A world without war is the only solution
25 Feb 2009, 5:31 am
Pixel8 wrote:
purambulator wrote:
Who agrees with me? And does anyone have any idea of how we achieve a world without war?
Agree to a large degree.
I would say however that Armagedon is inevitable and according to the book of revelation there will be 1K years of peace afterwards. I'm personally looking towards the Apocholypse (lifting of the veil) in 2012. Anyone whos taken acid has said "wow imagine if the whole world took it at the same time" well maybe this coming transition will put LSD in perspective. BIG shift in conciousness. Akin to round Earth or WE revolve around the Sun not it around us.
Maybe then we will finally be able to coexist without ego driven conflict.
Who agrees with me? And does anyone have any idea of how we achieve a world without war?
Agree to a large degree.
I would say however that Armagedon is inevitable and according to the book of revelation there will be 1K years of peace afterwards. I'm personally looking towards the Apocholypse (lifting of the veil) in 2012. Anyone whos taken acid has said "wow imagine if the whole world took it at the same time" well maybe this coming transition will put LSD in perspective. BIG shift in conciousness. Akin to round Earth or WE revolve around the Sun not it around us.
Maybe then we will finally be able to coexist without ego driven conflict.
The Book of Revelations was written by a raving maniac. I suspect he ate some of those funny mushrooms.
ruveyn
25 Feb 2009, 5:55 am
Perambulator wrote:
In my opinion capitalist democracy is the only system that works. But it'll never be what it wants to be until war is over and armies are disbanded. Until then the nations of the world have no choice but to have big governments which by their nature are proven to be authoritarian and unresponsive to the real needs of citizens, even the ones that claim to be paragons of democracy.
First: "Big government" is not necessary undemocratic. Look at Sweden, when the Swedish people voted over decades the social democratic party into government, which has a "big government" agenda and formed society along the lines of all-caring state; with the support of the vast majority of the people.
You may argue that is not a good model, but it was the democratic decision of the Swedish people.
Perambulator wrote:
Who agrees with me? And does anyone have any idea of how we achieve a world without war?
I think you start at the wrong end. That war is bad thing and mostly a bad business should clear. In my opinion the question should be much more: Why war exist? Who benefits from war? In which situations (historically and modern) it was able to maintain peace? And how did this work?
25 Feb 2009, 6:23 am
Quote:
War is the Zero State of Humanity. Everything else is a temporary abberation. There is, has been and will be a war going on somewhere 99.999% of the time...
That's conveniently missing out about 40,000 years of human history. It's only since we settled down and became farmers about 10,000 years ago that wars became common place. It would have been very silly of evolution to instill in us an intense desire to kill each other on a mass scale. It's all to do with the context, where there are two groups wanting access to limited resources wars are likely, but without that context not so much. Also in behavioral economics it has been shown that even in that situation the decision to go to war is deeply irrational, both groups would do better co-operating.
Also the idea that capitalist democracy is the only system that works is a pretty flawed idea as there are other systems that have worked very well in the past, continue to work today and there will no doubt be systems people have yet to conceive that work well in the future. Again this is all to do with context as what works in one place and one time wont in another and vice versa.
25 Feb 2009, 6:46 am
oli234 wrote:
Quote:
War is the Zero State of Humanity. Everything else is a temporary abberation. There is, has been and will be a war going on somewhere 99.999% of the time...
That's conveniently missing out about 40,000 years of human history. It's only since we settled down and became farmers about 10,000 years ago that wars became common place.
Wild tribes, which are not settled normally live in the constant state of war. Settling down and forming states and empires reduced the amount of warfare generally.
oli234 wrote:
Also the idea that capitalist democracy is the only system that works is a pretty flawed idea as there are other systems that have worked very well in the past, continue to work today and there will no doubt be systems people have yet to conceive that work well in the future. Again this is all to do with context as what works in one place and one time wont in another and vice versa.
Political systems do not emerge out-of-the-blue, but are closely liked with the technological and economic bases of a society. For a society which is mostly based on agricultural production a feudal system makes a lot of sense, for a society in which trade is important not.
