[extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick

[The Avantguardian]

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> > Treaties are made and broken at the
> > convenience of the participants in the mad
> scramble
> > for eminence in the international theater.
> >
> 
> This still seem to be driving the US at least.

That may be, but it shouldn't. We ARE top dog right
now. We should be LEADING them somewhere, not
squashing the little guys to make some sort of POINT.
Once everyone has backed down to you, continued
aggression is pointless... it just builds up
resentment and contempt. Even Machiavelli warned
against that. 

> That itself is a rather cynical view in that it says
> $$ makes right  
> effectively.  Taiwan broke off from China as a
> relatively much more  
> free country wishing to be a separate entity.  China
> keeps insisting  
> that it is not separate.  As supporters of freedom,
> democracy and  
> self-determination it seem obvious that we would and
> should support  
> Taiwan in its bid for continuing independence.    I
> don't agree it is  
> wise to sell off the principles involved.

I don't either, but it is the UN's roster of
sovereignity that makes a country a country. I could
buy an island and call it Happyland but that doesn't
make it a country unless the UN accepts it. If the UN
decides preserving Taiwan's independence is a
priority, then we should do our duty, otherwise I say
we stay out of it.

> There are questions of principle and of precedent at
> stake.

What principle? That communism must be contained? What
precedent? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea?

> 
> Taiwan is its own country.  Not the pawn or chattel
> of either the US  
> or China.   The US cannot stop buying Chinese goods
> without extremely  
> negative economic consequences.  China cannot
> liquidate all its US  
> holdings without extremely negative economic
> consequences.  If China  
> tries to bully Taiwan then the right thing to do is
> to call their  
> bluff.

No we let the UN decide. We should be ready to do so,
but not unilaterally.

  They have little rational choice but to back
  down.

That's the paradox of detente. War is inherently
irrational and both countries should rationally back
down. But the point of detente is for one country to
convince the other that one is irrational enough to
keep going. Just like a game of chicken... and chicken
fatalities DO happen. Around 3% of all fatal boating
collisons are caused by people playing chicken.

> Yes and no.  Shades of gray still presume  notions
> of black and  
> white.   Different countries and policies can be
> weighed as to degree  
> of good or bad.  All countries, political systems,
> cultures and so on  
> are not equally good or bad.

China's government is not THAT bad. Its no easy task
governing 1/4 of the world's population. I think it
wrong to think that we could extrapolate our way of
life onto them and expect it to be better for them or
the rest of the world. Especially when THEY have had
some 4000 more years of practice than us. Do you
really think having 1.5 billion people driving SUVs
and trying to count votes every four years is better
for the world?

> Do you believe then that there are no threats to
> national security?   

I believe that national security should be called
governmental security since that is what it actually
means. There may be threats to the U.S. government
lurking out there, but I don't feel threatened. Not by
China, Iraq, or any other country. I do feel just an
itsy bitsy bit threatened by islamofacist terrorists
but they are not a country are they?

You would think that a SUPERPOWER would show a bit of
backbone and not give in to the "let's get them before
they get us mentality". Especially since nobody really
CAN get us and we can get ANYONE. Unless of course we
just want to be sadistic.  

> Do you believe we would somehow be better off with
> one global  
> government?

No, but there should be an international court of law
that actually has some teeth. And an international
legislative body composed of the leaders of all the
world's countries. Call it an international senate if
you would. I don't see the point of having any
executive branch, with a Parliament of Countries, the
whole point of this "pseudogovernment" is that it be
as fractious and innefficent as congress on a bad day,
but could with a quorum make international law.

Sort of like the UN only not a fairy tale on paper.
 

> Calling it paranoia is an assumption.

No I think of it as self-confidence. Believing that
another country could threaten a free people with guns
strikes me as cowardly. We just need more guns.
They won't nuke us... We grow their rice after all.

> > Especially when
> > there are global issues (like pollution,
> asteroids,
> > etc.) that need to be addressed.
> 
> Co-operation between nations on true global issues
> has been around a  
> long time, imperfect as it is.

Lets hope it gets better and not worse.


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs