The geopolitical balance of global power - a question

[Stinky The Clown]

Another current DU thread deals with the EU constitution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3583174
I find myself unable to intelligently vote in that poll as I am not all that well versed on the specifics or the issues.

My question here is somewhat related, but broader in scope.

What do you think of the need for another global superpower? I would love to see one. Our country has become a bully. I am embarrassed at the way we've acted since the cabal has turned us from a force for good to an evil wind.

Some say they would like a superpower to counter us. Others say they'd like a superpower to ally with us to counter the rise of China. Both notions seem quite valid.

What are your views?

[Selatius]

1. Stronger nations inevitably pick on weaker nations

This has been the case in the last 5,000 years of human history. Why would another superpower be different? My opinion on the matter is that if you want to stop a superpower, you work to break that superpower up, not establish another one and let the two fight it out. At the end of the day, there will still be a superpower, and there will still be an issue of that power manipulating and strong-arming weaker nations into doing what it wants.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I understand your words, but not your intent ......

...... you said "My opinion on the matter is that if you want to stop a superpower, you work to break that superpower up" .... are you suggesting the US be dismantled?

[Selatius]

5. Dissolution of the US would be the last resort, but if necessary, yes

If it is possible to divorce private money from public politics and if it is possible to reform the election system to allow freer debate and a wider range of opinions, then there may still be a chance, but if we're beyond the point of no return as far as corruption and corporatism are concerned, I would say that the people should abolish the old government and institute a new arrangement.

[Robeson]

9. Absolutely. As you said, if the system is beyond repair, then it is in...

...the best interest of the people to change the system. The Constitution is not, nor should it be, a death pact.

[NMDemDist2]

11. the constitution says it's our right and RESPONSIBILITY to change

That government if it is jeopardizing our security

as per the Declaration of Independence

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men,

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever

any form of government becomes destructive of these ends IT IS THE RIGHT OF

THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, having

its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as

to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness….when a

long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object

evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT,

IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.

[Robeson]

15. Absolutely. I've always tried to point that out with people....

...who think its the Bible. There are mechanisms that say it can - and at times - should be changed.

On Edit: Which also means, that a Constitutional Covention, is long overdue.

[bemildred]

4. Yes, diversity is good.

Distribution of power (as opposed to concentration) is good, is
democratic.

One of the positive aspects of modern arms is that the peasants
have more than a few pitchforks at their disposal, witness Iraq.

[AG78]

3. We always need a new reason

for more death, so what the hell, they should go for it.

The bigger the center of power, the bigger the war that will follow when two or more of them get in each others way.

We're due for another true world war anyway. This little Iraq positioning adventure is nice, but it's not the real stuff. I want lots of death and destruction. Especially when two or more empires use the people of some tiny country in their game. That's the best part. That's when you see humanity at it's best. The powerful using all their means to make desperate people fight for their next meal. Popcorn time then.

Might actually use those nukes that are just sitting there this time too. We humans aren't good at not using things, so it's time to shit or get off the pot with those weapons. Use them, or get rid of all of them. Don't tease us. "They're there if we need them, but we don't want to have to use them, but in an extraordinary event we'll use them, if need be, but only then, and we don't want others to have them, but if certain others have them then that's fine by us, as long as they don't use them, or else we might have to respond in kind, but we don't really want to do that, but that's why they're there."

It's time to settle this once and for all. All out war, and whoever remains after the nuclear winter, gets the planet. This sharing crap obviously doesn't work.

[DFLer4edu]

6. The United States needs allies

No one nation or for that matter a "united Europe" (for a truly united Europe will take literally at least a century) will be able to take the place of the United States as the dominant super power for the century to come. The United States does and will dominate the world for the foreseeable future. Militarily, culturally, and economically the US dominates the world. However, the power of the United States will gradually diminish wish the rise of China, the strengthening of the European Union and progress in the undeveloped world. The United States will continue to be the superpower on earth, but we will no longer be able to boss the world around. With the rise of China the US will need a politically united Europe as an ally in order to counter balance China's power. We need a strong Europe by our side. We need to lead the world diplomatically, instead of with an iron fist.

[DFLer4edu]

7. kick

[Walt Starr]

8. How about a single superpower?

How about the United States of Terra? One governing body in charge of the entire planet based upon the democratic-republic the United States formed.

