It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Reward" works far better than punishment.
I think your position is that there exists some reward which is more effective than money. I'm not sure what that would be, and I'd be delighted to learn.
Throwing money at them will not really change their behavior. It will only "buy" compliance until such time as they no longer need it.
Although, the Japanese and the Germans have been remarkably peaceful since the end of World War II.
I feel that, as I said earlier, the ONLY WAY to achieve world-wide peace is by TALKING. Not by bombing, starving, or threatening.
I like that, but I can't imagine a situation in which the entire world would unite on this. Islamic countries, China, Russia, any of the large countries would always find someone to talk with them. And if the ostracization you envision includes cutting off all trade, we have just introduced the concept of world-wide sanctions. I believe many would oppose that, and those that support it may claim that not all countries would cooperate. Some countries, such as China, might say "We can be self-sufficient for years. This also means you don't get the rare earths you need for technology. Remember? We have 98% of the world's supply."
Failing TALKING, then the next effective means would be complete ignoring. Global ostracization.
I certainly agree that talk is far and away my first choice. Complete agreement with you. Sometimes, it doesn't seem to work. I think the Middle-East problem between Israel and it's neighbors has been going on for at least 60 years, and the talk in that time has been of monumental proportions, but war still could break out at any time.
Peace talks, diplomacy (REAL diplomacy, not spies posing as diplomats), and a hand-shake are FAR better tools for promoting cooperation.
In any case, it has occurred to me lately that there is really NOTHING to be done. That all of my efforts (writing being my only real talent for activism) are for naught. . . . We aren't the "model nation" any more - that is a matter of fact.
Is there a "model nation"? I don't know. Canada and Iceland seem to come close, though. I think.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by tachyonmind
I note that you are a relatively recent addition to the ATS (Family? Community? Mob?) and I'm glad you're here. Yours was a very solid contribution and really expanded my thinking.
I wouldn't dare quibble, it would get in the way of your introduction of the golden rule. Let's consider that for just a moment
the fundamental moral standard is the golden rule, and it is tied to the universal law of karma.
I know a man who was married, since divorced, who struggled with depression. His wife offered no understanding or assistance of any kind, even when he was performing self-destructive acts which could have easily resulted in his death and that of innocent others. He lived in a state which allowed for 72-hour psychiatric holds in the case of someone who was a danger to himself or others. In that case, wouldn't you want to be locked up for three days while an attempt was made to look for a solution to your madness?
In that case, I believe the golden rule would have allowed for, nay, required the use of force for the protection of his life and others'. Yet his wife mentioned the situation to no one, but failed to intervene to control his madness.
I suspect the international situation may be similar. An individual government may appear which threatens suicide to the country and death to many innocents. Shall not force be applied to prevent that? Such application of force would be based on the idea that any government, when sane, would want to be stopped in those circumstances, an example of the golden rule.
I almost completely agree with this. I would modify it slightly by saying we should all work for the betterment and advancement of others, as we hope they would work to help us. I think love is the desire, and help to achieve, the very highest good for someone else.
the golden rule stipulates all people must offer each other the same support and understanding they would expect to receive from others, regardless of race, sexuality, religion, or personal morality..
Again, fine post, and I hope to see more of you.
In the worst case, where the friend you have snubbed as pulled a gun on you, you are justified in killing him. War remains an option, albeit an ugly and disgusting one.
Consider expanding your world-wide sanctions. Jam every bit of electronic communication they have, radio, TV, Internet. That coupled with ceasing trade and the movement of people to or from the country, might be significant. I know some countries will try to get around that wall. Could we station troops to turn back such attempts?
There is no ideal nation, but we can find ideal principles. Can we publish those to every citizen of the world saying "This is what you have a right to as a human being. Let us know, somehow, if it's not happening, and we'll try to help.
Finally, consider my idea of a "League of Free Nations" which I briefly described to johnb, above. I really like that one. It would not be made up of ideal countries, but it would include Canada and Iceland working for a common and noble ideal.
(Well, then, "Butter my buns and call me a biscuit." I don't know what that means, but I heard it somewhere and have always wanted to use it.) If there really is "another" government which is calling the shots (metaphorically and literally) and they want war, I really have little idea of how to proceed. I'd have to think about that for a long time to even get a beginning on what to do.
That would be better than war.....
but somehow I doubt the 'shadow government' would allow it - it seems they want war instead.
Mr. Siljander builds a compelling case that any faithful reading of religion and its teachings should serve to unite, not divide. --H.E. Ban Ki Moon
Secretary General of the United Nations
"A book of enormous courage and spiritual power ... essential reading for every Christian, Muslim and Jew of good will around the world.
- The Washington Times
Absolutely right. I'm hoping, through discussion with people like you and wildtimes, that we can form a reasonable framework for resolving these issues.
First let me say that this is certainly not a black and white issue.
Radical interventionist policies can backfire and lead to wars. Some issues are simply not worth the trouble intervention would bring with itself, or not worth it at all.
But many of the posters in this thread would deny it. We haven't even reached the point, in this thread, where there is 100% agreement on using force to prevent genocide.
On the other hand, nobody can deny that in cases of widespread human rights abuses forced intervention is just. International law recognizes this too. If someone says that some lines on a map or cultural differences justify widespread human rights abuses, then that is truly a morally infantile position..
I think it is a good and useful discussion to determine which violations deserve which kind of punishment. I'm not yet persuaded that war to preserve Gay rights is the best approach, perhaps sanctions as a first step? Or maybe we could ignore it?
In this case, when gays are given long jail terms, I agree with military intervention in principle. But in practice I think it often would do more damage than good. So I think we must find other, peaceful means to stop it.
Where there are countries that amass great arms, there will always be war. If a nation like America or England said, "We will not go to war at any price. We are getting rid of all munitions," the example would be so great that there would be no glory from a nation that would try to take them over. There would be no war.