quote:

hobbes disregarded law as the basis to resolve matters and as I said earlier the solution based on the laws of nature would be the formation of a civilian posse in the event of a hienious INJURY or trespass, to enforce the law, much like serving jury duty today, and without the standing army (police) that we have today.

quote:

and show what ways the "state of nature" is harmful to anyone

quote:

the article defines anarchy as chaos and I shot that down many posts ago and it was not rebutted so it stands that anarchy is not chaos but life without overlord rulers

quote:

There was no consumer economy to recover.
1917 revolution.
1928 civil wars over.
1928-40 two and a half five year plans that moved russia and the ussr from least productive industrial nation to the top ten and allowed them to destroy hitlers armies with superior firepowr. This was because stalin recognized that hitler was going to attack and he needed tanks and guns not toasters and tea sets. When the war was over all of that production capacity was now available for other uses. Please note the accomplishments in the ussr after the war. The size and scope of public works projects such as roads and hydro-electric plants...space program and of course their ability to match the west in sophisticated armaments.

quote:

Elaborate, how is the substantial outcome of ALL democracies not an empire? What other possible use is there for one?

quote:

So then by the construction of the article the only viable solution to people living peacefully in anarchy is to foster a dictatorial overlord (singular or plural), to impose their social memes and the corporate religion upon everyone, rights of nature not with standing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The problem for U.S. policymakers is that, prior to the World Wars, we didn't know much else about the outside world beyond our borders. For that, we relied on Britain's guidance, since they had far more experience, diplomatic knowledge, and intelligence about other areas like the Middle East and East Asia. Their empire was more far-flung than America's regional hegemony at the time.

I agree with much of what you wrote but note that our overseas expansion of manifest destiny began with the War against Spain in 1898. Is how we ended up fighting a two year counter-insurrection in the Philippines, and gained possession of Guam. Teddy also brokered the 1905 treaty between Japan and Russia to end that war and lay the ground work for our own war against Japan later. We aslo had a hand in dividing China into an "open door" to European commerce.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Elaborate, how is the substantial outcome of ALL democracies not an empire? What other possible use is there for one?

Some empires have been monarchies. Not synonymis to democracies..

quote:

So then by the construction of the article the only viable solution to people living peacefully in anarchy is to foster a dictatorial overlord (singular or plural), to impose their social memes and the corporate religion upon everyone, rights of nature not with standing.

The article is focused on international geopolitics. Says nothing about interactions between individuals in small groups.

quote:

I agree with much of what you wrote but note that our overseas expansion of manifest destiny began with the War against Spain in 1898. Is how we ended up fighting a two year counter-insurrection in the Philippines, and gained possession of Guam. Teddy also brokered the 1905 treaty between Japan and Russia to end that war and lay the ground work for our own war against Japan later. We aslo had a hand in dividing China into an "open door" to European commerce.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

There was no consumer economy to recover.
1917 revolution.
1928 civil wars over.
1928-40 two and a half five year plans that moved russia and the ussr from least productive industrial nation to the top ten and allowed them to destroy hitlers armies with superior firepowr. This was because stalin recognized that hitler was going to attack and he needed tanks and guns not toasters and tea sets. When the war was over all of that production capacity was now available for other uses. Please note the accomplishments in the ussr after the war. The size and scope of public works projects such as roads and hydro-electric plants...space program and of course their ability to match the west in sophisticated armaments.

The United States offered Marshall Plan assistance to the SU and its Eastern European satellites. Stalin turned us down, fearing some plot. Their consumer economies were sacrificed for war production.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Hawaii 1893 and the marquesa islands 1813...I have lots more if you would like.

I Liliʻuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government. Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuku_Hiva

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

As Realone noted, the role of the United States has been as the English goon squad since the 1950's, a role the United States is relinquishing.

More than a few of us were laughing at that WASP idiot Kerry's statements as to how Latin America is the United State's back yard, those days are long over as well. The English inspired Middle Eastern adventures has cost the Anglo-Americans more then most of them know, and the end is nowhere in sight yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

As Realone noted, the role of the United States has been as the English goon squad since the 1950's, a role the United States is relinquishing.

More than a few of us were laughing at that WASP idiot Kerry's statements as to how Latin America is the United State's back yard, those days are long over as well. The English inspired Middle Eastern adventures has cost the Anglo-Americans more then most of them know, and the end is nowhere in sight yet.

