Facts about world politics

[Zephyrus055]

Here are some facts about world politics that I would like to share with everyone.

The international stage is anarchistic.
Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.
There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.

[Dr. Haight]

Where did you get these "facts" ?

[Nemesis]

Here are some facts about world politics that I would like to share with everyone.

The international stage is anarchistic.
Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.
There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.
ZOMG NO WAY!!!

[Zephyrus055]

Where did you get these "facts" ?
From experience. I wrote them up to offer a reality check to those with some rather idealistic convictions.

[zhang_bob]

* The international stage is anarchistic.


* Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.

* There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do. Not one is a fact. I don`t know about the first one but the two others are true to a degree.

[Dr. Haight]

From experience. I wrote them up to offer a reality check to those with some rather idealistic convictions.
That sounds reasonable. Can you elaborate on these beliefs so I can learn something from your experience. You could start with the first point, since that is quite an important, and revealing, statement, in my opinion.

[mgb]

Here are some facts about world politics that I would like to share with everyone.
The international stage is anarchistic.
Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.
There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.

Could you give me some tips on dating?

[In...TP]

call before wednesday for saturday night.

[aether]

It's sad, I think INTP's can run a nation but dating...that's difficult.

[Nemesis]

From experience. I wrote them up to offer a reality check to those with some rather idealistic convictions.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps idealistic convictions, such as the ones I hold, are based upon such given facts. If what you said weren't blatantly and obviously as plain as the nose on my face (and my nose is rather large), then what the hell would I have to be idealistic about?

[booyalab]

Could you give me some tips on dating?
:lol:


Here are some facts about world politics that I would like to share with everyone.
The international stage is anarchistic.
Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.
There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.

1. that's not an indisputable fact

2. isn't that just a simplistic way of defining power? and not the only definition

3. a.) the only way a natural law can't limit what those in power can do is if the existance of it as a law is fallacious and part of a conspiracy or if the power in question is supernatural
b.) what is understood strictly through empirical knowledge has nothing to do, whatsoever, with what we "should" or should not do. That's pretty self-evident if you know anything about anything.

[libertarianjim]

Here are some facts about world politics that I would like to share with everyone.

The international stage is anarchistic.
Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.
There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.

I don't know that I'd call these "facts" but they are certainly theories that hold a lot of sway among the so-called "realist" scholars. ("Realists" as opposed to "idealists.")

[PsiKik]

These 'facts' sound a lot like things those who would like to be dictators believe in order to justify their ways.

[Jonnyboy]

Here are some facts about world politics that I would like to share with everyone.

The international stage is anarchistic.
Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.
There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.


??!?!?!?!! FACTS!!!!! In an INTP forum!!!!! I think not. Facts should not be explicitly stated here. That's an S move. Facts should be implied in a well written, perfectly logical, highly complex, and all-around original analysis/argument.

[Marston]

Yeah, and the more verbose, the better.

[PenguinHunter]

Could you give me some tips on dating?

hhahahahahahahaha


It's sad, I think INTP's can run a nation but dating...that's difficult.

INTPs can run a nation?

[aether]

INTPs can run a nation?

Yeah, INTP's can run anything if they put their mind to it.

[Nemesis]

Yeah, INTP's can run anything if they put their mind to it.
Oh, for the love of God. ANY type could run a nation if they put their minds to it, they would just run it in different ways.

[aether]

Oh, for the love of God. ANY type could run a nation if they put their minds to it, they would just run it in different ways.

But not all types can put their mind's to it.

[Nemesis]

But not all types can put their mind's to it.
I love statements like these, and consequently, where they lead.

Care to provide an example? Or are you just going to crap and run like an evangelist preaching about how homosexuality is a threat to the American family?

[Jonnyboy]

I love statements like these, and consequently, where they lead.

Care to provide an example? Or are you just going to crap and run like an evangelist preaching about how homosexuality is a threat to the American family?

Just poke fun at his use of an apostrophe in the word "mind's" and let him cry himself to sleep. There is no need to waste an argument on such an obviously antagonistic and obnoxious statement.

[Nemesis]

Just poke fun at his use of an apostrophe in the word "mind's" and let him cry himself to sleep. There is no need to waste an argument on such an obviously antagonistic and obnoxious statement.
I was going to save that for when he claimed INTP superiority to all other types, but, yeah. LOL

[aether]

I was going to save that for when he claimed INTP superiority to all other types, but, yeah. LOL

My original point was that INTP's are not very good at dating (other types have it easier) but can be capable of running a nation (for other types it can be difficult).


