# Is world peace possible?



## habilis (Apr 24, 2003)

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and the quick answer might be yes, but as we see over and over, history loves to repeat itself.

And history repeats itself because humanity has the same strengths and weaknesses over time; we have the same basic unchanged brain, make the same choices, and mistakes. For me, human genetics bring into question the realistic attainability of this goal called world peace.

Evolution favors the strong; we got here today by being "tough". In the early times of man, our ancestors such as cro-magnon and neanderthal lived by Darwins rule "Survival of the Fittest". In other words, the more testosterone, strength and aggression you had, the more females you could procreate with, thereby passing on the genes of aggression. This pattern is still repeating in primates today - and some would argue with mankind as well.

No matter how civilized we get, our primitive genes would seem to be inescapable, and civilization is, as they say, "only skin deep". I don't pretend to know the answers to this mindbendingly complex question, I just have some conflicting ideas rolling about in my head.

I'm not at all saying world peace is unattainable. Genetic engineering may one day far in the future help to create a more intelliegent, compassionate humanity. Human genetic enhancing and engineering might seem like science fiction now, but mankind has evidently reached the end of his natural evolutionary path, and what this generation rejects, the next will accept, and the next after that will embrace.

Whats your take?


----------



## Perseus (Apr 24, 2003)

We need good and evil to create a balance. Unfortunately there is too much evil.  World peace is nearly impossible to achieve because of all of the  various cultural backgrounds that create differences among us. Maybe it would be possible if there was such thing as a global religion that everyone followed that could not even potentially create extremists. I believe most evil is religious based.  

When you say peaceful, do you mean a utopia of eternall happiness or a proper balance where everyone gets enough food etc, and there is enough political balance to prevent major wars?

-Perseus


----------



## adambyte (Apr 24, 2003)

I think "world peace" is something to strive for, but not something that's attainable. Except, of course, unless you engineer a species of people who really just.... well, to be honest, lack personality.

The reason this planet is so interesting is because it is full of extremes, and differing opinions. As much as I like me, it would be a boring place if everybody wore jeans, white t-shirts, and were the kind of "nice guys" that women like as friends, but not as boyfriends..... uh..... I'm sorry, do I sound bitter? lol. Anyway, my point is, this worls is only interesting because we have conflict.

And, hey, as long as we're waxing philosophical, if we lived in a perfect world..... where everybody was happy.... then would we be really happy? Isn't it necessary to experience pain to know happiness? You know... Yin, Yang, all that stuff?


----------



## habilis (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Perseus _
> *When you say peaceful, do you mean a utopia of eternall happiness or a proper balance where everyone gets enough food etc, and there is enough political balance to prevent major wars?*



Definately not a utopia. What I mean is an exsistance where we could all belong to some common value system, use the same currency, achive a global equilibrium of sorts and yes, most importantly prevent not just major wars, but all war. And I do agree, religion is a MAJOR obstacle.


----------



## habilis (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *And, hey, as long as we're waxing philosophical, if we lived in a perfect world..... where everybody was happy.... then would we be really happy? Isn't it necessary to experience pain to know happiness? You know... Yin, Yang, all that stuff? *



Thats why I'm much more afraid to go to heaven when I die, then hell (if they exist)


----------



## BoneFill (Apr 25, 2003)

Oh, sure there have been a lot of people thru history trying to create ONE big common nation, religion, value system... the ones that i remember right now are Hitler, Romans, Genghis Khan, some others ... and oh yeah, right George W. Bush....

As i see, the only way right now to achieve world pace is if all countries were America, with American standards, American way to be religious and we all have to follow american commandments....

It's really a shame but that's the path  history is taking... I can tell you for sure how the story ends...

Edited because i forgot to say that the only way to achieve world peace is by respecting differences.... that's plain and simple...


----------



## toast (Apr 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Perseus _
> *We need good and evil to create a balance. (...) I believe most evil is religious based.*



Hm... This might have been true three centuries ago. It is not any more. Flawed nationalism has killed more than religion since the XVIIIth century, but this kind of tragic statistics do not mean much anyway.

In my own humble opinion, I do not think world peace can be achieved because it seems that wars are a normal regulation of human activities. There are the means human beings turn to when they feel no other means will help.

Even though world peace may not be possible, world _order_ is a more achievable goal. To some, NWO is, _by default_, equivalent to world peace.

I strongly recommend the following source to interested people. It defends a very different thesis (the fact that the nation-state is reponsible for the world to be such a mess).

"War Making and State Making as Organized Crime", by Charles Tilly, 1985, in "Bringing the State Back In", by P.B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, T. Sckocpol (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 169-191.


----------



## Cat (Apr 25, 2003)

I think a limited form of world peace is possible, technically. 

We have not got this far by being tough, the naturalistic Darwinian setting of survival of the fittest (for survival) is simply a case of competition of all against all. Civilization itself is only a by product of socialization: we agree to not kill, rob or rape each other, but to collaborate. This tendency has evolved from families to clans to towns to ultimately the nation state by appeal to ever more abstract values and principles. Right now, each one of us, lives in relative peace with his fellow citizens, within a nation or federal state. However, the realtions between states are still at the level of primal competition for limited resources, which is the No. 1 cause of conflict. If and when a collabaration between states is instituted, they collaborate more and more until they become a nation themselves (maybe not in name but in fact). Examples include but are not limited to Italy and Germany. If and when an experiment like the European Union or the United Nations could be succesfully applied world-wide, we would all be living within the relative peace of a quasi nation state. 

Obviously this is quite Utopian, but IMHO better than the totalitaristic "one faith to rule them all" ... Of course, the main enemy of this kind of vision is patriottism, or better, chauvinism.

Social systems have been insituted to protect one human gainst the other. This obviously means that the strong protect the weak. In contemporary politics this is primarily a financial aid. Again obviously the rich mutter and object. As well within nations as between.

Barring simplistic sloagans, if rich nations would collaborate more to reduce thirst, hunger and poverty, spreading the wealth,  then weaker nations would feel less threatened or less propense to use threats to protect themselves against the strong and the world would become a safer and better place to live in and thus lead to world peace. One little baby step at a time.

Utopian for now, but feasible in a hundred years work.


----------



## habilis (Apr 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by BoneFill _
> Oh, sure there have been a lot of people thru history trying to create ONE big common nation, religion, value system... the ones that i remember right now are Hitler, Romans, Genghis Khan, some others ... and oh yeah, right George W. Bush....


