn't. For example - it claims territorial waters of Canada, that under the UNCLOS (the same basis under which it protests expansion of Chinese power in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait) belong to Canada. It refuses to sign the treaty, and maintains its territorial dispute.

Why should other powers trust in the US when it clearly regards these rules as rules that constrain other powers but not itself?

wat0n wrote:Why would it do so? The current conflict in Europe vindicates it, if anything. It just takes a single miscalculation.


The conflict in Ukraine does not pose a security threat to the United States or its citizens. Ending the Two War doctrine of primacy would not significantly increase the security threat to the territorial integrity of the United States or its citizens. It would be a minor policy concession toward establishing a more reconciliatory and trusting international order.

Nonetheless, it is clear that you don't value that - you support the doctrine of primacy and the positioning of the US as 'above' the international order.

It is one thing to claim to value the concept of a global society based on institutional norms, trust, and international cooperation. American policy claims to value this, though by cooperation it means 'subservient to American interests'. It perpetuates an international order based on distrust, despite having the power to change it. This is worthy of criticism. It is a shame that fear, insecurity, and an obsession with invincibility perpetuate an international system built on an "us and them" mindset.
Last edited by Fasces on 29 Nov 2022 02:15, edited 3 times in total.
#15257176
ckaihatsu wrote:Jeez, can't the *AI* just work this one out -- ?


= /

It can. The problem is, we probably wouldn’t like the answer….

Image
#15257183
ckaihatsu wrote:Bullshit -- you're trying to sell *statism* all over again

I'm not "selling" anything. I'm describing the world as it is and has been, apparently simply describing reality makes you angry. You're the one selling a proposed system on here. Statism exists in the here and now, dealing in reality is not a strong suite or yours.

Also, even primitive communal societies had weapons and were prepared to defend themselves against other outsider communities if they were attacked by them. Are you under the illusion that violence never existed at some point in history? Because that's not true, it's been the wild west since the dawn of humanity.

Now you're painting international relations as being the 'Wild West'.

It is. There's no global government to enforce international law. International relations is a bunch of armed gangs struggling over territory, resources, business interests and whatnot. Sometimes there's a gang war if someone acts out of line, or someone gets scared for their own security. We've tried to enact some international rules and organizations to make it less like the wild west, which is good. The problem is compliance, and enforcing it.
#15257187
Unthinking Majority wrote:
I'm not "selling" anything. I'm describing the world as it is and has been, apparently simply describing reality makes you angry. You're the one selling a proposed system on here. Statism exists in the here and now, dealing in reality is not a strong suite or yours.



You *are* selling the 'here and now' / statism, as though this should be the *model* for society's functioning. It *shouldn't*, as we know fully well from the needless deaths of George Floyd and Mahsa Amini, for example.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Also, even primitive communal societies had weapons and were prepared to defend themselves against other outsider communities if they were attacked by them. Are you under the illusion that violence never existed at some point in history? Because that's not true, it's been the wild west since the dawn of humanity.



So human society / civilization always advances at the tip of a spear? Aren't you being dogmatic by fetishizing 'competition', over 'cooperation' -- ?

You're bordering on *yellow journalism* regarding humanity's pre-neolithic existence, by imputing such an *automatically* 'violent' '[human nature]' onto the human-historical body-politic.



Tribal and neolithic modes of production

Marx and Engels often referred to the "first" mode of production as primitive communism.[11] In classical Marxism, the two earliest modes of production were those of the tribal band or horde, and of the neolithic kinship group.[12] Tribal bands of hunter gatherers represented for most of human history the only form of possible existence. Technological progress in the Stone Age was very slow; social stratification was very limited (as were personal possessions, hunting grounds being held in common);[13] and myth, ritual and magic are seen as the main cultural forms.[14]

With the adoption of agriculture at the outset of the Neolithic Revolution, and accompanying technological advances in pottery, brewing, baking, and weaving,[15] there came a modest increase in social stratification, and the birth of class[16] with private property held in hierarchical kinship groups or clans.[17]

Animism was replaced by a new emphasis on gods of fertility;[18] and (possibly) a move from matriarchy to patriarchy took place at the same time.[19]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_p ... production



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
It is. There's no global government to enforce international law. International relations is a bunch of armed gangs struggling over territory, resources, business interests and whatnot. Sometimes there's a gang war if someone acts out of line, or someone gets scared for their own security. We've tried to enact some international rules and organizations to make it less like the wild west, which is good. The problem is compliance, and enforcing it.



'We', as in the 'democratic' 'we', that everyone's presumably signed-off on, democratically -- ?

