Why Do We, the Sheeple, Are Almost Always So Easily Bamboozled Into Believing that Imaginary Security Threats Warrant Lavish Funding?

 

https://factsandtheoriessite.wordpress.com/

People worry.

Then people fear.

Then people tend to act unreasonably.

Unreasonable behavior is detrimental to people's wellbeing.

It is normal. We have survived because we have avoided numerous dangers along the road. On the other hand paralyzing fear can prevent us from using valuable resources where they are most needed. Therefore it is most important to think before we act, doubt before we believe, analyze before we claim to understand.

Following is a quote that impressed and saddened me at the same time. There are great minds that warn us but we listen and don't hear, look and don't see....

For a bit of history:

"The English government presents, just now, a curious phenomenon. Seeing that the French and English nations are getting rid of the prejudices and false notions formerly entertained against each other, and which have cost them so much money, that government seems to be placarding its need of a foe; for unless it finds one somewhere, no pretext exists for the enormous revenue and taxation now deemed necessary.

Therefore, it seeks in Russia the enemy it has lost in France, and appears to say to the universe, or to say to itself. "If nobody will be so kind as to become my foe, I shall need no more fleets nor armies, and shall be forced to reduce my taxes. The American war enabled me to double the taxes; the Dutch business to add more; the Nootka humbug gave me a pretext for raising three millions sterling more; but unless I can make an enemy of Russia the harvest from wars will end. I was the first to incite Turk against Russian, and now I hope to reap a fresh crop of taxes."

If the miseries of war, and the flood of evils it spreads over a country, did not check all inclination to mirth, and turn laughter into grief, the frantic conduct of the government of England would only excite ridicule. But it is impossible to banish from one's mind the images of suffering which the contemplation of such vicious policy presents. To reason with governments, as they have existed for ages, is to argue with brutes. It is only from the nations themselves that reforms can be expected. There ought not now to exist any doubt that the peoples of France, England, and America, enlightened and enlightening each other, shall henceforth be able, not merely to give the world an example of good government, but by their united influence enforce its practice."

 

Thomas Paine

https://amazon.com/Mish-Mash-Elli

I am

 

I am the way, the truth and the life….

The most important egoist – that’s Me!

Knowledge and cooperation are the two most important tools that the individual has to survive and succeed.

Knowledge – for obvious reasons – to be able to achieve his or her dreams, satisfy desires and learn how to yearn for more.

Cooperation for the same reasons – plus to disincentivize other people from encroaching on one’s life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

There is a story about a Chinese emperor who was the wisest person because he could learn something even from the dumbest person he met. And the dumbest person was dumb due to being unable to learn even from the wisest emperor.

Knowledge not only provides the means to achieve one’s goals but also clues on how to do that easier, lazier, more efficient – it teaches us shortcuts.

But there is irrelevant knowledge some would say – like astronomy, for example.

That may seem so.

But when Neanderthals were competing with our ancestors for a place in the future – we  won because we were more creative. The Neanderthals were bigger stronger and only engaged in inventing new tools when those tools seemed to obviously bring some immediate advantage. They also had art and possibly rudimentary faith. But we – had more – better art, stronger faith, more curious minds and that’s why we survived and they didn’t. That’s why we need astronomy, rock music, comedy and all the other good but seemingly useless stuff that we do and enjoy.

And yes knowledge gives us the idea of shortcuts and one of the most useful shortcuts is to exploit your neighbor. Doesn’t seem ethical but it works.

Mish Mash for busy minds

Imagine...

If the entire world were a single nation with a federal constitutional parliamentary republican form of government and a multi-party system what would it be like?

It should be a world of eternal piece, progress, happiness and justice. A democratic system driven by ever prospering free market economy.

But…

Liberal democracy is in crisis.

The best attempt to create a federation of nations — the EU, even if it is undoubtedly successful being the #1 economy in the world, has encountered serious problems.

Communist China has eliminated poverty and is on its path to world domination.

On the other hand, inequality is increasing in the West and undermining the core values of democracy and free markets. 

Mish Mash for busy minds

Master of Reality

 

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; the proper study of Mankind is Man.”