Just poke fun at his use of an apostrophe in the word "mind's" and let him cry himself to sleep. There is no need to waste an argument on such an obviously antagonistic and obnoxious statement.

Crap. *cries self to sleep*

[aether]

Here are some facts about world politics that I would like to share with everyone.

The international stage is anarchistic.
Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.
There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.

Well there is the natural law of tip for tat which is carried out within and ouside of international institutions.

[Lee]

The international stage is anarchistic.I am not sure about that! But I think I understand where you are coming from.

Government acts to maintain order. When all are free to do as they wish, then all are free to oppress all others, therefore none are free. That is the paradox of freedom, and it is the main purpose of government, to potect political freedom with law enforcement.

The breakdown of this social arrangement leads to choas, anarchy, honour culture and tribalism. It is imperative that the governing body have sufficient power, so that the criminal individual or organisation cannot oppose it, the law enforcement agencies must be too powerful to challenge.

Once this has been achieved, the citizens of such a nation can live in relative political freedom. Of course, crime can never be eradicated completely, but it can be kept to a minimum. This state of affairs stands contrary to anarchism, whereby all are free even of law.

Moving onto your point. The international stage has no law enforcement agencies which can reside over it, there is no authority which can guaruntee freedom from the potentially unscupulous intentions of others. On the international stage, we are at the mercy of the more powerful.

Indeed, the problem runs even deeper. There can be no ulitmate political authority, for every tier of government which we could suppose, would require another tier above to control it. The best solution to this problem is a clever distribution of powers. In other words, the power structure needs to be a loop, not a ladder. The structure of liberal democracy goes some way to providing that loop.

However, this conception of international relations plays fast and carelessly with the comparison to individual relations. Governments do not control nations like a brain commands an organism, but in fact, many governments around the world have somewhat limited powers. This can be understood by referencing my previous comment, " ...and it is the main purpose of government, to potect political freedom with law enforcement." In other words, government can no more break that freedom than it can allow individuals or organisations under jurisdiction to break that freedom.

The relationship between free nations therefore becomes symbiotic, because free individuals can more or less ignore the particular political jurisdiction they fall under. Therein develops an economic and socialinterdependence that ties the interests of nations together and stabilises international relations. Under circumstances where control is in the hands of a few, where the comparison between the individual and the nation is more appropriate, is also where war is most prevelent. The international stage really is anarchistic under such circumstances.


Those with power have the ability to impose their wills on others.This is a broad claim. Does George W. Bush have the power to make us fly to work if he so wishes? I think not.

Nobody has the kind of power you suppose. Everyone, even the most powerful individual in the world is working under all kinds of constraints, moreso in liberal democracy than any other political arrangement - even dictators are limited in what they can do on whim.

Those who attempt to impose their will on others, must factor in the consequences. Such people will likely discover that they did not have the power they thought. How many oppressive regimes have fallen down the centuries? Trough military coups? Popular revolutions? War with neighbours?

Power is never absolute and it is always fickle.


There is no empirically backed natural law limiting what those in power can do or mandating what they should do.True.

However, natural laws can guide our decision about right or wrong, even if they cannot make that decision for us. When we propose an ought, we are noting an asymmetry between what is and what we want to be. In this exists a chasm. What are we to do to achieve that ought? Is it even achievable at all?

The How that exists between the is and the ought is where our understanding of nature enters the frame, for few people would consider striving for an ought which is impossible to achieve, however appealing that ideal ought may be to the imagination.

Besides, while there is no natural law (i.e. exceptionless pattern) which can mandate moral laws, morality is not outside the physical realm. What we call morality exists within the interrelational framework of human interaction, it arises from the principles of epistemology and natural selection. Even if there is no absolute law on the matter, it certainly does exist.

"Everything fails by sufficiently high standards and everything passes by sufficiently low standards"

I suspect you are placing too higher standards on ethical and moral doctrines, asking them to meet the standards of physical laws, when in fact the entire debate would not have to exist if they could

[joft]

here are some possible phrases to help you:

aggregate anarchy
bureaucratic anarchy
coalitional anarchy
collective anarchy
institutional anarchy

btw i just made all those up!

[Nemesis]

My original point was that INTP's are not very good at dating (other types have it easier) but can be capable of running a nation (for other types it can be difficult).
And my original point was that the sentiments upon which your original point was laid are bullshit.

[htb]

1. Only between authoritarian governments, whose singular purpose is aggrandizement through military expansion and dominion, are relations described in terms of power and caprice.

Liberal democracies, led by governments whose constituencies insist upon amicable relations whenever rational and feasible, also benefit from pluralism and private representation to bind them to other nations through interests unrelated to and relatively unregulated by the state -- primarily popular culture and its subsets, such as trade and travel. Associations between democratic countries are remarkably stable on the strengths of collective defense, regularly held fraternal summits and bilateral meetings, and the transparency and ubiquity of information preserved by civil rights and privileges of a free society.

The adoption of reason and the recognition of natural law bring about liberalism, or the sublimation of man's natural reliance on physical strength as a means of acquisition and compulsion as a means of rule; that is, for all but the most violent or esurient human beings who, as Lee described, are responsible for the ineradicability of crime.

2. An authoritarian state is more capable of Hobbesian license, to have, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it, "the human race divided into herds of cattle, each with a master who preserves it only in order to devour its members." But even in an autocracy, there are two limitations of this power. One is a function of logistics and the other the nature of rule through force itself. First, the physical realm prohibits certain acts of compulsion, as per Lee's example of flying to work. Second, authoritarian arrangements are not founded on entitlement or popularity but rather imposition and complementary distrust, and because a dictator's own hierarchy is composed of men like himself and his strength is not in endless supply the dictator must, if he hopes to maintain his order, act deliberately and cautiously.

3. The empirical manifestation of natural law is in the common good of a liberal society, the finest legal example of which might be English common law -- codes of conduct that are, by virtue of historical precedent and cultural recognition, implicit.

[wildcat]

I don't know that I'd call these "facts" but they are certainly theories that hold a lot of sway among the so-called "realist" scholars. ("Realists" as opposed to "idealists.")
Who has said that the realists and the idealists disagree? Nobody.

[Shimpei]

institutional anarchy


ha ha!

[booyalab]

What we call morality exists within the interrelational framework of human interaction, it arises from the principles of epistemology and natural selection.
wait, I thought we were supposed to be discussing facts.

[libertarianjim]

Who has said that the realists and the idealists disagree? Nobody.

The world politics textbook I used to use to teach world politics. For starters.

[Nemesis]

The world politics textbook I used to use to teach world politics. For starters.
Well, I guess that the way I see it is that Realists and Idealists see the exact same world. Realists are pessimists and see it as an unchanging world which will always suck. Idealists are usually optimists and see it as what it could be.

[LongSilence]

What about someone who thinks it doesn't change but has always been pretty darn good anyway?

[Nemesis]

What about someone who thinks it doesn't change but has always been pretty darn good anyway?
Delusional, Blind, Myopic, etc., etc....

[Lee]

Well, I guess that the way I see it is that Realists and Idealists see the exact same world. Realists are pessimists and see it as an unchanging world which will always suck. Idealists are usually optimists and see it as what it could be.

The pessimist complains about the wind; The optimist expects it to change; The realist adjusts the sails. - William Arthur Ward
I do not see how the realist necessarily sees an unchanging world which will always suck. The realist is pragmatic and interested in what works, not what he/she would like to work. However, this does not make the realist pessimistic or even against change where they feel it is necessary.

The difference I see is this: The idealist thinks about intentions and the realist thinks about consequences.

[htb]

The difference I see is this: The idealist thinks about intentions and the realist thinks about consequences.Are those terms applicable anymore? Modern foreign policy seems to fault along lines that divide democratists, transnationalists, conservatives and parochialists from one another.

[Lee]

Are those terms applicable anymore?Yes, since they are just categories to describe particular ideas and people. The fact that other, perhaps more specific categories also exist really doesn't matter.

[htb]

Yes, since they are just categories to describe particular ideas and people. The fact that other, perhaps more specific categories also exist really doesn't matter.It would if the definitions for "idealist" and "realist" were no longer representative of circumstances -- or even the matters under intellectual contention. We're following a meme; how good is it? What "intentions" and "consequences," exactly?

[Lee]

It would if the definitions for "idealist" and "realist" were no longer representative of circumstances -- or even the matters under intellectual contention. We're following a meme; how good is it? What "intentions" and "consequences," exactly?Idealist and Realist are always representative of the cirumstances, since all political visions can easily be categorised by them.

The idealist is interested in ideas, they judge ideas by what they intend to accomplish. Whilst the realist is interested in things, they judge ideas by what their consequences. Everyone veers toward one or the other. They are just categories, a simple dichotomy of thinking styles.

