The Coming World Police System

From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 17:38:34 MDT

  • Next message: Emlyn O'regan: "RE: Experiences with Atkins diet"

    I have been saying this for several months, but the
    past week of PBS showings provides more confirmation.

    Despite all the attempts to ascribe silly motives -
    revenge for his dad, oil - to the Bush administration,
    the real thread that seems consistent with everything
    they have done and said (keeping in mind the
    statements designed for mass media consumption) is a
    well thought out plan to suck the world into a new
    system.

    The reason for the new system is pretty much as they
    have stated it, but a little more radical. Basically,
    they accept Conrad Schnieker's hypothesis about the
    exponentially rising curve of cheap weapons of
    annihilation - binary viruses, etc., which Conrad, one
    of the originators of "nanotechnology" as a focused
    movement and theory, stated in the late '70's. As
    Conrad told me then, the only likely solution that
    will enable a high-tech civilization to survive
    long-term is universal surveillance. Check out the
    flood of "tranparency" sites that have recently
    emerged, following Brin's book. Same idea. The
    alternative - that there is no solution - resolves
    Fermi's hypothesis.

    The time frame is the problem. Conrad and I, both
    anarcho-capitalists, agreed that the state would
    ultimately not be able to solve the problem. "Who
    guards the guards?" Etc. Only a competitive system
    centered around the rational costs of risk and risk
    management, involving insurance companies primarilly,
    would be able to properly balance marginal returns to
    optimize such a system long term.

    However, we are not there. Our anarcho-capitalist
    utopia is decades off, and the threat of annihilation
    is a bit closer. Not that Bush and Co. are likely to
    be closet anarcho-capitalists... So, they use the
    hammer they do have, the U.S. coercive military might.

    However, they're not planning a new Roman empire, as
    far as I can tell. Instead, they've used Afganistan
    and now Iraq as demonstrations to the world as to
    intent, capability, resolve... The rest of the world
    can join the winning team or take their chances.

    So, based on the Chronkite hosted Armaggedon series
    and a host of other clearly orchastrated media events,
    here it what to expect:

    Bush & Co. will manipulate events to suck the majority
    of the important world powers - the so-called "good
    guys," all more or less democracies or otherwise
    certifiable as "friendly" - into a coalition that will
    back a joint force that will go into any country,
    anywhere, anytime, if it is deemed necessary to clear
    out terrorist camps. A few more examples may be made
    - N. Korea is waving a red flag with a huge "target me
    now" ideogram etched across, and they may fulfil their
    own prophecy, altho it may be the Chinese, who want
    the world to know that THEY are not irresponsible
    terrorists (even if they are, whenever they think they
    can get away with it) and are macho enough to do their
    part for the new world order, not just wait for the
    U.S. to run everything.

    So it may well go. The real bad guys like Saddam will
    fall all over themselves to invite the World Police
    ("World Security Forces?" - somebody come up with a
    catchy name here...) inspectors in to verify that THEY
    don't have any terrorists mixing up variants of SARS,
    etc. - if they believe that the alternative is what
    happened to Saddam.

    So, the problem that Conrad identified may actually be
    solved, short term, altho the solution will bring its
    own serious problems.

    Given that we're not likely to stop this from
    happening if it's in the works, the question becomes
    how to best deal with it and the new problems it will
    introduce.

    Possibilities:

    The "nanocorp" movement is apparently growing like
    wildfire and may quickly become international. I have
    pushed something similar for decades now, based on the
    "trust," however, instead of the corporation. Either
    way, there is and will be a demand for nano-support,
    nano-infrastructure, etc., which could involve easilly
    standardized contracts, such as the universal social
    contract that I have suggested, which could become a
    world-unifying standard, and a grass-roots,
    self-sustaining base from which to oppose the top-down
    corporatization of the world that will try to take
    advantage of this new world order. Not so much to
    oppose it, however, as to offer solutions not
    available to top-down structures.

    Eg., the problem that Bush & Co. are faced with now re
    the possibility that "democracy" in Iraq may well mean
    another Iran, with enforced Shiite culture, forced on
    all other groups in Iraq. How to deal with this and a
    host of similar problems? How about a Swiss model
    carried down to the individual level, with a social
    contract to establish a base-line on which to build
    local solutions? Perhaps most Shiites and other
    potential democratic dictatorial groups would be
    satisfied to impose their law on their own believers,
    if a system were universally available to resolve
    disputes outside the group in an equitable manner.
    This may be more palatable if the alternative is a mix
    of ongoing civil war and outside rule by the U.S.
    Unlike "political" solutions per se, a social contract
    based system would be fueled by the economic
    advantages to the signatories, such as a means of
    reducing risk enormously in dealing with trading
    partners worldwide. Yet it could be used to solve a
    host of political problems as a bonus.

    So, we may not really be any worse off due to Bush &
    Co., yet..., altho the civil rights violations
    domestically as well as the wierd situation re "enemy
    combatants" are certainly very scary and will have to
    be resolved. I put some limited faith in our judicial
    system to ultimately straighten that out into
    something a little more consistent with our Bill of
    Rights, at least. The world may actually be safer for
    a decade or two due to Bush & Co./World Police Force,
    altho there is always the risk that some of the
    terrorist types may make a major move before they are
    rooted out.

    I.e., we may have a breather here in which to figure
    out the real solutions.

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 27 2003 - 17:51:08 MDT