Yes. What has been started against Trump looked very much like a color revolution, and Soros has been identified supporting all this too. That's not my idea, as well as the talk about US empire and unipolar world. It nicely fits with what I observe.
No, it doesn't. You don't observe, is the problem. You swallow American fascist propaganda, instead. That is not in accordance with the scientific principles you claim to uphold.
It would not be in accordance with scientific principles if I would believe you and reject all sources you don't like, without evidence. And evidence you don't provide. "No, it doesn't" doesn't count as evidence.
So? Something prevents you from acknowledging evidence? That isn't true, in the first place, and hasn't been an issue very often, in the second - usually you provide the evidence, or it's right there in front of you for some other reason. All I have to do is point. But in addition I provide quite a bit, there's quite a bit from other provision, and you by turns ignore, deny, and dismiss it, according to your presumptions of the reality involved. One of the common pieces of evidence I point to, for example, easily available to your perception and right in front of you, is your ignorance - the fact that you don't know what you need to know to make the claims you make, and are therefore most likely wrong simply by chance (and certainly foolish to blow off informed correction). Your response? You dismiss its significance. Of course you know almost nothing about Clinton, say, or the NYT coverage of the Presidential campaign, or the biology and ecology behind the predictions of disproportionately bad biological effects from AGW, but you claim you don't need to - you can see media bias without information, and deduce Party lines and political pressures from it without a reality check. You say that, explicitly and without apparent hesitation, and you defend the claim at some length occasionally - explaining your "reasoning" and so forth. Then you post - on a science forum - more drivel from the American Heritage Institute you swallowed because you didn't know any better. If you want to discuss a "multipolar world" involving the US, one of the major poles necessarily involved would be the international corporate and financial class - much of it based in the US, much of it military or with military connections. Vladimir Putin and many of his associates belong to this class, as does Donald Trump and his family and most of the upper level figures in his administration. You will not be fed any information about this pole by the American Heritage Institute.
I am glad that you took my suggestion to post a thread that could help us all understand your position on a unipolar vs multi polar debate. However, what I have read in the above opening statement provides little to no enlightenment as to the actual issues that prevent such an idealistic state of global power balancing ( or is it sharing? ) ...and am disappointed when you gave the impression that you had considered the anarchistic ideas you have been teasing us all with, in more depth than you obviously have. It does , though highlight the differences in perspectives that we may have. For example: The USA has never "Ruled" beyond it's sovereign borders even when it had ample opportunity to do so. It did and does however exert strong influence as a part of being the most successful** nation on Earth. But perhaps you need to define your version of the term "Rule" and clarify the distinction between "control"...and ...influence""?? **"Success" being a very debatable term... Commonwealth of Nations. It is interesting to note that the current British Monarch has ruled beyond British Borders for all her enthroned life ( since 1952) - some 52 sovereign states via voluntarily agreed to "treaty" called the Statute of Westminster (1931) which formalizes the relationship of those nations under the banner of Commonwealth of Nations It may serve you well to have a look at how an Autocratic Democracy can function so successfully and indicate a pathway towards a more global solution to your unipolar/multipolar dilemma. An Autocratic democracy is indeed a contradiction and a paradox of sorts until you look closely at the detail regarding the Commonwealth system which has proved very successful and harmonious for over 50 years or so. The role of a monarchy in today's political systems etc is an area really worth a study or two... and expand your notion of "rule"and what that actually means. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In the British case the Queen does indeed have tremendous legal power however it is a power over all members of the Commonwealth, that is very rarely used. This is the key to why the British system appears to work really well when accommodating so many diverse multi polar national requirements. See also "Westminster system" and why a Prime Minister (and Governor General) is used instead of a President. Human nature: As Tiassa has correctly pointed out the issue that prevents a successful multi polar world has been demonstrated throughout the millennia with countless wars and constant competition for resources. Human nature is at both its finest and worst when it comes down to survival. If every one had nukes ( as you have suggested ) every one would have to have a similar share of resources other wise competition would drive to war... so we end up back to the failed communist collective experiment. Also the expectation that all humans think rationally all the time and that the human need for self aggrandizement ( self esteem- vanity- greed) is trivial and able to be suppressed somehow is very present in your position. I await to see how you negate Human nature on such an idealistic and grand scale. ( Example: If China fails to move at a steady pace towards democracy as it's citizens individual wealth and education improves, it will, like so many other nations endure civil war and democracy will be installed by revolution instead) Unless you can show how we go from today to the utopia you have in your imagination tomorrow, it will never happen. Perhaps a starting place would be to look at the notion of an autocratic democracy similar to that being employed by the UK and the Commonwealth of Nations?
