Results 1 to 20 of 102

Thread: The Israeli Option in Strategy

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default Soverignty?

    I think Ron’s prison analogy exposes the fundamental difference at the heart of the problem. I view the kid in the sand pit as a bully because all the kids in the pit did not agree a set of rules and ask the big boy to enforce them. The big boy just disciplined who ever he felt like. In the prison example; society (what ever that is) decide a set of rules and employed one group to enforce them (police), another group to decide what should happen to those who did not play by them (judiciary) and a third group to incarcerate those who could not be trusted in the play pit (warders). There is of course a fourth group (military) who’s job is to stop the kids from other playpits from taking over ours and imposing their rules. The question is when the US invades Iraq, or threatens Iran, are they doing it as the bully or because they have been asked to by the society of nation states? I fear Ron’s example leads me to think he views their actions benignly where I would view them more as kids from another pit who are convinced their way is better and have come to impose it on us – with the best of intentions off course (benevolent dictatorship?).

    I think there is a problem of Sovereignty (I am not sure that that is quite the right word). What I mean is as individuals we are willing to accept a dilution of our personal will to other groups to achieve group benefits. For me allegiance probably runs family>friends>town>region>UK>EU>Homo sapiens>Planet Earth, or something like that for Osama BL or GWB I suspect it would be a bit different (note I have no religious component). In a zero sum game how much fealty I give at each level is personal and fluid. In a basically capitalist society with ‘no taxation without representation’ in mind a crude measure might be how much we are willing to contribute at each tier. The argument I was beginning to articulate in my previous post is that too much power currently resides at the country level and states should be more willing to divest some sovereignty up, or down, the chain to solve problems at the appropriate level.
    Last edited by JJackson; 12-15-2007 at 03:17 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •