Rambling Rhodes

Ah, the gospel of post-apocalyptic pragmatism! America, the last bastion of truth, justice, and civilization stalks across the desolate globe, sword and shield in hand, protecting those who serve her interests and smiting those who oppose her. Like England before her, who conquered half the globe in order to civilize it, the United States brings the ignorant and selfish nations of the world to heel, hacking them to pieces and reshaping them as Franken-democracies; up to her knees in blood, but firm in her resolve!

Our enemies are many. They are weak, but treacherous; they are a cowardly and superstitious lot. They hate our freedom. Their crude religion spreads hatred like a virus, and the only cure is depleted uranium, administered at supersonic speeds.

These craven cowards try to harness us with "world courts" and "united nations"; they try to shackle us with rule by committee. They try to blind us with a veil of lies, but we will not be blinded! The United States sees all, with our advanced intelligence gathering apparatus. Our leaders are the best-informed and wisest in the world, elected through the most robust democracy in the history of humankind. Our interests are the world's interests, and anyone who says different is selling something.

We will rule because we are the most powerful nation on the globe: the United States is the uberwench of nations. She has no friends. Only interests. Kneel before her, or she will civilize you with the edge of her sword.

.

Have you ever read The Dark Knight Returns Ryan? I bet you'd like it. Hell, I like it. It's a good comic book. But life isn't like that.

And, lo, the world waited with stilled breath as the United Nations pondered the fate of nations, believing it to be a force of good and order in the world, despite extreme evidence to the contrary: http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/04/uk_media_roundu.html

And, hell, Maus is a good comic book, and life, for some, was exactly like that.

Ryan: as regards the United Nations-- remember the Articles of Confederation comparison?

The difference between "the United Nations rules the world" and "the United States rules the world" is the consent of the governed. A world government based on a parliamentary model would allow all nations some active part in the decision-making process. It would also allow for a world bill of rights. Certain definitions could be codified ("terrorist", "war of aggression"). And a rule of law could be established.

Lileks' "nations have no friends, only interests" political structure has been tried: it was called feudalism; do what the king says or you're toast. The king's word was law, so the average person had no recourse, and no guidelines except an estimate of the character of the king. If the king was a great guy, this was a demeaning but serviceable system. If the king was a prick, you had to get yourself a magna carta.

I appreciate the propaganda value in Lileks putting international law and extra-judicial in quotes, and referring to them as "ephemeral", while simultaneously implying that they are convenient fictions perpetrated by people with a vested interest in promulgating them. He's a skilled, if somewhat by-the-numbers, propagandist. But I would point out that concepts like "human rights abuse" "war crime" and "crime against humanity" are equally ephemeral. And yet the United States puts a great deal of stock in these concepts; indeed, prosecuting these offenses is essentially the lynchpin of our current foreign policy agenda.

The distinction between the ephemera of international law and extra-judicial killings, and the various crimes the United States accuses Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda of, is primarily a difference of authorship. International law, as codified by, say, the International Criminal Court or the United Nations, defines extra-judicial killings and outlaws them. It's written down, and the law prohibits all nations from engaging in such behavior. The United States prosecutes crimes as it suits our interests.

One is the rule of law, authored, however many levels removed, by the people it governs. The other is the rule of a nation of embarrassingly arrogant people, who imagine themselves kings of the world.

*bleeg* Joshua, think real hard with me now, and I know in your ultra-liberal mind that it's hard to do in the 300+ years you mentally live in the future, alongside Capt. Picard and the bunch. The world you envision IS NOT POSSIBLE (or at least certainly not yet). Unless, say, an alien world were to come along and threaten to take over everything, we may come together in global unity to defeat them, in an Independence Day sort of way.

Your idea of global govt.? Ain't gonna happen. Can't happen. And I think, deep down, you know it. Given the deep religious, cultural, and societal differences that make up the world, and Islamic fundamenalist terror, in particular, right now, your liberal leanings, though noble and Star Trekkish, are about as realistic as, well, J.Lo. and Ben having a long term relationship.

