From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 19:41:25 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
> > (Brett Paatsch <paatschb@optusnet.com.au>):
> >
> > > .. you might try asking the survey question this way: do you
> > > favor giving planetwide control to an organization composed
> > > of delegates most of whom were appointed by governments
> > > that do not represent the interests of their people?
> >
> > Favor it in relation to what though? The prospect of Libya
> > "championing" human rights certainly doesn't appeal to me
> > personally. But at this stage in civilization we (humanity) don't
> > get to do things in fine brush strokes. Its crude broad brush
> > strokes and ugly compromises only. But simply because there
> > are no all pleasant choices in how to organise or establish
> > international law doesn't mean we can't find optimals amongst
> > the unpleasant choices.
>
> I wouldn't disagree with that (mainly because it isn't really saying
> anything).
Its not saying much I admit. The point I had in mind was that
people forget that civilization and the formulation of better forms
of societies are ongoing processes. The "model" I personally
carry around is not of some fall from a previous state of grace in
some garden of Eden but of a slow, tough, crawling out and up
from the primordial slime.
But even in 2003 when much more of the population is secular
and scientifically literate I think many people slip back into the
seductive notion that things were once much better than this for
people generally. I think there never were. Civilization is a
bootstrapping process. I think we ("our generation") is now at
a point when the relationships between nation states and the
laws or otherwise that exist between them are very much up for
grabs.
I think the illusions of more international law and order existing
than many people thought are being revealed now as illusions.
It is pretty tough to increment civilization on illusions (perhaps
like the UN) so some disillusionment now, may be in the longer
term a good thing.
> To me, the choice of no international body, and a set of
> decentralized, individual, sovereign states is clearly superior
> to the choice repesented by the UN.
If one happens to be an American citizen, that could well be
the rational choice for the short term. But in the long term
I don't think fortess America can work any better than fortress
Rome, or Athens etc.
I think American's want to trade, they want to travel. So some
international laws do seem to be necessary and in the interests
of Americans.
> If you want to propose another choice, you'll have to
> convince me that it's better than that.
I don't have the answers. I wish I did. I have a suspicion that
we may now have to ditch the illusion that was the UN to come
up with a sort of UN version 3 (in American's interests too).
What bothers me is how long that is likely to take.
I was going to try to refrain from talking about politics. But your
reply came through before I posted to Ron.
I don't like not talking about stuff that I think is genuinely
important (face to face I consider sex, politics and religion all fine
conversational fare and worth talking about - not necessarily in
that order) and I'm willing to be shown to be mistaken or wrong
but sometimes on a list it seems I have to surrender to the
limits of the medium. The perfectly natural high emotions and
strong feelings on some topics seems to drown out the attempts
at communication altogether.
Regards,
Bret
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 19:51:47 MDT