Abyss, you have made three false assumptions.

You knew that Nazi Germany had guns correct? Well because guns are INSTRUMENTS of FORCE it is obvious that I would NOT approve of them. In Nazi Germany the only way to get what one wanted was TO EXERT FORCE, correct? Therefore if I'm proposing a government where NO ONE MUST EXERT FORCE to get what one wants how could I be a proponent of Fascism?

Your second false assumption is that you assume that your government is just. Quite simply put it is not. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. Objects in motion tend to stay at motion. Keep a populace well fed and free to exercise the basic human freedoms, speech, religion, assembly, etc., and they will stay happy and content. However if for example you starve a population to death, murder their democratically elected leaders, brutalize their populations with repressive regimes, and then exercise brutal military campaigns on them, they will continue to stay balkanized against all perceived hostile forces. A truly just government will not have “terrorists” rise against it.

The third false assumption, if I perceived your response correctly, is that Marxism or Communism is a bad thing. People who have no idea what Communism (more specifically pure communism named Marxism) view it with hostility due to the propaganda their capitalist governments have put out against them. People, who truly know what Marxism is, either support it or view it as a utopian vision that can never be realized. However people who view it as a utopian vision have never truly analyzed the situation and are simply deluding themselves to the true situation. The short definition of Marxism is that people who work can partake of all the fruits of society’s labor, but none may exploit it for their own personal gain.

And now I wait until the next time you misconstrue my words and I must point out that I’ve already given an explanation to what I’ve said.

A government where no one must exert force is a great idea. An impossible objective, but a great idea nevertheless.

You also said that Abyss's government wasn't just, but how can that be? It doesn't exist... It's a hypothetical government. How can an idea be unjust? How can it be wrong, and (hypothetically) if it is wrong, point out it's hypothetical faults!

I definately don't want to step on any toes or anything.

I just wanted to say a couple of things that may be off topic, but that *are* related to things that I have read in this thread.

At one point someone (can't remember who) was talking about saving the world. I was reminded of a discussion that I had about the difference between saving/helping and serving.

Saving/helping tends to imply inequality, whereas serving has more of an attitude of equality and respect.

Could we perhaps have world leaders that wish to "serve the world" and not "save the world"?

Another thing I wanted to mention was something I remember working on with some friends when I was in junior high. More of a thesis than any pretentious type of solving the world problems, or anything

We decided to have a look at the concept of "unity" in respect to current models of justice and democracy.

We decided rapidly that the justice system that was currently in place in most western countries did not include the concept of unity: Opposing parties whose intention often was to "win" a case rather than to find a solution that would be best for all parties involved. One possibility did exist in the american law system that was pretty interesting, but not used very often: the judge could ask each party to design a solution, and the one that the judge felt to be better would be used. That way both parties would try their best to design a good solution, so that their's would be retained.

Same for democracy: not much unity in the current democratic models. Basically, parties that are opposed, and once again trying to "win" rather than to get together and design solutions.

(please remember that this is just the flight and fancy of fourteen yearolds. We didn't think we knew it all, we didn't have any solutions... we were just looking at possibilities)

Sorry for rambling.

We did try to find different "ingredients" that we thought would be important for a justice system and democracy, but I'm not about to torture you guys with it

Reed, I believe you bring up one good points and another equally good point that is a bit uninformed, or perhaps a bit undeveloped. Kosmik you bring up some serious questions on the very nature of this discussion that I believe deserves some serious attention.

Reed, you have brilliantly pointed out a mistake that I have committed and seriously and honestly thank you, for without your comment I would have never found and been able to correct it. You pointed out that Abysses perfect government was hypothetical. From the current situation and the current topic I should have assumed that his “terrorists” were also hypothetical. I foolishly took his diction as an alliteration to the current geo-political situation, for if taken in that context his comments seem to mirror the feelings many European North Americans. Of course as you have so clearly pointed out the conversation is hypothetical and I should not take this discussion out of context. I have been on the offensive from the time I began posting so it came naturally to me. Again I thank you for pointing out my flaw so I may correct it.