It has nothing to do with Feudalism, or any such nonsense you throw out. It's about, um, reality. You know, right now. Today. This Second. Nations are interested in their interests, and that's not some nebulous claim with no merit. That's just the bald fact of reality.

Your Articles of Confederation analogy holds about as much water as a teaspoon. You know as well as I do that the A of C was in place for only a few years, in a fledgling nation that was fighting, united, for its independence. To even suggest it had even a passing resemblance to the U.N. is ludicrous. Come on, the U.N. had its trial run called the League of Nations, which failed monumentally and, I would argue, was considerably responsible for the build up to WWII.

If, however, you have the blueprint for how the nations of the world could, realistically, come together--and I'm talking China, and North Korea, and Iran, and Syria, etc.--in a big global hug, with each nation willing to subjugate itself to the wishes of a central global government, hey, I'm all ears.

As it is, however, yours is a dream world of staggering proportions.

Your Articles of Confederation analogy holds about as much water as a teaspoon.

Here again, I appreciate the propaganda value of your spin. You're not as good at it as Lileks-- hyperbolic analogies for calling someone stupid are a crude tactic. It's funny when Dave Berry does it (and, just for the record, yours was a lot less funny than that), but "funny" and "right" are very different things.

The AoC analogy has a great deal of merit beyond the circumstantial points you raise. In choosing to focus only on the circumstantial components, you would seem to be missing the bones of the analogy; the AoC lacked several important powers necessary to a functioning federal government. It lacked these powers because the states were unwilling to surrender those elements of their sovereignty to a federal government and, in the end, it was precisely those omissions that led to the collapse of the AoC government. That analogy is eminently applicable to the United Nations.

If, however, you have the blueprint for how the nations of the world could, realistically, come together--and I'm talking China, and North Korea, and Iran, and Syria, etc.--in a big global hug, with each nation willing to subjugate itself to the wishes of a central global government, hey, I'm all ears.

Wow. What a cop-out.

I mean, let's take a look at this Ryan: can you give me the blueprint for the United States Federal Government? Can you deliver it in any defensible way? If you said, "a three-part system with an executive, legislative, and judicial branches; governed by a constitution," it would take us about two days to get so bogged down in arguing details, I could declare victory by entropy. I could ask you how many legislators. How should they be chosen? What about the smaller states? What's the budget for the legislators? How many assistants should they have? Where will the legislature meet? Can felons be legislators? No? What constitutes a felony in this grand imaginary republic of yours?

What's that? You don't have an unassailable blueprint for a working government that rules over 260 million people? Ha! Just like I said: this "United States Federal Government" you speak of is an impractical pipedream! Next thing you'll be telling me the Earth is round and rotates around the Sun!

It has nothing to do with Feudalism, or any such nonsense you throw out. It's about, um, reality. You know, right now. Today. This Second. Nations are interested in their interests, and that's not some nebulous claim with no merit. That's just the bald fact of reality.

Nonsense. Reality. Blah blah blah. Ryan, do you have any opinions about geopolitics that don't boil down to, "that's just the way things are and anyone who can't see that is a fool or a lunatic"?

Of course nations are interested in their nations: what you seem incapable of grasping is that a world government is in the interests of most nations outside the United States, and that the United States is acting in direct opposition to the formation of a functioning world government. As far as why any nation would willingly surrender sovereignty to a world government; I refer you to John Locke. They would surrender sovereignty because, ultimately, it serves their interests.

It works for people-- they surrender sovereignty to form governments. It works for governments-- they surrender sovereignty to form federal governments. And yet here you stand, looking at the idea of a world government and saying, "It can't be done! That's just, um, reality. You know, 'the real world?"

Two points oppose this view:

1) It has been done. Not a world government-- but it's only a question of scale. And the obstacle of scale won't be conquered until the necessity is recognized. I believe 9/11 demonstrated that necessity. Which brings me to point number--

2) It must be done. Weapons of mass destruction necessitate it. They are controlled, for now. But they won't be controlled indefinitely.

typo: Of course nations are interested in their nations

Of course nations are interested in their interests.