You don't have any objection to the ICC / ICJ, do you?
#15257191
ckaihatsu wrote:You *are* selling the 'here and now' / statism, as though this should be the *model* for society's functioning. It *shouldn't*, as we know fully well from the needless deaths of George Floyd and Mahsa Amini, for example.

How am I selling it by describing it?

But now that you mention it...what is worse: the occasional George Floyd happening, or everyone running around doing whatever they want with no rules that can be enforced, and everyone joining a gang for protection that will enforce their own rules and commit their own violence with nobody to stop them except other gangs with their own weapons? Because that's how the international system works, and that's how primitive tribes used to function amongst each other. Anarchy doesn't mean freedom, it means you have to join a gang or else one of the gangs will be able to steal everything from you and you'll probably die trying to stop them.

In my city there's a problem with a lack of police officers. Every shift has many cops missing, and they can't do any preventative policing, only reactive after crimes have taken place. So now a lot of young men are loudly racing down the streets in their cars late at night because they can, and it's more dangerous going downtown at night on the weekends because of increased stabbings and shootings. We've run this experiment before, over many thousands of years. You have no clue what you're talking about. If you don't like police or laws, you may want to consider how society functioned without them.

My gang is my government. My gang leaders are chosen by all the members of my community, who decide the rules on our behalf, and if we don't like the rules or the gang leaders we vote them out and choose new ones. My gang isn't perfect, but at least it isn't an authoritarian dictatorship run by tyrants who rule with no say from the community and simply do whatever they want because they intimidate everyone and jail or kill people who speak out against them like most gangs do.

So human society / civilization always advances at the tip of a spear? Aren't you being dogmatic by fetishizing 'competition', over 'cooperation' -- ?

I never said that. You're making up your own arguments in your head.

You're bordering on *yellow journalism* regarding humanity's pre-neolithic existence, by imputing such an *automatically* 'violent' '[human nature]' onto the human-historical body-politic.

Has violence always existed in every human society since the beginning of humankind or not? If you've figured out a way to get rid of all violence congrats you're smarter than everyone else who has ever lived over the last 200,000 years.

You don't have any objection to the ICC / ICJ, do you?

I'm no expert on these institutions, but rules are good. If Putin and George W. Bush could go to jail for invading countries illegally I think the world would be better off, because leaders would then be less likely to do these things. But that's yucky statism for ya.
#15257194
Fasces wrote:The video in the OP is entirely about this not being good defense policy in the short or long term. Which it isn't.


Why? It isn't even particularly expensive, given defense spending should reach its lowest share of GDP since the 1930s if DoD projections pan out.

Fasces wrote:China doesn't have to wonder. The US routinely and regularly uses violence to achieve political aims abroad, and has plenty of military bases along its border. The US holds that international law does not apply to them, and has zero respect for the constraints it puts on them. They are an aggressive hegemon.


An aggressive hegemon that doesn't mess with China. I think you well know what I mean by "aggressive policy" here.

If anything, China has also been aggressive in the not so distant past. Just ask Vietnam.

Fasces wrote:Yet doing so would not be instant, and would give the other time to react. The very act of having the policy helps preserve peace.


Why couldn't the policy change overnight? Especially if an attempt to use conventional military force fails.

Fasces wrote:Russia had one until 1994, at least in principle. I won't defend Russian leadership, at any rate - but the US can be better.


But it doesn't have a NFU policy, now. And therefore NATO (not just the US) can't afford to have one.

Fasces wrote:All of them. The banning on chemical and autonomous weapons. UNCLOS. The International Criminal Court. The US needs to demonstrate a willingness to be constrained by the international system it purports to support, or not be surprised when other nations view it as an artificial construct designed to limit their autonomy but not that of the US.


Sure, let me know when China joins the ICC.

Fasces wrote:China remains open to joining the ICC if it can trust it. The US has given it no basis on which to believe it won't simply be used as a weapon against it, and the US can help begin the process of establishing this trust by agreeing to the Rome Statute.


And China can help the US trust the ICC by joining the Rome Statute. In reality, unlike the US, Russia and even Israel, China hasn't even signed the Rome Statute (all of these countries signed but have yet to ratify it - China hasn't even taken this first step).

It's interesting how it is the US who always has to take these first steps. Nonsense, if China feels threatened then as the militarily weaker party it has to show initiative.

Fasces wrote:No, it doesn't. For example - it claims territorial waters of Canada, that under the UNCLOS (the same basis under which it protests expansion of Chinese power in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait) belong to Canada. It refuses to sign the treaty, and maintains its territorial dispute.

Why should other powers trust in the US when it clearly regards these rules as rules that constrain other powers but not itself?


