I totally agree, except not necessarily with the warfare part, but certainly a trade embargo would be effective. However, I believe the U.N. is a forum, not a governing body. I don’t believe it is set up to enforce like that.
Actually come to think of it… the UN DOES do that. There are lots of countries under U.N. embargo. Thing is, the U.N. won’t place an embargo on the U.S. because, well, they just can’t. The implications would be disastrous to everyone.
They also can’t place in embargo on the U.S., because, as a permenant member of the Security Council, the U.S. is one of eight (I think) nations with veto power over U.N. initiatives, and you can bet we’d veto an embargo on ourselves.
That lack of equality of power among nations is one of the problems with the U.N. as its currently structured. It allows for powerful nations (like the U.S.) to make dangerous and ill-founded actions (like the War in Iraq) without fear of repercusions.
That’s not to say I’m against the U.N., quite the opposite, its simply in need of a restructuring that will give more power to smaller nations.
Nugan stated:
Gasset uses the word ‘understanding’ which comes close to what you are talking about. It can convey both knowledge and empathy.
Alien Corpuscle Bath Writes:
You’re preaching to the choir here brother/sister. My country has a very ignorant and arrogant foreign policy.
and…
Could you explain that?
I like Camus’ conception. A World where Liberty and Justice prevail.
Gandhi said something along the lines of ‘what you wish to change in the world you must first change in yourself’. I totally agree, since whatever system you set up will only be a projection of yourself, and if you are screwed up, then the system will be too. I believe the fundamental problem is peoples’ unhealed emotional trauma, which leads them to act in dysfunctional ways, so the thing to do is encourage and facilitate healing.
The effects of healing yourself can spread quickly through informal networks - one theory being that everyone is connected to everyone else through a chain of six people.
On a larger scale, it is my impression that these big institutions seem to come into being mostly after a catastrophe has happened. The U.N. was formed after WWII, the League of Nations after WWI (I think). They are formed by necessity, and are only given any power when those who already hold the power can see no other way, and are forced to do so. An International Court of Justice would seem to be a very good idea if you are wanting to encourage better behaviour around the world, but to date there is no way that the U.S. would agree to have its’ soldiers tried there.
The beauty of the self-healing approach is that it is far more under your own control, and can impact on others regardless of what the U.S. or al-quaeda, decide to do.
Welcome to the forum, Michael.
As i said before
Which echoes your sentiments from Ghandi. The Indian people seem to really understand this (my favorite Indian thinker being Krishnamurti) e.g. Buddha, Krishnamurti.
To realize that “I am the World, the World is me.” as Krishnamurti states, and to progress along the road to healing is easier in the east where the ego is not king. In the west when people realize that changing the universe, starts with changing themselves, the process easily erodes into narcissism, solipsism, or romanticism all of which place more value on the moral agent. The east does not have this problem.
What do you think?
That’s true. There are many parties involved in the play for world power. Irael is also a rogue nation that doesn’t listen to the U.N. and a major player in the major events in the political hot spots of the world. I do, however, believe that the U.S. influences and sets an example for the rest of the world of what can and can’t be done. Usually if a nation wants to do something against international law they turn to the U.S. for approval, not the U.N. That’s because the U.S. has shown that they hold the power of execution while the U.N. does nothing.
Very true. The U.S. and Israel have repeatedly vetoed motions to call all nations to obey international law. They do need some serious work on the structure of the U.N. The U.N. can perform embargos and wars if it is agreed on unanimously, they just don’t. All countries should have the same power, even the U.S. should be subject to all the same penalties as everyone else regaurdless of the effect on global economy. Besides the global economy is over rated. The way the Bretton Woods institutions have been intruding into the sovereignty of nations, and making sure most cash flows go directly into the hands of the richest 2% of the world, the global economy needs a major make-over too. Human rights are more important then money, and nations and financial institutions need to start realizing that…
Not everybody is going to behave well just because some or most individuals of a nation do. I think the degredation of our systems is what influences many individuals to behave in destructive manors. People are largely a product of the system that they come from. BTW: there is a world court.
What is perfect to one is not perfect to another. Whether or not perfection is achievable depends on personal opinion of the perciever
Marshall -
I’ve never been further East than Turkey, so my experience of the East is only based on what I’ve read and encountered in the media. My impression is that it is possible to look at in terms of whether someone is right or left brain dominant. I see the East as generally being more right brain dominant, which in terms of spirituality and religion would mean that they look at things in terms of all the shades of grey, between the black and white of a left brain thinker, that they’ll tend to be more accepting of other religions, and more in touch with their emotional sides. The West I see as being more left brain dominant, so their religions look at things in terms of black and white, heaven and hell, and tend to be more righteous and so push their beliefs onto others, and also to be less in touch with their emotional sides, but more with the mental.