Please note in the next section I will be greatly simplifying complex ideas and making general blanket statements so please try to grasp the larger concept at work here and don’t quibble over semantics. Also before every statement it might be helpful to add the world “generally”.

Your second point that “A government where no one must exert force is a great idea. An impossible objective, but a great idea none the less” is flawed but its intrinsic flaws are not apparent and the explanation for why it is flawed is not easy to grasp so please bear with me. There are three schools of thought on the nature of man (please note that I include women in all of my male general pronouns but using “they” while politically correct is a grammatical nightmare as is putting he/she him/her).

The first school of thought is attributed to Hobbes who says that all men are inherently evil, thus a structure must be put in place to contain them. This is the most difficult school of thought to rationalize the “utopian” vision with but I will try. First to have a truly “utopian” future under the Hobbes school of thought is to simply to make mans negative traits turn into productive forces. Such as if all men are inherently greedy or selfish then intelligently they must all act altruistically. This may seem a paradox but if examined closely one find that it is far easier to give someone what exactly what you have they no longer wish what you have because it is not significantly better then what they have. Many people envy rich actors or extravagant pop stars, but how many people envy the people in the same tax bracket as themselves? Therefore a truly evil society the most intelligent way to protect what I have is not to force down those who would acquire it, but to make sure that everyone has everything they need or want so no one wants what I have.

The second school of thought falls under that of our discussion’s namesake Locke. He thought that all men were inherently good and thus were able to adequately control a society themselves. Furthermore this point is illustrated by his belief in the social contract that essentially gives the power of all government ultimately to the populace. A utopian future under this system is easy enough because if men are inherently good then it must simply be detractors of their society that cause them to turn to evil. If such is the case the simple removal of those detractors will allow for an open and free society in which no force must be exerted.

The last and newest school of thought oft proposed psychologists who say men are products of their environments. That is the actions of every man are a culmination of all events proceeding him. Then it simply becomes a matter of inevitability. Ultimately the strong systems survive and the weak do not, and because historic forces rather than their inherent nature guide men so they too are subject to these principles. An economy is the benchmark of any nation. However preparing for war, while does momentarily stimulate the economy cannot be relied upon for long lasting prosperity which is vital for any economy. Thus it is understandable that only a peaceful, communistic, and democratic state would immerge. War causes suffering, destruction, and death, all which are counterproductive. Strife and competition are also pitiful replacements for unity and cooperation. Differences of opinion and a free exchange of ideas helps push progress thus the society must be democratic. So the men who act on society’s behalf are simply the result of all the progressive steps before them.

Thus it is quite apparent that such “utopian” (translated from Greek nowhere) ideas are not so utopian.

It is terribly unfortunate. If I am mistaken I would be happy to have someone correct me, but your idea that wars are fought of emotion is utterly and absolutely ridiculous. I don’t believe you can find one solitary instance where you can find a war that was NOT fought for economic reasons.

Most of the pre-modern wars were fought directly over land. This is quite OBVIOUSLY economic because with more land you have more resources. Wars such as the Romans fight to control the world displays the need for vast economic resources, the later Muslim wars show an expanding economic drive from the bitterly contested middle eastern area as a reaction to the oppressive Roman economic system that extended economic freedom only to Romans. Also during this time period the Three Kingdoms Era in China as a contest between the houses of Shu, Wei, and Wu which lead to the eventual victory of Sima Yi (rough translation I apologize) was actually a catastrophic failure of the economic policies of the Han Dynasty.

At the advent of colonialism from the 16th to 18th centuries the economic reasons for war become more obvious. The Spanish lust for gold to help prop up their war torn economy and to give a comparable trade program to their neighbor Spain. The expansion of religious wars were generally a contest between feudal or trading southern continental powers such as Spain, Italy, Portugal and France and northern maritime manufacturing powers such as The Netherlands and Britain. The subsequent rebellions with in American colonial territories such as the later United States of America, New Spain (Mexico), Haiti, and generally the whole of South America (excluding Brazil) were fought to either establish a free labor system i.e. abolish slavery or to establish the local bourgeois over the far distant mercantilist powers i.e. the Untied States.