It is neither power balancing nor sharing. If some states have retaliatory power, their power does not have to be balanced. To attack them makes no sense even if you have, say, a ten times higher military budget. And even if the difference is much larger, and no retaliatory power exists, simply owning nuclear weapons creates a large enough deterrence. I do not care much how you like to name this. It is clear, and I have explained this, that the rule is much less rigorous than the old colonial rule. But it is much more rigorous than the British Commonwealth, given the large number of wars and regime changes initiated by the US against those who have not been submissive enough. No. To start a war, one needs first of all a reasonable expectation to win this war. And winning the war should put you into a better situation than not starting it. With nukes, this this not given. No need. There are, essentially, two possibilities: From time to time small nuclear wars, small enough for humanity as a whole to survive. Or the end of humanity. The chances for survival of humankind over a long time are, I think, quite small. For me, this is more a question if this will happen during my lifetime (finishing it) or later, not if it will happen at all. And, no, the multipolar world is in no way utopia. It is not that much different from the world today. If one would believe the whitewashed picture of the American empire you and others like to paint here, we would already have it. And all what I talk about are modifications which you will not even see, because the whitewashed picture would remain the same, it simply becomes closer to reality. The main point is that US would stop all the regime change and color revolution attempts, no longer support terrorist and fascist gangs in other states, and follow international law. In whitewashed picture, this is already reality and never has been different. The models of democracy which work are 1.) controlled fake democracy, and 2.) the Swiss model of extreme decentralization. The last one would be the closest thing to anarchism. Anarchism would be if all the members of a community volitionally accept the rules of the community. A small community can be close to this ideal, or even reach it, if living there presupposes that you have accepted the rules. But anarchism is off-topic here, and why you think the points made here have something to do with anarchism is beyond me.
In case you haven't noticed the world is currently being plagued by suicide bombers... how would your multi-polar world prevent being blown up by a suicidal bomber? Just a quick post. I'll post more later..
I am surprised that you fail to see the major flaw in your thinking here. You are presuming that the leaders of said nations are sane and rational. For such a high stakes game do you really think it worth the risk? The USA is not the only nation to play the regime change game... how are you going to stop the others? Are you not playing that game here and now, that is to say, are you not seeking regime change in the USA? Again you are making presumptions of competency that simply does not and never have existed. Nazi Germany thought they would win the war.. did they not? The USSR did also! Why do you think that there may not be more savvy and smarter people than you, ...out there ...that may actually find a solution to this looming problem brought about by necessary gl0balization? Do you realize that this issue is well and truly being looked at by thousands if not millions of highly intelligent people desperate to find a way to ensure the future. If you believe that no one is or can be smarter than you are then you would have every reason to be very pessimistic....about the future... Perhaps others can stop regime change as well including yourself... No matter how you dress it up you will always end up with more or less what the world is attempting to achieve with the UN that is a multi-polar world with a forum for all member nations to participate in the collective governance of that multipolar world. You can not avoid this outcome.. Impossible, given that the future of every nation is dependent on the behavior of the other. ( even with out Nukes) Canada, Australia New Zealand, Westminster models all work fine. To say they don't is really mean of you. ( chuckle) You have been espousing Anarchistic ideologies mixed up with inherent contradictions for months now... yet you fail to see it... why? I ask the following: How is international law to be enforced with out a centralized UN style governing body? Who is responsible for the reformation of International law and treaties? How can you eat your cake and yet have it there to look at simultaneously? Your views are incredibly naive Schmelzer ! Suicidal tendanciues, irrationality, insanity, meglo-mania, naivity, stupidity and all those thing that make humans fallible seem to be missing from your perspective.. how is that?
