BB Part Two

But it seems Gorbachev believes that Immanuel Kant wanted something far stronger than the present United Nations. Possibly something more like NATO but with a far stronger military force, with unilateral forces such as the US having to line up more in the ranks. Certainly this plan was talked about during the Korean War, with all military equipment with appropriate UN emblems.

The problem with big power US unilateralism, is not only its Roman-style autocracy, but also the threatening carrier-based missile diplomacy represented not by members from a Federation of Nations, but from the one big arrogant power, as unfortunately Condoleeza Rice now symbolises.

Gorbachev, earlier in his reckoning certainly does intimate the global power position right now as pointing towards it. In the East so talks of China, India, Russia the former Soviet Union, representing both East and West possibly. In the West of course, we have both France and Germany, as well as Britain and the US.

Kant made no mention of regional representation in his Federation of Nations, which could bring in South America and Africa, but the late 1700s was such a long time ago historically.

Gorbachev’s ideas might also fit in with some of plans of the reshaped White House Congress

Arjay,
That would never work for two reasons, firstly as you identified nobody makes a quid, all this will do is save the planet. Secondly, this is old fashioned thinking mate, 20th century stuff, I'll bet you are still working on logic and common sense, it is now the 21st century, so it no longer applies.

I have just discovered that Townsville {where I live} is favourite for the first nuclear reactor, and I'm ropeable, when we have the Burdekin Dam which holds 7 times the volume of water of Sydney Harbour, which was completed in 1987, ready for Stage 2 with hydro electric power station, that has never been built.

I hope we get a progressive government this year that will build the hydro and scrap the nuclear power.

I live in the state of Maine, USA.
We do not hate Australians and Canadaians, as has been posted in this topic. We love Keith Urban but since he lives in Nashville, he might be an American, I have no idea.

As for the distribution of wealth in America, we are experiencing the same phenomena as the rest of the world in that wealth is rapidly becoming concentrated inthe hands of a few, but in the midcentury the distribution of wealth in the United States took the form of a bell curve with the greatest amount of wealth distributed among the greatest number of the people. That such a distribution could exist at all, is a great thing about this country. The way I see it , it is a challenge of the current generation to return to that ideal as I don't see how there can be a democracy without a middle class.

I have read that the middle class in Australia is very small and that there are more wealthy people than poor and middle calss in Australia.

I think that it is a global problem to ensure that international corporations do not become more powerful than governments- and that the only interface between the artificial personhood of corporations and the the natural person does not become a layer of artificial intelligence programed and manipulated by the artifical personhood.

It is true that I take pride in America which is based(in part)in the belief that the American spirit has the strength to confront the problems of inequality, and because we are better at adapting to multiculturalism than most, and we started with a great Constitution.

I personally don't think there should be a world government as it is too totalitarian a concept for me, but I am not sure if that is what is intended by the tern "unilateralism".

I probably won't stick around this topic bcause of the 350 word limit and other posting restrictions, My schedual requires a more sponaneous approach.

Natural Person Australia like much of Northern Europe is mostly middle class. Australia with the exception of the indigenous Australians do not have the level of poverty that exists in the United States. The wealthy In Australia are not as wealthy as the wealthiest in the U.S.

Multiculturalism is a vulnerable program because it requires top down leadership to consciously steer culture to accept differences. At the moment it is failing in Australia as it is in most of the developed world. It has to be recalled before multiculturalism there had always been great conflict between religious sects and of course class struggle.

For the Australian traveller finding themselves in Southern Australia it is interesting to note the number of very small country towns with a large number of churches of the same sect. Often these Churches in stones throw away from each other were products of schisms within churches often at times over the slightest differences in interpretation of the bible. For many this ripped families’ apart and set towns people against each other.

Tribalism will always be a major feature of social organisation I cant see why tribalism on a national scale would not occur naturally.

P.S I cant stand Keith Urban , You can keep him (Please) :)

West.
My information on Australia is from official statistics that I looked up on Australia, a couple of years ago.

Bill Gates in the richest man in America and also the richest man in the world so it’s not surprising that Australians are not as rich as Bill Gates.

Given the word limitations of this conference, I won’t comment further. I find this 350 word limit too time consuming as I usually go over and then have to spend extra time figuring out what to delete.

Sorry to hear you don’t like Keith Urban. My sympathies go out to you and I hope that someday you recover.

I have been participating at what is now www.newcafe.org for a number of years. There is no post length limit there, only a request that if your post is over 100 line to hide it. And you can post whenever and as often as you wish.

I usually stick with the philosophy conference. They are looking for new participants at this time. Any one wishing to discuss Kant and other philosphers will fit right in.

If the Texas Yank's theory about divide and conquer were true, wouldn't it have made more sense to have Iraq and Iran get in another all out war, instead of simply removing Iraq and having Iran run riot?