4 ms·

How about no hegemony? Are we allowed that as an option. USA seems only to be fighting China, so it can replace/keep itself in place as bully of the World meddl

How about no hegemony? Are we allowed that as an option. USA seems only to be fighting China, so it can replace/keep itself in place as bully of the World meddling and causing untold harm for very perverse ends. We need actual democracy, if we can make it work, proportional representation seems a bare minimum to work towards if we want to seek greater global cooperation (which we must to combat global climate change). Instead we have opposition of other countries only so the powerful of our own countries can step in and reap the benefit, rather than to actually take moral high-ground, or seek better outcomes for our respective countries. Take Brexit, how can purposeful interruption of trade and restriction of movement possibly bring QoL improvements to the populous, it can't, it was all a cynical plan to benefit the elite. Maybe it will act as a wake up call.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> How about no hegemony? Are we allowed that as an option. You can have two or more somewhat balanced powers jockeying for supremacy by way of cold or real wars, but this seems strictly worse for nearly everyone than a single imperfect, democratic superpower. I don't think there's a world in which nations don't compete for influence, at least not in the next century. > USA seems only to be fighting China, so it can replace/keep itself in place as bully of the World meddling and causing untold harm for very perverse ends. I don't see how anyone can look on 20th century history and conclude that a US hegemony is as bad as it gets. > We need actual democracy, if we can make it work, proportional representation seems a bare minimum to work towards if we want to seek greater global cooperation (which we must to combat global climate change). I don't see a global democracy coming to fruition in the next 100 years. It's an interesting idea, however.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  >look on 20th century history and conclude that a US hegemony is as bad as it gets. // A USA hegemony under Sanders would be very interesting, under Trump's ilk ... USA's power relies on threat of violence, can we really not do better than 'the best murderers win'? I'm guessing you're from USA; when you say the best thing for everyone is a USA hegemony?

throwaway894345 6y ago

> How about no hegemony? Are we allowed that as an option. You can have two or more somewhat balanced powers jockeying for supremacy by way of cold or real wars, but this seems strictly worse for nearly everyone than a single imperfect, democratic superpower. I don't think there's a world in which nations don't compete for influence, at least not in the next century. > USA seems only to be fighting China, so it can replace/keep itself in place as bully of the World meddling and causing untold harm for very perverse ends. I don't see how anyone can look on 20th century history and conclude that a US hegemony is as bad as it gets. > We need actual democracy, if we can make it work, proportional representation seems a bare minimum to work towards if we want to seek greater global cooperation (which we must to combat global climate change). I don't see a global democracy coming to fruition in the next 100 years. It's an interesting idea, however.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
>look on 20th century history and conclude that a US hegemony is as bad as it gets. // A USA hegemony under Sanders would be very interesting, under Trump's ilk ... USA's power relies on threat of violence, can we really not do better than 'the best murderers win'? I'm guessing you're from USA; when you say the best thing for everyone is a USA hegemony?