On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:47 AM Sean Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:09 PM Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So you're American, and some rogue trainers, agency guys and atheletes >> have been doping, like say your cyclists, sprinters and the odd swimmer. >> >> Since this doping scandal is "systemic" in North Amerika, it is >> evidently appropriate to ban all American's from participating at the >> games, unless they can prove their innocence. >> >> Oh, and just to teach a lesson, those atheletes that have never been >> involved in doping, if and only if they can prove they never doped their >> bodies, well they can participate in the upcoming Olympics, but they are >> not allowed to represent North America, and if the get a gold medal, the >> American national anthem will NOT be played - since Russia is hosting >> the Olympics, the Russian national anthem will be played instead. >> >> That is definitely fair and appropriate to the North American athletes >> who have always done the right thing - a little bit of healthy >> national and personal punishment before any trial and before any >> conviction. >> >> Yep, that's how a democratic world should definitely work. Just the way >> I thought of it too there Sean. >> > > > I am pretty sure I understand your position, and I'm sympathetic to it, > but as an unpatriotic (in the sense that I do not support the government > and I feel physically ill when I see people waving flags) American, I'm > afraid that swapping America for Russia helps me see it better. > Err, *doesn't* help me see it better. > > I think this points out a fundamental flaw in the Olympics, and in fact in > the entire international system: Individuals do not exist as entities in > the international system. There is absolutely nothing democratic about > the Olympics. The games exist to glorify states over individuals. The > Western media do highlight superstars, but for the most part only American > athletes get highlighted in the US. > > I gave up on the Olympics years ago. It is a fundamentally corrupt and > hypocritical institution. And as you can see, it's being used as a tool of > the West to try to punish Russia. > > So I totally agree with you, that's not the way a democratic world should > work. But I'd add that the Olympics are not the way a democratic world > should work. In a democratic system, states exist to serve the people. They > should be at the bottom, not at the top. > > Not! >> >> >> Western schooled persons (no point calling them humans) have lost touch >> with empathy, justice, don't even comprehend the rule of law and checks >> and balances, innocence until proven guilty and all that democratic >> "rubbish". >> > > I agree, though I think most people have always just followed the herd. > Most people have always thought "rule of law" has meant "order", and that a > powerful government unconstrained itself by law, as long as it was tying to > do "the right thing" was the way to maintain "rule of law." Never mind that > precisely the opposite is true. > > Which means the line has been being held by... what, exactly? Inertia, > probably. The West has been essentially coasting on the inertia of WWII and > then on the Cold War, which kept lots of people employed in a system that > is unsuited to anything but mass construction for mass destruction. The old > corporate/crony capitalist system is breaking down because the only thing > it's good for is war. The "war on terror" is the wrong kind of war to keep > it going, because high tech weapons are for the most part useless. > Terrorism requires political, policy, *human* solutions. But the system is > not evolved to put the kind of people in power who are capable of creating > those kinds of solutions. > > Ironically, as undemocratic as it was, the system that existed in Europe > prior to WWI was probably better suited to small scale conflicts than our > current system. The French Revolution introduced the concept of "total war" > to Europe, and the old system was not adapted to that. > > Now "total war" would likely destroy us all, but we're also pretty shitty > at small scale wars. As you've said before, we need to have a multipolar > system again. Such a system would reward diplomacy over saber-rattling. > Doesn't matter so much if there's still a lot of tension, as long as it > doesn't escalate to war. As long as individuals don't get too caught up in > the tension, because the only reason to have states in the first place is > to let individuals conduct their lives in relative stability and peace. >
