Chat/Comment thread

The point is the same one I have made through out this thread.You have a right to try to persuade a Nation State that YOUR position is better, but no right to impose YOUR idea of what is best on that Nation.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Freedom is a finite quality. Just laws, that apply to everyone, work to ensure that it is equally distributed.Equality and maximum personal freedom are at the very core of Western society. They are not at the very core of some other societies. You know it when you see it. You know it subjectively. It is certain that all the things that make your life better will not necessarily make my life better. I think that there are some things that will necessarily make everyone's life better. Maximum personal freedom that is equally distributed is one of them. Who in the world wishes that they had less freedom than someone else? In the same way that eating food translates into not being hungry. It is the way of things. We have evolved to feel happier when we are free. It probably has something to do with survival.________My contention is that those of us who believe in maximum personal freedom and equality are obligated to try and make it true for everyone.

Why do Nation States get such special treatment. Surely if my way is best (and believe me, it is) and I have the means of imposing that way on any Nation State I select (believe me, I'm working on it) then I should do so.

Thank you for that great explanation of why Nation States should get what you call "special treatment".It is really an important point. Should those with the power to impose their position on others have the right to do so?

Is that not the way of the world? I may well be born into a democracy, but I may disagree with everything that democracy forces upon me. Is that power any more "right" than forcing the government of a Nation State to do something?Let's say I have enough leverage against an African government to force it to do something, and sufficiently small footprint that they can't stop me. Would it always be wrong to exercise that power, irrespective of the demand?If that is "wrong", then I guess I'll just use my power to enforce my own coup d'etat and take over as that goverment. As soon as I am sufficiently established, I am now "right" to exercise my control

Well it may well be "the way of the world" but the question is "Is it the best or even better way?"

Why is it the way of the world? Does our evolutionary history not show us that it is the best way?

The thing i never liked about the U.N. is any po-dunk nation with 2000 people had the same say as a nation with many millions. Someone has to be in charge, or else all you have is a gridlock of nations who demand more when they themselves have little to offer themselves.As for which way of life is best, a case can be made against our nation/culture, as we are far too materialistic for our own good and consume far more than our share. It would be hell on earth if every other nation followed our pattern because there simply isn't enough left to consume ...at the rate we did. This is even now a problem as China seeks to follow our pattern somewhat. They simply cannot be allowed to consume anywhere near the scale we did.Even though we have been pigs, however, is no reason that it is fair to discriminate against us. After all, we have the biggest stick, though it seems primitive to have to use it.Im not sure how consensus will ever be found on this planet without wars, however.

HUH?That depends on who you ask, the imposer or the person imposed upon.

The same say in what, exactly? UN resolutions are non-binding. The UN has precisely zero authority that doesn't stem from voluntary compliance with their requests.

Why does someone have to be in charge?Shall we hold a world wide vote to see who should be in charge?

quote:

---

TOKYO, Japan -- A huge bluefin tuna fetched a record 56.49 million yen ($736,000 or $1,241 per pound) at the year's first auction at Tokyo's Tsukiji fish market

---

SourceAnyone want to start a fish farm? If this fish was 25 yrs old thats $29k/yr/fish. Can you grow tuna in a tank?

No it doesn't. It depends on who is able to do the imposing.

Bullshit.You said "Does our evolutionary history not show us that it is the best way? "It does not show us that it is the best way, it shows us only what happened.

My point is, why are the most powerful nations the most powerful nations? It is because they have succeded. Should we persue a model that leads to less success?