Right-o, cal!
Printable View
Right-o, cal!
Or maybe we just don't see things that simple.Quote:
Originally posted by qerlin
As for the one world government...maybe you guys should reread your Orwell. That's what your going to get.
The reason I picked up on the car was because I live in Carlise - right on the scottish border, where people come down from the hills in muddy 4x4 cars. But how, I always wondered, did anyone ever need them in the super-flat, tamed & pristine county of Buckinghamshire?
I'm just saying that there's a little less choice and a little more outright manipulation than people seem to need.
Ugh. I just got a slap form the Off-Topic Fairy. Next time I will simply kill the next guy to wake me up at 5am - after all, it will probably be the same idiot.
Off the top of my head -
Arguments for globalisation:
- We're already there, with global communications - look at how China is having so much trouble stopping people surfing 'unacceptable' content.
- It means that people have to take in interest, because everything becomes linked.
- Ditto with global business - you can even get a McDonalds in Moscow (if you don't get distracted by the whores...).
- Some issues can only be tackled globally, such as pollution.
- The end of us and them [www.bbc.co.uk]
the BBC
- Economic globalisation is our best hope {according to Kofi Annan}
Arguments for staying at home:
- Growing Inequality
- Stateless corporations maybe have a little too much power - remember Enron? Even British politicos were caught bent over.
{ooh, Baad mental image...}
- Cultural homogenity.
- Global business can be damaging - sterile GM seeds sold to the third world create a dependent market, for example.
- Foot & Mouth. Spread because animals travel hundreds of miles to be slaughtered for some reason. Also, if your burger is made from around 100 different animals, then it's a lot easier to pass other nasty illnesses on
Right. Time to get up and have breakfast - I can't think of nay more. Anyone else?
"I'm just saying that there's a little less choice and a little more outright manipulation than people seem to need."
Caveat emptor
"Or maybe we just don't see things that simple..."
Wow...you guys are soooo much more elite, compassionate, and smarter than us simple Americans. You're right! The hell with freedom, individuality. The hell with personal choice and responsibility -- Big Brother World, take my money and take care of me, please! I can't fend or think for myself!
Tell me, qerlin... why do you seem to think each time an European disagrees with you, it's because he's another awful America basher who was celebrating on 9-11 and whose only dream is to see the USA crushed ?
Things are not in black and white (yeah, I found that one myself :rolleyes: ). Not every single European is utterly convinced that the USA are some sort of evil Empire. OTOH, I'm not so sure myself that they are the One and Only Future of Mankind. That doesn't mean I support people who crash planes on their buildings. There's such a thing called the middle.
Quite off topic, I know, but sometimes I get a bit fed up with statements like "Yeah, you disagree with me, that's 'cause you're European and think nothing but bashing the USA, while every sane person knows we're the only way to go".
Sometimes the other bugger happens to be right, too.
I'm not speaking for Qerlin, but I usually tend to agree with him politically (current Pledge of Allegiance issue being an exception I believe...)
It would seem what he was resonding to was the specific...
The use of we does give the impression of speaking for a group, in this case that being the European Union. I myself, in political debate, have sometimes gotten frustrated and given testy replies that I regret. I don't know if that is the case for Qerlin, as I am not speaking for him, but I do know that the implication that I view things simplistically without any reason to back up that statement would irk me.Quote:
Or maybe we just don't see things that simple...
The people I respect most when debating, whether I agree or disagree with them, are those who, in my opinion, explain their reasoning. Joe, I'd really like to hear why that is a simplistic point of view - this is an honest request - every once in a while, someone says something that makes me rethink my own positions - that happened, for example, in some debates about the war on terrorism.