Laughable assertions made up and repeated by laughable people. The notion England started either WW1 or WW2 is not worthy of any comment other than to point out the idiocy of such an idea.

Par for the course for some though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

As Realone noted, the role of the United States has been as the English goon squad since the 1950's, a role the United States is relinquishing.

More than a few of us were laughing at that WASP idiot Kerry's statements as to how Latin America is the United State's back yard, those days are long over as well. The English inspired Middle Eastern adventures has cost the Anglo-Americans more then most of them know, and the end is nowhere in sight yet.

Laughable assertions made up and repeated by laughable people. The notion England started either WW1 or WW2 is not worthy of any comment other than to point out the idiocy of such an idea.

Par for the course for some though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Churchill takes credit for his part in the instigation of ww2 in his book ww2 in six volums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Churchill takes credit for his part in the instigation of ww2 in his book ww2 in six volums.

You really think he was deciding British policy when he wasnt even in office ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Economic GDP of $2.9 trillion in 1990. Second largest economy in the world.[34] Enormous mineral energy resources and fuel supply. Generally self-sufficient using a minimal amount of imports, though suffered resource inadequacies such as in agriculture. Marxist economic theory based primarily on production: industrial production directed by centralised state organs leading to a high degree of inefficiency. Five-year plans frequently used to accomplish economic goals.. Economy tied to Central and Eastern-European satellite states.

The bolded parts of your quote from wiki seem to be self contradictory.

quote:

Yegor Gaidar, in his book Collapse of an Empire, gives the following illustrations of the inefficiency of the Soviet System.

Examples of how inefficient the Soviet economy was are well known. The Soviet Union mined eight times as much iron ore as did the United States. That ore yielded only three times as much pig iron, and the pig iron only twice as much steel. Finally, from that steel it was able to produce machines worth roughly the same as those produced in the United States.

The use of raw materials and energy in the production of each final product was, respectively, 1.6 and 2.1 times greater than in the United States. The average construction time for an industrial plant in the U.S.S.R. was more than ten years, in the United States less than two years. In manufacturing per unit, the U.S.S.R. in 1980 used 1.8 times more steel than the United States, 2.3 times more cement, 7.6 times more [mineral] fertilizer, and 1.5 times more timber. The U.S.S.R. produced 16 times as many grain harvesters, but harvested less grain and became dependent on grain imports. [p. 75]

Gaidar remarks with some sarcasm

Ideas for ambitious, large-scale projects, without consideration of their costs, occurred to Soviet leaders with regularity.
[…]
Many of the projects in which significant resources were invested turned out to be either ineffective or pointless.

For example, there were plans to reverse the flow of rivers that empty into the Arctic Ocean. After enormous expenditures the government in the late 1980s abandoned them and wrote off the expenses. Gaidar notes that the expenditures for those projects which produced no benefits nevertheless appeared as a part of the official estimates of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Soviet Union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Economic GDP of $2.9 trillion in 1990. Second largest economy in the world.[34] Enormous mineral energy resources and fuel supply. Generally self-sufficient using a minimal amount of imports, though suffered resource inadequacies such as in agriculture. Marxist economic theory based primarily on production: industrial production directed by centralised state organs leading to a high degree of inefficiency. Five-year plans frequently used to accomplish economic goals.. Economy tied to Central and Eastern-European satellite states.

The bolded parts of your quote from wiki seem to be self contradictory.

well i reckon it was tha second largest coz of its population scale wit similar sized nations (brazil, india & china) well behind in their industrial development.

quote:

if tha system of economics hadnt held tha ussr back theres a fair chance it could have trumped tha US.

quote:

Yegor Gaidar, in his book Collapse of an Empire, gives the following illustrations of the inefficiency of the Soviet System.

Examples of how inefficient the Soviet economy was are well known. The Soviet Union mined eight times as much iron ore as did the United States. That ore yielded only three times as much pig iron, and the pig iron only twice as much steel. Finally, from that steel it was able to produce machines worth roughly the same as those produced in the United States.