The modern capitalist societies raised from former forms of societies which were no longer able to cover the new economic base of the society. The development of world trade and extensive money economies destroyed the feudal systems in Europe, as the progress of technology and trade destroyed the absolute monarchies of the Baroque and the Rococo period.
An feudal system of society would e.g. just not work with modern technology, even not with the steam engine.
25 Feb 2009, 7:03 am
Quote:
Wild tribes, which are not settled normally live in the constant state of war. Settling down and forming states and empires reduced the amount of warfare generally.
Whilst I agree that wild tribes did fight, I don't think you describe it as constant. Again it was all to do with context, when the population density of an area bought different groups into close contact fighting would occour. But my point is that warfare is not the de-facto state of humanity but rather bought about by certain situations. It's like you said in the earlier post, if we want to prevent war we just need to find out what situations lend themselves to war and what situations lend themselves to peace.
Quote:
Political systems do not emerge out-of-the-blue, but are closely liked with the technological and economic bases of a society. For a society which is mostly based on agricultural production a feudal system makes a lot of sense, for a society in which trade is important not.
The modern capitalist societies raised from former forms of societies which were no longer able to cover the new economic base of the society. The development of world trade and extensive money economies destroyed the feudal systems in Europe, as the progress of technology and trade destroyed the absolute monarchies of the Baroque and the Rococo period.
An feudal system of society would e.g. just not work with modern technology, even not with the steam engine.
The modern capitalist societies raised from former forms of societies which were no longer able to cover the new economic base of the society. The development of world trade and extensive money economies destroyed the feudal systems in Europe, as the progress of technology and trade destroyed the absolute monarchies of the Baroque and the Rococo period.
An feudal system of society would e.g. just not work with modern technology, even not with the steam engine.
Yes I think were in broad agreement here. If the original post I quoted had said that at a certain point in history
that capitalist democracy was the best option available to western industrial society's I wouldn't have had much argument. But to suppose it will always be this way is wrong, the context will change and then the systems will change with them, and also there are plenty of people in this world who don't live in an industrial society and to tell them that this would be best for them would be wrong.
MrMisanthrope
Deinonychus
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire
25 Feb 2009, 9:45 am
Sand wrote:
...
For a detailed analysis of the nature of finance capitalism and the problems it initiates see http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02232009.html
For a detailed analysis of the nature of finance capitalism and the problems it initiates see http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02232009.html
Finance Capitalisim (Mercantilisim) has been a problem since its inception - and certainly since the ill-advised elevation of Hamilton to the Treasury by G.Washinton. It is NOT true capitalisim since it requires government interference with the markets.
_________________
Malum Prohibitum, Malum Habenae Regum Est.
I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.
True Liberty Expressed as Fiction: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn
25 Feb 2009, 10:42 am
oli234 wrote:
Quote:
Wild tribes, which are not settled normally live in the constant state of war. Settling down and forming states and empires reduced the amount of warfare generally.
Whilst I agree that wild tribes did fight, I don't think you describe it as constant. Again it was all to do with context, when the population density of an area bought different groups into close contact fighting would occour. But my point is that warfare is not the de-facto state of humanity but rather bought about by certain situations. It's like you said in the earlier post, if we want to prevent war we just need to find out what situations lend themselves to war and what situations lend themselves to peace.
I am simply to lazy to look-up the research, but so fare I do remember war is with wild tribes the common state. In some respect this not that surprising. Making comprises needs a developed system of legal thinking (nature of a treaty, ways to determinate the context of a treaty and when the treaty is binding, etc.) which must be common with all involved.
oli234 wrote:
Quote:
Political systems do not emerge out-of-the-blue, but are closely liked with the technological and economic bases of a society. For a society which is mostly based on agricultural production a feudal system makes a lot of sense, for a society in which trade is important not.
The modern capitalist societies raised from former forms of societies which were no longer able to cover the new economic base of the society. The development of world trade and extensive money economies destroyed the feudal systems in Europe, as the progress of technology and trade destroyed the absolute monarchies of the Baroque and the Rococo period.
