How would a multipolar world look like?

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

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,555
    Bur of course they are.... but we are not talking about a typical normal society...

    There are plenty o f things to whine about today's society... but this is not a thread about typical societies this is a thread about your ideas/fantasies of utopian multi-pole power sharing...that require a responsible and empowered citizens for it to have the smallest hope of success.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    And based on reasoning from evidence.
    ? Living and learning about fascism.
    Ignorance kills.
    It works for crime, piracy, tyranny, etc. Not sound governance or free market economies.
    That was description, not namecalling. Historical fact.
    It enables small groups of exploiters and pirates, and such entities destroy economies and prevent sound governance. That's how it "works".
    Russia and China are, in your view, examples of countries in which people won their battle for equal rights long ago. And you expect to be taken seriously in your criticisms of the West.
    ? Fishing licenses?
    And you join the American rightwing authoritarians in disparaging sound governance of the commons, on top of all their other foolishness. You're not missing a single bell in the American wingnut carillon.

    As if destruction of the common good increased freedom for the impoverished thereby. Christ that's dumb.
    There is no moral restriction or principle involved, in the US. The wealthy act in rational self-interest, when they vote. And they know it.

    It's how multipolar governance is maintained within the United States. We call it "checks and balances". That's something you wanted for the world, right?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    In free market economies it works too. The classical way to "sign" a "contract" is a handshake. A handshake works only because it is based on reputation.
    The point being? What matters is that it works. For small groups only, because this is the restriction of old, classical information technology.
    For equal right they won the battle, indeed, long ago. In Stalin's and Mao's world, all people had equal right. Namely, no rights. Everybody could end in the GULAG, no privileges. And, no, I do not expect to be "taken seriously" by people I don't take seriously myself.
    LOL. So it appears that the evil righwing fascists also prefer to have the right to angle without a license? For me, this was just an everyday example where Russians are more free than Americans and Europeans. I have been fishing in Russia myself, without any license, even in communist time. And already at that time I would have needed a license in communist Eastern Germany. In "free" Western Germany this remained, afaiu the bureaucracy around this became even more frustrating.
    Yes. Subdivision of power is a good idea which I support. But it is quite independent of democracy. The US started not as a democracy, but as a republic, with strong liberal (European liberal) principles. Checks and balances are possible even in monarchies (think about England under Magna Charta, where every jury had the right to nullify any law of the King). As well, in a democracy the elected president may have a lot of power. Like Obama signing lists of people to be killed by drones without any further legal procedure.

    And it does not change the point that participation in elections is a classical common good problem. If you don't vote, you can free-ride. Your "[t]he wealthy act in rational self-interest, when they vote" misses this free-ride possibility completely.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    Within a context of sound governance maintaining that economy, sure.
    The restriction was never technological, and cannot be removed by technology.
    The problem is wealth and power.
    So you were arguing in bad faith again, playing trivia games with words.
    But you don't value respect, so no problem.
    The really dumb ones. The morons of the lot.
    Even in that crowd most know better. But this is America - we have practical experience in these freedoms, and therefore better information even among the least wise.
    If they ever become prosperous and their population grows, as happened in the US, they'll learn. Or they won't, and wake up one morning and realize there's no more good fishing - except for the rich.
    Talk to the fishermen of the Aral Sea, for example - freedom all around, for the fishermen, for the cotton growers, for everybody. And pretty soon, no more fish.
    Yeah, they're not as smart as a guy like you - you keep telling yourself that.

    They don't miss it. They are fully aware of it (it's how they know how to manipulate the poor into not voting). They are also aware of the consequences of taking advantage in that way - as you noted: a classic problem of the common good. And so they choose wisely, acting for the common good (where by "common" we mean their fellow rich).
    No, it isn't. It requires that officials adhere to formal rules and laws - such as Constitutions - that they have the power to violate, and that requires a mechanism for removing such violators from office.
    An example of the key role of democratic governance (the jury, the councils of the Lords) in such checks and balances.

    And any other multipolar setup.
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    No, government is irrelevant here. If government is involved, you have to be able to present a proof, that means, written contracts. Handshake could be denied, it would not work.
    The restriction that you cannot know about the reputation of a large number of people is technological. It can be removed by technology, you can now have, via google, information about a much greater number of people in very short time.
    No. Equal rights for women were really no problem in Russia and China after their communist revolutions. That above countries were not places where one would like to live had nothing to do with unequal rights. Remember the context?
    Me: The only progress being that those adults without equal rights have gotten equal rights.
    You: You got it. That turns out to be kind of important. And a massive struggle, which many others lost - Russia, for example. China.