Later there were constant fights over who would have control over land, which as stated before, is inherently economic. Of course within Europe there were napoleonic wars that were battles to push France from a feudal aristocratic nation to a capitalist republic (eventually). In the United States the war over slavery was not, as many would have you believe a war over the morality of the “peculiar institution” but rather a desperate struggle between the Nearly completed capitalists free labor system of the North and the neo-feudalism of the South. Quite clearly all were economic. The later imperialism that ran rampant in all the world were simply reactions to the growing need for resources and more specifically the spheres of influences to extract these resources.

As a direct continuation of these reactions World War I was started. Competing capitalist countries were all vying for both European and even worldwide superiority. Ostensibly it was the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinan, but the economic tensions between the Allies and the Central powers and most specifically the economic competition between England and France drove Europe into the camps of either powers with established economic conditions or the struggling powers with either emerging or collapsing economies.

World War II was obviously economic. Economically ravaged countries found suitable outlets for production i.e. weapons rather then the inviable consumer goods. This is because overproduction was making all goods worthless so no one could buy anything. If I may make a small comment, don’t you find it ridiculous that people were doing the worst in their lives when everything was operating at higher levels of efficiency and productivity then ever before? It is quite a comment on THAT particular economic system. None the less people like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo were all reactions to the current economic system. Hitler was trying to bring the economically downtrodden Germany to prominence. Mussolini was trying to stabilize the unbalanced Italian economic situation. Lastly, the military government in Japan was an attempt to take the lagging Japan and give them a boost by having a vast empire ripe with resources.

The cold war and all its battles are quite simply economic. The free market systems seemingly competing against controlled economies. More or less every battle was fought on these lines so I don’t feel it is necessary to go into complete specifics.

In the post Soviet era most of the wars have been fought over oil, hegemony (with all the economic benefits it entails), and lastly the suppression of any other nation besides the United States as anything resembling a superpower. If you don’t believe me read the Wolfiwitz (I apologize for the spelling) memorandum. Quite clearly all of these wars were economic.

Now you may say, “but quite often don’t war boost the economy?” Well, yes and no. They give it stimulation with increased government spending (often going to the private sector further stimulating consumerism). The price of war in both men and material is not worth the benefits. All colonial possessions ultimately rebel, all territorial gains ultimately revolt, and all empires ultimately crumble. However, if the effort that was spent on war was instead spent on consumer goods and the domestic economies (or in a worldwide government the world economy) and with fair redistribution prosperity would be increased for all.

Please forgive me, I completely forgot to reply to one vital section of your post so now I must make the addendum. You did not specify which country “this country” is so rather then assume you are a white middle class American I expanded “this country” to include many different examples from many different countries.

Thank you Leto II you have truly paid me a high complement. I do however, think that you have grossly overestimated my knowledge. I do not have a textbook, but rather I have a basic understanding of ancient and modern history and I have knowledge of historical dialect. With these two tools I am able to synthesize positions on topics which seemingly have no correlation and form a cohesive thought. But I am flattered none the less. While I’m not specifically anti-American I believe that any country where you can not say “hmm… I don’t think our current war is being properly run” or "all wars are immoral and this is no diffrent". If, for example, you were to say such a thing in a Taliban camp they would surly kill you. However, if you said it in the United States in front of two witnesses and then admitted such a thing in court you could also be killed. To forestall any questions this is under the Patriot Act of 2001 that states that not supporting the “war on terror” is treason by means of giving aid to the enemy.