Terrorists are not really a problem for states, except when they are supported by other states. The main other state is well-known, it is Saudi-Arabia. And without the US supporting it, and supporting, in particular, also this SA support of terrorism, the multipolar world would not allow this. Without SA money, the number of suicide bombers would decrease in a quite short time. Of course, I base my predictions on rational interests of the players. Without this, you simply cannot make predictions at all. Then, random errors average out, thus, can be ignored for making predictions. So. all what matters are systematic errors. Regime change is not that cheap and easy to organize. Without control over the mass media in that state it is quite difficult - in this case, you have a chance only if the state-controlled media have discredited themselves totally. They had a reasonable chance. And if they would have won, they would have been stronger, more powerful than without the war, not? I was not talking about any certainty. But there should be some chance. Note also that the general situation was quite different at that time - it was quite clear that the next big war will come. With nuclear weapons, this picture changed. Quite funny. On the one hand, you argue that I err assuming people will behave rationally, on the other hand that I err assuming they will be stupid. If they are smart, fine, then humanity have some better chance for survival. If they are stupid, the chances for survival are lower. Then, the problem is not if there are many clever people. The problem are those people who get political power. And what they care about. Actually I see only a degeneration of politicians - one becomes even happy that Kissinger (despite all his malefactions, he at least knows geopolitics) plays some role again. First, what I have learned from science: Millions of clever people don't matter that much as one may hope. Then, essentially the answers are written down long ago in standard classical economic theory. The free market is superior, point. Unfortunately, collective governance does not work. No doubt. Ah, you have not recognized that they are listed among those I said which work. (I know that's mean too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Because you fail to show me these inherent contradictions. International law is contract law. The usual way of enforcement of contract law is reputation. The problem of reputational systems on the low level (private persons) is that violations of contracts should be easily visible to everybody. This would require a modern system of reputational arbitrage, but it is possible, and once it is possible, it will appear in some near future. The problem on the high level is a single big player who does not have to care about the own reputation, because others are too weak to punish by simple refusal to contract. This is the actual problem of the world with the USA.
Why do you regard these as "US" rule? I posted the Smedley Butler link for you - he is not wrong. The US military in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Chile, in Nicaragua, in Cuba, was not fighting for US national or governmental rule. No, it isn't. It's lawsuit, under law backed by overwhelming military (or similar heavily armed) force. The low level has exactly the same problem with power, which includes the fact that the powerful control the "reputational arbitrage". Any reputational arbitrage system - such as the judicial system in the US - that is not bound by law backed by power, is bound by power directly. Also, the "single big player" is immediately in the interest of any group of players powerful enough collectively to form one. Every country with a government in the hands of reputation among the rich and powerful is in the hands of organized crime.
Human irrationality follows some very well known patterns, and assuming it will not is a poor way to make predictions. And unscientific: http://www.economist.com/node/21534752 This is true at all levels of human interaction. If that were true one could predict an absence of war, famine, and plague, among the human beings on this planet.
You have not yet understood that what I name "US rule" is not "national or government rule"? BTW, not seen any link named "Smedley Butler", so please give it again. And who was that "overwhelming military"? Don't forget, the only time where really was an "overwhelming military" (ok, after the Roman empire) were the US after the Cold War, and these were clearly years of decline of international law. Instead, what was on of the key events of international law was the peace of Westphalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia This happened after people have found out that none of them had an "overwhelming military". I know from previous discussions that we will not find any agreement about reputational systems. I just wanted to remember that my anarchistic ideas are based on my belief that the main problem of previous reputational systems is the distribution of information, and that it can (and will) be solved with modern communication technology. So, it will appear, but before it appears (or in case it does not work, for whatever reason) I have no hopes for anarchy. Without this, anarchy works only on a low level, where reputation works. But most of the patterns are quite useless most of the time. Except for specialists (con artists) who depend on them. But there are exceptions. Namely that people participate in elections beyond the local level is irrational. It is a simplification I would never even write in a popular book, so, no, it is not true, but requires a lot of further specifications to become true. (I recommend David Friedman's Hidden order, it starts with explaining why it is a good idea to assume rational human actors.)