How many artificial islands is the US building in Canadian waters?

Fasces wrote:The conflict in Ukraine does not pose a security threat to the United States or its citizens. Ending the Two War doctrine of primacy would not significantly increase the security threat to the territorial integrity of the United States or its citizens. It would be a minor policy concession toward establishing a more reconciliatory and trusting international order.

Nonetheless, it is clear that you don't value that - you support the doctrine of primacy and the positioning of the US as 'above' the international order.

It is one thing to claim to value the concept of a global society based on institutional norms, trust, and international cooperation. American policy claims to value this, though by cooperation it means 'subservient to American interests'. It perpetuates an international order based on distrust, despite having the power to change it. This is worthy of criticism. It is a shame that fear, insecurity, and an obsession with invincibility perpetuate an international system built on an "us and them" mindset.


A threat against NATO is a threat against the US, given how the alliance works.

Si vis pacem, para bellum is the best way to achieve trust. The US and the Soviets did trust each other enough to know that there would be some nuclear enforcement of certain red lines.
#15257195
Fasces wrote:Are you against the US:

1) Adopting a NFU policy regarding its nukes

2) Signing the Geneva Conventions, recognizing the International Criminal Court, and otherwise signing an abiding by the international norms of the world order they created?

The US isn't going to do this unilaterally, nor should they. All the major powers need to buy in. If they can get that agreement and compliance, they should all do it, it will be mutually beneficial.

The good faith should be the US's willingness to do this. They don't need to do it before there's an agreement in place. They'd have less leverage otherwise, there'd be less incentive for others like Russia to do it if the US is going to do it anyways. I assume China does it for a reason that benefits their security and they aren't doing it just to be nice. As i've said before, it takes 2 to tango.

I'm all for a more peaceful and less dangerous world. Everyone needs to buy in and agree and comply. This is how the UN was created, and how past nuclear deescalation agreements were made during the Cold War and whatnot. Sadly it might take another bad situation or a close threat of a bad situation to get anything done.
#15257196
Unthinking Majority wrote:The US isn't going to do this unilaterally, nor should they.


This is where we disagree. The US should absolutely do this unilaterally, to show good faith and help repair broken trust.

Unthinking Majority wrote:The good faith should be the US's willingness to do this.


This is only demonstrated after the fact, regardless of the buy in of other powers. To show trust is to assume risk. If the US is unwilling to assume risk, it isn't demonstrating trust. Trust = risk.

These three policy shifts represent a minimal amount of risk and are a powerful show of American good faith.

They are the bare minimum I would expect from the US before I start assigning blame for lack of additional progress to other powers.

wat0n wrote:Why?


Arms races are dangerous by definition.

wat0n wrote:If anything, China has also been aggressive in the not so distant past. Just ask Vietnam.


A single conflict fifty years ago, compared to US foreign policy within the past fifty years. :roll:

wat0n wrote:Why couldn't the policy change overnight? Especially if an attempt to use conventional military force fails.


Chinese missiles are literally disassembled, as confirmed by US sources. The warhead, the missile, and the nuclear core are all maintained in separate facilities. To assemble them would not be instantaneous. Adopting and exercising an NFU policy would help prevent nuclear war just because of that additional action required prior to being able to activate a nuclear strike.

wat0n wrote:But it doesn't have a NFU policy, now. And therefore NATO (not just the US) can't afford to have one.

let me know when China joins the ICC.


My entire point is that the US, as the premier power, should make the first move.

This is a minimal amount of risk. You can't build trust without assuming risk, and this is a minimal amount of risk for the US to take on in the interest of building trust.

If the US is unwilling to assume risk, it is not demonstrating trust.

wat0n wrote:It's interesting how it is the US who always has to take these first steps.


The US is the dominant power. Yes, the US should take the first step. It should put its money where its mouth is. It is the one that built this world order, and which expects other nations to abide by its rules - it should demonstrate its willingness to do so itself. Why propose the ICJ and other similar institutions at all, why endorse it, if it was unwilling to be constrained by it?

Why should other powers trust that the US, which has already proposed the creation of these institutions and then refused to abide by them, would abide by them following their assent?

The US broke international trust in these institutions when it pulled out of the ICJ after Nicaragua v United States, after it demonstrated an unwillingness to be constrained by the very institutions that should constrain ALL actors. The onus is on the US to act "first", as a result.

wat0n wrote:How many artificial islands is the US building in Canadian waters?


If the US has no ill-intent, why won't the US sign UNCLOS and respect its rulings?

wat0n wrote: The US and the Soviets did trust each other enough to know that there would be some nuclear enforcement of certain red lines.