In my opinion, the concern of the Orwellian aspects of a world government are valid and not simplistic. For example, I have read in some European newspapers (mainly British ones actually - the Guardian comes to mind) severely criticizing Ireland for putting major EU decisions to popular referendum as opposed to parliamentary discretion. The Treaty of Nice comes to mind. Editorials by "European Political Intellectuals" I have read question whether the common people of Ireland are smart enough to make such decisions or that they are being too selfish and shouldn't be allowed to stop the expansion of the EU. Sounds like something out of Animal Farm or 1984 to me. Perhaps all Europeans are created equal, but some are more equal than others? :D
If you want to feel attacked or insulted, whenever someone does not agree with you, go right ahead. Call us sheep-minded arrogant college-boys, or snotty europeans. I can think of worse things than you spouting half-cocked assumptions about people you've never met (and probably won't as well) in my general direction.Quote:
Originally posted by qerlin
Wow...you guys are soooo much more elite, compassionate, and smarter than us simple Americans. You're right! The hell with freedom, individuality. The hell with personal choice and responsibility -- Big Brother World, take my money and take care of me, please! I can't fend or think for myself!
As far as I can tell you explained that you consider every sort of world gov't as an individuality crushing, freedom-reducing evil entity. I simply think that this is a very black-and-white view.
You don't have to agree with me on that, I know that I don't agree with you.
And is it me or weren't you implying that the afore-mentioned evil empire is the only logical form of a world gov't? Seems to me like you're acting as if you're the only one with the enlightened brain, who not only read Orwell but also understood him, as opposed to us lowly Europeans who'd give up their every freedom to some beauraucrats.
So who's looking down on whom, here?
The word simple referred to qerlin's earlier statement, which in my eyes said, that EVERY world gov't will turn out evil. That there is no middle ground. That no matter what it will turn into some version of Stalinism. (<- consciously exaggerating here)Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Stack
Joe, I'd really like to hear why that is a simplistic point of view - this is an honest request
The word we did not refer to "us" Europeans, but to "us" with the opposing view, i.e. pro-world gov't.
"...as opposed to us lowly Europeans who'd give up their every freedom to some beauraucrats..."
Judging from quite a few of the responses, as well as my experiences in Europe -- camera on every freakin' street corner, a disarmed population, constant socialist indoctrination from cradle to grave, as well as a lack of respect for individulalism -- that seems to be the case.
"So who's looking down on whom, here?"
As much as I hate ad hominem arguments, and as much as I enjoy healthy debate...it looks like I am. My experiences in the US, Europe, and Middle East have convinced me that the best system is the one that interferes with people the least, that leaves those who exert themselves the profits of their labor, and that is -- if necessary -- forced to respond to its people. I don't see that in Europe; I'm seeing less and less of it here in the United States.
I am no flag-waving yank. I was raised by Scots and I've traveled extensively. This country, the United States, has faults, its had areas that require serious examination of conscience...but it is the most successful political experiment in history. It provides unparalelled opportunity for advancement by keeping the government off of people's backs (this is changing.) And it provides civil rights are that clear are clearly stated, and in the script of the Declaration of Independence, inalienable...the International Court, and a one world government is an anathema to those freedoms.
I took an oath to defend the Constitution and the system it envisions -- on that I will never yield.
I am an individual. I am also a part of society.
If a camera on every street corner means people aren't getting mugged, or the muggers are getting put behind bars, I'm all for it. So they're watching me as well - big deal, given I don't do anything in public that'll get me arrested. If I ever thought the British government was competent enough to run an Orwellian state I'd be worried, but that is most decidedly not the case (:)).
So we don't carry guns. Maybe we have more faith in the democratic system than the Americans do. Maybe we realize that the right to bear arms to defend against tyranny is nowadays little more than another tagline for the NRA (after all, if the US government were repressive, do you really think your collection of handguns is going to do squat against F-16's and smart bombs? Didn't help the Afghans now, did it?). Maybe we recognize that having guns widely available leads to gun crime! Hell, if my government does turn into an oppressive regime, I'll pick up a bat and fight them, but having guns out there waiting for that day strikes me as not having faith in the very principles the US is based on. Besides, people like Ghandi showed that you can stand up to oppression without a gun.
