Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

How absurd, you need to work on your 'spin' creation. We continually waste time discussing Right vs Left when the resolution to any and all our problems will require agreement on defining Right vs Wrong.

 

Right v. wrong? For you (and your tribe) v. for the nation and the globe?

For example,

Taxation is immoral, (alternatively "greed is good"), society doesn't exist (only individuals exist), massive wealth and income inequality alongside poverty is 'natural' or OK, preparation for war is necessary for peace (history proves oherwise), the US must upgrade its nuclear arsenal in an arms race with other nations - that's actually insane in the nuclear age (aka MAD).

Recognise these political stances?

 

The righties have bought the right to be right!

Oh yeah ... §-1 = The righties are always right with everything! §-2, if by exception not, see §-1 how to handle and call it alternative fact and truth!

 

Not the way you present them.

society not societies?

history proves 'otherwise'???

MAD vs MAED different means, same end

 

You commented on three of my postulated political stances (were the others too problematic for your stance)?

Anyway, I reply to these three:

Society[/B not societies, when considering international law - ie law on behalf of the 'society' of homo sapiens.

On war: "War Is Obsolete" (seen on a street sign in Vienna; we should all learn from the experience of almost complete destruction of one's culture, in war)

btw, I meant to refer to the idiotic axiom that "freedom is secured through war".
seen on political forum threads.
(Hint: not a left wing axiom)

History shows .... 60 million dead in WW2 alone (not including an almost infinite number of wars in recorded history)......freedom? We still don't have freedom', because we are still spending massive precious resources on war, both for preparation and prosecution. And continuing massive loss of innocent life?

Like I said, a properly constituted UNSC to administer international law could do away with the scourge of war today.

You postulate law, based on agreement around right v. wrong.

I postulate law as fundamentally based on the concept of justice and the common welfare.

The Supreme Court shows roughly 50/50 left/right activism, depending on the ideological stance of the government in power, so agreement on right v. wrong seems a shaky foundation on which to construct rule of law

Ultimately, no doubt there are correct solutions to matters disputed in law, but men are too entrenched in their own ideologies to find these solutions.
eg, no doubt abortion is related to economic matters, but many would wish to deny it).

Hence my preference for basing rule of law on the concept of justice and the common welfare, surely a more solid foundation.

 

No just not worth the time to address individually.

While all homo sapien sapiens are members of the same species, in no way does that create a singular society.

I've not seen that. Are you saying we should not have become involved in WW II ?

"An almost infinite number of wars in recorded history"? Do you have any concept of the definition of 'infinite'? If there were 10 new wars fought each day for the last 6000 years, a little longer than 'recorded history', that would be about 22,000,000 wars. Does that come close to infinite? You might have rationally said that war has been fought nearly perpetually somewhere in the world in recorded history, and perhaps even 'always' if you include verbal conflicts which are never ending, and thanks to the internet, political forums, and social networking sites likely to increase exponentially and occasionally result in sporadic violence.

Define properly constituted. A central sovereign source of world government?

Right is right even if its' wrong?

Can you clarify that with an example of what you mean by right vs wrong being a shaky foundation on which to construct a law?

Perhaps you should have expanded on your definitions of justice and common welfare. The devils' always in the details, so can you produce some examples of laws which would comply with your concept of justice and common welfare which should be universally applied?

 

Well the fact that one disgruntled nationalist caused a conflict in which 60million people died points to a tremendous failure of international law. And we are still in the same situation. Madness. Can homosapiens end this madness?

Like I said, violence between individuals will always exist. Cain murdered Abel out of jealousy.

But nations extinguishing nations, with each new generation of men being led like sheep to the slaughter, is largely a factor of increasingly obsolete power politics.

[No doubt history had to unfold as it did, because nature ordained a struggle for scarce resources and hard-won knowledge. But the time has arrived, with increasing globalisation and technology, to recognise that War is indeed Obsolete. The resources exist to house, clothe, feed and educate everyone].

A UNSC without veto, ie, a majority vote resolves the dispute. Plus a court to provide the intellectual legal rigour. Basically, in the modern rapidly changing world, no dispute can be worth the cost of war. Nationalism, illegal acquisition of power by one individual, 'freedom' through war, religious ideologies that deny the One-ness of God, are all obsolete under rule of international law.