Alexander Pope. An Essay on Man

 

I believe we are responsible for our own lives. It would be irrational to delude yourself with rewards sometimes in the unknown future let alone in unknown worlds. We have the greatest gift of life and all we need to forge our path though it. Unbelievable as it may seem at times most of us have the ability to reason. Regardless of if you believe in God or Nature, we have freedom because God loves us, because Nature values us. Loving parents respect their offspring and wouldn’t offend them with demeaning micromanagement and control. Slaves do not have responsibilities, free people do, regardless of position and in our own lives we are entitled to the highest possible position.

We are the sovereign kings and queens of the most important realm: our own lives. That’s a right to govern we don’t have the right to cede. And if that sounds too comfortable to be true it isn’t. If we are free of constraints it should be OK to do with our lives whatever we want including wasting them completely. But I don’t believe that’s true.

I love the biblical story about the Master of Talents who gave his servants talents according to their ability and when he came back demanded not only the talents back but also profit and reprimanded the one who buried them. That’s why I believe that as we expect good governance from politicians to deal with our taxes and other common resources and from business leaders to whom we entrust our investments it’s only logical that we have the greatest responsibility to govern our own lives not only to preserve but to make them as good as possible.

To put it simple I see God or Nature if you prefer as Masters of Talents and us as Masters of Reality. We take it as it is given to us and have the responsibility to make our lives as good as possible. We have all the tools and the ability to think is the most powerful among them followed by the ability to communicate and cooperate to achieve goals unreachable on one’s own.

We make mistakes along this road and that is only human. It is part of the learning process. The best bet to avoid mistakes and errors is to discuss and learn from others. Success is based on the respect for everyone’s rights and opinions even if we don’t agree.

Reality is what we create, it is what we dream of and work to achieve. A castle in the clouds will collapse if we don’t build foundations under it and that makes us real Masters of Reality. Reality exists as we create it or is the way it is because of our neglect. The Master has given us talents and it’s up to us to use them for prosperity. That’s the only way to be human. We have talents and freedom including the freedom to choose the life of a beast.

