Originally posted by Red: We already behave in a number of ways that are patently not in our best interests. Multi-lateral agreements are not in our best interests, in 90% of the cases. Tell me why don't we just have bilateral trade agreements? The US would clearly get better terms on trade agreements if they were conducted on a one on one basis. If you were the biggest econonmy in the world with the only true reserve currency and you wanted the best deal.....what would you do? I would have a one on one negotiation with whoever it was and say....."what's the best price out there for so and so?" Okay, I want to pay 10% less than that for the first (whatever amount) and then 20% less if I get to (whatever number). As far as eroding sovereignty goes....I think maybe some of you guys have the wrong idea about global government. I'm not suggesting they are going to have a "world president" and a world congress and we all stand around and pledge allegiance as "citizens of planet earth" or something. You might as well expect the corrupt people in the world to walk around wearing black and breathing through coffee filters ala Darth Vader. That's not the way the world works and anyone with half a brain should understand that the real crooks...(the ones you have to watch out for, not the gas station bandits)....show up in $1000 suits and have nice resumes, and make presentations with the best quality paper and phrase things in the nicest possible way. Trust me, I lived in Orlando and my brother used to sell timeshare. Don't forget before you tuck yourself in to bed that: "problems in the subprime mortgage market are contained" "inflation is not a problem" "the recession is probably over" "these aren't the droids you are looking for" Originally posted by Red: You know what....how about we make a deal and cease and desist with the pyschological classification of those who take a position, whatever the position may be. How about we just argue the merits of the position itself. Otherwise, we get into this type of rhetoric: I think it's delusional to deny that people in power with a vested interest in increasing control over certain areas of human activity (namely, billion dollar industry) would not try to do so, if unopposed. Why wouldn't human beings try to control such a market? Certainly they would and anyone who denies this is suffering from a delusional state of mind. Anyway, here is an excerpt from an op-ed on the cfr website: These are patient men and it will take time but they think it is worth the wait. The US government in DC will one day ,in the not so distant future, not be the final authority on matters of trade, finance and military matters regarding the citizens of the US. That is a loss of national sovereignty and it is what I object to as a US citizen. No political body should be able to direct US actions because of "international law". The may be able to influence US action because of power relationships.....that, I have no problem with but simply applying international law to US policy and overriding it, I find very troublesome. For example, in the EU chickens are not allowed to be raised in those little boxes....they have to be allowed to roam around, etc. It's considered animal torture or something. Is this the law of the land in the US? I am completely ignorant on this subject but I assume it is not. If the US has to apply these animal torture laws inside its own borders what does that do to the cost of chicken? (Just an example) My point again is that whatever the law is that the US government passes should apply, not what the French, etc. decided. I am not a French or EU citizen. opcorn:
Originally quoted by Red: Treaties on extradition are bilateral agreements and their is no way of enforcing them if a sovereign country ever wanted to abrogate the treaty. There are any number of circumstances where existing extradition treaties cannot be enforced. Israel prohibits extradition of its citizens in its constitution, for example. I'd like to see anybody try to exercise jurisdiction over an Israeli citizen and see what happens. I am not one of those that sees a Zionist conspiracy for world government. Israel is a staunch defender of its national sovereignty. Wait and see what happens with the Iranian nuclear program and see if Israel tries to run anything through the UN. Israel could not care less what the UN thinks. from wikipedia: This is completely different from the Intenational Criminal Court. link: Extradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is precisely why the US has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court I've never said we have already given up our sovereignty......only that we are well on our way. One day, when the US accepts the ICC jurisdiction you can know that we are one step closer to the "Idealists" having reached their goal. Originally posted by Red: I would agree as long as the agreements were bilateral in nature and we could always withdraw from the treaty when it was in our best interests to do so. This is not the case with multi-lateral agreements that include a mechanism of enforcement.
And you are an under qualified bank employee. Id there some reason that you want to turn a discussion into a insult swap?
Example? We do have bilateral trade agreements and we also have multilateral trade agreements. We do not have a World Trade Agreement. It is not at all apparent that bilateral agreements are clearly better. In a global economy, sometime you have to put multiple players together or they will make arrangements at odds with our own. OK, if that is what it is NOT, then what is it that you fear? What in the world does this have to do with world government or loss of sovereignty? Get real, amigo. You make reference to "anyone with half a brain" and then get annoyed if I say someone is paranoid to fear world government. It's free speech alley, a no-censorship zone. We've argued civilly here, paranoia means "unfounded fears" in this context, not a psychological condition. What does "anyone with half a brain" mean? Well, I think it is an "unfounded fear" and advocated by nobody in government. The multi-national corporations and their think-tanks are simply not a world government. If they are laws we agree with and believe in, they are in our interests. I've already cited extradition treaties, world police cooperation like Interpol, and War crimes tribunals are also examples of international cooperation that we need not fear. We gain far more from this than we lose, if anything. We are the Superpower, the one and only. It is all the others countries that fear that WE ARE ALREADY the world government. Letting them think that they are players too really doesn't hurt us. When has this happened? Who has suggested that this should happen? It is wise to consider what the future might hold, but it is foolish to fear it based on unlikely possibilities.
Orginally posted by Red: Fair point, I'll give you that one. I fear a situation where the US government is no longer in charge of US commerce, regulation, military activity or anything else you would like to list. Within the US borders is the main point.
Well, the point is obviously that you cannot expect people with an agenda to simply state it in obvious terms. Advocates of a position never do this. No car salesman is going to tell you he would like to make the most money possible off of you in such a way that you cannot cause him any trouble in the future. Who would make such a statement? And what prospective buyer would ever say they want a car at such a low price that the car dealership makes the least amount of money possible. This is not how humans interact and I don't blame them. You have to be able to read between the lines. This is where real paranoria can be quite a disadvantage.
Well, I would, too, if I saw a shred of evidence that it is happening. I repeat, I do not think that the agenda of the multinational corporations and their think tanks is anything like the agenda of national politicians in any country. Not even the smallest, decrepit chitholes in Africa (like Zimbabwe) will allow any foreign entity to control anything. I mean, . . . who does that?
But it is even more likely that people advocate no such agenda because there is no such agenda. There is a distinct chance that people advocate a policy that is a laughably hopeless pipe dream. World government may be no more serious a feel-good issue than world religion, world peace, or world brotherhood. Well, reading between the lines is what paranoid delusions are made of. :grin: All the paranoids are out to get me today . . . :huh:
