How would a multipolar world look like?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Schmelzer, Jul 4, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,450
    The fact that they are attempts, and that the terrorist support does not create allies for the US government, and so forth, proves that the US government - whatever it is, deep State or whatever - is not and has not been ruling the world. Trying, maybe, but not ruling.
    Note that the US as a government had more imperial control over the Americas before, not after, WWII. The US spreading itself thin, attempting to take over colonial roles where Britain (China) and France (Vietnam) had pulled back, cost it power in its back yard.
    Smaller hostile States can achieve MAD level capability among each other at fairly low cost - India and Pakistan, Pakistan and Israel, for example. That is a serious threat if there are many of them with interlocking treaties - the Peace of Westphalia launched what led to WWII, eventually, with many in between.
    It already has led to an arms race, or several depending on who's counting (Israel/Iran, currently). Objectivity, like "reputation", gets you very little in these circumstances.
    Relying on objectivity, of the variety that assumes irrationalities are random and will cancel out, is utopian.

    This:
    is utopian.
    If you assume heads of State and CEOs of corporations and Godfathers of mafias will behave like that - in the public interest or even their own - you are utopian.
    It's not going to be a product of a rational, objective decision to do evil, like a Clinton or Obama would make.

    Rulers like Trump maximize it - and multipolarity involving them is a dangerous situation: they live in hierarchies only, the question of who is to be top dog is central to their dealings, and they are optimistic by nature. Trump has no internal controls preventing him from launching nuclear weapons - no vision or larger sense of how things work. He is curbed by force, by threat and other power, only. And his perceptions of power are skewed - diplomatic and moral influence, "reputation", long term consequences even, play only smaller roles in his assessments. Look at whom he chooses for associates, his environmental policies, his alliances with the Russian mob.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,450
    Vietnam. Afghanistan - "the graveyard of empires". Korea. Cuba. Old news.
    That's the problem with MAD, from a Trump pov - it's a lousy threat. It's defensive only. It's boring.
    Tactical nukes now - that's something Trump can use.
    Joke?
    Ignorance. It kills. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    No. Say, different from Spain, Russia did not care much about distributing orthodoxy in its own empire, the Muslim parts remained Muslim. Local languages remained too. And even among the orthodox Russians it was proverbial that the czar is far away.
    And, of course, putting the long history of a whole empire into one line is a gross oversimplification, so that without doubt you will find (following your known strategy) some exceptions from the rule.
    Many of these attempts have been successful. Russia they have ruled during the Yeltsin time (they have, in particular, heavily supported his reelection). China behaved at that time very cooperative, Vietnam too. Afghanistan they had taken 2001. Everything looked fine at that time. The idea that they did not rule the world because Cuba and NK resisted remembers Asterix.
    And you note that UK and France had thrown away their colonial empires because they were too expensive. Imperial control by some government was no longer the optimal form to manage an empire.
    Yes. But why do you think that such local MADs lead to actual wars? Don't forget that at the start of WW I going to war was heroic, aggressor or not, nobody cared about who started it because starting wars was a legitimate right.
    Why do you think I have to rely on something? If it fails, bad luck for mankind.
    Revert it. If there is no possibility to switch, the ruling power will increase its interventions into internal affairs until nothing serious remains.
    Really? If the Godfather promises that he will kill X, in a situation where this claim is known and his failure to kill X will be known to everybody, it is utopian to think that he will do everything he can do, even very dangerous things, to kill X?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,565
    One of the greatest problems to emerge since WW1 is the realization of military/industrial technology, that meant that what one nation did in his back yard had the grave potential to impact on another nation on the other side of the planet.
    A good example of this is/was the reactor failures at Fukushima Japan and realizing that the problem was a global one and not just a local Japanese one.

    Never in human history has one nations activities had the potential to impact so significantly on all other nations as what we see today.

    Example:

    North Korea do not need ICBM's to destroy the USA.
    They only need a big enough dirty bomb and a desire to meet their maker ( commit seppuku suicide) and set it off in their own back yard and let the winds do the rest.

    Of course the same approach can be made by any one, nation or individual.
    In the national news tonight there are claims that most remaining ISIL soldier in Mosul are wearing suicide vests and looking forward to their eventual death.

    So I fail to see how this crazy idea of multi-polar MAD philosophy has any hope of success... in the short or long term.