It's true. Agression and war often comes the guise of peace. At this moment however, I don't think GW is of this kind of totalitarian thinking. Give America 2 or 3 more 9/11's and we might be. Cut the guy a little slack, I don't envy having his job right now; he inherited the post dot-com crash economy and the incredible responsibilty of trying to keep us safe.




> _Originally posted by toast _
> In my own humble opinion, I do not think world peace can be achieved...


If we know we can't fly, should man run around flapping his arms trying? - just a devil's advocate comment really.


----------



## fryke (Apr 25, 2003)

A limited form of world peace? Please... Either yes or no. 

And: When talking about evolution, never forget that evolution needs time. 'Survival of the fittest' does not necessarily mean that the one with the hammer kills the one without a hammer. Don't try and be egocentric with evolution.

Evolution is at work. Constantly. But it takes centuries or millennia to 'naturally' erase or change a race...

World peace is possible and will come. The short version: Someone starts erasing mankind. The long version: Too many people will get fed up with war. 

habilis: "I don't think GW is of this kind of totalitarian thinking. Give America 2 or 3 more 9/11's and we might be."

You mean that the US don't learn? I mean, not at all? 9/11 should have shown that the totalitarian thinking is wrong and that the US should behave a bit better in the world. The reaction? The US go to war. The reaction? More 9/11s, probably. Sure that's not a way to world peace...


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 25, 2003)

Of course world peace is possible.... 

Once the US is done taking over most of it  ::ha::   

Sorry, couldn't resist. ::angel::


----------



## fryke (Apr 25, 2003)

That's an interesting concept, you have there. Take the root of all evil and put it on top of everything else. Kind of like Satanism, in a way.

Sorry, couldn't resist, either.


----------



## habilis (Apr 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> 9/11 should have shown that the totalitarian thinking is wrong and that the US should behave a bit better in the world.


So would you like it it we didn't build any more big scary buildings and tore down the existing ones because somebody, somwhere, in some extremist religious state found them offensive??? Would you like it if we put up a memorial to the terrorists at ground zero for teaching us a lesson?

Lets all just have some cake and relax. I really didn't want this thread to concentrate too much on current events or to degenerate into mudslinging, but apparently, all roads lead to Baghdad.


----------



## ksv (Apr 25, 2003)

Wow, this must be the first _constructive_ political discussion I've seen in a long time. It seems like we all agree on what to archive - but there are so many different opinions on how it should be done. What we actually see is the world becoming more and more free, more anarchistic actually. And at the same time more peaceful.


----------



## toast (Apr 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *If we know we can't fly, should man run around flapping his arms trying? - just a devil's advocate comment really. *



It's a good comment indeed. Many theoricians (realists, anti-marxists) have based their approach on the same remark you pointed out: why follow objective x if objective x is unreachable ?

That's also why I prefer to talk of world order rather than world peace.

I agree with you, ksv, that's a good thread that has been started here. It builds itself on the still hot ashes of the "GW Bush hero" thread, which also is a good thing. I hope I'll have the time to develop some points, but I'm going to have much work in the upcoming weeks - I just had very good news from my institute


----------



## Ugg (Apr 25, 2003)

Good thread!  

Hmm, my gut reaction is that no, the world can never experience peace but, who knows?  

World population is expected to level out sometime this century.  This continual pressure on the limited resources of the planet and their inequal distribution has been a major factor in world conflict.  I think that once the population levels out things will begin to change.  

What happens when that population pressure eases?  Nobody really knows the answer but one would think that there would be less conflict.  

Personally I think that peace is something we all must strive towards.  During the 20th century we've seen only too well the devastation that the lack of peace causes.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *That's an interesting concept, you have there. Take the root of all evil and put it on top of everything else. Kind of like Satanism, in a way.
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist, either. *



I was kidding, you know, a topical joke, ha ha, one that could have been delivered by either camp, oh never mind.

Back on topic.  I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that a concept like "world peace" can be achieved.  When you look at international agressors, how are their actions any different than the corner thug?  They're not, it's just that because of their position, their "thuggery" can be applied at a much larger scope than the guy on the street corner.  People do some truely aweful things to each other all over the planet (regardless of demographics, natives in the middle of nowhere, the chic rich in the most expensive of places), so it's hard to say that any specific socio-economic conditions that can be "cured" to prevent these types of things from happening.  If it can't be stopped at the micro level, it most definitely can't be stopped at the macro level.  It's basic human nature to be aggressive (obviously some more/less than others), and those who are more and who also happen to have the means, will continue to create global "issues".

It would seem that one would have to start looking at scifi-esque measures to prevent such things from occuring ("I'm sorry Mr and Mrs Johnson, but your child's dna profile indicates that there is a high probability that they will be above the state mandated maximum Heinrich/Fronds Aggression Level, we will have to either abort the child or lobotimize it after birth").


----------



## Androo (Apr 25, 2003)

no


----------



## slur (Apr 26, 2003)

I believe that world peace is possible. Without this belief I would tend towards fatalism and I wouldn't even try. The barriers to world peace are daunting, but I don't think they are insurmountable. Humans are good problem-solvers, and in fact I believe that this is the central driving force that both causes and solves conflicts.

The thing is, what does a person see as the problem? How do people understand the meaning of "better"? How do people frame their reality?

First, every living creature most desires the same thing: To achieve happiness!

But consider this: When you believe that obtaining X will give you happiness then how do you feel when Y intervenes? That is the crux of hate! Y becomes the object of hatred, because it thwarts your desire for X.

As problem-solvers people will think that eliminating Y will lead them to X - and the happiness they seek.

But in the process of destroying Y to gain X they change the nature of X. X becomes a reminder of their hate for Y. Moreover, having obtained X the happiness begins to wane. X becomes an ordinary thing, and this conditioned happiness slowly dies away. Or - perhaps worse - X decays or dies or disappears. The happiness brought on by X turns into disappointment and suffering.

It's very sad.

It happens all day every day everywhere.

Powerless people - people without wealth - alienated people... all these kinds of people lose hope for achieving happiness through material things. They reach for happiness beyond this life.

They become very attached to it.

They become maddened by it.

They begin to resent the world - especially those who have things or wealth or freedoms.

It is a plague of ignorance. The helpless, disenfranchised, and alienated are as materialistic as the apathetic, domesticated, media-fed materialists who take their fortune for granted.

Hunter S. Thompson is fond of saying there are two kinds of people: The Screwheads and the Doomed. But they're just the same. We're all Screwheads. We're all Doomed.

