Oceania LOL! Apparently, "Free" trade > culture

This is the problem I have with you type of people... why do you international-socialits have the gall to state that the international community has the right to interfere with the inner workings of the sovereign nation state?

 

And this is also the same type of people who want a baseless, lowest-common denominator style of state that would let a woman enter a bank wearing a burqa, but not let someone walk in wearing a motorbike helmet.

BTW, which ethnic groups are causing the gun / shooting problems in Sydney at the moment. But don't worry decent living Australians, the lefties want to open the floodgates and let MORE of these people in, people who bring their traditional hatreds to our shores.

 

This is the problem I have with you type of people... why do you international-socialits have the gall to state that the international community has the right to interfere with the inner workings of the sovereign nation state?

When the charge is genocide, the international community has EVERY right to interfere, for the simple reason that no one else will. E_S has (quite succinctly and undeniably) proven that the Stolen Generation was, indeed, genocide, so who will fix the problems if not the international community?

And this is also the same type of people who want a baseless, lowest-common denominator style of state that would let a woman enter a bank wearing a burqa, but not let someone walk in wearing a motorbike helmet.

BTW, which ethnic groups are causing the gun / shooting problems in Sydney at the moment. But don't worry decent living Australians, the lefties want to open the floodgates and let MORE of these people in, people who bring their traditional hatreds to our shores.

You honestly think that ethnic groups' "traditional hatreds" are the reason for gang violence/shootings in Sydney? Gath, you don't even live in Sydney, you wouldn't have a clue unless you've dealt with them. Do some more research into gang violence before you equate asylum seekers and refugees with it. Us "decent lving Australians", by whom I can only assume you mean anyone who doesn't belong to an ethnic minority, need to reach a greater level of understanding concerning why there is so much violence within certain socio-economic groups if we want any chance of stopping it.

 

why do you international-socialits have the gall to state that the international community has the right to interfere with the inner workings of the sovereign nation state?

First, I'd hardly call international law socialist, Gath. It's more than anything, conservative.

Secondly, I'd like you to cease saying, directly or through inferring, that I'm a socialist or of an otherwise left-leaning persuasion, unless you can provide sufficent, compelling evidence you support your claim.

Thirdly, the jus cogens laws affect all humanity and thus transcend the boundaries of the state. No state can make, for example, genocide legal.

For a comprehensive look at jus cogens, let's look at the Court designed to provide recourse to the victims of those crimes - the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Part II of the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC outlines all of the jus cogens currently accepted under customary international law:

Article 5

Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.


2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

(you can see Articles CXXI and CXXIII on the above link - E_S).

Now, I'm not saying the Stolen Generation is a case for the ICC, as the ICC does not have, under the Rome Statute, retroactive jurisdiction. The Court exists to try all jus cogens crimes committed by either States that are signitaries to the Court's statute, or member states intervening in conflicts whereby a non-member aggressor commits crimes under the Court's jurisdiction. The exception is when States have treaties not to surrender criminals to the ICC, such as the US has with most nations.

Basically, the Rome Statute provides convenient reference for explaining what jus cogens are under Customary International Law.

And this is also the same type of people who want a baseless, lowest-common denominator style of state that would let a woman enter a bank wearing a burqa, but not let someone walk in wearing a motorbike helmet.

Why, because all Arabs are terrorists or criminals?

The reason we don't let people wear helmets is that 99% of the time, the wearing of a helmet is intent to steal. I'd hardly say that 99% of all bank customers who wear the burqa are bank robbers...

But, without being dishonest and referencing Google or the like, can you honestly say that you know the difference between, say, a hijab, a niqab and a burqa?

E_S

 

Again, why should the ICC have legislative and legal authority over a sovereign nation state...

And you all continually deny that the United Nations is a socialist organisation....

Well, you promoted it's precursor - the League of Nations... Hmmm... Colonel Edward Mandell House and his puppet - President Woodrow Wilson... and who backed them. Please do some research.

And their evolutionary byproduct... the United Nations... who proposed / supported it - FDR / Truman (Socialist), Stalin (Socialist), Neville Chamberlain (Socialist)... hmmm... is their a common theme here?

 

Again, why should the ICC have legislative and legal authority over a sovereign nation state...

From a layman to a layman, so it's completely understandable: democracy is a system of checks and balances. Everyone is answerable to someone. In this case, the leaders of sovereign nations are answerable to a committee of elected representatives of several nations. These representatives are, in turn, answerable to the nations they represent. Isolationism, which is what you are supporting whether you intend it or not, only leads to friction between nations.

 

WHY would Isolationism lead to FRICTION... more detail and evidence please!

AND our representatives at the United Nation are NOT elected by us!