    As ISIL has clearly demonstrated what would happen if they had access to such a dirty bomb, to think that they or their eventual successors would not gain access in a world saturated with nukes would be entirely delusional.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
  8. river

    Messages:
    11,305
    ISIL are simple people with complex ideas .
     
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    The crazy idea of one world government has also no hope of success. Simply because several MAD powers are reality, already now. So, bad luck for mankind.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,565
    Exactly!
    Mankind is on a cusp, there is no doubt about it...we have about 10 years ...tops.

    Essentially we either become better people (individually more empathic, sympathetic, friendly) or we become extinct. End of story! Kaput!

    Climate change has the potential to drive humanity into changing and change it will if we are to see in the next decade.
    The days of ignoring the plight of your neighbor are over if you wish to survive.

    Seriously, if one considers all the factors one can only see one solution...and that is become better at being humane.

    There are also other systems of democracy that could do vastly better than what we have today...and systems that will have to be brought in once people see the need.

    But alas we are now talking about utopia....
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    If this is the only alternative, we have exactly no chance.
    No. Climate change is far too irrelevant to change human nature. Even if the results would be really catastrophic, they would not change human nature. Some horrible disasters will only show the worst parts of human nature.
    Certainly. If you believe in the possibility of changing human nature, not by some genetic engineering but because of some climate change, you can as well also believe in true democracy or so. The arguments why world government does not work and democracy will not work better than now (where it gives lobby rule) are based on human nature and economic theory. With fantasies about human nature, everything will be good, even communism or dictatorship by a benevolent, wise dictator.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,565
    it is the only alternative...can't think of any other...however...you may be surprised by how much humanity can change when it has to...

    Climate change is the longer term threat to survival that is providing the motivation to start working together, globally...Unfortunately Trump fails to see it it as such.. .but Trump is not the solution...the American people and the global community are more so.

    There is more happening in our world than what meets the eye so to speak, and yes change appears to be happening from within and not so much from with out.

    There is already a basic system of democracy that functions quite well, as I mentioned before. The Commonwealth of Nations system with a few contemporary modifications would be excellent.

    Example:
    A non-partisan President could be elected that has only one task.
    That is to protect the constitution of the Commonwealth and nothing else. No executive orders , no military control and so on... just to protect the system that affords orderly government. ( a role currently held, in part, by the "Governor General" in the Westminster system.) As a part of his duties, a President could be, for example, responsible for integrity oversight. Ensuring anti corruption legislation, investigation and enforcement.

    There are many ways to approach the transition from where we are to where we need to be.

    However the "people" will need to want it and demand it for it to happen. That is where the real change must happen.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Nobody cares about long term threats. Except they are part of some religious belief system.
    Yes. Except that I see it working only in Swiss, because of its very strong decentralization. Your other examples follow the same scheme of a few establishment parties who are controlled by the same elites so that their winning or loosing elections does not change anything important.

    About modifications - I doubt they will help. Say, the US constitution, if realized, would be fine. But de facto in the US the central power is already quite strong. And this is very natural, what one would predict, because those in power are interested to increase this power, while the sheeple do not really care that much if the community, the state, or the federation rules.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,565
    says you... but not those who signed up to the Paris accord, those moving towards renewables and dumping oil investments. Says a lot of people and organizations like the //$100 million being spent in S.Australia on lithium batteries. Says a lot of people and nothing to do with religion. Ask Exxon what their investment portfolio is and find out...

    But no says Schmelzer... and Trump and a few others who can't seem to work out why they are getting hot and wet more often.
    One of the biggest problems is that voting is in some nations voluntary when it needs to be a DUTY of being a member of any society or club or nation and a legal obligation. ( as are taxes )
    Once the election reflects actually what the people want you may be surprised by how well a proper system of representative government can function.
    If sheeple remain sheeple then they will end up extinct.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,565
    The biggest problem in the USA system is that the President is not non-partisan and can overrule using executive privilege and has by far way too much power in areas he has no proficiency in.
    If the POTUS was only there to do as he swore to do and that is protect and defend the constitution and provided integrity over watch most of the USA problems go away and congress with a little restructuring can actually get on with the job they are elected to do.
    Go on to improve the representative nature , apply a compulsory Duty of voting and see what happens.. to public participation and empowerment.

    get the POTUS out of politics...
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Ok, I have to explain that what I named "religious" goes much beyond what formally looks like a religion. Do you think that those who died crying "For the homeland, for Stalin" fighting fascism were rational egoists? There should not be a label "supranatural" to sell to the sheeple the same type of behavior we see in IS suicide bombers. I should have added a "or quasi-religious" to make this point more clear.

