RE: How best to spend US$200 billion? RE: `twisted ethics prevalent onthe extropy board'

From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 21:28:31 MDT

  • Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "RE: ENERGY: Singularity on hold?"

    Bleh, mail client sent off that one before it was done :P

    > > Uh, just in case you didn't know, Kuwait was originally
    > part of Iraq,
    > > Like Sudan was part of Egypt. In point of fact, Iraq refused to
    > > recognize Kuwait as an independent country until 2 years
    > *AFTER* the
    > > gulf war. So as far as I'm concerned, Saddam didn't invade anybody.
    >
    > Amazing, so because Saddam, a murderous tyrant, does not
    > recognize a group of individuals who of their own free will
    > choose to leave his country and form their own, they are not
    > a legitimate country? Countries exist only as collections of
    > individuals, and deserve no existence beyond the collective
    > acceptance of its citizens. If a group of citizens chooses
    > to excise themselves from an oppresive dictatorial
    > government, they DO NOT NEED HIS PERMISSION *or* recognition
    > to form a legitimate state!!! What system of ethics do you
    > prescribe to, the 'Dictator has final say over everything'
    > system? Do you think the people of Kuwait feel Saddam 'didnt
    > invide anyone'?

    I'm merely pointing out that this particular dilemma (of rebelling
    populace being squashed by its parent country) is repeated throughout
    both history *and* current events. And that in the past, successfully
    squashed rebellions are judged valid actions by the parent country in a
    historical context, but that successful rebellions where a foreign power
    is
    brought into the conflict to threaten (and beat) the parent country,
    history
    is less enthusiastic about endorsing whether or not the parent country's

    actions were valid. But given the tendency of states to respond to
    rebellions
    with "suppressive" (sometimes genocidal) force, it seems clear to me
    that it
    is, if nothing else, and accepted strategem @ the nation-state level.

    And yes, that includes the United States, who, if threatened with
    serious succession
    today, would no doubt go to great lengths, *including* the steady
    application of violence,
    to crush said rebels. And no doubt, if the rebels were smart, they
    would (similar to Kuwait)
    call in a coalition of foreign powers to aid in dealing with the US.

    And while I'm not particularly keen on the notion of nation-states, I
    can understand
    their use of such a strategem, because examination of history proves
    that, while it sucks
    morally, it does indeed work.

    On a personal note, I think the notion of nation-states is out-of-date
    and needs revision.
    I have the glimmer of an idea of what I would like to see, but it
    requires much more
    examination of legal systems, history and some serious critical debate
    for me to flesh
    it out to a point that I would consider acceptable.

    omard-out
    PS> the capitals are gone (for now :P)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 13 2003 - 21:37:22 MDT