And then Ryan got bored and wandered away.

I didn't get bored. The weekend just happened to roll around, and I have a house to paint, and repaint, and oh God I'm sick of that freakin' house. But, anyway. . .

I think the problem with your logic is that you apparently assume the disparate cultures, religions and storied histories of nations will somehow just willingly conform to a new world order, if you will.

what you seem incapable of grasping is that a world government is in the interests of most nations outside the United States

Uh, yeah, cause China is so compliant when it comes to such a concept as kow towing to a world government. And I'm sure Saudi Arabia will just click into line on there, too. And Iran. Yeah, and Russia--Russia would just LOVE to adhere to a world government. Seriously, Joshua, if a world government is in the interests of most nations outside the United States, why are so many member nations of the U.N. so perpetually playing a cat and mouse game with the rules (France, Germany *hint, hint*)? And why, after a possible third or fourth permutation of a U.N. charter, should we honestly expect anything to be different? Beyond the Euro (which I think has a slew of problems in it's own right), I think you'd be hard pressed to see any real push to bring the countries of the world together under one governing body.

And, if you don't mind me bringing this discussion back to the topic of terrorism, let me just ask: how do you think groups like al Queda and other such organizations would view such a concept of a world government? How well would such concepts as bin Laden's caliphate and the Taliban's regressive/repressive doctrines be received in an era of new world government?

I know this will make your skin crawl, and Lord knows Johnny Huh? and some in those camps will cringe when they read this, but I tend to believe a world order such as you propose will come about, not through repeated attempted establishments of world government, but through the gradual migration of ideas through *gasp* capitalism. I know, I know, Wal Mart sweat shops in China and underpaid IT outsourcers in India and all that. But, just as you see similarities to the U.N. and the Articles of Confederation, I see similarities in world economies that hearken back to much of the evolutions of Great Britain, France, Germany and, yes, the United States. I think the road to world governance will be through this gradual and, admittedly, somewhat distasteful and bumpy process.

Unless, of course, aliens attack, and we all band together as a planet to fight off the otherwordly nuisance. I've never much trusted those fuckers in the Andromeda galaxy. They're up to something.

And, by the way, how, exactly, can you call what Lileks and Dave Barry write "propaganda," without pointing the same propaganda beam at yourself and your own written musings?

By the way, the whole "teaspoon/water" thing was weak, I know. What can I say? I was in a hurry and I was tired.

And, by the way, how, exactly, can you call what Lileks and Dave Barry write "propaganda," without pointing the same propaganda beam at yourself and your own written musings?

Ha. I guess it didn't translate, but my strategic employment of quote marks was meant to convey exactly this self-critique.

I know this will make your skin crawl, and Lord knows Johnny Huh? and some in those camps will cringe when they read this, but I tend to believe a world order such as you propose will come about, not through repeated attempted establishments of world government, but through the gradual migration of ideas through *gasp* capitalism.

I agree with you and I don't.

I agree with you in that the WTO has been significantly more effective at achieving global policy consensus than the UN has. But if you think my objection to that course begins and ends with some effete liberal aesthetic objection to nasty icky capitalism, you're not giving me enough credit.

My baseline objection to the WTO, and global capitalism in general, particularly as it begins to assert itself directly against national sovereignty (because the same leaders who won't allow the UN to make dues-payment mandatory will allow the WTO to dictate tax policy to them), is that capitalism is a fundamentally undemocratic system. Access to franchise in capitalism is determined by economic power and the obvious reality is that, without state control, there will always be massive disparities in economic power between individuals.

And here again, feudalism is relevant; underneath all the "divine mandate" nonsense, a king is essentially the richest man in the kingdom. He owns his kingdom outright, and allows his vassals to rule sections of it in trust. But the scope of a king's power is the scope of private ownership; a king can do anything he wants with his property. He can restrict civil rights on his property. He can banish people from his property and, baring oversight from some more powerful civil authority, he can kill people on his property at will. Feudalism is relevant because it is an example of what individuals will do when they have undisputed economic superiority; models of human organization that assume the basic good will of the rich or the de facto power of "the market" in governing or moderating the behavior of the rich are disputed, categorically in my opinion, by the history of feudalism.