    Then, there is no doubt that "green" economy is useful for big firms to get government money. If the result is more harm than good is something nobody cares about, at least neither the politicians who transfer the money to Exxon nor Exxon. Whatever the blunder politicians give taxpayer's money for, the Big Firms will support it. In exchange for the money. Those who think that some concern like Exxon is inherently evil, so that out of principle will refuse to get green money, have not understood the game. As well as those who think once Exxon supports this, this should be something profitable. It is profitable for Exxon, because they can get taxpayer's money this way.
    Sorry, completely stupid. Those who don't want to vote tell, by refusing to vote, that they have not cared who is the best. All you can reach by forcing them to vote would be that they vote whatever harms the establishment which forces them to lose their time for doing stupid things. So that it is very wise not to force them to vote.
    The sheeple will remain sheeple, for sure. If the consequence is extinction, such is life. (Or, in this case, death.) There is nothing I can do about this, so why should I bother?
    Ask yourself if the president has such privileges based on the constitution or based on real life. Then, ask yourself if some improvement in the constitution or so can prevent this. Sorry, I don't believe. Whatever is in the Holy Papers will be interpreted away if necessary. As if the Sermon of the Mount has prevented something. (Ok, that's unfair, maybe it has prevented a lot of horror. But this is always only gradually, does not prevent degeneration. To quote Jefferson: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. ... What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Some American revolution to revive the constitution is yet outstanding. And will probably never come. So, constitutions can at best diminish the speed of their distortion.

    I see much more reason to rely on reputation. Every child will learn that to lie destroys its reputation. And if this will be the base of some society, it will be taught about this in a much more rigorous way than today. This does not prevent change - but this forces every new generation to think in a very careful way about what they promise.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,450
    But it does not include your own faith-based and dogma-adhering political beliefs. So your lack of clarity in the matter is instrumental.
    Depends on the circumstances. We have purposeful voter suppression in the US, remember? It's a tactic.
    So you have no reason to make sense, or deal in plausibilities, or become informed, about the governance of most human beings on the planet - got it.
    (Not to mention that we have here someone who suckered for the crudest of American propaganda feeds, the stuff aimed at the least educated and most intellectually dependent of Americans, calling other people "sheeple").
    Something about utopian goes here, but really - that is too mild a term. We're talking delusion.

    Meanwhile:
    It has before - both in real life and in the Constitution.
    If you compare the Constitution and the Country of 250 years ago with today, you will find that a great deal of progress and improvement is possible - and the only revolution involved was in the other direction, against the ongoing "revival", and it was defeated.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,450
    And likewise with the British, French, Dutch, and American empires - on the same evidence. They stand or fall together, in that claim.
    You made a false claim - that Russia under the Tsars was a non-interfering empire.
    The claim about China is also false, but less flagrantly so - China has been, often, insular. But that was after it was created, after Mandarin Chinese earned its name by being the imposed language of governance and status mobility over a country the size of the US , and so forth.
    Because you said you did. You explicitly made that the base of your reasoning.
    Don't put your stupidly invalid "reversions" into quote boxes with my name on them.
    Not at all. Of course he will. And anyone who has made agreements and contracts with the target of that vow is out of luck.

    You have adopted my standard illustration: organized crime is governed by reputation, fascist government relies on reputation - these have been my examples of the real world workings of your utopian delusion.

    Contracts and treaties without Strongman backing mean nothing. Doctors and dentists acquire practiuces based on whose cousins they are. The trains do not run on time. The sewer systems fall apart. Nothing gets built except monuments to Trumps and stadiums for spectacles. The most important consideration in any dealing is whether those who can punish with impunity oppose it or might in the future.

    It doesn't work.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,565
    The only thing that is stupid is your loss of context. You seem to wish to limit your utopian view instead of considering it in a more holistic fashion.

    If all people were made aware of their responsibility and duty to maintain and protect the collective from childhood, that the benefits of a functional society are not an entitlement and have to be earned and that membership of any club (democratic system) requires a duty towards that club then the idea of NOT voting would actually be stupid.

    Most of societies ills are due to the loss of individual empowerment in a system that appears uncaring, forcing an individual into a position of low self esteem and social dysfunction.
    If a system is born that encouraged realistic and valid self esteem, empowered it's population and took more care about those who struggle with their responsibilities and obligations, would this not lead to a better outcome?

    "It is not human nature that is the problem, it is human conditioning that is." ~anon

    Legally required voting:


    There will always be a percentage of persons who refuse to participate in a democracy but by far the greater majority will do so with enthusiasm due to their own vested interests in a functional system.

    There will always be a need for society to deal with shoplifters, petty crime, child exploitation, and other issues..but by far if the system was designed to empower and esteem it's population properly these issue of apathy , criminality etc would be vastly reduced.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,565
    Some "religious" climate news today:
    • Paris hit by heaviest rainfall since 1880
    • Unprecedented wildfires cause evacuations , 10,000 in Canada.
    • Tornado touches down in Austria, fist sized hailstones (Near Vienna)
    • 7 dead in Vietnam floods
    Australia experiencing yet another warm winter...
     
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Sorry. By an editing error, the closing bracket, which indicates what I have inserted, was lost. The text should have been: "This: [The possibility to switch to another one will prevent the MAD powers from serious interventions into internal affairs of their allies.] is utopian." Your text alone would have been "This: [] is utopian." Which would not make sense for the reader. In the original, the text inside the [] was there too, as a quote of me. The meaning of the [] brackets is the same - the text inside is my text.
    Who has said that it works only for highly moral people? The question is if it works or not. If it would not work, the mafia would not use it. Not? It works in all those societies or parts of societies which are sufficiently small so that everybody knows everybody else, or where is at least one common acquaintance. In a mass society, it does not work.
    You seem to have no idea about whole cultures of business who relied on a word of a businessman, and could rely on this because a businessman with destroyed reputation had no chance to make business. If you need a modern example, inform yourself how Silk Road, the drug market of the darknet, worked.

    Indeed. Once non-voters tend to be poor, parties claiming to favor the poor prefer to force voters to vote.
    Nonsense. I have made sense about the governance of most human beings on the planet. It is a nice method for those who govern to live from the work of those governed. Understood in this way, government makes a lot of sense for those who govern.
    The only progress being that those adults without equal rights have gotten equal rights. Quite important for those who have not had these rights initially. On the other hands, those rights are worth today much less. You have a right to do X? Sorry, but ยง37128(937) of the USXZYJFLGJF regulation forbids this.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,450
    And the answer is no.
    The mafia is a parasite. If it takes over government, government stops working.
    The mafia is also totalitarian, btw.
    It was and is a parasite on infrastructure - including legal infrastructure - provided by working governments.
    So were all the past examples - either they were parasites (the common setup) or dysfunctional governments.
    You got it. That turns out to be kind of important. And a massive struggle, which many others lost - Russia, for example. China.
    To whom? The very wealthy and powerful have been restricted somewhat. Almost everyone else (certainly everyone living in a city) is much better off - more free, for example.
    Non-voters always tend to be poor - which is why parties favoring the wealthy work to discourage voting, and reduce the number of voters.

    The wealthy - who have the least need to vote, and pay the highest opportunity cost for wasting their time - vote in very high percentages. That is an odd pattern for irrational behavior, don't you think?
     
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    If you want a society with responsibility, nice. But modern democratic societies are the opposite. Even the responsibility to handle a hot cup of coffee is taken over by the government. Over-regulation handles adults like small children who need protection. This educates snowflakes instead of responsible adults.
    Your answer is no.
    This is not the point. The point is that the mafia uses reputation. Because it works. Btw, the mafia is usually not totalitarian. If you pay them, you are usually quite free to do what you like. Exceptions are, of course, possible, but not typical.
    Unjustified namecalling is not an argument. And, again, even if it would be correct: Once reputation works for those evil parasites, why not for others?
    Wrong. In Russia, serfdom was abolished long before the revolution. And the revolution gave women full equal rights. Similarly in China.
    No. Only serfs feel free in such over-regulated societies as in the modern West. In the past, the whole world laughed about the Germans where it was necessary to get a license for fishing. Today you need it everywhere in the West.
    It follows the general pattern that the rich follow the moral restrictions of the society, especially the etiquette. (The class which cares most of all about etiquette is the upper middle class. The superrich may not care, but they don't do this openly.)
     

Share This Page