Something is a bit troubling about your post though. Rather then attack my ideas or my opinions you would instead attack an anonymous, faceless, Internet user. Are my arguments really so comprehensive that you would rather try to divine my personality from a few extremely focus posts on a political thread then debate the central ideas of my posts

For one thing, I'm almost CERTAIN you're referring to Ashcroft's infamous and indeed chilling testimony before Congress, in which he stated his belief that anyone willing to question the administration at such a crucial juncture may as well be lending material aid to the terrorists. Like many Americans, I was horrified by this purely partisan attack and furious that Congress didn't immediately call him out on it.

I'm not aware of similar comments from Cheney, although I'm of course willing to look them over if you'll provide a link.

And for that matter, what about American involvement in all those foreign wars where we didn't stand to gain anything? I.E. Korea/Vietnam/Desert Storm/Bosnia/yugoslavia. what was our economic gain there?

now as for your statement that wars fought over land are inherently economic. What about the India/Pakistan situation. yes, they are fighting over the hotly contested Kashmir territory, but the main reason this problem has occurred is religion. Kashmir wants no part of India, because India is primarily Hindu, while Kashmir is Islamic, like Pakistan. Economics might be a part of it, but my understanding of the area is that the people in the area are mostly poor, and poorly cared for. It would seem to me that taking on this territory would be an economic burden. why do they sit on the brink of war if not for hatred spawned from religious intolerance?

While I'm sure this is very educational for you, and a great way to boost your ego, I don't play ego-stroking games with people preaching rather than discussing.

Ostensibly the United States’ “war on terrorism” is a righteous war fought over the brutal murder of innocents. This view does not hold up over careful scrutiny. This war did not start when a plane destroyed itself on the superstructure of one of the two greatest feats of human engineering. This war started with the CIA searching for new ways to thwart the Soviet Union. This led the United States to turn its sights on a small, poor, land locked, country by the name of Afghanistan. The corrupt Soviets had launched a large offensive and the CIA saw this as a way to drain the resources of the false communists. Thus at that time the director of the CIA, George Bush Senior unless I’m mistaken, authorized the support of the Mujahadin (I apologize for the spelling). And so Osama bin Laden was given the reigns of power for a “holy army”. Long story short the Soviet offensive was a disaster and Osama bin Laden was a hero. As I’ve stated the cold war was economic so this falls under the economic category.

Next there was Operation: Desert Storm. This was a war many of you are familiar with and was fought over oil. However, a little known fact is that Osama’s army was offered to Saudi Arabia they turned it down in favor of the foreign “coalition army”. This embittered many Arabs who viewed the economic and thus political powerbrokers of their countries as under foreign influence. The bitterness of the common people is a direct reaction to restricted class mobility with in their repressive regimes which perhaps rightfully so view their governments as nothing more then foreign puppets.

When viewed in this context the current “wars on terrorism” and “holy wars” are nothing more than fronts for underlying factors. It is not a battle for freedom and democracy, rather is a battle both to continue the economic viability of oil as a power source and also to keep the economies of the third world firmly in the hands of friendly powers. However, the opposite side of the battle is no better. While these “freedom fighters" would claim to be fighting for freedom from the shackles of the decadent western secularism, they are at best fighting to remove the corrupt puppet governments. Far more likely they are simply seeking to install themselves as the new economic and thus political leaders of their respective countries.

As for your belief on Kashmir that is actually based on economics. The split between India and Pakistan is based on the fear of different value systems would jeopardize the future of a country. This has to do with the basic belief that people of varying value systems threaten each other's interests. It also has to do with the fact of the massive labor pool of a unified India does not mesh with its current economic situation which has too few jobs for too many people. Thus if you discriminate on religion you can cut down on the labor force. Thus racial, religious, and gender tension is born.

You seem to have my intentions mistaken. Judging simply from what I’ve seen, which I must admit is far from all-inclusive, and the opinion that I state is far from the status quo here and so thus I seem to be contentious. However, I’m merely stating what I feel is constructive to the conversation. My view of the future unified world varies from many of the people in this forum. Perhaps my opinions are not as valid as everyone else’s, but I’d rather not believe that.

I am also ready to grant you that we might not have gotten involved in Desert Storm without the incentive of the oil fields.

