Oh no, international law SHOULD be followed. A promise is a promise. I was merely pointing out that it is very difficult (or impossible) to enforce and, when it really comes down to it, it is ineffective.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Why do you think the US has consistently worked to prevent an army of the United Nations to be formed? Laws turn from wishful thinking to reality when the law-giver acquires the coercive means to punish offenders. The US will tolerate no authority higher than they, and have thus blocked any attempts in that direction (up to and including a solemn promise to declare war on the Netherlands if an American is ever brought to trial at the international court in The Hague). However, this is a clear-cut example of the state of Texas taking that policy to its extreme, arrogantly telling the rest of the world "fuck what you say, I am in charge of everything". Because I promise you, the minute a Texan was convicted for rape in Iran and sentenced to death, the whole of American special forces would be deployed in Teheran.
A valid question that should be asked, however, is SHOULD there be a United Nations army? That would effectively create a world government, and it is well open to debate whether that would be a good or a bad thing.
I don't think a UN army is desirable. I really want to be sure that the collective dislike of war stops my govenrment from bombing other countries and I want our supreme court to be powerful enough to stop the government from entering in illegal wars. I don't think any problem can be solved with war but I believe in international law and agreements.
Having a quick look at history, not to mention current developments in Iraq and Georgia, the number of wars would decrease. First of all, the monopoly on violence would shift one echelon higher, making the probability of a victory for a single-nation aggressor slimmer by far. Second, the UN would reach decisions in the same way they do now; however, they would have the force to put their resolutions into practice. Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that that itself would prevent many, many wars.
Unless international cooperation is taken a step further soon, another great war will occur. It may be a year, it may be 50 years, but it will come. Just have a quick glimpse at European history over the last 600 years. Or, for that matter, Asian and American history over a comparable period.
Unless international cooperation is taken a step further soon, another great war will occur. It may be a year, it may be 50 years, but it will come. Just have a quick glimpse at European history over the last 600 years. Or, for that matter, Asian and American history over a comparable period.
We should create the worlds biggest armed forces, and then train it to go wherever there's precious resources.
.... Oh.
Never mind!
.... Oh.
Never mind!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sure, it's a violation of International Law...
But you know what... FUCK HIM!! HOPE HE'S BURNING IN HELL RIGHT NOW
He was a murderer and a rapist. He well deserves what he's got.
If there's anything to criticize about the U.S. government are things like this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080808/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
So please let's stop whining about murderers and rapists being executed, and let's focus on stopping innocent civilian deaths instead.[/QUOTE]
Yes rapists and murderers should be jailed. No they should never walk free again; but EXECUTING them? That makes one as barbarious as they are. And you, Jingles, for applauding it, are a barbarian and definitely not a Christian. Or were you asleep when they taught you to forgive and show mercy to the wicked? I am not a religious person, but even I value those virtues.[/QUOTE]
You've found my evil self, Caspar.
Yes you do have a point when you say that that being happy about killing someone regardless of what a piece of scum that person might be brings us down to their level.
In all honesty, part of me is against the death penalty, due to the high number of guilty convictions given to people where some evidence shows that the accused might actually be innocent and can't be proven 100% guilty.
However, when all evidence shows that someone is a cold blooded murderer or a rapist, I can't feel bad about someone being put on Death Row.
I believe in second chances, and I believe that a person on Death Row should be given a chance for rehabilitation and be encouraged to accept guilt and have the mental capability to regret their actions.
However, I also don't believe that tax paying money should not be put towards keeping a merciless criminal alive. It's not for hatred issues, but because that money could be better spent on social programs or put towards saving the life of an innocent soul.
You do have a very strong point Caspar, but I also have reasons to believe that capital punishment is both right and wrong.
But you know what... FUCK HIM!! HOPE HE'S BURNING IN HELL RIGHT NOW
He was a murderer and a rapist. He well deserves what he's got.
If there's anything to criticize about the U.S. government are things like this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080808/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
So please let's stop whining about murderers and rapists being executed, and let's focus on stopping innocent civilian deaths instead.[/QUOTE]
Yes rapists and murderers should be jailed. No they should never walk free again; but EXECUTING them? That makes one as barbarious as they are. And you, Jingles, for applauding it, are a barbarian and definitely not a Christian. Or were you asleep when they taught you to forgive and show mercy to the wicked? I am not a religious person, but even I value those virtues.[/QUOTE]
You've found my evil self, Caspar.
Yes you do have a point when you say that that being happy about killing someone regardless of what a piece of scum that person might be brings us down to their level.
In all honesty, part of me is against the death penalty, due to the high number of guilty convictions given to people where some evidence shows that the accused might actually be innocent and can't be proven 100% guilty.
However, when all evidence shows that someone is a cold blooded murderer or a rapist, I can't feel bad about someone being put on Death Row.
I believe in second chances, and I believe that a person on Death Row should be given a chance for rehabilitation and be encouraged to accept guilt and have the mental capability to regret their actions.
However, I also don't believe that tax paying money should not be put towards keeping a merciless criminal alive. It's not for hatred issues, but because that money could be better spent on social programs or put towards saving the life of an innocent soul.
You do have a very strong point Caspar, but I also have reasons to believe that capital punishment is both right and wrong.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Having a quick look at history, not to mention current developments in Iraq and Georgia, the number of wars would decrease. First of all, the monopoly on violence would shift one echelon higher, making the probability of a victory for a single-nation aggressor slimmer by far. Second, the UN would reach decisions in the same way they do now; however, they would have the force to put their resolutions into practice. Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that that itself would prevent many, many wars.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...
On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Having a quick look at history, not to mention current developments in Iraq and Georgia, the number of wars would decrease. First of all, the monopoly on violence would shift one echelon higher, making the probability of a victory for a single-nation aggressor slimmer by far. Second, the UN would reach decisions in the same way they do now; however, they would have the force to put their resolutions into practice. Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that that itself would prevent many, many wars.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...[/QUOTE]
That was what the people who founded the United States thought. They devised all kinds of ways to keep power evenly spread (called checks and balances), and look what it got them: the imperial presidency. My point is: individuals who want to do evil will do so, regardless. Any organization can be abused, but that is no reason not to use it to improve what can be improved. If all that could be abused were abolished, we'd be left with precious little in life.
On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...[/QUOTE]
That was what the people who founded the United States thought. They devised all kinds of ways to keep power evenly spread (called checks and balances), and look what it got them: the imperial presidency. My point is: individuals who want to do evil will do so, regardless. Any organization can be abused, but that is no reason not to use it to improve what can be improved. If all that could be abused were abolished, we'd be left with precious little in life.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Having a quick look at history, not to mention current developments in Iraq and Georgia, the number of wars would decrease. First of all, the monopoly on violence would shift one echelon higher, making the probability of a victory for a single-nation aggressor slimmer by far. Second, the UN would reach decisions in the same way they do now; however, they would have the force to put their resolutions into practice. Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that that itself would prevent many, many wars.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...[/QUOTE]
That was what the people who founded the United States thought. They devised all kinds of ways to keep power evenly spread (called checks and balances), and look what it got them: the imperial presidency. My point is: individuals who want to do evil will do so, regardless. Any organization can be abused, but that is no reason not to use it to improve what can be improved. If all that could be abused were abolished, we'd be left with precious little in life.[/QUOTE]
If you consider anything that has happened in the entire history of the United States to be even comparable to the potential havoc that would ensue from such a consolidation of power (or the real havoc that has ensued from much smaller consolidations of power), you would have an incredibly misguided opinion.
The United States Constitution is nothing short of miraculous.
On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...[/QUOTE]
That was what the people who founded the United States thought. They devised all kinds of ways to keep power evenly spread (called checks and balances), and look what it got them: the imperial presidency. My point is: individuals who want to do evil will do so, regardless. Any organization can be abused, but that is no reason not to use it to improve what can be improved. If all that could be abused were abolished, we'd be left with precious little in life.[/QUOTE]
If you consider anything that has happened in the entire history of the United States to be even comparable to the potential havoc that would ensue from such a consolidation of power (or the real havoc that has ensued from much smaller consolidations of power), you would have an incredibly misguided opinion.
The United States Constitution is nothing short of miraculous.