 

A lack of communication and involvement leads to a lack of understanding. E_S would be better suited for explaining this than me, since I'm no politics student, but the crux of it is that isolationism can lead to resentment of nations that prosper by nations that struggle because of things they cannot control, i.e. location and resources. Each nation has something to offer another, which is why isolationism simply falls short when compared to a global economy.

 

WHY do we have to have communication with every country?

WHY do we have to have involvement with every country?

Why can't we have communication and involvement with only the countries we want to?

 

How is the UN socialist? Socialism does not have a monopoly on egalitarianism, unless you'd say egalitarianism shouldn't be democratic?

Here's the reason, Gath, why international law at some levels can transcend the authority of the state...

Because the notion of the state, from the Treaty of Westphalia to the Montevideo conference and onwards, is evolving. And in response to that, so is customary international law (henceforth, CIL). As humanity becomes globalised, so do the standards by which we judge the actions of others. How important is it to us, in term of how it affects our lives, who the next US President is? Very. And by the same token, how are we as a species affected by selectively ignoring war crimes, mass rape, torture and genocide? We're affected as a whole because the boundaries you protect, from Westphalia et al, are evolving where you are not.

As for the notion that the UN is socialist, I'm not sure how to respond because it's such a ridiculous claim. We don't elect our UN rep, sure, our elected officials do. OMFG teh S0C14L57!!!11!!1!

Please do some research.

What, I need to do a PhD as well as a Bachelors and Masters in International Relations?

Maybe, just maybe, I've done my research in this area, perhaps more than anyone else on these boards?

WHY would Isolationism lead to FRICTION

It's not tenable. You simply cannot be internationalist in any capacity then become isolationist. The only really isolationist nation left is Vatican City, and it was never anything but.

Let's take the US for example. If the US wants to become isolationist, it will face a backlash from both within and abroad. Domestic elements used to making income from trade will find an environment less conducive to trade, and opportunities for new markets won't exist because states don't need to be friendly; they've been forced-weeded off the American teet. Internationally, nations that rely upon US support would find themselves without it, which could destablise entire regions - not just the obvious one in Israel, but take SE Asia - the Koreas would fight again, and as of the 1998 USDoD White Paper on Defence, some 50% of US forces were stationed in SE Asia. To withdraw that could mean massive damage to local economies dependent on US bases...

The list goes on and on, but comes to Hawk's excellent point:

Each nation has something to offer another, which is why isolationism simply falls short when compared to a global economy.


And there you have it. Globalisation, that oft misunderstood but highly beneficial movement, has rendered the state nearly obsolete. Boundaries are being eroded and the world is evolving into a community of it's own. International law has evolved into the supra-state because of this movement; the UN, however, is still mired by it's Cold War-inception apparatus. It needs to evolve too, not to be scrapped because people don't understand how it works.

And no offense Gath, but if your level of knowledge about international law is indicative of the average, it's better for us all if you don't elect our UN representatives, if for nothing else than the fact it will cease to be about the Common Good, and instead be a popularity contest...


Oh, and I thought I asked you to stop inferring I'm a socialist unless you can prove it?

E_S

 

Oh goody good... whoopdy doo... you have a degree in international relations... why by the way is based solely on personal opinion... so anyone can claim this from a wheaties packet.

And let me guess twice, all your lectureres and subjects heavily favoured the left-leaning view of history and philosophy?

 

So, if international law should be based on the do-gooding, lowering us all to the lowest common denominator...

Well, if that is the case, if Aboriginee's have been around the longest, haven't changed, etc... and if international law is meant to be based on the lowest common denominator...

Does that mean that the population of the world then must knock their front two teeth out with a rock to be politically correct?

Edit: that's it. You had a lot of warnings about your attitude towards Aborigines, time for you to take a break.

 

I strongly advise you to take a degree in IR and discover for yourself, Gath. I continue to stress that you can't know that much about something you haven't experienced, so go and get a legitimate education in world politics. Please.

 

Wow, you're making fun of me for being educated. Nice.

Hey, I went to a GPS private school, one of the top 5 most expensive in Australia. So make wisecracks about how I'm a private school snob too.

(FYI, most of the lecturers were conservative WASPS, but since I don't need your judgement, **** off.)

You are not only an ignorant fool, but an arrogant swine, and you can take your ill informed opinions and do whatever you want with them. Since you're "too good" for my education, I have no time left trying to answer your questions and the sooner you get a life and put your paranoia and ignorance to rest, the better.

BTW, maybe it's my bourgeois savoire-faire, but did I once make remarks aimed at you for working at K-Mart? No. Because, unlike you and your inherent pitiful rudeness, I respect the achievements of others.

I'm through with your **** Gath and I want absolute nothing to do with you. Have a lovely life.