An feudal system of society would e.g. just not work with modern technology, even not with the steam engine.
The modern capitalist societies raised from former forms of societies which were no longer able to cover the new economic base of the society. The development of world trade and extensive money economies destroyed the feudal systems in Europe, as the progress of technology and trade destroyed the absolute monarchies of the Baroque and the Rococo period.
An feudal system of society would e.g. just not work with modern technology, even not with the steam engine.
Yes I think were in broad agreement here. If the original post I quoted had said that at a certain point in history
that capitalist democracy was the best option available to western industrial society's I wouldn't have had much argument.
I am not a prophet: In the current situation the capitalist democracy seems still a good model and I do see any alternative system raising which could compete with this model. I see current changes in exact structure, like a revaluation of the role of the nation state, especially in Europe, but I do not an general end to this model.
oli234 wrote:
But to suppose it will always be this way is wrong, the context will change and then the systems will change with them, and also there are plenty of people in this world who don't live in an industrial society and to tell them that this would be best for them would be wrong.
But there not a "plenty of people" within western democracy, which are not living in capitalist democracies. You find other models of society outside the "rich club of the west".
25 Feb 2009, 3:50 pm
Dussel wrote:
oli234 wrote:
Quote:
Wild tribes, which are not settled normally live in the constant state of war. Settling down and forming states and empires reduced the amount of warfare generally.
Whilst I agree that wild tribes did fight, I don't think you describe it as constant. Again it was all to do with context, when the population density of an area bought different groups into close contact fighting would occour. But my point is that warfare is not the de-facto state of humanity but rather bought about by certain situations. It's like you said in the earlier post, if we want to prevent war we just need to find out what situations lend themselves to war and what situations lend themselves to peace.
I am simply to lazy to look-up the research, but so fare I do remember war is with wild tribes the common state. In some respect this not that surprising. Making comprises needs a developed system of legal thinking (nature of a treaty, ways to determinate the context of a treaty and when the treaty is binding, etc.) which must be common with all involved.
I really am not sure if that is the case all the time, although a good example of some peoples known to have engaged in such is the Yanomamo of South America, who's male mortality was up to 1/3 due to violence.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
25 Feb 2009, 4:47 pm
I don't see how the existence of a few totalitarian states and a few relatively minor wars leads to a recession.
As I understand it capitalism is an up-and-down, sine-wave style cycle anyway, and this trough we're in now was made worse by the mountain of debt. I'm not an economist though. Nor do I really understand economics. The people on the news seem to know what they're talking about though.
jrknothead wrote:
No wait, I want cheeseburger world, where everything is made of cheeseburgers. Yep, cheeseburger world. Give me that world.
I hope cheeseburger world orbits no-cholesterol world.
25 Feb 2009, 5:01 pm
burningviolin wrote:
I don't see how the existence of a few totalitarian states and a few relatively minor wars leads to a recession.
The problem are not the wars, the problem are the financial cost of this war. Compare let say the costs of the two British campaigns in Afghanistan in 19th with the costs of the current campaign or the campaign the Soviet Union ran.
Even "minor wars" became so expensive that they bring the budgets of man industrial countries to their limits.
25 Feb 2009, 5:12 pm
Dussel wrote:
burningviolin wrote:
I don't see how the existence of a few totalitarian states and a few relatively minor wars leads to a recession.
The problem are not the wars, the problem are the financial cost of this war. Compare let say the costs of the two British campaigns in Afghanistan in 19th with the costs of the current campaign or the campaign the Soviet Union ran.
Even "minor wars" became so expensive that they bring the budgets of man industrial countries to their limits.
Yes, but how does that lead to a recession? I've not heard anybody claim that the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq caused this. I can understand situations like Britain in WW2 where there was limited access to resources, but I can't see these wars directly affecting the economy. A lot of companies actually made quite a bit of money from Iraq and Afghanistan.