We have very different definitions of trust if a Mexican stand-off comes anywhere to meaning 'trust' to you.
#15257201
Fasces wrote:[/u][/b] If the US is unwilling to assume risk, it isn't demonstrating trust. Trust = risk.

The US and its westernised allies is demonstrating far too much trust to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. Western Europe showed far too much trust to Putin in running down its militaries. Its important to start dealing with these people in the language they can understand.
#15257202
Rich wrote:The US and its westernised allies is demonstrating far too much trust to China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. Western Europe showed far too much trust to Putin in running down its militaries. Its important to start dealing with these people in the language they can understand.


That will mean a lot of us have to face what Ukrainians are facing right now.

I do think it's necessary (and I will probably be among the first ones to die), but I don't think PoFo'ers are prepared for that.
#15257208
Unthinking Majority wrote:
How am I selling it by describing it?

But now that you mention it...what is worse: the occasional George Floyd happening, or everyone running around doing whatever they want with no rules that can be enforced, and everyone joining a gang for protection that will enforce their own rules and commit their own violence with nobody to stop them except other gangs with their own weapons? Because that's how the international system works, and that's how primitive tribes used to function amongst each other. Anarchy doesn't mean freedom, it means you have to join a gang or else one of the gangs will be able to steal everything from you and you'll probably die trying to stop them.

In my city there's a problem with a lack of police officers. Every shift has many cops missing, and they can't do any preventative policing, only reactive after crimes have taken place. So now a lot of young men are loudly racing down the streets in their cars late at night because they can, and it's more dangerous going downtown at night on the weekends because of increased stabbings and shootings. We've run this experiment before, over many thousands of years. You have no clue what you're talking about. If you don't like police or laws, you may want to consider how society functioned without them.



I think you're operating with a *stereotype* of anarchism -- I'm *not* an anarchist, but I'm not far from it, either, due to being far-left (Marxist).

The 'anarchy' that concerns you *isn't* political *anarchism*, because anarchism is *political* / conscious / proactive, and does not have societal 'anarchy' as its goal.

Ever heard of 'Minority Report' -- ?


In 2054, the federal government plans to nationally implement the Washington, D.C. prototype "Precrime" police program.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)



---


It's *here*:



How Predictive Policing Got A Chicago Man Shot Twice

(Mis)Uses of Technology

Thu, Jun 3rd 2021 10:48am - Tim Cushing

The Chicago Police Department is already seriously awful. Its reliance on software to decide who and where to police isn’t making it any better. Predictive policing is only as good as the input data, and if the data is being input by police departments with long histories of biased policing, it’s only going to generate algorithmic excuses for future biased policing.



https://www.techdirt.com/2021/06/03/how ... hot-twice/



And:


Chicago Votes in Favor of Removing Police From Mental Health Crisis Response

https://truthout.org/articles/chicago-v ... -response/


---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
My gang is my government. My gang leaders are chosen by all the members of my community, who decide the rules on our behalf, and if we don't like the rules or the gang leaders we vote them out and choose new ones. My gang isn't perfect, but at least it isn't an authoritarian dictatorship run by tyrants who rule with no say from the community and simply do whatever they want because they intimidate everyone and jail or kill people who speak out against them like most gangs do.



Okay.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So human society / civilization always advances at the tip of a spear? Aren't you being dogmatic by fetishizing 'competition', over 'cooperation' -- ?



Unthinking Majority wrote:
I never said that. You're making up your own arguments in your head.



I never *said* you said that -- I *asked* it, as a question, if you'd like to address it. No need to be defensive.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Has violence always existed in every human society since the beginning of humankind or not? If you've figured out a way to get rid of all violence congrats you're smarter than everyone else who has ever lived over the last 200,000 years.



Crime has been on the *decline* since the mid-'90s -- if your only concern is *civil society*, that's not really that controversial. At *this* point it's almost a 'First World problem', if it weren't for the stubborn unending line of killer-cop-caused *deaths*, which is the *most* pressing civil-society issue along with the entire racist criminal justice system.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
I'm no expert on these institutions, but rules are good. If Putin and George W. Bush could go to jail for invading countries illegally I think the world would be better off, because leaders would then be less likely to do these things. But that's yucky statism for ya.



It would be trans-statist *international* accountability, which certainly doesn't exist today.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... inal_Court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... of_Justice
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 14
The Police Murder of Tyre Nichols

Check this out, it's from January 8th: https://w[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

why do you think so ? Because it's another Afgha[…]

By the way, I think the word is propacondom, from[…]

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/16203515188757[…]