OTOH, a Security Council (say, the 9 most powerful nations as permament members) should in no way be identified as a central sovereign source of world government, because the issues to be adjudicated are solely concerned with interaction between states.

National governments will still decide decide internal economic and political issues, while nations can explore different systems in a spirirt of friendly competition with other nations. Defintely not the dreaded "world government".

eg, abortion, gun-control, voluntary assisted-dying - in these cases, right v, wrong are difficult to determine.

OTOH, the concept of evolving 'justice' can potentially be developed by the use of reasoning by the top legal minds, as the world changes. Therefore justice can be a bedrock on which to build law, all the way up to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Justice includes participation by everyone in the economy ("it's the economy, stupid"), and automation can change everything, allowing resolution of many concerns of the law eg, criminality, as poverty and war are eliminated.

And yes, that sign in Vienna is very real, and very sad, too.

 

Dividing people into groups, Left vs Right, Black vs White, etc. often results in violence between individuals and can easily be nurtured into war at some point.

The 'resources' needed by all have always existed, but without innovative individuals who convert the natural resources into useful products and services few persons would be capable of acquiring even the most basic needs of survival.

I would word that "Justice requires productive participation by everyone" but it's time we recognized that production of a child which at one time was an asset for a family by providing additional labour as the means by which their needs were acquired has now become a debt upon society as technology has reduced the needs for human labour dramatically.

A sign, "War Is Obsolete" like any other sign is very real, but the reality is that we are constantly at war with one another often resulting in violence, occasionally wide spread violence, and sometimes war, civil or between nations. Most people simply wish to live their lives peacefully but war is usually (always?) the result of government actions.

 

Yep, everyone of working age, at above poverty wages. But as automation proceeds apace, the public sector will need to play a role, to fund and create
socially useful activity, outside the interest of the private sector.

And? You haven't shown how my proposed UNSC without veto, limited to a very specific role, is a form of 'world government'.

Remember your statement: we are constantly at war with one another... whether individual or intra/international.... yet most people simply want to live in peace. There is a contradiction here: see below)

Your solution?

Please not the no government, libertarian 'utopia'. Social and economic interactions between individuals in this highly technological, globalised world are infinitely too complex for that. Add power politics...and you need a properly constituted Security Council to ensure peace, importantly, at the global level.

 

The only problem here is that the supply of able bodied working age people is continually growing faster than the demand/need for them.
The wages people are paid are more relative to the value they provide their employer and has nothing rationally to do with their living below/at/beyond a level of poverty.
One person may earn $10 an hour and not be living in poverty while another may be earning $20 an hour and live in poverty.
The needs of each individual among us can vary greatly as can the value of the labour they are capable of providing a prospective employer, whether they are employed by a large corporation or self employed. For some persons, the value of their labour could require but a few hours of work each week, while others may require 40 hours, 60 hours or even more.
Inflation is what drives the cost of living higher, but it does not apply equally across the board to each form of labour or product/service by which wages are earned.

When you say 'public sector' I assume you are referring to government and if that is correct I disagree totally with your claim above. I would agree that the Public, meaning the people of each community have a role to play, to fund what they recognize as beneficial to maintaining their society within the means they can afford, which would include the private sector which exists within that community. There is no benefit for a society, meaning a community or small local population to try and maintain the existence of a growing population that exceeds the employment needs of that area.

Our own government began as one with a limited role, and over the last 100 or so years the Federal government has through reinterpretation of our Constitution along with passage of the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act reduced the sovereignty of the people and the States to where their only voice in our government begins and ends at the ballot box after which time they must endure the results until the next election, while the elected politicians employ spending and debt to create and provide more government assistance programs to enough voters to assure they will be re-elected by those who might see a monetary loss should their opponent win.

The contradiction? The only contradiction I found was in your post I responded to, shown below

There is no utopia, libertarian, liberal, or conservative.

From where would this "properly constituted Security Council" be empowered? And by what actions would it be able to "ensure peace at the global level" or a local level for that matter?

The 'solution', IMHO, is to allow societies, at their local levels freedom to resolve their own issues, democratically, and within the means directly/locally available to them. We can't/shouldn't keep living within the means of those yet born, making it more and more difficult for them to pay the bills we are leaving them much less pay for their own existence in a world of indebtedness they did not create.

 

What means?
What bills?
What indebtedness are you talking about?

 

You agree that justice - the rule of law - requires productive participation by everyone (of working age) in the economy.