    If they ever become prosperous and their population grows, as happened in the US, they'll learn. Or they won't, and wake up one morning and realize there's no more good fishing - except for the rich.
    Talk to the fishermen of the Aral Sea, for example - freedom all around, for the fishermen, for the cotton growers, for everybody. And pretty soon, no more fish.
    Yeah, they're not as smart as a guy like you - you keep telling yourself that.
    Anyway no need for democracy. Such formal rules exist in the Sharia too.
    ROTFL. The Magna Carta of 1225 as an example of the key role of democratic governance. YMMD.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    No, it isn't. (The British Empire was global, reputational, and effective, using handwritten letters delivered by sailboat).
    Not only "knowing", but "acting", is involved.
    Governance has much more, and much different, involvement than that - this is obvious in modern industrial economies, where handshake contracts are very common (most of the contracts of my life have been handshake).
    Ignorance kills.
    Russia has and has had very few women in the upper levels of its government and industry;
    China is currently short about 800 million young women, demographically;
    - any idea what happened?
    No mechanism exists for removal of violators. That's where the democracy comes in.
    Yep. Along with trial by jury, and the rest. Baby steps. This another one of those things you "don't see"?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    The ruling class where this worked was small enough for reputation to work.
    Yes. First, you mingle equality before the law with equality in real life. The confusion which has lead to the rejection of equality before the law by the introduction of various quotes, which makes the US a land of racial and gender inequality before the law. Then, you take some fantasy number from whatever source.
    LOL. If you have not known, Shariah law worked quite a long time, and is quite popular in regions where democracy is despised as a Western perversion.

    But, ok, once we have democracy in Britain 1225, we probably have democracy in ISIS government too.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    The ruling class was tens of thousands of people scattered all over the planet.
    Yep. All my evaluations of governance are based in how things work in real life - the actual law, the actual governance of the people who physically exist (or, in the case of the missing Chinese women, used to exist).
    It did not "work", it persisted as totalitarian governance - to the detriment of its society and people, continuing to this day.
    No one is claiming totalitarian government cannot persist.
    No, we have an example of the role of democracy in multipolar governance - the kind you favor, remember?
    The unipolar monarch ceded some power to a council of barons, as a necessary backstop for agreeing to be himself governed by law in some ways.
    From this you can learn. If you want to.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    And tenth of thousands is, in fact, a quite accurate number for the upper limit of classical reputational systems.
    Once you don't value equality before the law, our disagreement about Russia and China is now clarified.
    Sorry, but totalitarian government is something different. Shariah law is an example - a quite archaic one, which seems in many parts inadequate for a modern society, but this is not the point - of rule of law.
    Namely that in this example democracy plays no role at all. We have some division of power between the king and the barons, and we have an example of rule of law. But no democracy. So, we learn that in multipolar governance democracy can play no role at all. Which is nothing new to me. I know that rule of law is something very different from democracy.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    Tens of thousands.
    It's not a technological problem. You can't fix it with technology.
    So if I never do that (the real world situation) you are still confused? Ok.

    Always ready to help: I evaluate equality before the law in reality - with examples, such as Russia and China - on the basis of actual equality before law that exists. You evaluate it on abstract theory you have failed to reality check. And your failure to reality check - anything - is the basis of our "disagreement".
    It is an example of totalitarian government, and illustrates what happens to multipolarity and rule of law without democratic checks and balances.
    The council of barons had 25 members, and they voted. And that's how the multipolarity was introduced.
    And you also know that the topic was multipolarity - division of power - and that's where the democracy came into it.
     
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    The situation is quite different. I know there is no equality in reality. And there will never be equality in reality. And those who want equality in reality are known to force people into a totalitarian horror, and the method to reach that equality is to reject equality before law, namely by quotas.