The use of raw materials and energy in the production of each final product was, respectively, 1.6 and 2.1 times greater than in the United States. The average construction time for an industrial plant in the U.S.S.R. was more than ten years, in the United States less than two years. In manufacturing per unit, the U.S.S.R. in 1980 used 1.8 times more steel than the United States, 2.3 times more cement, 7.6 times more [mineral] fertilizer, and 1.5 times more timber. The U.S.S.R. produced 16 times as many grain harvesters, but harvested less grain and became dependent on grain imports. [p. 75]

Gaidar remarks with some sarcasm

Ideas for ambitious, large-scale projects, without consideration of their costs, occurred to Soviet leaders with regularity.
[…]
Many of the projects in which significant resources were invested turned out to be either ineffective or pointless.

For example, there were plans to reverse the flow of rivers that empty into the Arctic Ocean. After enormous expenditures the government in the late 1980s abandoned them and wrote off the expenses. Gaidar notes that the expenditures for those projects which produced no benefits nevertheless appeared as a part of the official estimates of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Soviet Union.

I have read this clowns book and also done a little research on him...perhaps you should also.
It seems to be his,and your, opinion that only russia/ussr are the only govt capable of making bad decissions and loosing money on any given project. Then of course there is his footnoting...of course those kinds of mistakes would never happen in the u.s. or europe or china now could it cuz?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Churchill takes credit for his part in the instigation of ww2 in his book ww2 in six volums.

You really think he was deciding British policy when he wasnt even in office ?

If you would address yourself to what I said it would be more constructive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

If none of those countries learned anything, what new conditions exist that would compel any other country to suddenly become enlightened? Do you see China learning anything from the past?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Did you seriously just compare the ramblings of some internet trolls to the norm for an entire nation? I'd like to see your critical thinking explicated on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Economic GDP of $2.9 trillion in 1990. Second largest economy in the world.[34] Enormous mineral energy resources and fuel supply. Generally self-sufficient using a minimal amount of imports, though suffered resource inadequacies such as in agriculture. Marxist economic theory based primarily on production: industrial production directed by centralised state organs leading to a high degree of inefficiency. Five-year plans frequently used to accomplish economic goals.. Economy tied to Central and Eastern-European satellite states.

The bolded parts of your quote from wiki seem to be self contradictory.

well i reckon it was tha second largest coz of its population scale wit similar sized nations (brazil, india & china) well behind in their industrial development.

By what moronic streach of the imagination do you equate russia with brazil,india and china? Wht moronic streach of imagination causes population to be the only criteria for measuring industrial growth? Has it occured to you to compar like things to like things?
If you wish to obstruct this discussion with cold war rhetoric knock your self out...I for my part will be content to point out your ignorance.

quote:

quote:

quote:

if tha system of economics hadnt held tha ussr back theres a fair chance it could have trumped tha US.

quote:

Yegor Gaidar, in his book Collapse of an Empire, gives the following illustrations of the inefficiency of the Soviet System.

Examples of how inefficient the Soviet economy was are well known. The Soviet Union mined eight times as much iron ore as did the United States. That ore yielded only three times as much pig iron, and the pig iron only twice as much steel. Finally, from that steel it was able to produce machines worth roughly the same as those produced in the United States.

The use of raw materials and energy in the production of each final product was, respectively, 1.6 and 2.1 times greater than in the United States. The average construction time for an industrial plant in the U.S.S.R. was more than ten years, in the United States less than two years. In manufacturing per unit, the U.S.S.R. in 1980 used 1.8 times more steel than the United States, 2.3 times more cement, 7.6 times more [mineral] fertilizer, and 1.5 times more timber. The U.S.S.R. produced 16 times as many grain harvesters, but harvested less grain and became dependent on grain imports. [p. 75]

Gaidar remarks with some sarcasm

Ideas for ambitious, large-scale projects, without consideration of their costs, occurred to Soviet leaders with regularity.
[…]
Many of the projects in which significant resources were invested turned out to be either ineffective or pointless.

For example, there were plans to reverse the flow of rivers that empty into the Arctic Ocean. After enormous expenditures the government in the late 1980s abandoned them and wrote off the expenses. Gaidar notes that the expenditures for those projects which produced no benefits nevertheless appeared as a part of the official estimates of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Soviet Union.

I have read this clowns book and also done a little research on him...perhaps you should also.
It seems to be his,and your, opinion that only russia/ussr are the only govt capable of making bad decissions and loosing money on any given project. Then of course there is his footnoting...of course those kinds of mistakes would never happen in the u.s. or europe or china now could it cuz?