the gouvernement is preparing heres another proof: projectcamelot.org/norway.html

(Forgive the dumbed-down analogy, but it makes me think of something I saw while on vacation recently in the States. A father absolutely ripped into his teenaged son for some minor transgression and, I mean, he lost it. He tore the kid apart verbally and finished with a “get the hell outta my face, I don’t want to see you.” The kid disappeared and the mother seemed upset. The father told her, “Listen, that’s what you have to do. You scream at them and scare them for five minutes, and they respect you and behave for a lifetime.” I thought, “Um, no, clearly not, because damn betcha that’s not the first time you’ve screamed at that kid and he’s still not doing what you want, so your little theory must not be working.” But you just know he’ll come out with verbal guns a-blazin’ next time there’s another problem to solve.)

However, we can be quite sure that Hitler did do a very dumb thing by attacking Russia !!”

Vika, if I wasn’t such a drunken alcoholic (9years sober!), i’d fly up to where you are and buy you a drink!

Where is my medal for stating the obvious?[/quote]

Sorry, no medal. This is called the Chaos Theory. Even Sun Tzu applied these principles in his “The Art of War”

However, we can be quite sure that Hitler did do a very dumb thing by attacking Russia !!!

What can history teach us? Is it naively idealistic to think that maybe in this circumstance Britain did the right thing by confronting Hitler. Is it being naively realistic to think that maybe in some circumstances there are instances of wanton chaos existing in the world? And as we have seen them in history - perhaps this wanton chaos can exist in the present and must be confronted. Not used as an excuse to justify our own crimes, certainly not - but used to ensure the applicability of law and reason as it stands today - in our best institutions.

Where is my medal for stating the obvious?

As of now, I do not see a single system that actually supports the people. In all developed countries, small farmers cannot support their business (and yes, I am thinking of England mostly), none of the countries support the “little guy” also known as the average person and everybody is forced to work in either the service industry - banks, accountants, etc etc - nothing is produced, just consumed and serviced. If democracy represents true will of the people, would they choose such a life? Communism did not work in Soviet union because many people did nothing and still got the same as those who work their butts off - that is not fare. But then comes the question of what is fare?

I don’t think you have to learn sociology here, this is quickly becoming a question of survival of the species - if developed countries are not producing their own food (England imports most of its meat for example), how are we going to survive as a whole?

Really? Did I miss a meeting or something?[/quote]

Yeah you must of. I’ll fill you in..

Pat Buchannan posts on the website antiwar.com. Buchannan had some very astute comments recently on the situation in Georgia if you recall. Buchannan also recently wrote a book about WW2 - “Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War”. You know, WW2 could have been avoided. If Winston Churchill wasn’t such a hard head. Chuchill would have realized that Hitler was acutally a “rational actor”. Thus it seems to me that Pat Buchannan is a leading light in the anti-war movement.

Really? Did I miss a meeting or something?

If anyone cares to consider seriously what the world would be like if WW2 had never happened. Look to Pat Buchannan, he is a leading light in the anti-war movement.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” I am terribly sorry. Is there a better turn of phrase somewhere that can, in your words, save the world?

Banned in China - your assurance of quality content.

I don’t think that its necessarily unrealistic. For refence, I point to the concept of Participatory Economics (Parecon) the suggested economic system for an anarchist society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

An excellent look at this point can be found in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron” which is in his “Welcome to the Monkey House” anthology.

As for the original question of “who gets to save the world?” the only answer, as hopelessly idealistic as it sounds, is People. We can’t simply leave it up to a single nation, or a single governmental ideal to solve all the problems of the world.

The original ideal of communism- dissolution of the idea of the State as a means of protecting and distributing property and goods in favor of a system where every person voluntarily contributes their labor towards creating all of the goods and services required to allow all people access to all of the resources required to live a fulfilling life- is a lovely idea, but not one I personally see as realistic.

All of the various versions of Democracy that we see in action around the world are all deeply flawed in some way or other, but as Patrick mentioned above quoting Churchill, they’re better than anything else that’s been tried so far. What tends to be lacking in them is the fact that the vast majority of the electorate is relatively uneducated on the actual principles of government and governing, and not a lot of effort is made to change this, as it would almost universally lead to wholesale changes in who holds positions of power within the democracies of the world.

People need to educate themselves, and learn more than just who makes the best handbags and what car gets the best gas mileage. We need to learn more than just what will make us money in the world. More people need to learn more about topics like economics, political science, sociology and philosopy, because it’s topics like these where you actually begin to see some of the structures that make our world work the way it does, and until more people can see them and understand them, we are going to have a hell of a time dismantling these structures.
(note: I’m showing a bit of bias here, my degree is in Sociology)

As long as structures that promote socio-economic imbalance in the world exist, be they governmental, religious, industrial, or anything else nations with outlooks like those of the US will serve a purpose in our world, however distasteful we may find that.

We need variety and diversity, not just consensus.

We’d probably be better off if ‘commies’ ran this world, but unfortunately, there aren’t any true communist countries to take the lead.[/quote]

It’s worth pointing out that a communist (and a Maoist at that) was just recently elected the Prime Minister of Nepal.