    I can give you the first example where I have seen this fighting for equality in reality in action. Moscow State University, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics. The communist leadership observes that this faculty is, violating all their ideas about equality, essentially occupied by Jews. 50% of the teachers as well as the students Jews, in comparison with only a single digit of Jews in general population. So, there was a political decision to fight for equality of different nationalities, by introducing a different level of difficulty for various nations in the entry exams. So, the percentage of Jews decreased. In my opinion, this was unjust and stupid, and in clear conflict with communist ideas about equality - equality meaning, imho, equal conditions in the exams.
    Nice try, 25 barons voting define a democracy. BTW, AFAIU this committee of barons worked 1215 only, and was not part of the 1225 version, which was the version which had lasting effect, not?
    Yes, division of power. Which has not much to do with democracy. Roughly, if a dictator is elected by public vote, this would be democracy too, but not division of power. Instead, a confederation of a lot of towns, each a separate monarchy, and sovereign in internal affairs, would be division of power, but not democracy.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    Why are you pretending I was not talking about equality before the law?
    Baby steps. By introducing democratic procedure, they established the possibility of multipolar governance.
    The entire thing was abandoned more than once, rewritten and reworked, appealed to more in myth than reality - and nevertheless founded the democratic base of multipolarity in governance in the British Isles (without, notice, getting rid of the monarchy).
    Some kind of democratic process is necessary for multipolar governance - not sufficient. To the extent that you have a "confederation" of towns, you have a democratic process in place and a chance at maintaining the division of power - as with the 25 barons of the original Magna Carta. And so forth.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    I thought so initially. This has caused my response that in Russia and China this was reached, by the communist revolutions. You objected heavily. You provided support for this by facts about inequality not before law, but in real life, that means inequality which is unavoidable if you have inequality before the law.
    Multipolar governance has been always a possibility.
    Ok, in your wide definition of multipolarity it becomes indistinguishable from democracy. Who cares in an anyway Orwellian background. So, a confederation of monarchies, which has no real power at all, becomes a democracy. And Putin's Russia is, instead, bloody dictatorship.
    Then: A confederation has very restricted power. This power is well-defined by the contracts, which are the base of this confederation. If these powers include some parts where a majority vote would be decisive, depends on the details of the contract of the confederation. There may be no such point at all, it would be a confederation anyway. Not?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    No I didn't.
    Yep. Like the democratic features that establish it.
    Nope. It's a narrower definition, not a wider one, and it is established or maintained by some kind of democratic process
    If it has no power, it's not a confederation. If it does, it does by democratic process.
    Contracts do not spontaneously arise, neither do they define and enforce themselves. "Voting" can be anything from plurality to unanimity, formal secret ballot to general assent around a table.

    The real world. Get to know it.
     
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    So, fine, we have learned now that everything is democratic. The only non-democratic thing would be a real single-person dictatorship, which does not exist in reality, because even dictators depend on the consent (probably a democratic one too, once voting can be everything) of those ruled. So, the multipolar world will be, automatically, with or without UN, a democracy. Hallelujah.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,519
    Oh I forgot about this thread.


    A tactical nuclear war would probably not kill the human race, probably. If Malaysia was invaded and conquered by china and a few of china's major cities were reduced to tinitite, the humanity and civilization would continue one, a few million would die, world economy would be depressed and the climate would be cooled by a degree or so for a year. China, we assume would sanely choose not to lose a couple of major cities in a tactical nuclear war and would instead make peace with Malaysia.

    Again some countries should not be allowed to have nukes. Also North Koreas intentions are rather clear, they want nukes to black mail the world into giving them trade and money so they can make sure their horrific regime is stable, either we accept this or we attack them, those are the only options. If we attack now it is likely they have no nukes actually weaponized, we could trample them and the worse they would do is level the capital city of South Korea with artillery killing thousands, tens of thousands and costing hundreds of billions of dollars, but in the end we would win and send a clear message to the world that you don't fuck with nukes.



    And I don't disagree, so your up for the US military industrial complex to keep taking 500 billion + dollars a year in tax money, now commanded by a complete huckster pig bore buffoon? I merely stating the US simply can't continue its role as world police, regardless of money it no longer has the competency, the the nuclear arming of smaller countries will be the enviable consequence, and all we will have left will be hope and that the deathtoll will be limited to just a few million.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,440
    No. We learned that multipolar governance essentially requires some kind of democratic process.
     
  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    A kind which is so minor that we do not even need the UN.

    We have some conventions, from Westphalen time or whatever, which automatically involve some democratic process. Remember, "Contracts do not spontaneously arise, neither do they define and enforce themselves".

    States are free to sign them or not. This is a sort of vote, so we have anyway nice democracy worldwide. UN can be disposed. Fine. If this is all what democracy is about, I'm a democrat too. LOL.
     
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    There is no need for giving them something. Making peace (there is yet a ceasefire only, and it is not NK which opposes a peace). Lifting the sanctions, so that normal trade is possible for all those who want to trade. Stopping military exercises. (In case you don't know, a military exercise near your border is, for the other side, indistinguishable from a preparation to start a war. So, the other side has to be on highest alert, waiting if this preparation is really for war, or really only an exercise. This makes military exercises near the border very dangerous.)
    No. It is very likely that they have nuclear weapons ready. So, a war means already now millions of dead, not only tens of thousands.

    The result would be horrible enough for US diplomacy, because after this all nations with remains of common sense would insist that the US gets out of its territory, given that the US is known to start unprovoked nuclear wars, which can result in millions dead in your country if you have US soldiers on your ground.
     
  23. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    You do realize that the sanctions are a direct result of North Korean actions... right?
     

Share This Page