The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

How about the UN?

Seriously? When did the UN ever have power to legislate anything?

It stopped having that power when it became almost immediately apparent that nations with permanent member status on the Security Council were using their status toward their own interests.

It never had any power. The UN is a symbolic body, a quasi-diplomatic one. It has no army, no legislative authority, no actual means of enforcement, and it does not make any laws for anybody. So there's no way to legislate war out of existence, and certainly not through the UN.

So that won't work. How are you going to make war illegal, then?

[Gary Childress]

Seriously? When did the UN ever have power to legislate anything?

It stopped having that power when it became almost immediately apparent that nations with permanent member status on the Security Council were using their status toward their own interests.

It never had any power. The UN is a symbolic body, a quasi-diplomatic one. It has no army, no legislative authority, no actual means of enforcement, and it does not make any laws for anybody. So there's no way to legislate war out of existence, and certainly not through the UN.

So that won't work. How are you going to make war illegal, then?

I don't know. How do you intend to make war illegal without a UN? War is between nations. How would two nations stop a war with each other?

[Immanuel Can]

And who would grant it any?

Anyone who would like to see nations of the world resolve their issues between each other neutrally, diplomatically, and peacefully.

That's not realistic. Most member states in the UN are actually guilty of various kinds of violence, abuse, enslavement, war, and totalitarianism.

As for the so-called "Security Council" it includes, good luck getting Russia and China to agree. And since both hold veto power, you can forget that route.

So you need more than wishes. You need some kind of actual means of legislating that nations that want to go to war are not allowed to do so.

[Immanuel Can]

It stopped having that power when it became almost immediately apparent that nations with permanent member status on the Security Council were using their status toward their own interests.

It never had any power. The UN is a symbolic body, a quasi-diplomatic one. It has no army, no legislative authority, no actual means of enforcement, and it does not make any laws for anybody. So there's no way to legislate war out of existence, and certainly not through the UN.

So that won't work. How are you going to make war illegal, then?

I don't know. How do you intend to make war illegal without a UN? War is between nations. How would two nations stop a war with each other?

Well, that's the problem. Nations like war. That sounds perverse to say, but judging by the frequency with which nations have practiced it, it's one of their favourite hobbies.

The problem is not in war itself. It's in the human nature that is attracted to using violence to force others into subjection. Like I said, the corruption precedes the act of war, and thus is not itself merely a product of it.

[Gary Childress]

And who would grant it any?

Anyone who would like to see nations of the world resolve their issues between each other neutrally, diplomatically, and peacefully.

That's not realistic. Most member states in the UN are actually guilty of various kinds of violence, abuse, enslavement, war, and totalitarianism.

As for the so-called "Security Council" it includes, good luck getting Russia and China to agree. And since both hold veto power, you can forget that route.

So you need more than wishes. You need some kind of actual means of legislating that nations that want to go to war are not allowed to do so.

OK. So now what do we do? Do we all agree to disband the UN and form something else, or do we seek to reform the UN. Or do those of us who don't want war go into our caves, houses, or plastic tents and hope the world is still there when we come out?

[Immanuel Can]

Anyone who would like to see nations of the world resolve their issues between each other neutrally, diplomatically, and peacefully.

That's not realistic. Most member states in the UN are actually guilty of various kinds of violence, abuse, enslavement, war, and totalitarianism.

As for the so-called "Security Council" it includes, good luck getting Russia and China to agree. And since both hold veto power, you can forget that route.

So you need more than wishes. You need some kind of actual means of legislating that nations that want to go to war are not allowed to do so.

OK. So now what do we do? Do we all agree to disband the UN and form something else, or do we seek to reform the UN. Or do those of us who don't want war go into our caves, houses, or plastic tents and hope the world is still there when we come out?

Well, the American founding fathers were wiser in this than we are. They realized that human nature is essentially corruptible, and that even people who start out good don't always stay that way. So they foresaw the necessity of "checks and balances" to keep too much power from falling into corrupt hands. So they did things like limiting presidential terms, dividing powers among the various levels of government, limiting centralized authority, and putting into place means for impeachment and even recall at both the local and national levels. They established rules for voting, as well, which we need to expand but are pretty good staring points. They maybe didn't do enough, but they did quite a bit.

What they did not do was create sufficient authority to limit presidential authority to declare war, or sufficient safeguards against all forms of corruption that might induce people to want war. At that time, the military-industrial complex was not a thing; nor was mass media manipulation; nor was centralized banking; nor were effective business monopolies of the size of a Blackrock or an Amazon. Even taxation was not what it is today: the personal income tax, for example, didn't exist until WW1, and was supposed to dissolve after that. So unfortunately, the founding fathers could not safeguard us against all that. But we could add laws to limit the access of such bodies to government, or to investigate government practices of other kinds.

But the idea of legislating war out of existence by fiat, well, that's just never going to happen.

[Gary Childress]

Well, the American founding fathers were wiser in this than we are.

OK. So if the American founding fathers were here today (unfortunately they aren't) how do you think they would solve the problems the world currently faces?