World Peace. It's an ideal. It's one possible X. What happens when Y gets in the way of this ideal X, World Peace? What does Heaven seem like if your enemies are there? Hell, baby, hell.

It's a question of attitude. It's a question of values. It's a question of what's real. It's a question of cause-and-effect.

How do we get around the very real cause-and-effect problem of Love-for-X leading to Hate-for-Y?

If you ask me, it must not be Real Love.

In fact, it's the crux of Ignorance. Ignorance of cause-and-effect. Ignorance of Personal Responsibility.

Everyone is wholly responsible for their own Reality.

We create our enemies. Out of Ignorance.

There are real, practical problems to solve here on earth. If we focused on those real problems I believe we would have world peace.

Here's an essential factoid:

All (practical) problems concern the reality of limited resources. Limited food, limited water, limited time... limited patience? ...limited love? I'm not so sure about the last two.

Another useful factoid:

Without life the concept of resources is meaningless.

The existence of Life creates the concept of Resources which leads to Practical Problems.

I believe strongly that we already have everything we need in the world to overcome practical problems.

But damn there is so much ignorance. So many people scrambling to abdicate their personal responsibility. So many people scrambling to give up their power to warlords, despots, priests, politicians.

It is a pathetic reality that terrorists must exist as champions of the powerless.

But it's a vicious cycle, isn't it?

People want a heaven.
Despots exploit this weakness with syrupy words and promises.
Passionate heaven-seekers selflessly hand over their destiny to the exploiters.
The helpless unconsciously cling to their worldly suffering.
The exploiters prop up an outside enemy.
Lust for Heaven is transformed into Hatred for Enemy.
A very big X. A very big Y. Such is the recipe for Armageddon.

The same drama plays itself out from the Far East to the Near-West.

We are all being exploited this very moment. Can you name _your_ X? What is the Y that thwarts your desire? If you want world peace this is the place to start.

Right Here!
Right Now!

The solution for each and every one of us is the same. We have to transcend the whole ignorant notion that there is any X - any Heaven - to strive for. It's not an X. It's not a material objective. It is, purely and simply, an acceptance. We each have to find the absolute perfection that is here now, and retain that perfect state of being.

Yes, you can pursue your goal. But the here and now is already here now. And we can stop at any point, realize we are at the beginning and be content.

Many people suffer. Many people lack the freedom in themselves to do this stopping, this realizing, this transcending of this moment of suffering. They are caught up in a momentum, swept up beyond their power to will it away.

So I believe that before acceptance and tolerance and healing can begin we have to do as much as we can to overcome the very practical problem at hand. We have to do as much as we can to end physical suffering and to calm mental anguish.

This can only happen if people make an extra effort to reach out. Our affluent country has a lot of people with that kind of freedom. But we are so apathetic. Most of us don't make the effort.

The obstacles are great, but I believe world peace is possible.


----------



## toast (Apr 26, 2003)

*slur*, you take the problem under a mostly philosophical angle, which is honourable. However, your central XY explanation hardly builds, IMO, to your conclusion that world peace is a possible option.

By the way:
_I believe strongly that we already have everything we need in the world to overcome practical problems._

We may not have for long: water, oil, oxygen are perishable resources.

Limited resources means forced regulation, which also means redistribution of resources and hence, redistribution of satisfaction (Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_ - if anyone wants it, tell me, I may have it in PDF). Dissatisfaction knows a natural exutory in war, when a certain point of moral and material misery is reached.

Hence, a NWO is conceivable, but it'll have to include forms of conflict, incl. physical conflicts because physical conflicts have a role in human relations.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by slur _
> *...But consider this: When you believe that obtaining X will give you happiness then how do you feel when Y intervenes? That is the crux of hate! Y becomes the object of hatred, because it thwarts your desire for X.*



You're forgetting one of the troublesome scenerio's, when attaining X is detremental to Y.  This isn't a simple matter of something directly intervening, it's when the desire of one comes at the detrement to the other.  It's this drive for "happiness" that _causes_ the problems.



> *
> As problem-solvers people will think that eliminating Y will lead them to X - and the happiness they seek.*



Actually it is often X that becomes Y (different X's and Y's or else it becomes cyclical).



> *...
> But damn there is so much ignorance. So many people scrambling to abdicate their personal responsibility. So many people scrambling to give up their power to warlords, despots, priests, politicians.
> 
> It is a pathetic reality that terrorists must exist as champions of the powerless.
> *



People don't abdicate their personal responsibility or power through ignorance, they do it out of human nature (of which ignorance is only a part).  And what's up with this "terrorist as champions of the powerless" stuff?  Osama bin Laden, the rich college grad, gives a crap about the "powerless"?  Nope, he only cares about pushing his ideals.  Very few terrorists do what they do to help the powerless, keep in mind that the victims of most of their actions _are_ the powerless.  They are thugs with an agenda, nothing more, to romanticize them as anything else is just wrong.



> *...
> The obstacles are great, but I believe world peace is possible. *



But from what I read, the gist of your statements are that world peace will be attainable when people stop acting like people.  A nice thought, but not something you can really run with.  You say to be satisfied with the here and now, and not to hope/try to achieve something higher?  Don't try to come up with a reason for our existence (whether scientific or religious), just be happy you exist?

And lastly, and most importantly, aren't you falling victim to your own argument?  Haven't you now foisted "world peace" as your X, and a major X at that.  And you mentioned that having such a big X and a correspondingly big Y leads to armageddon.  By your argument, we shouldn't strive for world peace, we should not want to attain it, for it is this desire to attain it that will cause us not to have it?


----------



## doemel (Apr 27, 2003)

No. This doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards it.


----------



## fryke (Apr 27, 2003)

Let's for a moment assume that world peace is possible. Just assume. Let's further assume that it would take an incredible amount of time, energy and last but not least: Money. Let's assume that the UN (or another world-spawning organisation) manages to HAVE the time, energy and money to achieve world peace. Let's now assume that everything has been done. We now have world peace. It takes ONE country or power only to destroy world peace. One invasion only. One war only.

So, is it possible? Maybe. The question is rather: For how long and at what cost (time, energy, money).

The really, really, really sad truth is that the financial interest in peace is quite low quite often. America has used many a war to get rid of old weaponry.


----------



## toast (Apr 27, 2003)

... But war is costly, too. The argument is double-bladed, fryke, and noboddy knows on what side the blade is sharpest. War can cost a lot to some countries, a lot more than expected.