But you then list reasons why.... such an economy cannot exist.

Eg, you say:

Well ofcourse everyone has the same basic needs AND widely differing abilities, so the economy needs to be constructed to deal with this reality.

But I can see ideology getting in the way here, as shown by your aversion to the public sector - which is indeed an arm of government - necessary to create the socially useful work that is not valued by the private sector (eg, provision of care for the disabled, provision of extra resources for disadvantaged schools, provision of home care to enable the elderly to remain in their homes for as long as possible).

A society ... as you see it, to fit with your ideology of "small government". See above.

Ah, the Federal Reserve Act....

https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...al-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/

Yes government is complex, but it is not beyond the wit of men to design good government. Don't let your ideology preclude you from working toward that goal..

.....because my proposition (ie a UNSC without veto) requires a modicum of good governance at the international level.

Again, incompatible with your postulated small government model.

But societies at the local level are intrically connected to the global community, in the modern technologically interconnected world.

From an adjustment of the constitution of the UN:

We, the peoples of the United Nations, to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

ie, by abolishing the SC veto.

Ofcourse all sorts of ideologies get in the way, but the goal - life - is priceless.

Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe HG Wells

 

Such fatuous questions, what means, bills, and indebtedness do you think is being talked about?

 

No, I only said that "Justice requires productive participation by everyone".

But I did NOT say that.

A society ... as you see it, to fit with your ideology of "small government". See above.



Ah, the Federal Reserve Act....

https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...al-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/

Yes government is complex, but it is not beyond the wit of men to design good government. Don't let your ideology preclude you from working toward that goal..



.....because my proposition (ie a UNSC without veto) requires a modicum of good governance at the international level.

Again, incompatible with your postulated small government model.



But societies at the local level are intrically connected to the global community, in the modern technologically interconnected world.



From an adjustment of the constitution of the UN:

We, the peoples of the United Nations, to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

ie, by abolishing the SC veto.

Ofcourse all sorts of ideologies get in the way, but the goal - life - is priceless.

Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe HG Wells[/QUOTE]

Personally, I feel we would be better served by dissolution of the UN, and yes, smaller governments exercising only powers granted to them by their citizens, and most of all both their people and their government living within the means they are capable of producing.

 

So you don't want to identify 'justice' with 'rule of law'.

OK, let's move on.

It is interesting to compare your statement:

With mine:

Which statement most aligns with our agreed proposition (I think) that "justice requires productive participation by everyone". , given that some are naturally more able than others?

Not surprising, since you see any government beyond the local community as an infringement of personal liberty, but ... of course you are wrong.

Take it from the experience of all those desiring to contribute to the creation of the UN Charter in 1946, with the backdrop of an entire continent laying in ruins. (Many nations even wanted a veto-free SC back then).

 

"Well the fact that one disgruntled nationalist caused a conflict in which 60million people died"
I take it you are referring to Hitler. If so,your understanding of basic history is absolutely wrong.
I know what you've been told in school,tv documentaries,and Hollywood movies,but it is very easy to disprove these lies. In fact Hitler was the one who constantly offered peaceful negotiations. He dropped fliers over London called "A LAST APPEAL TO REASON" you can see Brits reading them here>> http://www.tomatobubble.com/id570.html There is also a cash reward to anyone who can disprove these claims. Hitler didn't invade Poland because he wanted to conquer Europe.German were being butchered. Women,children tortured in hideous ways.
Besides that answer this question. If you relied on food imports that you traded with your exports,and they were cut off,would you consider that an act of war? If your own people were being starved to death is that not an action that justifies a response? Who declared war on who March 24th 1933?


As well intended as H.G. Well was,he never figured out who the Bolshevicks were and what they were doing. I've read his ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT speeches and letters...found here http://mailstar.net/wells-lenin-league.html .H.G Wells worked along side with jews,having no idea of their intentions. When he went o the Soviet Union in 1920...he swallowed their lies hook line and sinker....
There is no such possibility of a one world government when Jews are factored in,and until you address this your position is erroneous at best.
June 25th 1920 Bertrand Russell ,in a letter
"Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar's, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action."

 

Justice relates to the application of the rule of law.

