Wednesday, October 23, 2002

[Colin Glassey 4 PM] Theophrastus on the Future (continued from yesterday) Not only am I interested in seeing the United States depose Saddam in Iraq because its the right thing to do; I'm also interested in seeing a global government come into being and I think this is an important step along the path. Yes, those supporters of the U.N. (if there are any) who oppose unilateral action by the United States are actually working against a future global government. A number of things have to happen in order for a global government to become real. All people must be allowed to vote freely and fairly for their representatives. Laws must be applied to all people equally. People must have freedom of speach and a free press. Under this bare outline there is very little role for the concept of national sovereignty. I don’t see much point in treating the nations of this world as totally independent entities which are free to do whatever they please, which is what national sovereignty means. Instead I see nations as limited in important ways. Nations can’t choose to kill off masses of people living within their borders just because they feel like it (examples: Rawanda, Kosova, Cambodia). This is something that I think most people would agree with. But think of what it means. It means that the power given to states to act in their internal matters is limited. So my question is: how far is national power limited? In my opinion, the answer is that a nation’s power should be limited a great deal. Nations can’t build pollution generators on their borders and let the wind or the river or the sea carry the pollution off (examples: Russian aluminum factories built next to the Finnish border, power plants built in Mexico just a few hundred feet away from San Diego, etc.). I do believe that local laws regarding pollution are reasonable, so a power plant built in the middle of the Sahara should not fall under the same laws as a power plant built in Los Angeles. But national borders make very little sense as legal zones for things that cross borders as freely as the air. 3:37:37 PM     [Colin Glassey 12 noon] Another good essay which pointedly suggests that Jimmy Carter's Nobel Peace Prize was poorly awarded. The essay is by Peter Beinart of the New Republic (registration is required, sorry). Summary: The Nobel Prize should have been given to someone in the Islamic World who is actually working to increase freedom, instead of someone like Carter who has said nice things to dictators and tyrants over the years as a way of accomplishing conflict reduction (largely unsuccessfully too one might point out). 12:00:07 PM     [Colin Glassey 11 AM] A good rant by Porphyrogenitus (from Ranting Screeds) about how Europe (mainly France and Germany) have been free riders for decades and now they are saying the United States should in effect pay them for their lack of spending on their military by giving away our advanced technology and equipment. Try this quote: All of Europe wants to be put on the Defense Dole and have their whims paid for by the Americans, and of course the usual suspects cheer them on. It's not that Europe doesn't have money - we're not talking about Burkina Faso here. They just believe, like an indolent ex spouse, that they should be maintained in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed, at the expense of others. In this case, Uncle Sucker. And the lifestyle to which Europe has become accustomed is that of a Great Power. Great Powers need effective militaries able to project force abroad, militaries compatible with the best in the world. Well guess what, they aren't great powers any more. If Europe really unified under a new fedral government they have the resources (though at this time not the will) to be a great power. At the moment, they aren't. Its as simple as that. Here is a good Fisking of Nick Kristoff's essay in the NYTimes about Saudi Arabia by Cato the Youngest. I agree with his points. The reason why Americans dislike the Saudis is because they run a rich country that has spewed hatred of all non-Wahabi Moslems for the last 30 years and because they seems pretty happy with OBL and Al Queda. Here is a quote, rebutting Kristoff's claim that OBL is really after the Saudi Monarchy. If OBL's first target is the Saudi royal family, and not America, why are there thousands of dead Americans, and no assassinated Saudi princes? I'll tell you why, Nick. Americans are doing the dying, because the House of Saud is doing the buying. 10:55:14 AM

© Copyright 2002 cglassey. Last update: 11/5/2002; 10:38:11 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.