Socialist indocrination from birth? Hardly. We have a lot of hardcore capitalists over here too you know. True, we have something of a welfare state. I'm glad it's there - I have, through no fault of my own, been unemployed for short periods during my life, and I appreciate there being some benefits there to keep me fed between jobs. People who are perpetually on welfare are annoying, true - but I at least understand that if our education system were better they might not be "unemployable".
Yes, the Europeans tend to look at both sides of the issue when it comes to world affairs. That's why I can understand where both sides are coming from in the Israel/Palestine conflict and can have sympathy for both. This comes from the fact that European nations (and Britain in particular because of the Empire) simply have more experience in these matters than the US. That doesn't make the US worse than us, or us better than the US. We all have to learn the lessons sometime. My own country tried to rule the world. We failed because we were arrogant, we thought no-one could touch us, we didn't try to understand the needs and feelings of the people we conquered, and we believed our way was best. America has only been around for 200 years, and is still learning these lessons precisely because of isolationist policies in the past. It took Pearl Harbour to shock the US out of complacency in WWII. It took the 9/11 to do the same recently. If there's one lesson I have learnt from Star Trek, it's that understanding others leads to peace in the end. If that's socialist, then I'm all for it...
Likewise, I can understand why the US acts the way it does. But I don't have to agree with it. That doesn't make me "anti-American". If my own government started acting the same way I'd complain, and that certainly wouldn't make me "anti-British". The American people I've met (or spoken to on these boards) are warm, friendly, likeable people. As with all things, though, sometimes those people have opinions that I disagree with. But that's what debate is for. It's when that debate is quelled that we really are approaching an Orwellian state...
The trouble here is that there is indeed such a thing as a sort of national common consciousness. What is good for a country may not be good at all for another.
For instance, qerlin, you seem to consider a disarmed population as a proof of socialist indoctrinment; for me, an armed population leads to a state of violence (I have friends who spent some time in the US - near Chicago, specifically - and, once returned, told they weren't used to quiet nights in Paris, that is, without gun shots).
Who is right, who is wrong ? If you then state bluntly that, because I think that, I have been indoctrined by the socialist state, then I hope people will agree with me if I call you intolerant. Since I too, could say that you have been indoctrined by whatever capitalist state or wichever. And that wouldn't further the debate (unless its ultimate goal is to start calling names).
In short, you think that the US system is the best. I, and some people like Joe, think otherwise. This doesn't mean we think the USA is an evil empire. It doesn't mean either that we're plain wrong. Both side could summon some numbers to prove that some things are better in their favorite system. Both side would be partially right (and partially wrong).
I tried to say that I'm just not interested in a debate where I say, hey, the USA aren't the best system for me, and I'm replied, wrong, they're the best, now go get some real knowledge instead of bugging us Who Know The Truth.
Maybe this isn't what happened on this thread, but it is how I felt it. Now it may be because I'm just another indoctrined European.
EDIT : Capt. Hunter made a very good point while I was writing this.
Let's just agree to disagree here. I could challenge the points you mentioned, but - no offense - I'm really not that interested in trying to 'correct' (<-note the sarcasm, please) what I consider a misconception on your part.Quote:
Originally posted by qerlin
"...as opposed to us lowly Europeans who'd give up their every freedom to some beauraucrats..."
Judging from quite a few of the responses, as well as my experiences in Europe -- camera on every freakin' street corner, a disarmed population, constant socialist indoctrination from cradle to grave, as well as a lack of respect for individulalism -- that seems to be the case.
But as an aside, and speaking as a European, I would appeciate it if you wouldn't constantly act as if all us Europeans are living in some sort of thinly-veiled bureaucrat oppression, which we are too dumb, short-sighted or whatever to see.
It's quite annoying bordering on insulting. Feel free to post your views, whatever they may be, but do make clear that they are strictly form your pov. And not unchangeable fact. (Just because you posted them, does not make that clear.)
Just asking for a little courtesy.
