Let us travel back to pre-school (Idea courtesy of Ian). All of the children are out on the playground, frolicking and making merry. On the playground there is a swing set, see-saw, sand-box, a large box of blocks brought out by the teacher, and an open area where there is a conglomeration of sports balls to play with. At the period’s opening all of the children go off into their respective groups, each playing with something different and coexisting in harmony with each other group. All of a sudden the largest group of boys decides that they are not satisfied with just the sports balls and open area. In fact, the boys decide that that would like to control the entire playground.
Naturally, the other children are not going to willingly give up their respective playing areas. If this is true then the only way for the boys to gain the other assets of the playground is by force. If the boys are gaining the assets by force then they are not peaceful.
Sovereign states are like whiny little children. They want what they want, when they want it. Often times they will use whatever means necessary to get it. With this attitude it is impossible for the pursuit of wealth to make a state more peaceful. To say that would, in fact, be quite ludicrous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If indeed governments want what they want, when they want it, using whatever means available to them, they can still do so in a pragmatic, intelligent, and peaceful manner of negotiating and trading, and this does not preclude that the eventual "deal" is a bad one for the other negotiating party.
Yes, of course, in any given group of people there will always be one individual or group of individuals who is smarter, more driven and ambitious, or even more cunning than another, but that does not need to be a negative factor. In effect, it is precisely these characteristics that contribute to a free flow of market forces, an expansion of the economy, and thereby a higher standard of living for all. After all, they are the individuals who lead companies to success and, as a result, create jobs with steady paychecks and good benefits for the less gifted and ambitious, who are, therefore, less likely to feel deprived and turn to aggression or revolt and strike. This is the process of attaining wealth where everyone profits and aggression therefore, would be less likely.
Yes, but even if these countries happen to be contributing to the good of all it is certainly not on purpose. While the ambition of certain more powerful countries may be benefiting those less powerful for the time being, there is nothing to say that this will not change tomorrow or the next day. Countries only do things to aid other countries when they believe they have something to gain by doing so. Even though these actions may result in a period of peace, there is no true allegiance to the weaker country and thus always a certain level of contempt in relations between the two. To truly achieve peace there must be a mutual allegiance and respect among the nations.
Post a Comment