Yeah, I know. We're at least ten to fifteen generations away from a single democratic-republican form of government for the planet because abuse of power and despotism still runs rampant, but that's what I'd like to see eventually. A single united planet.

[applegrove]

10. The big fear of American elites is that some global government will

The big fear of American elites is that some global government will dominate them and legislate laws the USA has to follow. The corporates are terrified of having to live in a world where NGOs and the like influence UN (or some uber-power policy) with all their good information and passion.. and they have to follow.

They look instead to rebuild the world without a UN. They look for the passion to be taken out of the power. They look for a world where legislatures are separate from corporations. Where Judicial branches cross borders and boundaries in regards to policing.. but that human rights are not applied to an American or a corporate army.

They want to live in a bubble that human beings that get together and vote .. cannot burst. But this will cause rejection if you do not have a two way relationship.

If you empathize you can understand their fear. But why should we all give up our great cost cutting health care systems for them? I don't understand that. Health care is the perfect example of where giving the monopoly to the government makes the system more efficient (cost cautious and encourages jobs) while delivering to everyone. Every Western nation in the world with the exception of the USA has one form of Medicare or another.

So where the markets have a bugaboo (preventive health keeps costs way down) why should we as people not take advantage of that.

They are always talking about the UN and how it needs to be reformed but when the UN does things like ensures money going to a country stays with the people there rather than some international conglomerate.. they go nuts.

Apparently all cost cutting that out of the pockets of people is fine. All cost cutting that comes out of the pockets of corporations is bad.

Deregulation is a thing that has to happen as the world faces new norms. As too world trade (unless we want to be as poor as Argentinians have been). People will be better off the whole world over (Africa too) if we do the global trade. And you need standards. And you should not be able to rob a company blind. But why the hell not just say.. you know about the health care.. that is one industry where it really does work out better if it is a government program so let's do that across the board. And you know the pharmaceuticals? That is one industry where you really have to give out monopolies for their new products so they keep doing the research.

I don't understand what is so scary about keeping with the mix that we have worked out over the last 100 years.

Some regulations for you, some regulations for the people.

And of course corporations will be making new kinds of money (on-line) and finding new markets (on-line) and winning and loosing and getting too big and warped (and getting slapped down) and jobs moving, etc. But why should they be the ones (or actors thereof) to make the rules.

I'm afraid this is going to backfire. And the trust between people and corporations will be eroded by the tribalism that the Bush WH tries to encourage. After all - if the rich go offshore, then the middle class will follow and one corporation will have to decide to be with the off-shores or to be on land in democracies. Or like Bill Gates.. he makes a decision to not back gay marriage because of fear of big churches and the progressive community fires back. (Tribalism.. isn't it purty?). And the corporations themselves will be diminished for the diminished tribal democracies they are a part of. It is more like the tribalism will force corporations to be political and take sides. There goes 1/2 of your market boys!!!

Classicism never works out for the markets. When the elites get too much power they skew things and mess up the markets. Look at the Middle Ages. Do the corporations want to have the monopoly on information that the Roman Catholic Church had? My god.. it took 1700 years for people to go from living in relatively civil societies one on top of each other to having soap. Couldn't the stinkyness & health problems have been solved earlier? Science wasn't a big issue for the church. Corporations came along and solved the soap issue when the markets finally began to become unregulated and when information went to those who sook it out. But with unfettered corporations being in control of the schools & research.. preventive health will suffer. There is always an 'externality' to any elite.

I don't see how switching to the 20th Century South American model of 'democracy' could be good for corporations. Those elites were afraid all the time too. If people get pissed off enough and activist.. they will just start joining co-ops and buying stuff from sources online. Or going with the corporations that represents their politics.

Now how has that saved corporations from being at the whim of human passion?

[bemildred]

12. That is because they would be unable to compete on a level field of play.

They are social darwinists as long and they are exempt.

[applegrove]

13. But aren't they fundamentally wrong to be on the side of stirring passions

up?

I updated my message. You may want to check.

[bemildred]

14. Wrong, stupid, take your pick.

It's been a long time since they had to be smart to get their way.
I would certainly agree that awakening the passions of the mob is
not the brightest trick, but they expect to rule the mob. They have
been right so far, but the times are changing.