Depends on the context. Sometimes it's the local sheriff. Sometimes it's an alliance of governments willing to cooperate against each other's rich and powerful men, and enforce contracts these men are party to at gunpoint. What they discovered was that military alliance of the many could overwhelm the power of the one, and that State Departments and fidelity to their negotiated treaties were good ideas, even at the cost of occasional short term losses. Do you think Trump has taken that lesson to heart? And after these bouts of apparent amnesia, you will claim, again, that I have not posted "evidence" and the like. And then call me a liar. You have explicitly restricted your "multipolar" fantasies to States and other such official political entities, and refused to deal with such entities as multinational corporations and their mutual cooperation, in replying to my posts. I have posted at least two links to Smedley Butler's famous essay, "War Is A Racket", in two different contexts involving you: the age of these matters, their history in the US; the definitive role of the capitalist corporate/military alliance in fascism. If you now wish to reboot your contributions to the discussions of fascism and and polarity and Trump and Putin and so forth, with these formerly rejected matters reintroduced in good standing, ok. That particular aspect of clueless techie naivety is well known, you can count on people remembering it. Basing predictions on the rational interests of the players when the known irrational interests of the players have such large and predictable effects, is irrational. People willing and able to vote at the State level are on average much better governed than those not willing or not able. And that was - and is - predictable. So how irrational can it be? Fascism is not a rational political system, despite its base in alleged self-interest and cooperation among reputation-bound free-market capitalists. Government by organized crime does not work very well. The trains do not run on time.
Schmelzer : I think Joe may have you wrong.. you don't work for Putin... You work for the military hardware manufacturing industries. What you are suggesting, is a global arms race to such a point that all nations would have overwhelming military capacity including nations like Papua, Timor, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Australia and other smaller nations. As a thought experiment take the following scenario. Fictional company End times Co has released an end times bomb in the form of a device no bigger than a cigarette package. The device is capable of turning the planet into a charcoal cinder in less than 3 minutes. Every nation (196 or so of them) on this Earth gets one to use at their discretion. There is no collective governance nor mechanism for resolving grievances. (no UN) Every nation has over whelming military force. Escalate: Take it one step further and give every individual person on this planet the same device.... What do you think would happen? How would you contain the human beast? The irony that in you overly simplistic and naive approach, you fail to see is that the USA whom you wish to see degraded, would actually be the biggest beneficiary due to the global arms sales and development. Especially the development as demand for better and bigger pushes technological innovation so incredibly well in the USA leaving the USA in a superior and dominant position at all times any way...
You have been called a liar for selling a link your have posted the first time as a "reminder link". Unfortunately for you, it was easy to see that you have not posted that link. And you had to admit that you have not posted the link before (but referred to it only by "name, publication, and author". Looks like you have learned from this - by your refusal to give the link, you prevent the straightforward check that this was a lie too? Neither search for "Smedley Butler" nor "War Is A Racket" with author iceaura gives a result. So, just out of interest after this demonstrative refusal to give the link, I insist: Give that link to that Smedley Butler, or, even better, the link to your post where you have posted the link. So that we can easily check that this was no case of recidivism. Of course, big corporations are part of the deep state, so that they have some (in some states quite strong) influence on the states. But they are not themselves "poles" in the sense used in the phrases "unipolar world" and "multipolar world". The definitive role of corporations in corporatism (which is the economic system of fascism, and of essentially all the modern world) I have never denied, and to deny that military plays a big role in fascism would be plain stupid, and I have never done it. Note also that I'm not very much interested in discussing fascism, all I do is sometimes to reply to you about this. (The reason is that it is far too much simply namecalling, instead of "discussion of fascism".) Ok. So what? It is a classical common good problem. If everybody would care for the common good, knowing that this would be better for everybody, there would be no common good problem. A good politician for the people winning an election is clearly such a common good. If I don't care, but the others do, I get all the advantages anyway. So I can free-ride. Fortunately, humans are gregarious animals who care about their flock, and tend to extend behavior which is rational for small horde to much larger social groups like nations. Who has claimed governments, fascists or whatever, are rational political systems? BTW, "rational" in the use in economic theory always refers to individuals, not to large groups like nations. Fascism may be quite rational for those who have power, even if it is harmful for the society as a whole. As if it would matter if I'm paid or not. No. Your