The problem with this discussion is you persistently attempt to lump/link the economy with justice and the rule of law.
Justice requires productive participation by everyone, meaning that each of us has a responsibility to live within the laws of their society providing their own needs to the best of their abilities and receive help from others as they see necessary. People, not Government, should be acknowledged as the source from which any assistance is acquired, and the people providing the assistance should be the ones who make the decision to continue/discontinue providing assistance based upon the reality of how the assistance they are providing is ultimately put to use.

But I did NOT say "any government beyond the local community as an infringement of personal liberty", so please cease misquoting me. Though I could respond... of course you are wrong, noting that our opinions appear to be diametrically opposed.

Yes, I'm sure they did.

 

Yes, because

1. the resources exist to allow everyone to participate in the economy above the poverty level, thereby eliminating the need for welfare.

and

2. People do not choose to live in poverty.

Note this comment from "The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy", very much pro- capitalist and free-markets.

The market also requires something else: legitimacy. But here it faces an ethical conundrum. It is based upon contracts, rules, and choice – in short, on self-restraint – which contrasts mightily with other ways of organizing economic activity. Yet a system that takes the pursuit of self-interest and profit as its guiding light does not necessarily satisfy the yearning in the human soul for belief and some higher meaning beyond materialism. In the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s, Republican soldiers are said to have died with the word "Stalin" on their lips. Their idealized vision of Soviet communism , however misguided, provided justification for their ultimate sacrifice. Few people would die with the words "free markets" on their lips.

So even the authors recognise the link between the economy and justice

,

OK, here is what you said:

.

I pointed out that societies at the local level are intrically connected with all other societies (both positively and negatively), eg, through trade and clash of ideologies, in a globalised world economy, so the "freedom to resolve their own issues" is complicated and even unrealistic, equivalent to an individual preferring to ignore speed limits imposed by the community for the common good.

And? It might be wise to learn from experience and history?

 

And why then is everyone NOT participating?

Probably most do not, so we need to fix the blame on someone else?

Are you claiming we should eliminate contracts, rules, and choice? What way would you suggest as a better way of organizing economic activity?
,

Actually, what I said was: "The 'solution', IMHO, is to allow societies, at their local levels freedom to resolve their own issues, democratically, and within the means directly/locally available to them. We can't/shouldn't keep living within the means of those yet born, making it more and more difficult for them to pay the bills we are leaving them much less pay for their own existence in a world of indebtedness they did not create."

Some more so and others less so connected. You seem to believe there is a single choice best answer to every problem.

And? Perhaps putting what we learn to productive use would be wise.

 

My chief interest in the dicussion with Ndividual is to show that a well designed UNSC - that can eliminate war as a means of dispute settlement between nations (and proxy wars like Syria) - is not synonymous with 'one world government.

As to the many causes of war, no doubt those relate to events both past and contemporary (eg, before Hitler was born); the common ploy to blame Hitler for WW2 is ofcourse a simplification.

But I'm interested in bringing the UN project to fruition, so that the UNSC can indeed manage security at the international level.

As for your other comments: Wells lived at a time when Soviet Communism held out hope for a better world, so he might have conceived of one world government as the way to overcome war, poverty and ignorance.

OTOH Russell had the benefit of seeing how the Soviet experience actually worked out; nevertheless, he was anti-war.:

"In 1956, immediately before and during the Suez Crisis, Russell expressed his opposition to European imperialism in the Middle East. He viewed the crisis as another reminder of the pressing need for a more effective mechanism for international governance".

 

Econ 101. The hammer, screw driver, electricity, saw, farm plow, car, plane, etc replaced more jobs by a factor of 100 than robotics ever will. So, your thread is goofy and liberal I'm afraid.

 

Such claims are absurd. The number of jobs replaced by simple tools was small because the total number of people was small. Robotics has the potential to replace almost ALL jobs among a much larger population.

 

Because they must pay a landowner full market value for the opportunity to do so, and many cannot afford it.

That would be a good first step. See above.

You mean the system where they are born into permanent debt to landowners just to have space in which to exist?

First we need to make sure that what we learn is productive.

 

The farm plow replaced 100% of jobs whether population was 1 million or 7 billion. Do you understand? All humans would be farmers today if they had not been replaced by what is , in effect, farm automation!!!

 

But there was plenty more advancement to make, problems for capitalism to solve, and opportunity to do it under capitalism. So your reply is goofy and very poorly thought out I'm afraid because the whole point of the thread is to THINK about these things, and you didn't.