We do not have to choose between these categories, as though using the realist-idealist categories somehow precludes the others you mention. You just use whatever is appropriate to your intended meaning.

[LongSilence]

Delusional, Blind, Myopic, etc., etc....

What if they acknowledge that human beings can be cruel, barbaric and unthinking and decide to accept it? Its not necessarily blindness to view the world as a place that requires the definition of polarities for happiness to be achieved. People have the potential to do harm and so there are occasions when they do so. In my mind, this only makes the times that they choose not to do so even greater. The same applies when they choose to do 'good'.

Personally I choose to spend more time focussing on individuals that I know and reflect on my interactions with them. These things I find I can truly appreciate and have an effect on. The world as a whole I can have less effect on, which is a good thing because being human any great influence I could have would not necessarily result in happiness for all. In the end, Imperator speaks from a reasonable perspective when he talks about International politics being anarchic- it doesn't conform to any particular political mode (or at least not one that has been defined yet). And there is no 'natural law' that curtails individual human government other than that individuals will be removed 'naturally' and different ones will take their place.

[htb]

We do not have to choose between these categories, as though using the realist-idealist categories somehow precludes the others you mention. You just use whatever is appropriate to your intended meaning.Preclusion, perhaps not, Lee, though I do think such a broad pair of categories can confuse things. If the words are connotative rather than denotative, then they might be useful. But I don't see how the respective considerations of benefits and drawbacks are mutually exclusive. You suggest the words be used optionally, however, and that's fair enough.

[Nemesis]

What if they acknowledge that human beings can be cruel, barbaric and unthinking and decide to accept it?
There's a difference between acceptance and and being happy about something. Are you happy about the fact that human beings can be like that? Do you think that it's right that they do sometimes?

[LongSilence]

I think its natural and will never be changed. And the fact that they can makes me happy as it means that mankind has almost limitless potential. I know that if people can do it, then it has been done. I can't control the world and i don't honestly think that human nature has changed that much over time. There is no way to stop people from desiring (any)things and acting on it so why get too sad about things that happen that you have no actual influence over?

[Nemesis]

I think its natural and will never be changed. And the fact that they can makes me happy as it means that mankind has almost limitless potential. I know that if people can do it, then it has been done. I can't control the world and i don't honestly think that human nature has changed that much over time. There is no way to stop people from desiring (any)things and acting on it so why get too sad about things that happen that you have no actual influence over?
Because for my own sanity, I won't believe that this is the best we can do, and that it's all downhill from here.

[libertarianjim]

I don't think that either classical realists or idealists see the world as unchanging, but human nature as unchanging. Realists claim that human nature is essentially power-driven and uncooperative, while idealists believe that humans are cooperative by nature and corrupted by power grasping behaviors.

The practical upshot of this is that realists prefer realpolitik and seek their nations' "naked self-interests," while idealists will prefer multilateral cooperation, and in some cases a world goverment (and in many cases, have more of an interest in humanitarian concerns).

I think that the mere existence of these different theories implies that both believe that while human nature is more or less fixed, the international situation is fluid, and these theories are an attempt by the camps to place their imprint upon it.

[sbw]

Because for my own sanity, I won't believe that this is the best we can do, and that it's all downhill from here.

your sanity is really fragile.

Scott

[Nemesis]

your sanity is really fragile.

Scott
Nah, 'cause technically, me believing that this is the best we could to would imply that that was actually true ;)

[sbw]

nah, the point is that in order to preserve/assist/ameliorate your sanity, by your own estimation, it is beneficial to avoid this belief, which means avoiding the decision-making process with regards to that particular issue. hence my assessment. :joft:

Scott

[Nemesis]

nah, the point is that in order to preserve/assist/ameliorate your sanity, by your own estimation, it is beneficial to avoid this belief, which means avoiding the decision-making process with regards to that particular issue. hence my assessment. :joft:

Scott
Or it could just mean that I think we can do better :mellow:

[sbw]

Or it could just mean that I think we can do better :mellow:

my whole point is that to believe "that we can do better" is to cling to a delusional position which has no verifiable support. perhaps this really isn't desperation.

Scott

[Nemesis]

my whole point is that to believe "that we can do better" is to cling to a delusional position which has no verifiable support.
Really?

to believe "that we can do better" is to cling to a delusional position which has no verifiable support.
So is this :)