I was reading a manual of mathematical logics this morning when I realized the term 'peace' makes very little sense if it does not coexist next to its opposite, 'conflict'.

That's my 1.5¢ for today, I'll have to complete this a next time


----------



## fryke (Apr 27, 2003)

Hmm... So you mean, if we remove all conflicts, there would be peace - for a moment. Because the word wouldn't make sense any longer?


----------



## toast (Apr 27, 2003)

I mean: on a totally theoretical basis, removing all conflicts would remove peace too  This sounds completely absurd, simply because it's made of 100% theory.

On a more practical point, which is the only point I am interested in, I believe peace does _not_ signify complete absence of conflict. I will defend this point by 1- stating peace is what results from war 2- stating peace is a ponctual phenomenon, _idea est_ it has a beginning, and an end.

War and peace may be antagonists, they are irremediably linked. They go together. Such a statement obviously deserved a complete argumentation, just give me one or two days to finish some administrative stuff for my institute


----------



## fryke (Apr 27, 2003)

I can't wait two days right now. I'm putting the finishing touches on my new novel, which is about a bunch of people, God's daughter among them, and 'peace and conflict' might be a good subject for yet another chapter somewhere in the middle. (The book is basically going to be off-topic most of the time, part of the plot. One more excursion can't do any harm...) 

So... If theoretically removing all conflicts would create peace, how should we start... We could remove the basis for the conflicts before they can escalate.

But it's a bit difficult to define the basis of some conflicts. For example, a basic problem for the 'USA vs. Middle East' conflict are religious differences. Now, I'm all for removing religion, but proving that God doesn't exist has proven to be a bit difficult. Douglas N. Adams has said that it's possible by actually PROVING his existence (The Babelfish is the proof of God's existence which, read it up in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, therefore proves God's inexistence...).

I guess this all means that

a) I'm tired
b) Douglas Adams died too early
c) I should go back to work on my book.


----------



## toast (Apr 27, 2003)

To avoid (a) getting worse, get to bed, lay down and think of (b), then get back to (c) as soon as tomorrow morning.

World peace: possible or not ? is a question with a specific context: the Earth and its organization.
Understanding how the world is organized will let me answer the question properly. The way the world is organized I will call the international order, which regulates the international system.

Raymond Aron provided three keys to the understanding of the international system: War, Nation-state, and Organisation. I'll analyze those three criterias (part 1), then examine their formation and functioning (part 2), and lastly I'll give some indications about how they dislocate (part 3).

My sources will be Raymond Aron, Philippe Moreau-Defarges, Dominique Schnapper, Henry Kissinger, maybe Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ernst Gellner too. All of them will be appropriately quoted and translated, I'll do my best.

I will, obviously, intensively use some knowledge gathered through the years of my studies. The whole text shoud be heavily illustrated with worldwide examples. The definitive result might be quite long. I also think that right criticism will imply the need for some revisions of the text, revisions that I will number.

See you soon


----------



## Cat (Apr 28, 2003)

While the concepts of conflict and peace might be necessary to define one another, this does not imply that they are factually necessary to be able to exist at all ... moreover, world-peace does not imply the elimination of conflict in general, but of armed conflict. 

A Greek poet (Hesiod, IIRC) defined two types of `envy': one that makes me hate he who has more than I have and one that makes me emulate to reach the same level. Obviously also in the case of conflict there are good and bad forms of conflict and all gradations inbetween. What the quest for world peace aims at is the elimination of (the causes for) armed conflict, not for the elimination of e.g. debate, protest, appeal, discussion, negotiation, argument etc.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 28, 2003)

That wouldn't work very well, Cat, 'cause once you eliminated a cause for one, there'd be a new one to take its place.


----------



## boneske (Apr 28, 2003)

I dont think world peace is an option while people only think about themselfs.  Too many people in the world are ready to stab someone in the back when they least expect it. At least thats my 2 cents.


----------



## toast (Apr 28, 2003)

Question: Is world peace possible ?
Answer [version 1 - 04/28/2003]

*Pre-notes*
#1- Check the previous post about my sources and way or reasoning. Remember this text gives only a few conceptions, examples and clues, and not an opinion.
#2- English is not my native language, please be indulgent. This text is abbreviated. Its structure is made openly apparent to simplify it all.
#3 - In brief, this text is food for thought. Reflexion should concentrate more on the original question than on the txt pertinence itself, IMHO.

*Intro*
The expression 'World peace' indirectly refers to the world's organization, performed through an _international system_ of laws and legitimate structures (such as _nation-states_ or supranational organizations).
_Peace_ is part of this international system. Or rather: _war_ is part of the international system, and peace, its logical antagonist, accompanies it.

Is the actual international system designed to preserve peace or to reach universal world peace ? Is world peace a conceivable concept ? The following text aims at detailing the world's post-WW2 international order, in such a way that the question: is world peace possible ? finds itself answered at some point.

*International order: notions and problematic*

Contents
1) General determining criterii of an international system
2) Formation and Operation of an international system
3) Dislocation and death of an international system

*1) SYSTEM AND ORDER*



> _Raymond Aron, "War and Peace between Nations"_
> "I call 'international system' a group of political units that shares regular relations and that is susceptible to find itself implicated in a general war."



Aron gives three key notions to analyze contemporary international system: war, nation-state, organization.

*### A. War ###*

*1. Classic vision of war*

DEFINITION
War is a link between states.
War is the event states must participate to to be part of the global competition for power.
Generally wars do not annihilate states (exception: Poland, end XVIIIth cent.).

CLAUSEWITZ
Clausewitz first and greatest thinker of war a s structurant principle for an internatl. system.
War is a political attempt (military is only a means, an instrument) to place a state as high as possible in the international hierarchy.
War designates a winner, and does not annihilate the defeated. Example: franco-prussian war, 1870-1871: Bismarck unifies Germany against France, clearly shows his victory to Europe, but does not eliminate France.
War is an army vs. army process, ie it occurs on battlegrounds, not on civilian ground.

*2. War during the XXth century*

WAR IS OUTLAWED
Until WW1, war is considered as inherent to societies. During WW1, the "big illusion" of a "final war" is born.
Concretization: pact of Society of Nations, June 28, 1919, introduces the idea of 'illicit wars'. Chart of UN, June 26, 1945, article 2 §4: use of force is prohibited between UN members.
Exceptions:
- Self-defense
- Security Council decisions
However:
- Self-defense is flawed. Example: Stalin intervenes against "human face of socialism" in Tchecoslovakia, 1968. Also: UN resolution 1368, after 9/11. Also: after WW2, all decolonization conflicts are said to be legitimate.
- Security Council decisions are influenced by local politics. Example: Iraq, 1990 (resolution 678).

