Tweet
I mean World Police. This is a debate about a single nation being world police.
There are parallels to imperialist set of mind while arguing how world policing is needed. The current claim is, that if we (US) is not the world police, then someone else will be, and they will most likely be worse at it or even criminal and rogue.
This claim I find just not making any sense. World Police is not a title that if you're not carrying in your ID badge, then someone else is wearing it and they become de facto world police.
In order for you to police the world, you basically need the influence and power that can be projected outside your own borders. So, there's only one nation that can effectively do it today, so if the US would denounce the title of world police, there will be no one taking the title. Anyone can say they will, but they don't have the power to do it.
So what would change? It doesn't mean the contract with your allies will be outdated, it doesn't mean self defense is out of the books now. It doesn't mean you can't project hte power outside the borders. It's just a title.
But the title is also justification of outside action. It's planting an idea to people's head, that it's ok because someone needs to be the police and someone else would be more evil at it. How is this not contradiction of ... simple logic??
The police status implies, that power is projected when it is seen fit, that is we don't need a crime to happen, what we need is a situation where we want to do something that is in our interests, projecting power. This means, that the message is and it is clear, that we are the police, like it or not and we will keep the title (because if someone would take it, it would be a worse candidate), and if you don't obey us or do as we tell you, there is consequences coming and possible punishment.
Now, it has got nothing to do with actual threats, threats are handled in self defense or in alliances. It's other interests where world police argumentation applies. And indicating that someone will be punished if they don't want to follow the rules, set up by the police, it kind of does take stand for self-determination of any sovereign nation. It's a threat to anyone willing to go the other way, I'm not talking about going enemy with the other one, just the other way, self-determined way.
I see problems with freedom and policing the world, freedom is not something that can or should be contained. It is not something a person can give to another person. Freedom is automatic, it can be limited. So, if in the name of freedom one would 'enhance' the freedom of others by setting up rules to follow and basically go their way, that is enforcing because of own interests, that would not be freedom or enhancing it.
As of now, I see two options. Either go with the value of freedom or go with the value of .... freedom for others, screw the rest and keep the world police title
Because denouncing that title won't change a damn thing. Or would China invade Taiwan the next day with cream in their pants? Of course not.
Discuss please.
There are parallels to imperialist set of mind while arguing how world policing is needed. The current claim is, that if we (US) is not the world police, then someone else will be, and they will most likely be worse at it or even criminal and rogue.
This claim I find just not making any sense. World Police is not a title that if you're not carrying in your ID badge, then someone else is wearing it and they become de facto world police.
In order for you to police the world, you basically need the influence and power that can be projected outside your own borders. So, there's only one nation that can effectively do it today, so if the US would denounce the title of world police, there will be no one taking the title. Anyone can say they will, but they don't have the power to do it.
So what would change? It doesn't mean the contract with your allies will be outdated, it doesn't mean self defense is out of the books now. It doesn't mean you can't project hte power outside the borders. It's just a title.
But the title is also justification of outside action. It's planting an idea to people's head, that it's ok because someone needs to be the police and someone else would be more evil at it. How is this not contradiction of ... simple logic??
The police status implies, that power is projected when it is seen fit, that is we don't need a crime to happen, what we need is a situation where we want to do something that is in our interests, projecting power. This means, that the message is and it is clear, that we are the police, like it or not and we will keep the title (because if someone would take it, it would be a worse candidate), and if you don't obey us or do as we tell you, there is consequences coming and possible punishment.
Now, it has got nothing to do with actual threats, threats are handled in self defense or in alliances. It's other interests where world police argumentation applies. And indicating that someone will be punished if they don't want to follow the rules, set up by the police, it kind of does take stand for self-determination of any sovereign nation. It's a threat to anyone willing to go the other way, I'm not talking about going enemy with the other one, just the other way, self-determined way.
I see problems with freedom and policing the world, freedom is not something that can or should be contained. It is not something a person can give to another person. Freedom is automatic, it can be limited. So, if in the name of freedom one would 'enhance' the freedom of others by setting up rules to follow and basically go their way, that is enforcing because of own interests, that would not be freedom or enhancing it.
As of now, I see two options. Either go with the value of freedom or go with the value of .... freedom for others, screw the rest and keep the world police title
Because denouncing that title won't change a damn thing. Or would China invade Taiwan the next day with cream in their pants?
Of course not. Discuss please.
Comment