E_S

 

...and that, in closing, is why it is so imperative that neither Alexander Downer or Tony Abbott ever lead this country. Ever.

Compliments to E_S, and do stay to watch HawkNC's night act: he'll be here all week. Try the veal!

 

Well, I guess my New Years Resolution has been shot!

I woke up this morning expecting to revieve a permanent ban, or something else extreme... thankfully I have had a reprieve, however, the slap in the face has woken me up.

Yes, I have the right to express my opinion and thought, however, I do have be sensitive of others, most importantly tactfull and subtle.

Ender_Sai, I sincerly apologize if I offended you... sorry friend. I just get disillusioned at times (as I am sure you do with me), that whenever the statement comes out 'I have a Masters in International Relations' or something to that effect, the impression is that because you have this, we have to believe that your post / opinion is right, without question.

Again, sorry all, I will tone it down.

 

PoT, I am sorry for the overlong replies but I will try and keep this short and sweet.

Perhaps in this you are right, and striking on an issue with the Queensland Schooling system, which from the content of your replies certainly seems mismanaged and bordering on farcical. However, if as you say, this "common knowledge" test that is so damaging to a student's potential progress and ability to eschew his potential when it matters, and we need to find an alternative and better form of selection, do you truly see no other alternative than having students "put up their own money" to enter a degree?

The alternatives are the myriad of ways that it could be possible to finance a degree. Education costs money, and the person who directly benefits by boosting their income potential by all means should pay for it, rather than being subsidised by the mean-income working population.

BUT wait a second. I hear a little voice telling me about the positive externalities to society from those who are educated. Surely because of the benefits that educated people bring to society (usually the emphasis is on corporations ), then it is only fair that education be subsidised by the taxpayer (putting a forced cost on the externality). This is another fallacy - and I could bring up a range of ironic or hypocrisy anecdotes as to why paying for externalities is a pretty stupid idea.

Because like or not, save for some miracle innovation in terms of resource production or schooling methods, A degree isn't going to drastically drop from the figures I stated earlier ( a medical degree being the highest at over 100k) over any short amount of time, if at all.

You want a 'miracle innovation' - I'll give you one. Instead of paying vast sums of money for students to show up lectures, why not just broadcast them over the internet? Think of the enormous amount of cost that would be saved. You would save on paying lecturers, building costs and material costs.

There are two reasons why this won't happen in the near future - and both involve the big G. The various unions and associations would oppose it (as it means a loss of their income), and thus lobby the Government heavily backed up by their usual lefty rhetoric. And also is the availability of broadband services - which is because of Telstra's monopoly over the market because of their ownership of telecommunications infrastructure.

This is just one example of an innovation that would be handled much more efficiently then the private sector for the simple reason of making profits. Government is of course a lot slower to innovate then the private sector unless copious amounts of money are diverted into the project. However, since there is no 'Education Innovation' Department in the Government this will not be so.

For Government education suffers from the same problem that has plagued Government monopolised industries, as well as communist and socialist economies. WHEN you add two many inputs into factors of production via increased spending you come up with diminishing returns and thus wastage. For example 1 tractor per farm would do a sufficient job but 10 tractors would be waste, the same with employing too many people to perform the same set of tasks. The key factor that needs to put into motion in order to stop dimishing returns is INNOVATION.

Government is very slow to innovate. It had the internet for nigh on 30 years yet it wasn't until free enterprise had access to it did the explosion in internet services begin - and within a decade the world is revolutionised. This one example, I have many more....

And like or no, that amount of money is simply not accessable to the vast majority of the community upfront, so a loan is almost a mandatory part to be incorporated into any student's Higher Education ambitions under your vision, which I'll attempt to step through to ensure I see it properly.

PoT, maybe you just need a little vision, I can see perfectly how it would work and it is not unrealistic.

I may divert slightly h

 

Ender_Sai, so you dare to take a swipe at me, hey?

For example, a doctor will not be motivated to perform the best possible job because of social responsibility, but because of personal incentive

Cuba's Health Care System pwns your example, Nyder.

Not too sure of the accuracy of your claim but it does not stymie my example one bit - considering per capita GDP in Cuba is only $2700 and has to receive economic aid to make up for its huge shortages in food, consumer goods and services. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html

If a doctor commits malpractice, or an engineer does shoddy work with the architecture of a major building, the parties involved face major financial costs.

Yes, by the State regulating the economy through some laws... right?

In a libertarian society costs are dealt the same way as if they were market based. Thus to buy malpractice, you have to pay the cost which is the inputs to producing the malpractice from the victim. The inputs are loss of income and value associated with malpractice (plus profit ).