Mish Mash for busy minds

Sovereignty, Human Rights, Responsibility to Protect

Sovereignty involves rights and duties among which the protection of one's fellow citizens is paramount.
Historically people have organized in territorially distinct and independent states to build up the power and security necessary for achieving their goals of prosperity and peace. When a government either fails to fulfill its mandate or malevolently turns against the people, they can overthrow it and install a government according to their will.
The contemporary globalized world and modern weaponry added an international twist to the above classic postulate. In the modern world a small group of people can terrorize a large population using advanced weapons and ruthless tactics. The international community can and does help people under the danger of extermination or other grave deprivations of human rights.
Public support and national interest, as perceived by governments, will make humanitarian intervention a likely and acceptable policy alternative, but the analysis will not be complete if we do not contemplate the possibility to avoid humanitarian intervention altogether or at least minimize the involvement as much as possible . Such an alternative seems even more tempting from the perspective if possible casualties and unavoidable material costs to both intervening and target countries. Politics as part of the universe are intolerant to power vacuum and the absence of a proper democratic institutions based on an economy driven by private property.1 Still it is tempting to avoid intervention to avoid risking life and treasure facing the uncertainty of success. While success military operation may be elusive and the costs unpredictable failure to act almost certainly lead to consequences that are even worse than a failed intervention. The examples of Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia where armed intervention to stop human suffering and restore civil society was withdrawn, insufficient or non existent have become fertile ground for terrorism and organized criminal activities including trafficking of people, arms and drugs and finding willing recruits among the desperate population.2 Alternative approaches to force and end to humanitarian abuses using persuasion, economic sanctions or arms embargoes rarely achieve anything as in the case of Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, Slobodan Milosevic (who manged to destroy Yugoslavia) and Sudan's al Bashir.3 In general these attempts to avoid armed humanitarian intervention result in prolonging the suffering of the victims as in the case of Bosnia, directly causing hardship for the innocent as with the economic sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War and being forced to intervene in the end as in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even if there is a trend of among democratic governments and international public opinion towards favoring armed humanitarian intervention when the circumstances call for it that does not eliminate the need to explore the ethical and legal acceptability of coercive interference into other countries affairs. The post cold war theory has developed from attempts to justify humanitarian interventions under Chapter VII if the UN Charter through the report of the ICISS to the "2005 World Summit Outcome." United Nations General Assembly, 2005. confirming in its Articles 138 and 139 a refined Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It combines the theory of sovereignty as responsibility to protect with implied international responsibility to help a state fulfill that responsibility all the way to intervening with force and take charge if the state fails to protect its citizens. This justification of intervention is limited to four distinct cases of severe humanitarian abuses: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.4 The declared universal acceptance of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is due to the fact that it is based on established and widely accepted concepts as sovereignty as responsibility, just war, theory, the four Geneva conventions, the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide and the added crime of ethnic cleansing. The solid theoretical work done by the ICISS composed of leading authorities on the subject also contributed to that end. That declared acceptance though does not translate into more effective humanitarian action.
The alternative
Public support and national interest, as perceived by governments, may make humanitarian intervention a likely and acceptable policy alternative, but the analysis will not be complete if we do not contemplate the possibility to avoid humanitarian intervention altogether or at least minimize the involvement as much as possible . Such an alternative seems even more tempting from the perspective if possible casualties and unavoidable material costs to both intervening and target countries. Politics as part of the universe are intolerant to power vacuum and the absence of a proper democratic institutions based on an economy driven by private property.1 Still it is tempting to avoid intervention to avoid risking life and treasure facing the uncertainty of success. While success military operation may be elusive and the costs unpredictable failure to act almost certainly lead to consequences that are even worse than a failed intervention. The examples of Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia where armed intervention to stop human suffering and restore civil society was withdrawn, insufficient or non existent have become fertile ground for terrorism and organized criminal activities including trafficking of people, arms and drugs and finding willing recruits among the desperate population.2 Alternative approaches to force and end to humanitarian abuses using persuasion, economic sanctions or arms embargoes rarely achieve anything as in the case of Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, Slobodan Milosevic (who manged to destroy Yugoslavia) and Sudan's al Bashir.3 In general these attempts to avoid armed humanitarian intervention result in prolonging the suffering of the victims as in the case of Bosnia, directly causing hardship for the innocent as with the economic sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War and being forced to intervene in the end as in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even if there is a trend of among democratic governments and international public opinion towards favoring armed humanitarian intervention when the circumstances call for it that does not eliminate the need to explore the ethical and legal acceptability of coercive interference into other countries affairs. The post cold war theory has developed from attempts to justify humanitarian interventions under Chapter VII if the UN Charter through the report of the ICISS to the "2005 World Summit Outcome." United Nations General Assembly, 2005. confirming in its Articles 138 and 139 a refined Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It combines the theory of sovereignty as responsibility to protect with implied international responsibility to help a state fulfill that responsibility all the way to intervening with force and take charge if the state fails to protect its citizens. This justification of intervention is limited to four distinct cases of severe humanitarian abuses: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.4 The declared universal acceptance of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is due to the fact that it is based on established and widely accepted concepts as sovereignty as responsibility, just war, theory, the four Geneva conventions, the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide and the added crime of ethnic cleansing. The solid theoretical work done by the ICISS composed of leading authorities on the subject also contributed to that end. That declared acceptance though does not translate into more effective humanitarian action.
How to define a successful intervention?
A simple and clear definition would be one that has achieved its aims with minimum casualties and maximum efficiency. There are several difficulties with attempting to apply this definition to real life cases. The first obvious one is with the aims of the intervention. It could be the stated goals in that case Somalia was a successful intervention as the US and UN forces helped distribute humanitarian aid. Many observers, analysts, experts and the general public do not agree with a positive assessment of the Somalia operation.5 Another approach would be to deduce an implicit goal for all humanitarian interventions as lasting peace which would involve state building. Assessing the efficiency of an armed intervention can be even more difficult than assessing the effectiveness. While obviously less causalities is better how can the level of acceptable casualties be defined? The Kosovo campaign with zero casualties for the intervening forces is a champion of effectiveness. On the other hand the intervention in Afghanistan is praised for the low level of troops involved and consequently low cost but the slow progress and mounting casualties will hardly make it a good example to follow. It comes back to the opening question:What is a successful intervention?