[Gary Childress]

But the idea of legislating war out of existence by fiat, well, that's just never going to happen.

OK. So you would like to take the go into our caves, houses or tents and see if the world is still here when we come out approach. Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the American founding fathers were wiser in this than we are.

OK. So if the American founding fathers were here today (unfortunately they aren't) how do you think they would solve the problems the world currently faces?

You can't solve the world's problems. You certainly can't solve them by giving more power to corruptible individuals. What you need, instead, are more checks and balances on power. You need smaller governments with less power, and tighter controls on what they do. You need a voting system that's transparent and reliable, too.

[Gary Childress]

Well, the American founding fathers were wiser in this than we are.

OK. So if the American founding fathers were here today (unfortunately they aren't) how do you think they would solve the problems the world currently faces?

You can't solve the world's problems. You certainly can't solve them by giving more power to corruptible individuals. What you need, instead, are more checks and balances on power. You need smaller governments with less power, and tighter controls on what they do. You need a voting system that's transparent and reliable, too.

I know I can't solve the world's problems. The world's problems can only be solved by the world, right?

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So if the American founding fathers were here today (unfortunately they aren't) how do you think they would solve the problems the world currently faces?

You can't solve the world's problems. You certainly can't solve them by giving more power to corruptible individuals. What you need, instead, are more checks and balances on power. You need smaller governments with less power, and tighter controls on what they do. You need a voting system that's transparent and reliable, too.

I know I can't solve the world's problems. The world's problems can only be solved by the world, right?

The world's problems cannot be solved. And attempts to solve them, particularly on a world scale, will only ever result in greater human rights disasters and piles more dead people.

So what we need to do is solve our own problems. We cannot control the Middle East, or Europe, or Asia, or Africa, or even South and Central America. What we are in charge of is ourselves. And we can make ourselves the example of how things should rightly be done, and hope that other nations see in that an example worth following.

America has come closest to being that. There is a reason why everybody in the world wants to get into the US. But it's fallen short, so far, of its potential to be the exemplary country. It should focus on being better, rather than on trying to make other people better. And it should start by cleaning its own house, removing corrupt politicians, securing its own elections, recovering its moral compass, reconstituting its educational apparatus, securing its own territory, treating its citizens well and cleaning up its own streets.

So there's lots to be done at home. Before you try to fix the world, clean up your own house. If you can't, then you sure aren't fit to tell the world what it should do.

[Gary Childress]

You can't solve the world's problems. You certainly can't solve them by giving more power to corruptible individuals. What you need, instead, are more checks and balances on power. You need smaller governments with less power, and tighter controls on what they do. You need a voting system that's transparent and reliable, too.

I know I can't solve the world's problems. The world's problems can only be solved by the world, right?

The world's problems cannot be solved. And attempts to solve them, particularly on a world scale, will only ever result in greater human rights disasters and piles more dead people.

Wars are "disasters" that cause "piles of dead people" too. So am I still correct that you are in favor of us going back into our caves, houses, or tents and wait to see what happens?

[Immanuel Can]

I know I can't solve the world's problems. The world's problems can only be solved by the world, right?

The world's problems cannot be solved. And attempts to solve them, particularly on a world scale, will only ever result in greater human rights disasters and piles more dead people.

Wars are "disasters" that cause "piles of dead people" too. So am I still correct that you are in favor of us going back into our caves, houses, or tents and wait to see what happens?

Did you read anything I wrote?

You cut it all out, made absolutely no comment on all I said about America, and then added things I certainly did not say. Why did you do that?

[Gary Childress]

The world's problems cannot be solved. And attempts to solve them, particularly on a world scale, will only ever result in greater human rights disasters and piles more dead people.

Wars are "disasters" that cause "piles of dead people" too. So am I still correct that you are in favor of us going back into our caves, houses, or tents and wait to see what happens?

Did you read anything I wrote?

You cut it all out, made absolutely no comment on all I said about America, and then added things I certainly did not say. Why did you do that?

I'm not doing anything you don't do also. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Immanuel Can]

Wars are "disasters" that cause "piles of dead people" too. So am I still correct that you are in favor of us going back into our caves, houses, or tents and wait to see what happens?

Did you read anything I wrote?

You cut it all out, made absolutely no comment on all I said about America, and then added things I certainly did not say. Why did you do that?

I'm not doing anything you don't do also. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

In my responses, I always elect what's worthy of being quoted on the basis that I intend to remark on it. If I don't include something, it's always still in the original message; and I don't quote it only because I either agree with it already, or don't see it as requiring a comment from me, for some other reason (if it's not asking for any response from me, for example, or in more rare cases, when it's embarassing to the speaker or actually not intelligent enough to require any comment at all. In these latter, I try to avoid humiliating the speaker, not because I wish to misrepresent the comment).

But I made a substantial answer to your question of what one should do, one I believe is apt and true if one is desiring to eliminate war. And you completely ignored it.

So no, you're not doing what I do.

Do you have anything to say about the solution I proposed?