Taiwan or Formosa and Freedom

[RWStanding]

Taiwan or Formosa and Freedom
President elect Trump upset China by talking to the Formosa or Taiwan president, a place which is not recognised by USA as a separate nation or state. But this is largely a pragmatic state of affairs, in suppressing the small and weak in order to maintain peace with the larger players globally. The basis for Taiwan and other places being free or part of greater countries is barely addressed. It is interesting that Scotland could achieve independence. On the other hand Palestine is fading into obscurity with the advance of Israel since 1946. And Tibet is virtually forgotten.
We do indeed wish to avoid a global 'society' falling into chaos, as is the case in many regions where there are many bickering states.
A solution for anything that approaches Tyranny is like Rome or ancient China and many later examples we may be uncomfortable to mention. An empire is created by force or moral pressure, and thereafter controlled in an authoritarian way - not necessarily by an emperor, but by a politburo, a pope, and more subtlety by a populist majority. This has the sole merit of stability while conditions last that it is attuned to, politically and environmentally.
Tangentially opposed to that is some form or anarchism, based the call for freedom. Every region of the world that can exist in viable isolationism from others, becoming independent. Probably with a capitalist economy, but so controlled as to be nationally based. A fragile peace maintained by alliances, and some form of United Nations assembly.
Tangentially again. Altruistic democracy can only be likened to a vast cooperative. Each country internally independent, and in control of population, industry, the natural environment. Such a place as Taiwan, if it wishes to be independent and is economically and otherwise viable, being accorded this privilege. But instead of these 'states' acting in rampant competition with each other, they would be cooperative in maintaining a stability of wealth for everyone and a stability of population and environment.
There are no absolute opposites in social ethics in pragmatic terms.

[Harbal]

Taiwan or Formosa and Freedom
President elect Trump upset China by talking to the Formosa or Taiwan president, a place which is not recognised by USA as a separate nation or state. But this is largely a pragmatic state of affairs, in suppressing the small and weak in order to maintain peace with the larger players globally. The basis for Taiwan and other places being free or part of greater countries is barely addressed. It is interesting that Scotland could achieve independence. On the other hand Palestine is fading into obscurity with the advance of Israel since 1946. And Tibet is virtually forgotten.
We do indeed wish to avoid a global 'society' falling into chaos, as is the case in many regions where there are many bickering states.
A solution for anything that approaches Tyranny is like Rome or ancient China and many later examples we may be uncomfortable to mention. An empire is created by force or moral pressure, and thereafter controlled in an authoritarian way - not necessarily by an emperor, but by a politburo, a pope, and more subtlety by a populist majority. This has the sole merit of stability while conditions last that it is attuned to, politically and environmentally.
Tangentially opposed to that is some form or anarchism, based the call for freedom. Every region of the world that can exist in viable isolationism from others, becoming independent. Probably with a capitalist economy, but so controlled as to be nationally based. A fragile peace maintained by alliances, and some form of United Nations assembly.
Tangentially again. Altruistic democracy can only be likened to a vast cooperative. Each country internally independent, and in control of population, industry, the natural environment. Such a place as Taiwan, if it wishes to be independent and is economically and otherwise viable, being accorded this privilege. But instead of these 'states' acting in rampant competition with each other, they would be cooperative in maintaining a stability of wealth for everyone and a stability of population and environment.
There are no absolute opposites in social ethics in pragmatic terms.