25 Feb 2009, 5:26 pm
burningviolin wrote:
Quote:
The problem are not the wars, the problem are the financial cost of this war. Compare let say the costs of the two British campaigns in Afghanistan in 19th with the costs of the current campaign or the campaign the Soviet Union ran.
Even "minor wars" became so expensive that they bring the budgets of man industrial countries to their limits.
Even "minor wars" became so expensive that they bring the budgets of man industrial countries to their limits.
Yes, but how does that lead to a recession? I've not heard anybody claim that the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq caused this. I can understand situations like Britain in WW2 where there was limited access to resources, but I can't see these wars directly affecting the economy. A lot of companies actually made quite a bit of money from Iraq and Afghanistan.
It can lead to a recession if the governments are paying for this war with debt, which regarded inter-banks as cash. There is (was?) no big difference for a bank to own dollar banknotes or US-treasury bond. The US-administration pumped this way moeny into the system which does not have real goods as counterweight. This was one of the important factors which lead to assets-inflation which is just to collapse. If the US-government would raise the taxes for paying for this "war on terror" there wouldn't be a problem.
The money spend for the wars is wasted, but still in the system.
25 Feb 2009, 5:52 pm
Dussel wrote:
burningviolin wrote:
Yes, but how does that lead to a recession? I've not heard anybody claim that the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq caused this. I can understand situations like Britain in WW2 where there was limited access to resources, but I can't see these wars directly affecting the economy. A lot of companies actually made quite a bit of money from Iraq and Afghanistan.
It can lead to a recession if the governments are paying for this war with debt, which regarded inter-banks as cash. There is (was?) no big difference for a bank to own dollar banknotes or US-treasury bond. The US-administration pumped this way moeny into the system which does not have real goods as counterweight. This was one of the important factors which lead to assets-inflation which is just to collapse. If the US-government would raise the taxes for paying for this "war on terror" there wouldn't be a problem.
The money spend for the wars is wasted, but still in the system.
Okay, it may have been a factor, but was it really the most important one? I would have thought the collapse of the sub-prime mortgages had a much greater effect. Out of interest, how would you rate the causes for this recession?
MrMisanthrope
Deinonychus
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire
25 Feb 2009, 6:04 pm
burningviolin wrote:
...
Okay, it may have been a factor, but was it really the most important one? I would have thought the collapse of the sub-prime mortgages had a much greater effect. Out of interest, how would you rate the causes for this recession?
Okay, it may have been a factor, but was it really the most important one? I would have thought the collapse of the sub-prime mortgages had a much greater effect. Out of interest, how would you rate the causes for this recession?
You wouldn't be too wrong to suggest that the Sub Prime Mortgage fiasco has its roots in the need for Mercantilist Governments (like the US) to find novel ways of "stimulating" the economy through the abuse of fractional reserve accounting when the Military Industrial Complex is having trouble financing its own expansion...
_________________
Malum Prohibitum, Malum Habenae Regum Est.
I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.
True Liberty Expressed as Fiction: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn
25 Feb 2009, 6:06 pm
burningviolin wrote:
Okay, it may have been a factor, but was it really the most important one? I would have thought the collapse of the sub-prime mortgages had a much greater effect. Out of interest, how would you rate the causes for this recession?
The collapse of this sub-prime mortgages were "only" in the region of some $100s bio. This would, if all other indicators were sound, would cause some disturbance for a few weeks and the initial actions of the central bank in Feb. 2008 would be quite sufficient. The collapse of this sub-prime mortgages were only the tipping point of a deeper underlying problem of assets in the books, assessed in their value by an asset-inflation, which did not have a counterweight in real goods on the market.
Don't forget that so-called "war on terror" cost, according to different estimates between $2500 bio. to more $3000 bio. This much different categories than the sub-prime crash.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Hello, World! |
Yesterday, 9:48 pm |
| Hello, world! |
30 Mar 2024, 8:15 am |
| Understanding the world! |
19 Feb 2024, 9:07 am |
| I don't know where I belong in this world |
30 Mar 2024, 10:02 am |