THE NUCLEAR FACT
Humanity discovers it can annihilate itself. Equilibrium of terror: atom is ultimate aweapon of deterrence. The real strategic revolution is _not_ Hiroshima/Nagasaki but H-Bomb (1951) and atomic ICBMs (1957).
Nuclear power moves conflicts from centre to peripherial areas, ie Third World. 
Classic wars (no nucear power) continue: Iraq/Iran 1980-1988.
Nuclear power is considered illegal, then legal, then illegal again. Finally, Internatl. Court of Justice considers no solution is to be found (July 8, 1996).

EFFICIENCY/LEGITIMITY OF WAR
War is meant to have a clear winner and a clear defeated. Nevertheless:
1945: post-colonization conflicts aim at liberating a country.
1960: wars between Third World countries do not conclude to winner/loser situations (reasons: no warmongers after Mao Zedong and Giap, no legitimity if not independence war).
1990: Gulf war does not end up in total surrender of Iraq.

>> Summarized: War has always been part of the international order, even if its forms have changed.

*### B. Nation-state ###*

Considered as permanent entity. Product of history.


> _Ernst Gellner, "Nations and Nationalism"_
> "Nationalism is a form of political legitimity, corresponding to coincidence of ethnic and political boundaries. Conditions: 1- same culture to all national individuals, 2- individuals reckon they are part of a nation."



*1. State as sovereign totality*

Nation-states created to agregate individuals when needed (Industrial Revolutions). At the time, state considers itself a a global overwhelming power with 2 functions (law and order, see below). Today, societies escape from state limits to reach international dimension.

LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
Social contract philosophers: state is the enityt which defines the Law over natural rights.
But:
- states create laws inspired from other states (example: priviledged area of evolution of nation-state is occidental space - Occ. Europe/US/Jap - in which all countries inspire themwelves from each other).
- national rights are imbricated into supranational rights (human rights).
Hence, liberal conception of the state includes an international dimension.

SOLIDARITY FUNCTION
A nation is a group of individuals linked by solidarity. Regionalism can fragment national solidarity.

*2. States' changes*



> _Dominique Schnapper, "Immigrants' Europe"_
> Conception of Nation (transcendance of particularism to create a group that coincides with a territory), built around the national link, is reformed.



NATIONAL LINK
Nationality is provided by the state and by the state only.
Supreme form of nationalism is to die for your nation.
Areas where national link is problematic: Japan (Meiji era, 1868-1912), China (1842-1949), muslim world (conflict with _umma (ummêt)_).

MUTATION OF NATIONAL LINK
XIXth century; holistic nation-state.
Post-WW2: individuals sign temporary pacts with states. Examples: apatrids, tranfuges, fugitives.
Also: multinationalism (Europe).
Also: renewal of ethnic identities: Europe separated into catholic/orthodox/ottoman (Yugoslavia), China has North/South and center/periphery oppositions. Exception: Japan (reason: 1% immigration).

>> Summarized: nation-states integrate infranational and supranational dimensions. On a theoretical point of view, nation-state is challenged by its little (cities) and big (empires) brothers.

*### C. Organization ###*

XIXth century: national bureaucracy knows a start.
1919 (SoN) / 1945 (UN): international bureaucracy knows a start.

*1. States are part of a whole*

UN (states choose a camp: East/West, later non-aligned), Europe (states share some sovereignty with a new structure) equal multiplication of legitimity levels.

*2.Those structures help non-national structures to grow strong*

*3. States use those structures but those latter are motivated by contradictory interests*

Usage of UN by states vary through time. Some states manage to control or bypass it:
1945: UN is born, US are its mother.
1953: Third World rules (in terms of decisionary power) over the UN.
1990: Gulf War: the US initiate 100% of UN resolutions.
1999: Russia ignores the UN.
2001: Sept 12, 2001, resolution 1368 is forced by the US.

>> Summarized: component 2 (states) make component 1 (war) within component 3 (organization). Combined components 1-2-3 define an international order.
Transition: next part of text will show how this internatl. orders hatch and then live, before they die (part 3).

Part 1 provides element 1/3 to my answer to the 'Is world peace possible ?' question: The world is a regulated international system of interactions between states, and these interactions include war as the most prominent means to build a hierarchy between states in this ordred system.

*Post-notes*:
#1 - I may answer questions before publication of parts 2 and 3, but the text will be revised only as a whole, at the end (in a maximum of 48 hours).
#2 - Quotes were made without exact titles or translations.
#3 - Text structure taken from Philippe Moreau-Defarges (Paris Institute of Political Studioes teacher). He's not one of my teacher, btw 
#4 - Discussion is open. Any addition to the text (esp. examples for sections B1, B2, C1) are welcome.


----------



## habilis (Apr 28, 2003)

toast: Very nice. I enjoyed reading your analysis.  Just a quick comment:

It seems that nationalism ends up being harmful to foreign countries.

I can't imagine a way to prevent people from getting proud of their country - nor would I want to.

More and more I'm thinking that as long as humans and human nature exists, world peace or even world order can't happen for any substantial length of time. Of particular concern is nuclear proliferation.


----------



## Cat (Apr 29, 2003)

One of the problems deriving from chauvinism, is that immigrant are defined only on the base of them being immigrants: they are not Moroccans, Turks, Iraqi's, they are immigrants and seen as a kind of pariah's, even worse is the case of illegal immigrants. These foreigners are treated by public opinion and the authorities as a kind of parasites and they are massified, denying their individual culture. Their culture is not even seen as culture, but only as "different from our own one", as anti-culture and hence as dangerous. This, of course, triggers the response by the immigrants of forming close knit communities of their own, which again are percieved by the locals as dangerous breeding nests of fundamentalism and refusal to integrate with society.

In short, people are not prone to accept and respect the Other as an equal. They only percieve Others as equals when they are Identical to themselves. This has all to do with the strenght of one's own identity. When this is based largely or exclusively on being subject of a nation, every (percieved) threat to that nation counts as a personal attack and undermines confidence in oneself. The ensuing fear is projected on anything being different, critical, or opposed to ones nation, hence the proliferation of accusations of antipatriottism in America. 

People lacking strong bases for their own opinions and personality, people which define their personality through appeal to the abstract values of their nation, cannot but see immigrants and foreigners as a threat. Moreover, in the case of the recent conflict between the US and Iraq we see two very strong cultures, based on the weakness of the individuals' personalities which see each other as a threat. Only when the chauvinism of "my culture/nation/religion is better than yours" stops, only when we stop thinking in terms of "them" and "us", a road to peace can be found. 

There is nothing wrong with loving your country, but if this is the cause of hating another country, something is wrong. Moreover, chauvinism is a deeply irrational, fanatic fundamentalistic way of loving ones country ... and criticising a country or your own country isn't antipatriottic. Democracy consists in checks and balances, when the scales tip too much towards one end, the other end must correct the balance. That's why there is cuch a thing as a parliament, and not only just a government.


----------



## toast (Apr 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *It seems that nationalism ends up being harmful to foreign countries.
> 
> I can't imagine a way to prevent people from getting proud of their country - nor would I want to.*



Formation of nation-states goes with formation of a national link, which does not replace familial, religious or local links, but subordinates them.

Attribution of nationality is an exclusive domain of the state. Nationality gives you an identity, and protection. Until post-WW2, individuals are protected by the state and by the state only (diplomatic protection mecanism).

Totalitarian states go further: the totalitarian individual is part of a State collectivity. At any moment, the non-conform individual can be chased or eliminated. Eg:
USSR - Koulaks
Nazi Germany - Jews

It is obvious you cannot stop this natural process of _patriotism__you are talking about. The term 'nationalism' refers to more extreme ideologies and to concrete acts, more than string moral support to your country.

Nationalism you will find in _national-socialist_ (Ugg: 'nazional-sozialistische' ?), or in _National Front_ (French extreme-right party).
You will also find nationalism in the expression _national-populist_ which can designate Jean-Marie Le Pen, Umberto Bossi, Silvio Berlusconi, Jorg Haider or Ros Perot (to French speakers: consult book by Yves Mény, Yves Surel, "Par le Peuple, Pour le Peuple").
Finally, you find 'nationalism' in the Algerian _National Liberation Front_, which also exists in many other Arabic countries.

To make it short, nationalism is a flawed form of patriotism, what Cat called chauvinism. Hence nationalism is shown under a negative angle in my text, while patriotism is not (for it is not evoked in the national link, I'll have to update that).


----------



## toast (May 4, 2003)

Question: Is world peace possible ?
Answer [version 1 - 05/04/2003]

*Pre-notes*
#1- Part 1 and a few posts before part 1 are to be read befoe this part.
#2 - Sorry, I'm late, but I have so many things to do this month, I couldn't go faster.
#3 - Bored with too long text ? Don't read section 3 of this text, it can be skipped 

*Quick Intro*
This is part 2, about formation and functioning of international orders (orders is plural, as explained before). It logically follows the definition of an international system and of an international consequent order, which were detailed in part 1. 
In this second point of my anwser to the question _Is world peace possible ?_, I concentrate on showing that war is part of the normal operation of modern international systems.
A quick study would show this statement is also true with older systems (Antiquity, 18th century napoleonian wars, etc), but I will voluntarily ignore older systems to keep part 2 short and to link it to the specific actual context.

Contents
1) International values
2) Hierachies of power
3) Communication and trade


*2) FORMATION AND FUNCTIONING OF INTERNATIONAL ORDERS*

An international order is a product from History. Consequently:
- Every order is _imperfect_: it is heterogenous (eg: Europe: Iron Curtain), it is not simply bipolar or multipolar (eg: neutral states).
- Every order is _precarious_: an order is a temporary attempt to organize world relations between states. Time consolidates orders and make them grow old and obsolete at the same time (erosion of values).
- Every order has its _counter-order_. Some countries will never surrender to fixed rules (Russia, USSR, then Russia, are pretty perfect examples).
- Finally, an order can be _ambiguous_. In 1918, Germany has lost the war and is heavily weakened by the Treaty of Versailles; nevertheless, it stays economically more productive than France or GB (winners).

An international order builds on common referrals accepted as legitimate by its actors (1), on a hierarchy of its elements, that is states (2), and on the communication and trade betwwen its elements (3).

*### A. International values ###*

*1. Values and customs*

Europe between end of 30 Years war (1618-1648) and napoleonian wars (1792-1815) accepts to ignore major antagonism between catholicism and protestantism at the time. Monarchs submit to the _cujus regio, ejus religio _principle (every prince is Head of Church in his own country). First time a (forced) consensus is found in Europe to build an international order.

European order finds its counter-order at the time and until WW1 in Africa: while Europe is an ordered place, Africa is a free-for-all for colonisation).

*2. Antagonisms in values*

Community of values does not mean community of interests: marxism and liberalism are engaged into a planetary war, but create together an international, peaceful order (atomic order, or order by the atom for Samy Cohen and Pierre Moreau-Defarges). Washington and Moscow are fiends to each other, but are the foundation of a stable nuclear order (SALT-START treaties or rupture of nuclear cooperation between Moscow and Beijing in 1957 illustrate part of this order).

>>> Summarized: It appears through time that what builds an order is less common values than common fears. 

*### B. Powers' hierarchy ###*

Different orders:
- Orders by empire (18th century)
- Orders by equlibrium (bipolar atomic order)
- Orders by unique forces (post-1991: USA)

*1. Criterias of hierarchy*

Ultimate test of hierarchy: war between state 1 and state 2, war which may take state 2 up into hierarchy over state 1. However, war itself has changed:
- 1945-1991: war is ideological and military (East/West atomic competition).
- 1991-*: Socialist order collapses. Competition axes itself towards technical and economical competition, which brings Asia in competition.
International order, even if military competition has moreorless disappeared, stays neverthless a violent game.

What can be said of the American hegemony ?
- USA are first in all domains of competition. As explained by Zbigniew Brzezinski (_The Grand Chessboard_, Public Press 1997), USA are the first world hegemony (even Rome had not reached this state).
- However, as Romans said, the Tarpeian rock is not far from the Capitol. Which is a fine metaphor to say that all form of power appeals to excess and to its own collapsing.

*2. Legitimity of hierarchy*

Legitimity goes with the idea of nature: what is legitimate (human rights) must be natural, _essential_ (by essence). Example: the "white's man burden" is experienced as a natural mission.

Hierarchies are vulnerable:

a) Hierarchy can collapse due to exterior factors. 

19th century: Chinese Empire is destroyed by Europe.
20th century: European order is destroyed by the war and supplanted by East/West order, two non-European nations (US/USSR).

b) Hierarchy can mutate due to interior factors.

_Assume state X is a powerful state, state x is a less powerful one._
- X gets bored with dominating x. Colonisation sometimes ends by X deciding that x is too costly in terms of men, bureaucracy, resources etc.
- x learns to use/blackmail X. Eastern Europe under soviet domination asks Moscow for huge compensations (goulash communism) to stay in Eastern orbit.
- x steals ideology of X. Colonisation has reversed the colons' ideas (freedom, religion...) against X states.

c) Hierarchy is not a fixed state.

- US / Israel: US support birth of Israel (1973-1979: Kissinger perpetuates effort). Israel then considers it can act without US permission (1982: Peace in Galilee operation), supported by American Jew lobby.
- US / Japan: relation started US > Japan while now both need each other the same way.

*3. Ambiguity in hierarchy*

Not only hierarchies revise themselves, they are not always obvious.

- Criterii to hierarchies are multidirectional: is there a choice to be made ? Which one ? Military ? Then #1 US #2 China. Economical ? Then #1 US #2 OPEP countries. Ideological ? Fallacious. On top of that, political/economical compromises between states make the establishment of a coherent hierarchy a difficult task.
- Democratisation of the internatl system (creation of UN: two decisionary instances: General Assembly and Sec. Council) kills the idea of a vertical hierarchy (ranking: #1#2#3#4 and so on) for a horizontal one: Sec. Council has 5 horizontal members, as shown by the Iraq crisis, one member is enough to paralyze action of the 4 others. Egalitarism may be more complex to master, it kills a violent form of hierachy in the internatl. order.

>> Summarized: The hierarchy that emerges is regulated by war, or rather by military activity in a first place, hence this hierarchy is destined to change. As the world democratizes itself, international order builds a democratic, horizontal (egalitarian) hierarchy which means less than the vertical one. World peace is hence closer to this conception of internatl. system than to the other one, which is not always obvious.

*### C. Communication and trade ###* (as said in pre-notes, this is not so important)

*1. Multidimensional networks of communication*

- Offical institutional channels: meetings, summits, involving Ministers and Heads of States.
- Interaction between governants and public opinion (see Noam Chomsky, _Manufacturing Consent_). Some governments shape the people's opinion (totalitarism), although totalitarian leaders all wrote in their memories their people were less than they deserved.

*2. Misunderstandings !*

Notorious one: 1870, Ems dispatch (Bismarck tricks Napoleon IIIrd who declares war on Prussia).
1970: Jimmy Carter (counsellor: Brzezinski) declares "moral politics" behavior. USSR thinks of some conspiracy with Third World.
1975: US think SS20 soviet missiles are deliberate violation of treaties.

*3. Two different logics*

Military (competition) and political (compromise). Sometimes both meet, in democracies (Eisenhower), in dictatures (Central Asia: Turkmenistan). How can world peace be imagined with military leaders as heads of state ? Every internatl order is thus a precarious equilibrium, and the first factor of fragility resides in national choices.

Part 2 provides element 2/3 to my answer to the 'Is world peace possible ?' question: what creates an international system includes violence. War has been and still is, although technico-economical competition should replace it in an idealized vision of the world, the one criteria of states' hierarchy. Nation-states thus stand as the source of warlike relations between world entities. Unless the world expects a complete, Fukuyama-like transformation, war is a capital element of any international or national, any old or modern, system.

*Post-notes*:
#1 - Quotes were made without exact titles or translations.
#2 - Text structure taken from Philippe Moreau-Defarges (Paris Institute of Political Studies teacher). He's not one of my teacher, btw 
#3 - Discussion is open. If you want a...
#4 - Hint: last part of my reasoning is maybe a little too kantian. I may explain the Immanuel Kant theory about world order and world peace a bit later.


----------



## Androo (May 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Androo _
> *no *


I said that.


----------



## wiz (May 5, 2003)

eh actuall it is NOT possible. 
why? ... relligion and war go hand-in-hand. ironic heh.


----------



## toast (May 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by wiz _
> *eh actuall it is NOT possible.
> why? ... relligion and war go hand-in-hand. ironic heh. *



Three critics to your statement, in crescendo:

1) Simplistic. One sentence, one thought, one second of reflexion, no more.
2) Obsolete. You were right ten centuries ago. Please press Refresh button.
3) Fashionable. Everybody incl. Dubya likes to say it's all about djihad.

That's harsh, but it's true. If you're interested, develop your point. Otherwise, click here (caution: it's rude and brutal).


----------



## slur (May 5, 2003)

War is all about desire, pure and simple. Perhaps it could be said that those who are starving and cut off have a right to the basic things they desire. Nevertheless, strong desire for things you do not possess will lead you to go after them. The objectives of war - from the point of the aggressor - are all about obtaining control and material.

Justifications for war never go very deep, and they tend to only fool those who prefer to be fooled. Once you have a potential target the rest is textbook stuff.

Historical claims have always been the preferred justification.

Imminent threats became fashionable in the twentieth century.

A Moral Objective is usually enough to appease the populus.

A fascinating thing about Bush is that he really seems to believe the USA can steamroller the world into a cooperative democracy founded on our principles. I believe he honestly sees no irony in the idea.

I realize that tactically, taking down terrorism means removing the incentives to terror. The US sees the phenomenon of terrorism as an endemic of right-wing totalitarian religious states. It believes that such states need to be reformed, and I believe it correctly assumes that they are most responsive to the rattling of sabers.

War and Diplomacy are intertwined -- each is a willing servant of the other.

World order is a much different matter than world peace. To eliminate all conflict is naturally impossible. People are imperfect and sensitive, and they get into conflict. World order is maintained by an explicit or implicit contract between the people in power and the masses. Too many of these contracts are one-sided, but order can be maintained in these cases through coercion.

Iraq is being "rebuilt" today. Once the interim leadership is in place to oversee elections, will the people feel things are being done fairly? When the elections have been held and the votes counted and the winners announced, will people readily accept the outcome, even if it is not in their favor? In other words, can the population be made to place their faith in a system that has potential benefit?

The order we enjoy here in the US is owed largely to the decency of the people here, who feel that they are empowered to affect public policy. As long as the checks and balances are in place people in the US generally feel good about the contract. Dissent against the US administration is borne out of a healthy - and not unwarranted - suspicion that the agents of government serve powerful interests for whom war is a boon.

The European Union is in the midst of coalescing its collective values, and these values are very much like our own. Europe has lost its taste for crusades, and this is what differentiates them from us. America is a young nation with a burgeoning sense of adolescent bravado. Our representatives now proudly and loudly exclaim that the US is the world's only Super Power.

In other words, if the world is to be tamed, only the US has the means to do it. And who can argue with our principles?

America is - it seems to me - only beginning to get its taste for crusades, and this movement will continue to proliferate. Remember, the official government line is that we are meant to feel good about liberating Iraq.

When an American likes a burger,
he orders another one.

America is on a Crusade, clearly so, but maybe there won't be another war in its name. Maybe diplomacy will work without war - but probably not without the threat of war. And therein lies the rub of escalation. The likelihood of spurious wars breaking out over blockades and no-fly zones is increased tenfold.

Devotees of peace, get down to the local Red Cross and volunteer now!


----------



## Satcomer (May 5, 2003)

Think about basic human emotions then apply that to national issues. Humans *will always* be jealous, have envy, anger and host of other basic human emotions. It seems to be human nature.


----------



## Cat (May 6, 2003)

Take survival instinct, take some limited resources, mix well and stir it up: voilá, war.

If civilization taught us anything, it is that through cooperation we can use the world's resources more efficiently, by redistribution, division of labour, etc.

When will nations see war is not the answer, but just a not-so-subtle form of resource-distruction? We don't even neede to go down the road of empathy, pity, friendship of people ... if anything, helping each other out has always proven profitable! There was plenty to construct in Iraq even before the IIGW. Why not exetend a helping hand instead of a fist? All the profit that is being made now could have been made before ... 

In the face of a war, just like in the US, people rally behind their leaders, for security and protection. If you take away the menace, what do you think will happen? If america had said, come on, let's lift those sanctions and had spent the money it has poured into the war machine in social projects, food, medicine, etc. what do you think the Iraqi people would have said then? Now the US troops come as killers and destroyed the infrastructure and organization. They will ahve to build it up from the ashes. Why not try to reform the existing structures? If you had gone to Iraq with dollars instead of bombs and had demanded fair elections through a year long diplomatic effort, what do you think people would have chosen? Now the US came with threats of hell, not with promises of paradise, and now they want them out! Well, surprise surprise ...

World peace is possible once nations understand their own obsoleteness.


----------



## Androo (May 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Androo _
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Androo _
> ...



I said that too.


----------



## toast (May 6, 2003)

Androo, quit coccaine.


----------



## Ricky (May 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Androo _
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Androo _
> ...


Aaaaaaaannd... shut up.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 6, 2003)

> Is world peace possible?



No. Unless of course you define peace as living in fear and under the oppression of another force. 

The burden of freedom demands that the free have a responsibility to confront evil when necessary. There is evil in the world, no matter what the people who live in the world wrapped in grey believe.

fryke would have you believe that the world lives in fear of the USA and that we're the tyrants. I'd like to remind my swiss friend that a mostly free Europe exists today only because brave men from the US fought for freedom there during WWII, and protected it during the Cold War from the USSR. 

Sure, a good bit of the world resents the US, but if 'zi Germans came rolling in to Switzerland, whos help do you think they would be begging for?

Not the UN, that's for sure...


----------



## ksv (May 6, 2003)

You have to dig deeper, serpicolugnut. The nazi Germans were strong because of their strict fascist military organisation and brainwashing methods - much the same as you can find in the US army or any other aggresive power (N. Korea, Iraq prior to 91, the list goes on). These elements would have to be removed to ever reach world peace.
And you don't need to drag your American patriotism and feelings for the army in here - the only peace soliders have ever created is death.

Did you read toast's analysis?


----------



## habilis (May 6, 2003)

ksv: You might not want him to bring his American patriotism in here, but *realistically speaking*, I don't know of a better, more tolerant societal model in the world. Nothin's perfect, not even Communism or Socialism, but until we see a better model for success you can expect Amercan patriotism/Nationalism to be alive and well far into the future.


----------



## ksv (May 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *ksv: You might not want him to bring his American patriotism in here, but realistically speaking, I don't know of a better, more tolerant societal model in the world.*



I just didn't want this to become another mudslinging thread. No reason to try starting a debate with fryke here. It's like saying "world peace isn't possible because I am here".



> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Nothin's perfect, not even Communism or Socialism*



"Communism" as most people think they know it, has been proven to be completely unsuccessful. The "let's kill the rulers and insert 'freedom'"-principle has never seemed to work. The leaders tend to become a little bit dictatoric.
For socialism, however, it really depends on what "perfect" should mean, if it's a society completely without problems, or if it means "as few problems as possible". Then of course, in some people's minds, a perfect world isn't a world where all are equal, but rather where oneself has a higher posistion than others. It is my belief though, that those views are rather formed by the community one lives in, and not necessarily "human nature".


----------



## toast (May 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *No.*



Serpicolugnut, apart from validating Godwin's law, I couldn't find much in your last post.

[Tolerance, Socialism, Communism]

Richer countries are inherently more tolerant than poorer countries. The way these countries got rich may not be that tolerant, though.


----------



## Cat (May 7, 2003)

> I don't know of a better, more tolerant societal model in the world.



In the US everyone is free, theoretically and on paper. In practice ther seems to be a lot of oppression going on and the practical freedom is sometimes nihil.

When presenting criticism on the decisions of the government one gets silenced or censured as being "anti-patriottic". While patriottism can be a nice extra, countries who demand their citizens to be patriottic are few and mostly dictatorial. Theoretical freedom is heavily dammed in by practical restrictions. According to the CIA world factbook about 13% of US citizens live below the poverty line. How free are they? Socialist systems try to treat everyone as equal, giving to everyone (man and woman, black and white, atheist and believer) the same chances. Therefore social security, welfare, grants etc. are used to help the weak, the poor etc. like lone mothers, students, the elderly, etc. Who exactly is free in the US? Are the poor free?
There also appear not to be any political pressure groups, which is strange. One of the most basic freedoms every democracy knows is the right to disagree and to make it known that you disagree. Not only politcal parties, but also pressure groups serve this purpose, defending e.g. the rights of workers in trade unions.



> The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,300. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, lay off surplus workers, and develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment, although their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 witnessed the end of the boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery is expected in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.5% or more. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.


----------