though experiment would end in short time in the end of humanity. Simply because there are always people no longer interested in their survival, which try suicide. Enough of them are full enough of hate to wish they could kill all those who have harmed them, and even mankind as a whole. And one does not to have to get down to individuals, states are sufficient. There are enough suicidal misanthropes among state rulers too, democracy has a tendency to elect sociopathic liars as rulers. I'm not an utopian, and do not develop fantasies to contain the human beast beyond the things which are known to work. Reputation is known to work. History is full of examples of people who have not cared about anything else, including their life, to stand for their word. I want to see the US degraded only because I want to see everybody degraded who has a chance to reach world rule. So, nothing special against the US. So I do not care at all who is the winner of a multipolar world. Then, no, once mutual destruction is sure among the big players (the poles), small states can, instead of buying expansive weapons, join a coalition ruled by one the big players, which gives them enough security. What matters, then, is how intrusive is the power of the big player. In a multipolar world, a state has the ability to switch to another coalition. Thus, the power of the big player of the coalition is restricted by this possibility. Then, Russia (but not Soviet Union) as well as China (again: now, and in the long ago past) have a tradition not to care much about internal affairs of their allies. So, there is a base for predicting sufficiently large freedom for the states to handle their internal affairs. In a unipolar world, there is no restriction for the ruler to increase the rule over internal affairs of the vassal states. This is what matters for me: Even only a few poles with MAD will be enough to have many states with big freedom to handle their internal affairs differently. With sufficient freedom to handle internal affairs, there is not much motivation to start wars or to buy a lot of weapons in preparation for this. At least the "fight against foreign rule" motivation will be irrelevant.
No, what you are suggesting, is a global arms race to such a point that all nations would have overwhelming military capacity including nations like Papua, Timor, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Australia and other smaller nations an done that favors the uSA military industrial complex.
Are you suggesting a multi- polar world with only three or four poles? ....a pseudo multi-polar world order.. just like we have today.. yes?
It remains to repeat: No, I'm not suggesting this. Here, I have to repeat myself too: Of course, if you even deny the US-ruled unipolar world, then, yes, I suggest a world like we have today - unfortunately only in what I think are your propaganda fantasies, instead of reality. All we have to get rid of are the remains of the US rule, like the dollar as the world currency, and the continuing attempts of regime changes and terrorist support. As long as they do not exist in your opinion, we don't have to get rid of them too.
If you like, ok. The world has actually 3 powers with MAD: US, Russia, China. In future, there may be a few more, but not many, because this is heavy investment, where a few nuclear missiles (much cheaper) are sufficient for military deterrence. That there are a few with MAD is fact, like it or not. It creates the possibility of extinction of mankind, which is bad. It prevents world rule of a single power, which would end in a totalitarian horror, so that it has some positive aspects too. Given the sufficiently high costs of MAD, they will remain a few. This is good - too many with MAD would increase the danger of the survival of mankind, but not give anything positive in exchange. Other states can secure their independence with a few nuclear weapons. This is affordable for many states, and sufficiently deters aggression against them. The danger that they will be used is small, given the danger that the MAD-able powers will retaliate. Anyway, such a local nuclear war will kill only millions, not humankind as a whole. Another possibility to secure their independence for weak states is an alliance with one of the MAD powers. The possibility to switch to another one will prevent the MAD powers from serious interventions into internal affairs of their allies. An arms race for missile defense will be dangerous. A winner could rule the world, with the consequence of totalitarian rule. There may be uncertainty if somebody is the winner or not, with fatal consequences - the imagined winner tries, but was wrong. Deterrence is left only to the MAD powers - the other nuclear powers will be bombed away, nobody cares if this kills some local millions. If nobody wins, a big loss of investment. So, nothing positive visible. That the US has started such a race was one of the most horrible US decisions. Given that small states have possibilities to deter some particular enemies - a few own nuclear weapons, or alliance with some MAD power - there is no objective reason which would create an arms race. For the MAD powers, there is also no reason for arms race, if they are not forced by a missile defense race. All this has nothing to do with utopia, given that all scenarios have a non-zero probability of destruction of mankind. It is only about hopes to minimize this probability. All this is gross oversimplification, there would be much much more to say, in particular about various techniques of escalation and deescalation, which result even in the possibility of a successful war of some even non-nuclear power even against an MAD power. Say, Taliban against US. As well I have not considered the possibility to take over MAD powers via color revolutions