I wish I had the optimism to be a communist, but it only works as long as everyone plays nice. Of course, I wish I was optimistic enough to think democracy would work. Sigh.
The advantage of a democracy is that it is easier to change things when it (inevitably) gets off track. Not ‘easy’, but ‘easier’.[/quote]
You can only have a functional and neat political system if it is defined and respected. Otherwise you will have a tyranny and possibly a dysfunctional government that usually cannot operate as effectively. The UK for example has a very well defined political system. It accepts that it is a somewhat limited democracy codified through an unwritten (for now) constitutional monarchy. In return most political views are heard adequately through the parliament’s 3 major parties. Hardly ideal but it allows (still) for significant progress and is mostly politically liberal. Most people have come to accept it, despite flaws, to allow for moderate reformism at a compromise for a ‘better’ democracy. The monarchy helps to keep powerful political families or dictators from emerging within the legislature. Although, the system has been in decay of late - partly a victim of its own inability to change as necessary (for instance a large section of the House of Lords is still appointed). But it is a defined system the British people (largely) profoundly respect and support.

Partly for this reason I don’t support Canada becoming a republic. The British monarchy aren’t exactly that admirable but the system certainly is. A Canadian republic would have similar weaknesses to the US system.

In communism, everybody has different notions of equality. How it is to be implemented is undefined. Some follow ‘to each according to his needs’, some believe in a more absolute form of equality. In either case this is dangerous because people are inherently unequal in ability, not to mention those in power will resist bitterly. A fair system would actually allow for inequality to compensate for varied effort and skill. Apart from that, it is violently predisposed against every other system and radical beyond madness. We are not a society of peasants and workers any longer. The agricultural sector has been steadily industrialized much as other labor in past. Services are remarkably important now, being adaptive, beneficial and diverse. The mid 19th-century notions of proletarian equality are stupidly irrelevant today. We must work with our existing political and judicial institutions if we hope to improve socially - on every level in our globalizing society - not overthrow them in violent revolution.

This goes for existing communist regimes too. It would be best to dismantle these peacefully and carefully. China is a fine example of this. The Chinese would not benefit from rapid democritization. Rather, it would cause havoc and mayhem to its economy which has only one chance to improve - and rapidly - before wild aging, the likes of which have never occurred, hits hard (among very many other major issues). China’s repression of civil liberties is terrible and wholly regrettable, yet civil turmoil and anarchy would be worse still. Even they recognize the importance of economically liberal reform. Communism really is dead and it is not something to be missed. In the longer term (well after I am gone) China may become a genuinely modern and respectable nation, but I simply can’t see a revolution accomplishing much that the current government is not already (potentially) capable of doing itself.

In today’s world the only place to find ‘democracy’ is in the dictionary, under ‘D’. The word has truly lost meaning though. To me, it certainly rings hollow.

I’m thinking of starting my own blog. I get political rant compulsions all the time and it might be better to just publish and discuss them separately.

Just realized how bad my grammar can be if I don’t proofread. I should do that more.

Good points; but we’re getting off the point, I think. We’ve discussed types of governments, but not who should be the “Policeman” for the world. Clearly, people on Matt’s site who post regularly, have a less than favorable opinion of the actions of the US as peacekeepers. So let’s suppose Senator Obama is elected as well as a Democratic House and Senate. They decide to bring the boys home, and refuse to fund most of those 700 military bases.

What do you think will happen? Will someone rush to fill the vacuum? Or would the world begin to live in Peace and Harmony with no more war? What if there were no World Policemen? What would happen if the US is tossed out of the UN because of the atrocities and crimes they have committed? Will the Blue Helmets be able to keep the Peace?

Can this be even discussed without rancor?

We’d probably be better off if ‘commies’ ran this world, but unfortunately, there aren’t any true communist countries to take the lead.[/quote]

It’s worth pointing out that a communist (and a Maoist at that) was just recently elected the Prime Minister of Nepal.

I wish I had the optimism to be a communist, but it only works as long as everyone plays nice. Of course, I wish I was optimistic enough to think democracy would work. Sigh.
The advantage of a democracy is that it is easier to change things when it (inevitably) gets off track. Not ‘easy’, but ‘easier’.

I agree. There’s no telling where ignorant self-righteousness will show up.

The US is a Democratic Republic.
I believe democracy works best, the smaller it is. If a task or service can be provided at the State level rather than the National; go State. If a task or service can be provided at a City level rather than a State level; go City.

vika- p.s. you did. Point you :)

Media would not be such a problem if people were free and open to discussion, but they are often close-minded and stuck to their own opinions.[/quote]
I think part of the problem there is ignorant self-righteousness (especially in the US). Now I think about it I do that a awful lot too. But you can never have much of a debate or discussion if people have been FOXified.

[quote comment="62489"]I struggle so much with the question of why do people listen to and buy into what somebody that they do not know, with unverified credentials, wrote about an issue that may or may not be important in the future?[/quote]
I think that’s a psychological thing. I can’t stand to watch people like my dad take mainstream news as gospel - it sickens me. I don’t know what it is but whoever came up with the concept of the mass media in its present form was surely a genius.

Media would not be such a problem if people were free and open to discussion, but they are often close-minded and stuck to their own opinions.

With modern version of “democracy” everyone has their own agenda. It is interesting, because as people in Iraq are finding out now, they had only one enemy before freedom came, everybody knew who it was and how it operated. So it was easy to avoid. But now…

I struggle so much with the question of why do people listen to and buy into what somebody that they do not know, with unverified credentials, wrote about an issue that may or may not be important in the future?