But I disagree with your claim that the religious fervor in Kashmir is economic in nature. The People, who are the dissenting group in the area, are not unhappy with India because they feel the hindus will infringe upon their financial stability. they feel that they should be able to live under a society with the same beliefs as them. Not everything ties back to economics. how often does the average american catholic think "Gee, the protestants over there are infringing on my financial future because they have a majority in the city government. Sometimes there are other reasons for dissention, such as civil liberties, and the like. Which brings me back to the part of my previous posts that you didn't even bother to address. The Bosnian and the Yugoslavian civil wars. American involvement was not for economic gain, and the two sides were not fighting over economics.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." George Washington

In every post I include new information, how is it that I am simply playing word games? If I were playing word games I would simply obfuscate the situation by leading you down avenues that go now where. Instead I’m giving my perspective on the world and what it portents for the requested “savior” and the thought of a world government, its benefits, restrictions, and ways to bring about its possible fruition. Perhaps I should simply state the idea that is intrinsically what I am. We live in a logical world that is governed by basic laws that are non-transmutable. Although Card’s Romantic ideas that the world is shaped by the glories of men and the forces of god. I instead think that the world is the progression of all history before it and thus is governed by the current situation, the historical progress, and the application of both of these towards the future and so we come to inevitable future outcome. Despite what the people on these forums say I do believe this and am not simply prevaricator.

Let me state again that I am not playing word games or turning this thoughtful discussion on the future and current situation of the world into an intellectual sparing match. However, I feel that if someone’s opinion is different from mine it is best to discuss our different points of view to come to some sort of a consensus. This does not mean one opinion is wrong and one opinion is right, rather it means that we can find some common ground. A good example is our discussion over the “fourth branch” of government, we may have arrived at such an impasse that we can not agree on whether a world government SHOULD be armed, but it is possible for us to compromise and come to the conclusion that if the world government was armed it would need serious restrictions on the force it could wield. As you can see we took two different opinions from two different people and we gave forth genesis to a unified acceptance of the specific value and we continued to hold mutual respect for the each other's values in contention.

I deeply apologize that I did not answer all of your questions concerning the specific wars of Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia (or more specifically the region Kosovo).

Korea and Vietnam were fought over the competing ideologies of controlled economies against free market systems. The Vietnam War had the notoriety of domestic turbulence caused by the economic suppression of Africans, Mexicans, Native Americans, Asians, and women. Thus the Vietnam War was essential a two headed beast. First it was, as stated, a competition between the economic systems. Secondly it was the reaction of foreign policy caused by pent-up domestic pressure.

Yugoslavia and Bosnia were wars to solidify the United States bid for hegemony and to divert attention away from domestic problems. Both wars were in Europe after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. These were NATO’s first chances to prove that Russia had neither the will nor the capacity to keep order in Eastern Europe. Hegemony allows one country easy access to all the worlds labor and resources; thus it is primarily economic in nature. The second reason that the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were fought because criticism was growing within the United States about the very nature of that countries political process. While it appears that Monica Lewinsky was an important focal point for discussion on the morality of that countries politicians, it was actually a bit of political slight of hand to draw attention away from the bourgeoisie’s control over the United States’ democratic process by controlling campaign funding.

Perhaps I am the one mistaken but I do not agree with your assessment of the civil war. While I do agree that slavery was only one of the issues, the other issues I don’t want to get into at this moment because it is neither pertinent nor is it able to be simply condensed and explained. What is important is that the war was fought over slavery, perhaps not directly because of the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists but the slave labor and free labor systems were at the heart of the division. To say that states rights were the central issue in the United States’ civil war is akin to saying the right to kill not murder is the central issue in homicide charges. A glib analogy I’ll be the first to admit, but I think it illustrates my point fairly well.

At this point I feel I must give the reason why I digressed to discuss in depth the United States’ civil war. Although one the surface it may appear that I am simply using as an idle intellectual exercise, I assure you I am not. If BootNinja is correct in his assessment of war then the entire theory that peace can be achieved by removing the economic needs that people for fight for. That is why I spent so much time debating a point that is seemingly unrelated.

