12-31-2004, 03:28 PM
kandrathe,Dec 31 2004, 09:20 AM Wrote:Yeah, some of it seems like the scarier part of "a new world order". I think his idea was that the executive would still be a council, like if the G20 were all at the summit level. The more (economic) skin you have in the game the more your vote counts. He actually says this social evolution is in play, it is inevitable that we (in the Core) adopt some process and criteria for deciding what to do, and who gets it.
[right][snapback]64034[/snapback][/right]
We already do, "decide what to do" via a variety of international forums. The UN, NATO, G-7, EU, and for that matter, OAS and OAU. The effectiveness and utility of each "decision" is tied to the ability to achieve consensus and come up with the resources to execute the decision. It also is immensely influenced by buy in: are you in but in, or in but out? Each nation's government chooses how deep into any given tar baby it wants to sink its fists.
Collective action is all around us. Look at how quickly a whole host of international players have responded to the Quake - Tsunami.
The problem is, not all decisions can be arrived at via perfectly acceptable consensus. Some options preclude others, and do not lend themselves to "one from column A and two from column B" courses of action. Conflict of aims and will is not always resolvable by discussion.
Too bad. Where it can be, I think we move, collectively, forward.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete