2 ms·
Well actually that's a good point. Who polices the police? It's the other forces of the government, which ultimately rely on the army forces. If you get a rogue
by harperlee 11y ago
Well actually that's a good point. Who polices the police? It's the other forces of the government, which ultimately rely on the army forces. If you get a rogue police department that revolts, you need the army. If you get a rogue mercenary that needs to be controlled, you will need the army. And even if you get a section of the army revolting, you will of course need the rest of the army.
None of that precludes that some parts of that structure to be private. You just need to have a structure that is resilient to non-compliance.
So I actually agree with you: if the United States want to use mercenaries, they should improve how they do it. But then again, there might be a way to do it that works.
- cm2187 11y agoThe concepts of police, laws, courts are concepts that make sense within a country. There seems to be a drive toward treating the world as a sort of country where universals laws, courts and police have some authority globally, usually dictated and controlled by the permanent members of the UN security council. I do not think this is practical or even desirable.
- kuschku 11y agoWhen people in Germany get their bank accounts seized by the FBI because they bought Cuban Cigars from a shop in Denmark, and it's justified with "US Embargo of Cuba", it becomes easily noticeable that it's not the laws of the UN governing the world. Instead, more and more, the US is trying to become a world government, with 6.7 billion people affected by their choices, indirectly taxed by their choices (US corps replacing local companies and transporting the profit out of the country), without any representation. This is a very unbalanced situation, and is just asking for a revolution. Which will end up making life worse for almost everyone. We need a fair world government if we want to do these things, and that means representation of all people. Obviously, the US, which would lose the most from this, objects.
- cm2187 11y agoThat's actually I meant by permanent member of the UN security council. A club of 5 members which list will never be revised and who aspire to rule the world.
- vmorgulis 11y ago> When people in Germany get their bank accounts seized by the FBI because they bought Cuban Cigars from a shop in Denmark, and it's justified with "US Embargo of Cuba", it becomes easily noticeable that it's not the laws of the UN governing the world. Or the weakness of those countries towards US that can be explained by recent history.