Hero's Blood... brevity is the soul of wit. The average attention span doesn't allow us (or me, at least) to appreciate your input. You have things to say, and I respect that. Just say them in sound bites I can chew on.

As to the matter at hand... We've exhausted the fourth branch concept. Let us diverge from the 2nd amendment and move on. For example... what makes some people listen to others? Why would the world follow a "Locke"? Would you follow DiffidentVoice's "RedSkull", or follow Hero's Blood? How could you make sure that whomever was nominated as "Hegemon" would be a just ruler, and not a "SlashtheBerserker-gimme/nomorecountrymusic" Hegemon?

How do you confirm that a single man is worth following?

reasons for war? what if..now this is ONLY a what if - wars are a form of natural selection to rid society of the most dangerous psychopathic elements. I'm not talikng about wars nowadays, which seem to be a strange career path for misguided 18 year olds in need of some order in their lifes who ten years down the line find themselves killing foreigners for no damn reason they can see. I'm talking more about the idea of 'clan warfare', where out of every community a selection of pweole would fight on a fairly regular basis, thus weeding out the most violent members of that society (well soldiers don't have the longest life expectancy, do they?)

This could explain the rise of criminal violence in 'civilised' society (or is it a rise? are things just better reported these days?)

I was going to write a long post saying how wrong everyone was and how right I was. That is utterly foolish and now I realize that. I will add my only points on all discussion on both the subject of who should be hegemony and who should not, but on war.

“ Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.”

As for who should be hegemon

If powerful men and women
could remain centered in the Way,
all things would be in harmony.
The world would become a paradise.
All people would be at peace,
and the law would be written in their hearts.

“When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, ‘Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!’”

quote:

---

Hero rises to meet the Emperor

---

Thank you for duly recognizing. It will be remembered.

quote:

---

You seem to have my intentions mistaken.

---

Then, please, illuminate.

quote:

---

Judging simply from what I’ve seen, which I must admit is far from all-inclusive, and the opinion that I state is far from the status quo here and so thus I seem to be contentious.

---

So, you admit that you could be wrong, but you're posting contention 'just because'?

quote:

---

However, I’m merely stating what I feel is constructive to the conversation.

---

Yes, and being summarily told that, for the most part, you are off base. Yet, you persist in the contention, often reiterating of doctoring your statements to be retold. So, you're not actually sharing discourse, you're making statements- albeit statements in the middle of a conversation. However you're not conversing, you're just stating. There's a difference between conversing and sharing, and waiting for your next opportunity to make a statement. You're doing the latter, most others here, the former. That's part of the biggest contention.

quote:

---

My view of the future unified world varies from many of the people in this forum. Perhaps my opinions are not as valid as everyone else’s, but I’d rather not believe that.

---

I'm sure your views and opinions are as valid as anyone else's here, but it's more the way you communicate it that is the problem. When you can stop 'making statements', and actually discourse with some of these people, you'll find that you'll be taken a lot more seriously.

quote:

---

Also if people attack my opinion I simply give what thoughts have led me to that conclusion. This is hardly what I would call stroking my own ego, nor protecting.

---

I'll offer a suggestion- stop assuming that your views and your opinions are fact. You'll feel less 'attacked' that way, and you don't have to center on feeling that way, which is, whether you like it or not, arrogant. Don't feel bad, there are a lot of arrogant people here. I, for one, am probably among one of the more arrogant pricks of the bunch.

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

quote:

---

kosmik: please remember that this is just the flight and fancy of fourteen year olds. We didn't think we knew it all, we didn't have any solutions... we were just looking at possibilities

---

quote:

---

what makes some people listen to others? Why would the world follow a "Locke"?

---

quote:

---

The Tao is neither selfish nor proud.
The Tao is generous and graceful in what it does without ever claiming any merit
And the sage’s greatness lies in taking no credit.

---