 

[i\Not too sure of the accuracy of your claim but it does not stymie my example one bit - considering per capita GDP in Cuba is only $2700 and has to receive economic aid to make up for its huge shortages in food, consumer goods and services. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html
[/i]

Firstly, one thing you can't objectively do is use data, esp. raw economic data, to reflect upon the state of a country. Cuba has free health care, so good it encourages a positive immigration rate. It also has 100% literacy, and the people still support the nationalist leader Castro because of the American blockade (which is only maintained to keep cowardly Florida Cubans voting - I say cowardly, because Castro overthrew a corrupt regime by fighting for it, and they fled to the US where they wasted taxpayer dollars doing it!). So whilst they may be fairly poor in terms of per capita GDP, they're hardly hating it.

BTW, can I redirect you away from the world factbook? I know it's a brilliant reference - I have 2001 & 2002 in hardcover - but for you, the Wolrd Bank's "XXX At a Glance" is a far better resource. Just Google search, say, Cuba At a glance and you'll see...

Cuba At a Glance.

Much better than the world factbook for economic data!

E_S

 

Gath, you don't even live in Sydney, you wouldn't have a clue unless you've dealt with them.

So I can't talk about the gangs in Sydney becuase I have never lived there, but it is alright for all of you to judge my opinion about Aboriginee's in the NT, and YOU have never lived there?!

Huh?!

 

Oi! Why isn't the markup working in my previous post?!?

E_S

 

Because you began with [\i] instead of !

 

[i\Not too sure of the accuracy of your claim but it does not stymie my example one bit - considering per capita GDP in Cuba is only $2700 and has to receive economic aid to make up for its huge shortages in food, consumer goods and services. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html
[/i]

Firstly, one thing you can't objectively do is use data, esp. raw economic data, to reflect upon the state of a country.

Ender_Sai, the fact that Cuba has had massive food shortages and is reliant on foreign economic aid should be evidence enough that the country is a complete mess under Fidel Castro. And you seem to overlook the fact that Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world - because of socialism. But who needs money if you can be happy, right?

Well here's a look at the current socio-economic conditions in Cuba: http://www.nocastro.com/documents/facts/zenith.htm

Ok, so you won't cut and paste that link, but here's a few facts:

Cuba owes $18.3 billion dollars to Russia,(The Miami Herald 5/26/1998)
The province of Habana has 21% of the population and people from other provinces of Cuba are not allowed to cross into Havana.
The availability of public transportation decreased 70% between 1990 and 1996 .
Construction activity decreased 400% during the same period of 1990 and 1996.
Telecommunications is outdated and dates back to the 1930's and 1940's .
It is estimated that $8 billion dollars will be needed for the reconstruction of power in Cuba.
Sewer system is outdated and dates back to 1930 and 1950.
In 1959 there were 11 prisons. Today there are more than 300.
In the 1950's Cuba had 58 daily newspapers. Presently only one exists.
In the 1950's -Cuba ranked eighth in the world in number of private radio stations. Presently privatly owned radio stations are forbidden.
Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, west Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades.
Presently Cuba has one of the largest abortion rates in the entire world
Within Latin America, Cuba ranked second only to Venezuela in 1958 in number of automobiles per capita at 24 per 1,000. Today its transportation system is a complete disaster.

I really can't comprehend why anyone would defend Castro - who is a terrorist and a crook.

 

PPOR on the terrorist front.

And never, ever trust any sight run by the cowardly slime that are Miami Cubans.

When Fulcengio Batista ran Cuba like his own dictatorial whorehouse, Castro and his liberal democratic movement started la Revolucion, which overthrew his regime.

The Miami Cubans, who left when Castro became a communist two years after Batista was gone, did not fight this autocratic regime. Instead, they fled to America where they basically, cowardly, made the US fight for them. They are spineless because they will not fight for what they believe in, and instead lazily wait for Washington to do it for them.

If you want objective data on Cuba, trying reading anything by Morris Morley. See, whilst the American press is filled with absolute lies about Castro, the European and Australian works on Cuba are factually based. Morley was my professor in International Relations, and Australia's premiere Cuban expert. If you want to see how the US behaves to Castro, read his last book. Look at the Helms-Burton bill of 1994. But you'd need to understand nationalism first, which I don't recall ever seeing in Milton Friedman's work.

Cuba has been the property of Spain, America and, albeit briefly, the United Kingdom during it's history. It has never had a uniquely Cuban identity, even under American-wannabe Batista. Castro gave them a nationalist identity, which is why he's popular today, after outliving - wait for it - 9 US Presidencies, and probably 10 if he lives to be 82.

If you want to learn about Castro and Cuba, read a non-Norte Americano book. So long as the Cubans in Florida are a voting bloc, there will never be objective truth in the US about Castro.

E_S

 

I have to agree with Ender_Sai on this one...