Quote:
My experiences in the US, Europe, and Middle East have convinced me that the best system is the one that interferes with people the least, that leaves those who exert themselves the profits of their labor, and that is -- if necessary -- forced to respond to its people. I don't see that in Europe; I'm seeing less and less of it here in the United States.
Fine by me.
My experiences haven't led me to that conclusion, and there's pretty much nothing we can do about it. Except respect the fact that both of us are thinking clearly but simply had different experiences to formulate an opinion from.
Nobody's asking you to do that. Keep in mind though, that some of us either have no interest or feel no need to be convinced just how awesome the good ole' U.S. of A. are in comparison to the rest of the world.Quote:
I took an oath to defend the Constitution and the system it envisions -- on that I will never yield.
Besides, on the topic of street cameras on every corner, you're the guys whose intelligence agencies are currently being pressured to reveal to what extent they eavesdrop on phone conversations. The UK agencies don't have that right yet (actually, they do - they just get the info from the FBI :)).
When we Europeans whinge, it's not because we're "jealous of American success" or "being anti-American". We whinge about everything! I know that Americans do too - I've seen enough of you complain to know it's not a European phenomenon. We whinge and complain because we happen to have different ideas from you. That's individualism for you...
Glad you liked my points, C5. I re-read my post and realized I argued a bit harshly - sorry if I pissed anyone off (comes of posting when I'm still all hot 'n' bothered from walking the five miles to work!)
Isolationism all the way. At least politically in my mind.
I'm European. (Seems to be important in this thread.
:) )
I can just picture a giant new world order with one-world government filled with thousands of representatives and one president like figure. The amount of corruption and waste would be astounding. Anyone who doesn't believe that either hasn't seen how government works or chooses to ignore it. I've seen it at the Canadien Military HQ in Ottawa.
I get into the elevator, buttons 2 and 3 have scraps of paper over them. We get to the second floor, some officer gets on, my "guide" tells me; "This floor doesn't exist" and smiles. Waste. Corruption? My godparents in Poland paid off a municipal worker so they could build their three-floor house with fence on a ROAD. Blocking it off completely, perfectly legal permits. Picture these things on a global scale. Smart people do not go into public administration, the lowest "lifeforms" do.;) A fond saying of my late grand-father.
I'd prefer a world where each state deals with its owns problems in ANY way it feels is appropriate. Unification into a Federation is perfectly comprehensible in the case of Europe. Such a move with Canada and the U.S. would be ridiculous. Warning to all Americans, you do not want any of our provinces, you are just inviting problems unto yourselves!
Posted by C5:
The U.S. is not really an armed state. You want a real armed state? Poland 1953-1990, or the Romanians during Soviet dominance, see Switzerland or any of the few dozen ex-Soviet "clients". People owned land mines, tank mines, AA guns were stashed in their barns. It was strictly illegal, but try and tell that to people who are fed up with the government. An armed population is a safety-net against tyranny; it may be that some either no longer need it or no longer perceive the need.Quote:
for me, an armed population leads to a state of violence
Posted by Capt.Hunter:
And the people in Tianemen Square showed us that an oppressive regime will pulverize people who protest peacefully. Sometimes an armed revolt will stir things up for the better. All the great successfull revolutions started with armed revolts by the populaces.Quote:
Besides, people like Ghandi showed that you can stand up to oppression without a gun.
To answer MacTavish's original question;
-The current state of the world is somewhat okay. We have a hegemon, but it doesn't really "impose" upon anyone. Not like the Romans, the British or the Soviets did. People spout hate against it and it turns a blind eye. Any of these other ex-empires would have sent a fleet and destroyed any offending coastline cities just to prove who was head-honcho. That's what we need, a little military muscle to demonstrate that the Hegemon is not weak.
Alliances are well and good, but any good Hegemon must realize when its old allies are useless and new one's are needed. It's alliances are of limited value but it's interests are eternal. An American Hegemony would be the best possible system we can strive for.