Only an American could say that, as there is *nothing* in the US constitution that we did not see elsewhere in the world earlier or at the same time. The US scores points for implementing democracy (to some degree) much earlier than most of the rest of the world, and not having replaced its constitution ever, but content-wise, it closely resembles the laws of the Dutch United Provinces in the 17th/18th century, British constitutionalism (started much earlier, but also peaked around this time) and French liberalism (which arose in the 18th century). What is miraculous is that the US *can* still be governed despite the enormous effort put into preventing any individual from wielding power.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To be honest, international law is bullshit. [/QUOTE]
*affraid*
*affraid*
That's the problem with some libertarians. They take a good thing too far, and aim to create something resembling feudalism, though they don't necessarily notice it.
Now, I never said the Constitution was completely novel or revolutionary. However, it is effective in its purpose - that is, to prevent the consolidation of power. We clearly disagree on whether or not this is a good thing.
I believe that, while power can be consolidated without being abused, there are still several complications. Firstly, consolidated power is a clear and open target for abuse - there will always be people aiming to abuse it. This is also economically wasteful, as people and organizations will spend their resources on influencing that power (i.e. rent seeking). Secondly, once a person or group attains this consolidated power, the limits to abuse are nonexistent. Thirdly, it is impossible for the consolidated power to remain unabused indefinitely.
Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.
I believe that, while power can be consolidated without being abused, there are still several complications. Firstly, consolidated power is a clear and open target for abuse - there will always be people aiming to abuse it. This is also economically wasteful, as people and organizations will spend their resources on influencing that power (i.e. rent seeking). Secondly, once a person or group attains this consolidated power, the limits to abuse are nonexistent. Thirdly, it is impossible for the consolidated power to remain unabused indefinitely.
Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Now, I never said the Constitution was completely novel or revolutionary. However, it is effective in its purpose - that is, to prevent the consolidation of power. We clearly disagree on whether or not this is a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Evidently.
[QUOTE]I believe that, while power can be consolidated without being abused, there are still several complications.[/QUOTE]
As I stated, consolidated or not, there are ALWAYS complications to power.
[QUOTE]Firstly, consolidated power is a clear and open target for abuse - there will always be people aiming to abuse it.[/QUOTE]
When power is spread out, the same process will occur. However, it will occur in a decentralized manner. The use of force will be resorted to much sooner, as there is no longer a monopoly of violence in this scenario of decentralization.
[QUOTE]This is also economically wasteful, as people and organizations will spend their resources on influencing that power (i.e. rent seeking).[/QUOTE]
When there is no central power, similar amounts of money and effort will be invested in boosting personal power, keeping competitors down and the likes. See the history of Italian city-states where a scenario similar to what you suggest took place.
[QUOTE] Secondly, once a person or group attains this consolidated power, the limits to abuse are nonexistent.[/QUOTE]
The same thing goes for every kind of power, centralized or not.
[QUOTE] Thirdly, it is impossible for the consolidated power to remain unabused indefinitely.[/QUOTE]
As above.
[QUOTE]Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous argument that is completely beside the point and is no more than a conscious rhetorical device. Please don't take me to be this stupid.
In short, you have demonstrated the fallibility of power, but have provided *nothing* whatsoever that makes centralized power more dangerous than non-centralized power.
Evidently.
[QUOTE]I believe that, while power can be consolidated without being abused, there are still several complications.[/QUOTE]
As I stated, consolidated or not, there are ALWAYS complications to power.
[QUOTE]Firstly, consolidated power is a clear and open target for abuse - there will always be people aiming to abuse it.[/QUOTE]
When power is spread out, the same process will occur. However, it will occur in a decentralized manner. The use of force will be resorted to much sooner, as there is no longer a monopoly of violence in this scenario of decentralization.
[QUOTE]This is also economically wasteful, as people and organizations will spend their resources on influencing that power (i.e. rent seeking).[/QUOTE]
When there is no central power, similar amounts of money and effort will be invested in boosting personal power, keeping competitors down and the likes. See the history of Italian city-states where a scenario similar to what you suggest took place.
[QUOTE] Secondly, once a person or group attains this consolidated power, the limits to abuse are nonexistent.[/QUOTE]
The same thing goes for every kind of power, centralized or not.
[QUOTE] Thirdly, it is impossible for the consolidated power to remain unabused indefinitely.[/QUOTE]
As above.
[QUOTE]Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous argument that is completely beside the point and is no more than a conscious rhetorical device. Please don't take me to be this stupid.
In short, you have demonstrated the fallibility of power, but have provided *nothing* whatsoever that makes centralized power more dangerous than non-centralized power.