Many American libertarians and "Ayn Rand individualists" feel that the power of the economic elite is a foregone conclusion and that democracy is at best window dressing and, at worst, a spoiler in the perfect machinery of free market capitalism.

This strikes me as the argument of people who preach the inherent virtue of nobility, aristocracy and the perfection of divine mandate because they believe they will be, at a minimum, knights under the king.

And, if you don't mind me bringing this discussion back to the topic of terrorism, let me just ask: how do you think groups like al Queda and other such organizations would view such a concept of a world government? How well would such concepts as bin Laden's caliphate and the Taliban's regressive/repressive doctrines be received in an era of new world government?

At the height of its power, the Ku Klux Klan had tens of thousands of members in some southern states. Without the involvement of the FBI and other federal agencies, it's not inconceivable that the Klan could have established a permanent foothold in one of those states and legitimized itself as a controlling force in state government. When the FBI went after the Klan, the Klan didn't firebomb New York, or Langley, even Washington D.C. The federal government was too big; hitting it in one place wouldn't kill it, and hitting it everywhere at once was more than the Klan could manage.

Uh, yeah, cause China is so compliant when it comes to such a concept as kow towing to a world government. And I'm sure Saudi Arabia will just click into line on there, too. And Iran.

Yeah yeah. Look, I know we're all the same color and everything so it's easy to forget this, but the United States is made up of former slaveholding states and non-slaveholding states. We fought a war over it. The cultures of the North and South were about as divergent, in many respects, as two cultures could be. And let's not forget that about 10% of our population used to be slaves.

And yet here we have a national government. So I guess it's possible.

Hey. You.

*sigh* If I must.

Regarding capitalism = feudalism, you say:

And here again, feudalism is relevant; underneath all the "divine mandate" nonsense, a king is essentially the richest man in the kingdom. He owns his kingdom outright, and allows his vassals to rule sections of it in trust.

I'm assuming here that you're equating, say, Bill Gates with "king," which of course is flawed in one major respect. Namely, Bill Gates doesn't command a military (except for an army of lawyers, I mean). But also, the feudalism analogy fails in that huge scary corporations like McDonalds have a toe-hold in China not because it muscled its way through their borders and exacted its will on the people. No, it's there because the market was conducive to its presence and the people wanted it.

I don't know, Joshua. Call it a cop-out, which I suppose it is, but today my mind is filled with thoughts on a PKI article I'm writing and sanding my hardwood floors tomorrow, which is scaring the living hell out of me. I'm sure I'll have more commenting energy during my next political post. Incidentally, I'm trying to unplug for awhile from the whole political thing, because I frankly think I may be going insane due to information overload. Either that, or that Hesiod guy just has me foaming at the mouth.

I'm assuming here that you're equating, say, Bill Gates with "king," which of course is flawed in one major respect. Namely, Bill Gates doesn't command a military (except for an army of lawyers, I mean).

Um. No. I'm not comparing Bill Gates with "king". That's entirely too literal. What I'm getting at is more the widespread privatization of civil functions and the deterioration of civil process in defense of civil liberties on confrontation with private interests. Look up, for example, the "iron clad contract" as it relates to labor relations. Or the "company town" model-- where the companies did have small private armies in the form of company cops (pinkertons). Or the Ludlow Massacre, where state militia was used to the mining company's purpose in supressing a strike and killing 20 civilians. That kind of thing could happen again.

I don't know, Joshua... today my mind is filled with thoughts on a PKI article I'm writing and sanding my hardwood floors tomorrow,

Fair enough.

this web site is fucking gay

how much gayer can this web site get?

From,
lick my nuts!!

ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES ASS HOLES AND EVEN MORE ASS HOLES!!
FROM,
YOUR MOM BITCHES!!

FUCK THIS WEB SITE I'M OUTEY