There are two well documented examples of armed intervention and subsequent policies which led to unsurpassed positive humanitarian results: Japan and Germany after WWII. Even if the war itself was of the classic aggressive, defensive type the mass atrocities committed by the Japanese and German armies made the Allied victory an humanitarian relief operation of epic proportions. Post WWII development also contributes to the concept that promoting economic development and democracy as the US did in Western Europe and Japan leads to a state of peace and stability in these regions. The Soviet block managed to provide for basic economic needs but the suppression of democracy led to an explosion of organized crime and corruption after the fall of communism. From another point of view the US intervention in Haiti stopped abuse and restored a semblance of democracy but failure to prompt democracy with economic development led to the predictable crumbling of the fragile democratic institutions.
To prevent the regrowth or metastasis of the root causes for intervention the need for state building including creating viable opportunities for sustainable economic development and reform in the most important spheres of public life as media freedom, law reform and the rebuilding of civil society.
In the case of Somalia, initially the United Nations Security Council resolution 794 (1992) authorizing UNITAF calls only for establishing of a secure environment for humanitarian operations. It can be argued that this limited objective prevented more decisive action towards disarmament of the marauding militias and ultimately undermined the success of the operation. Alternatively others argue that that the change of mission from humanitarian aid to nation building led to a decline of public support by pursuing an seemingly unattainable goal even before the tragic events in Mogadishu that triggered the withdrawal of US forces.8 Later with resolution 814 (1993) the UN Security Council raised the goals by including state building right when the newly created UNISOM II force lacked the number and resources to accomplish the task

Power, Democracy, Government and Sovereignty

If politics is about power and power is the use of resources controlled by others to achieve our goals. It can be achieved through cooperation or coercion. Cooperation takes longer, is more difficult to achieve and may require some modification to the original goals or agenda but is ultimately cheaper and more stable. Coercion is easier and faster but unstable and resource hungry to the extent that it may defeat the meaning of the original goal.
Sovereignty is the justification of power. Although routinely connected with territory is universally accepted that it stems from the people and is expressed in a explicit or implicit social contract which can be unilaterally revoked by the people if the government doesn't deliver the protection of the basic human rights of the citizens.
A state is a country with its people, government, political system and territory (not only the government). Of these the people posses sovereignty over a territory with the government responsible for the protection of human rights with security, law and order, private property and equal opportunity among them. The government can legitimately represent the people internationally but only as long as it defends the people’s interests in the best possible way. Almost always that means avoiding war.

Sovereignty means that the people have the supreme right to govern themselves and conduct their domestic and external affairs. The state includes the people and if the government is oppressive and disrespects the will of the people that government cannot claim legitimacy. Following this logic we cannot speak of the state of North Korea as the government doesn't represent the people. North Korea can be discussed only in terms of the oppressive, illegitimate government on one side and the people about whose opinion unfortunately we don't know much on the other. (Ironically the official name of the country has the people mentioned three times as in "people's" "democratic" and "republic" but that doesn't change the fact that the people are not represented by that government.)
Democratic governments where minority rules are not respected also cannot claim sovereignty because they are forfeiting the right of the minority. Therefore the Civil War in the US did not curtail South's sovereignty but helped defend it because there couldn't be a valid claim to sovereignty in the South if the slave's rights weren't taken into account. Legitimacy can be based on the sovereignty of each and every person.
Similarly it is odd to impose economic sanctions against a totalitarian state as they only punish the people and not the governing tyrants responsible for the crime in question. If we assume that the term state means political organisation of the society in a particular country then that certainly is not the case in a country where there is no liberal democracy (meaning a government which is popular, accountable and respects human rights including the rights of minorities. This excludes popular nationalistic governments like Hitler's or Mussolini's and popular non-secular governments. States that are corrupt and failed cannot legitimately claim sovereignty. Also it is cynical to demand payment of debts incurred by a tyrant the fault for such bad debts lies with those who gave credit to a corrupt individual not the people who had no choice or say.
Sovereignty is of the people and for the people. The state can only exist legitimately to defend their right to life, property, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.