No one has the right to tell anyone to adopt values, because no such right is ever stated or implied in a legal code. Rights come from laws and the powers that enforce them, and I value the civil rights I have according to the laws of my country.

A lot of what you are saying implies that some rights come from some abstract source that makes no sense to me, so I can't comment on them too much.

However, I maintain that Cosmopolitanism is evil because:
1. People with contradictory values outnumber those sharing Western values.
2. Non-Westerners will demand justice for the historical misdeeds of Western imperialism.
3. Resources are scarce, and a world government will redistribute them more equitably.

In other words, I stand to lose with Cosmopolitanism. Only a fool surrenders their gun when facing an angry mob.

Additionally, everyone stands to lose eventually. Since resources are scarce, global investment (like in China) is causing rising consumption and thus rising prices for resources. We can either exploit the world's resources and continue to enjoy our standard of living, or downsize in favor of some abstract concept called "morality."

Cosmopolitanism would make sense with unlimited resources, but is in fact a false hope that will collapse in to a state of ruthless competition as the gap between consumption and sustainability grows wider and doom comes closer.

Nationalism and anti-globalization is thus a matter of self-preservation.

Yes. Cosmopolitanism is the greatest evil that challenges the world today. It ranks with up National Socialism and Stalinism.

Worn,

Well, I'm accustomed to a grim world-view so it doesn't bother me .

I can't think of a case where there wasn't some other tangible reason behind foreign policy decisions to intervene on behalf of human rights. However, I think it's fair to say that more Western states have increasingly been willing to commit to more reckless military adventures. Although many Western states were cautious and some remained uncommitted, I think the enthusiasm shared by some countries like France and Britain is out of character with caution and carefully weighing the pros/cons. Additionally, Bush II blatantly said he championed democratic peace, and seemed to have convinced Blair and Sarkozy, and the idea probably found considerable reception among the ruling elite in Britain.

I agree there are other factors influencing political decisions that most political realist theories are unable to account for. However, I am convinced that democratic peace is not only a complete load of bs, but has justified some of the most reckless foreign policy decisions in the past 15 years. In other words, the theory is so bad we should throw it to the flames just as we would with Fascism. As for the Montreal Protocol, I don't think it's necessarily unexplainable with realism. The fact is that the self-preservation of every state depends on the health of the planet's ozone layer, which seems compatible with realism.

China is the devil. The West needs to set aside its misguided idealism and accept the reality that is. For now the West may be able to afford its idealism of Human Rights and Internationalism, but politics does not obey the Golden Rule. It has and always will obey the Brazen Rule: get them before they get you.

The West's retard policy towards Russia compelled them to side with China to counterbalance the West, but even the Russians have seen through the Chinese. For example, they no longer sell them their best military equipment, and they declined to build an oil pipeline in to China's industrial center. Instead, they chose the less lucrative option of building a pipeline to a port, where they ship it to Japan. The Russians are obviously unhappy with China, and this is an opportunity to establish an alliance we pooped on before.

Our pointless military adventures are expensive. We need to accept that our wealth was won by blood and steel and can only be maintained by blood and steel. If we continue along the path we are going, we will be enslaved to the Chinese Empire.

No more Democratic Peace Theory nonsense. Now is the time to get back to reality by applying Realpolitik. Our weakness is why we are separated from our natural allies, why socialists rule Bolivia and Venezuela, and why the Chinese are taking over our periphery. It's so bad, we are losing Columbia, as they are working with China to build a competing canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Seriously, wtf?

Chris,

Keynesian Economics states that the government can increase consumer spending by:

1. Government spending
2. Lowering taxes

The fact that you say he only recommended 1 is proof that you do not understand Keynesian theory, and I'm not going to teach you.

pain,

You are greatly misguided. Almost no war was ever motivated by religion.

Indeed. kingsnine's posts are incoherent.

Fool,

No. But of all the women I have met, I respect her the most.

WFS,

I'm not protecting my "vulnerable self." I was the one agreeing with her. That's what was bizarre - it was like listening to my own thoughts.

ARF,

Umm ...

