Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Conundrum of Any Free People
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="curiousbrain" data-source="post: 830128" data-attributes="member: 31608"><p>To your general point, I'm reasonably confident I agree in that if any entity regards itself as holding a position of preeminence, it almost by definition implies some sort of rigid framework which grants the preeminence. If that framework were to change at all, the occupant of the preeminent position might suddenly find themselves not so important.</p><p></p><p>I think that it takes no great mental effort to view contemporary world events through that lens.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that last sentence highlights the point I was driving at in the original post - which is that the unevenness of world resources causes an imbalance through which preeminence as a world power is granted; the resource or resources which acts as the grantor of that position may change periodically as the world goes through various technological epochs, but that imbalance always exists.</p><p></p><p>Even using a hypothetical economic system that was perfectly equitable in terms of exchange, the location of resources that the world runs on are uneven; that grants power because Bob, as the entity with the most resources, doesn't have to bargain with anyone; everyone else, meanwhile, must wheel and deal with Bob to get what they want - even if they get great prices, Bob has intrinisic power they do not.</p><p></p><p>Accepting that, and then having Bob proclaim that he wants to spread freedom around the world, is a conundrum - or, at least, I think it is.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Bob sounds like an enormous buttwipe.</p><p></p><p>But, in the context of the original post, I would say the following: Bob's citizens, motivated by a combination of self-interest and nationalism, should be very happy about what Bob did to Ted; not only did they increase their own resources and remove a possible obstacle in the future, but they were able to secure their continued position of power throughout the world. And to say nothing of the continued subserviance of Alice ...</p><p></p><p>Now, if Bob's citizens ever started to really believe in equality and consider the sacrifice they would have to make in order to grant equal footing to everyone else in the world, that would be a real problem for Bob. Ted and everyone like him would be psyched, to be sure.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Keep them coming.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="curiousbrain, post: 830128, member: 31608"] To your general point, I'm reasonably confident I agree in that if any entity regards itself as holding a position of preeminence, it almost by definition implies some sort of rigid framework which grants the preeminence. If that framework were to change at all, the occupant of the preeminent position might suddenly find themselves not so important. I think that it takes no great mental effort to view contemporary world events through that lens. I think that last sentence highlights the point I was driving at in the original post - which is that the unevenness of world resources causes an imbalance through which preeminence as a world power is granted; the resource or resources which acts as the grantor of that position may change periodically as the world goes through various technological epochs, but that imbalance always exists. Even using a hypothetical economic system that was perfectly equitable in terms of exchange, the location of resources that the world runs on are uneven; that grants power because Bob, as the entity with the most resources, doesn't have to bargain with anyone; everyone else, meanwhile, must wheel and deal with Bob to get what they want - even if they get great prices, Bob has intrinisic power they do not. Accepting that, and then having Bob proclaim that he wants to spread freedom around the world, is a conundrum - or, at least, I think it is. Bob sounds like an enormous buttwipe. But, in the context of the original post, I would say the following: Bob's citizens, motivated by a combination of self-interest and nationalism, should be very happy about what Bob did to Ted; not only did they increase their own resources and remove a possible obstacle in the future, but they were able to secure their continued position of power throughout the world. And to say nothing of the continued subserviance of Alice ... Now, if Bob's citizens ever started to really believe in equality and consider the sacrifice they would have to make in order to grant equal footing to everyone else in the world, that would be a real problem for Bob. Ted and everyone like him would be psyched, to be sure. Keep them coming. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Conundrum of Any Free People
Top