With regard to what you said in your post, I think that the East may appear to be more spiritual and less attached to the ego, but their is also perhaps a spiritual passivity, and insufficient appreciation that the ego can be of great value on the spiritual path. The West may exhibit unhealthy individualism and materialism, but there is also a real dynamism which can provide the engine for change.
In my view what is needed is to achieve balance and harmony between the right and left brain, so that their respective strengths can support each other.
[Alien Corpuscle Bath wrote -
Not everybody is going to behave well just because some or most individuals of a nation do. I think the degredation of our systems is what influences many individuals to behave in destructive manors. People are largely a product of the system that they come from. BTW: there is a world court.
[/quote]
I agree that not everyone will behave well just because some or most individuals do, or at least not immediately. The degredation of our systems does influence the behaviour of others, but for me there is a prior question, which is why the systems are degrading. In my opinion, the answer to that is because of the unhealthiness of the individuals operating them. I think many systems could work well if everyone was emotionally healthy, but they are not, so the systems don’t. Are people a product of the system they come from? I’m sure that the system has a big effect, but I think it is a two-way process, so that the system is a product of the people. In my view it is also the case that people come before the system, both in the sense that the system is created by people, and that the system is there to look after the needs of the people, not that the people are there to look after the needs of the system.
I believe there are 3 main ways to motivate someone to change their behaviour, through love, fear or reasoned discussion. An ideal system might operate through love and reasoned discussion, but in my view the present systems also use quite a lot of fear - through the threat of punishments of one sort or another. The problem with the changes brought about by fear is that they are not permanent, and in fact tend to store up more problems for the future. The U.S. isn’t bringing peace to the Middle East, it is temporarily subduing an aggressive force through the use of greater force, but is also creating underswell of resentment towards themselves which will remain until it has been able to express itself.
I agree that not everyone will behave well just because some or most individuals do, or at least not immediately. The degredation of our systems does influence the behaviour of others, but for me there is a prior question, which is why the systems are degrading. In my opinion, the answer to that is because of the unhealthiness of the individuals operating them. I think many systems could work well if everyone was emotionally healthy, but they are not, so the systems don’t. Are people a product of the system they come from? I’m sure that the system has a big effect, but I think it is a two-way process, so that the system is a product of the people. In my view it is also the case that people come before the system, both in the sense that the system is created by people, and that the system is there to look after the needs of the people, not that the people are there to look after the needs of the system.
I believe there are 3 main ways to motivate someone to change their behaviour, through love, fear or reasoned discussion. An ideal system might operate through love and reasoned discussion, but in my view the present systems also use quite a lot of fear - through the threat of punishments of one sort or another. The problem with the changes brought about by fear is that they are not permanent, and in fact tend to store up more problems for the future. The U.S. isn’t bringing peace to the Middle East, it is temporarily subduing an aggressive force through the use of greater force, but is also creating underswell of resentment towards themselves which will remain until it has been able to express itself.
[/quote]
I agree with most of that. I don’t think that our system in the U.S. was created by the people though. I didn’t have any say in creating it. Neither did anyone I know. In fact it was originally created by a bunch of white slave owning elitists. I think the system is designed to make people feel like they control it when they really don’t. Why aren’t there ever any poor people in office? It’s still mostly rich white men, and a token black, mexican, or female here and there. There has been much recent evidence of the elections being rigged or being completely inaccurate as well in several states. The companies who get the contracts to design and put in the voting machines are owned by politically active conservative Republicans (go figure). The people do have an effect on the system, but the system has ways of getting around the people, and it does it quite frequently. At the same time the people have the power to overcome the system, but the motivation for them to do that is very little. As long as the government makes sure they maintain a certain level of comfort, they can get away with anything…
How about this guys? We all mind our own business! And the reason for that is because we all like to live the way we like and so there will be no impositions on us. If someone is tecnologically backward, fine, if someone is emotionally backward, fine. No criticisms please!
As far as I know, the UN didn’t resolve the Kashmir issue nor that Israeli/Palestinian thing nor could stop Bush from invading Iraq, which is why so much terrorism is there in the first place, so even if we have an international justice system what force could it have? None!
Conclusion: Everybody mind your own business please! Or in other words, follow the golden rule that Christ advocated, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It means treat everyone as you would like to be treated please.
allow me to doubt that…
which doesn’t necessarily mean, let it be… if you don’t defend the weak, try bein weak…
it’s like this
we must organise the world with the idea that we could be born anywhere at any place, in any culture, under any circumstance, as a human being… and we’d have to organise it so that we would all be ok with the place that would randomly given to us…
No, no! You take it too seriously. By the way I don’t really know who said the golden rule but I know Christ said, “Love thy neighbour.” And I know it means that we should treat everyone like we would like to be treated ourself. And this is the same as the golden rule. Whatever…
You’re taking everything very seriously here and also stretching it too far, further than is comfortable and so you are not really following the rule I’d say. To follow the golden rule DOES NOT NEED TO BE A BURDEN but only a way of life, a philosophy.