Actually, the fence really wasn't supposed to be relevant. I was thinking of a very small yard fence that is like 4 feet high. But supposing there wasn't a fence, I still believe the kid deserves a Darwin award. That is a figure of speech of course. Along East's line of reasoning, I think the duty of care ought to belong to the parents. It's their fault they failed to instruct him properly.

This stuff gets even more bizarre when, for example, a robber injures themselves while running away due to jumping on defective playground equipment that breaks and injures them.

Rin,

Way to troll. My body fat percentage is 7%, but then I live in a state with lower obesity. The states with the majority of obese people are, unsurprisingly, in the South.

Yell,

Well, in that case, every country is unique. What's the point then?

Zarf,

My experience is that useful lies generally have more cons than pros. For instance, it was once practical to lie to people of "democratic" states that they were the rulers to gain their compliance. What has this done other than raise a generation that pursues a misguided ideal?

For me, idealists are the greatest danger. Many have identified the practice of an ideal for a lie, but failed to substitute the ideal for something reasonable. Even if guided by a practical minded group, the lie frustrates communication and a satisfactory solution from ever being reached. Relationships are a perfect example of this. Everyone who bothers to reflect on experience knows that relationships are conditional, and sex is overall a condition for a man's commitment. But if that condition is denied or too taboo to talk about, and is thus never discussed, then both parties will suffer.

So the dangers of useful lies are:
1. Lies becoming uncovered but the ideal remains a goal.
2. The lie prevents a satisfactory solution from being reached.

Honestly, if I ruled, I would have no problem telling a reporter on public television that I sabotaged a political competitor's aircraft. After all, my justification for ruling would be that I can deliver public services better than anyone else, and I bloody hell would deliver on it. My candor would be legendary for a practical purpose: to create a problem-solution orientated political and journalist culture. Why would that be practical? It's simple. A successful government is one that delivers public services to satisfaction, and the way to deliver is to identify the problems and devise a strategy to best respond to them. To do that, you need the freedoms characteristic of liberal government like freedom of speech. Sadly, freedom of speech has become problematic, because the lie has come out but the ideals remain popular. This is most clearly evident with the "Occupy Wall Street" protests. Their ideals have made them so confused that they can't supply a coherent argument for the elite to take seriously. Too much of their speech is moral speech, and this only alienates their concerns from the elite, who may naturally see them as lunatics. I mean, I would take a group's concern over a policy or police corruption much more seriously than a mob of idiots demanding I be brought to "justice" for "robbing" the people, or violating "human rights" or "international law" and blah blah blah.

Troll.

Zarf,

True enough. On a more serious note, since my Texas scenario combined a vague argument with my contempt for that socially conservative cesspool, I am not arguing that determined partisans can not raise an effective resistance. I am arguing that an effective resistance requires weaponry that is illegal in the United States. So although an 'army' of Texans with hunting rifles and shotguns would inflict pathetic casualties on a professional army, I acknowledge that the determined among them could cheaply acquire the kinds of weapons needed to carry on an effective guerrilla war.

So if the argument that gun ownership keeps the government in check is to be valid, then a broader range of weapons need to be available.

My argument in favor of gun ownership is that I (and many others), want to own guns to protect our residences and/or hunt etc. If a valid case can be made that guns increase homicides, then I still don't care. The reason is that the risk of being a victim of gun-related homicide is so low, and the difference of homicides with other countries that ban guns so insignificant, that I fail to see why it's deserving of my attention. The fact is that the probability is at least 99% in my favor that I will die from a cause other than homicide or a gun-related accident, and I fail to understand why it's worth trading this right for another fraction of a percent of avoiding death.

LP,

True, it depends on the scenario. I don't want to derail the thread more than I have, but I feel compelled to give a short answer to your reply. If you want to discuss it more, then you are welcome to create a relevant thread. The short answer is that I am confident I could persuade the American people that their "Democracy' has always been a sham, that the elite have lost any sense of stewardship, and that I could deliver public services and protect their citizen rights better than the elite. And although I may be initially unpopular in the West, I'm convinced I could gain their confidence because they need me and I would rule as a liberal autocrat (Liberal as in Liberal Democracy).