Are you a Chinese national and posting from China?

Are you a wumao?

Are you a Little Pink?

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2022 at 11:16am:


Nonsense.
How many UN resolutions are ignored without consequence?  How would your UNSC enforce its decisions?

You are talking about some vague, idiotic world government that would preside over a world where everyone has exactly the same resources, education, gifts, interests, and all conflicts are just misunderstandings between friends, easily remedied.

A wholly unreal fantasy calculated to disguise your agit prop for Chinese hegemony and unipolar world. But nobody wants a world remade in China's image. It would be a global gulag of kitsch and braiwashing.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2022 at 1:03pm:


Already explained???     

Explained like how to play the flute was explained:  blow in one end and move your fingers up and down the holes and... er... that's it?

Frank wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2022 at 1:19pm:


That all you got?  Surely you can (.....!) explain the difference in principle as noted above? 

Frank wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2022 at 2:25pm:


The reformed UNSC as described will have all the power it needs to maintain international  peace.

Can't you understand the difference between what is now and what will be soon?

Quote:


No, because 196 countries (outside the UNSC) would not have militaries capable of mounting external aggression, ie war.  

Quote:


This is the error in that statement: "murder is punished in every country" - correct -, "but has not been eliminated anywhere" - also correct, but only because the behaviour of two individuals in close proximity cannot be guaranteed by law.

Whereas  the behaviour of two NATIONS (whether proximate or not) CAN be guaranteed by an international rulesbased system backed by a UNSC without veto, simply because of the logistics involved in mounting a war.   

Quote:


Well, the Chinese  want friendly relations with all countries. Russia is hankering after the glory days....and the US wants to maintain global hegemony in support of its "America First" dreams.

Quote:


$10 billion...while it spent $750 billion on enforcing (via the Pentagon's military industrial complex) its version of a "rules-based system" on the globe. "Fun fact" indeed.

Quote:


That's the stupidity of the UNSC veto, enabling the "US agenda" to be blocked by those members who oppose that agenda. The solution is upholding the agenda of  UN UDHR,  by a  UNSC without veto. 

Quote:


Oz had the 13th largest economy then, so that contribution is reasonable.

Quote:


And how much weight should countries with a per capita GDP of $10,000 pull?

Ayn Marx wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2022 at 7:12pm:

You'd need Peter Sellers, Peter Cooke and Mike Myers to make up a script that includes Chinese wumao / little pinks.

Frank wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2022 at 9:33pm:


That's not debate.

Let's try again. You wrote:

Quote:


I explained your mistake, thus:

"murder is punished in every country" - correct -, "but has not been eliminated anywhere" - also correct, but only because the behaviour of two individuals in close proximity cannot be guaranteed by law.

Whereas  the behaviour of two NATIONS (whether proximate or not) CAN be guaranteed by an international rules-based system (in which war is de-legalized)backed by a UNSC without veto, simply because of the huge logistics involved in mounting a war. 

In effect we are relieving nations of the need to maintain their own militaries, since the UNSC (without veto) would indeedbe able to guarantee peace between nations, as per an international rules based system.

It's wonderful to see the deluded individual "freedom", ideologue coming a cropper over such simple logic: he thinks that because individuals can break the law, that means that nations can therefore also break the law.

Fallacy of composition....deluded sovereign individual ideologues always stuff up   in matters of macro-economic and collective realities. 

(Keynes pointed out that if everyone is thrifty in an economic downturn, that will worsen the downturn).

And that's why   consensus one party meritocracies will prove to be the better form of governance, as advancing  AI and IT enable better data collection and policy creation.