[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Like Burma?
Somolia?
Funny you bring up Somalia…I just read something really interesting about their “legal system”.
I found this to be very enlightening:
Customary laws develop in a country like Somalia in the absence of a central legislating body. Rules “emerge spontaneously as people go about their daily business and try to solve the problems that occasionally arise in it without upsetting the patterns of cooperation on which they so heavily depend” (Van Notten, 15: 2005). Van Notten contends that the Somali customary law closely follows the natural law and therefore should be preserved…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… Van Notten contends that the Somali customary law closely follows the natural law and therefore should be preserved…[/i]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Because anything that claims the crap in Somalia should be preserved is ludicrous.[/quote]
But it works for them and no one has a right to impose their will on an entire realm of people. You have your own notion of social order, that is fine but you cannot claim to know how another country should function.
You are peering through the lens of absolutism and it is flawed.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Because anything that claims the crap in Somalia should be preserved is ludicrous.[/quote]
It should also be noted that just because an article is submitted and accepted does not mean the institution endorses that idea. Kind of like T-Nation and the many varied contributors.
But you are right, its better to condemn an entire institution for one of its ideas than to allow for the exposition of radical opinions that might revolutionize a particular element in society.
Here are the current polls. This far out, before the negative adds and the actual head-to-head campaigns, it’s still pretty close with Rudy and Hillary, with undecideds still fairly significant.
Clinton also has significant unfavorables - almost as high as her favorables. Congress has ridiculously low unfavorables - significantly lower than the President’s.
I wouldn’t count on anything at this point in the race (over a year out), though the Republicans will need to field a strong ticket to win.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…
I wouldn’t count on anything at this point in the race (over a year out), though the Republicans will need to field a strong ticket to win.[/quote]
I remember in the Fall of 2004 how the candidates momentum changed almost by the week. By the time October rolled around, you could look back and laugh at some of the predictions made only a few weeks ago in August.
Hell, this election’s over a year away. I don’t put much stock in polls in the best of times; I honestly couldn’t care less about polls 14 months and two primaries before the election.
So much can and will change between now and election day. Polls today are less than meaningless.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Because anything that claims the crap in Somalia should be preserved is ludicrous.
But it works for them and no one has a right to impose their will on an entire realm of people. You have your own notion of social order, that is fine but you cannot claim to know how another country should function.
You are peering through the lens of absolutism and it is flawed.[/quote]
It doesn’t work for them! How many Somalian refugees in your town? Did they flee the liberty and natural law for the tyranny of the US?
Here are the current polls. This far out, before the negative adds and the actual head-to-head campaigns, it’s still pretty close with Rudy and Hillary, with undecideds still fairly significant.
Clinton also has significant unfavorables - almost as high as her favorables. Congress has ridiculously low unfavorables - significantly lower than the President’s.
I wouldn’t count on anything at this point in the race (over a year out), though the Republicans will need to field a strong ticket to win.[/quote]
Congress unfavorables are because they haven’t ended the war, and are in large part coming from their own base all of whom will vote for Hilldog.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It doesn’t work for them! How many Somalian refugees in your town? Did they flee the liberty and natural law for the tyranny of the US?[/quote]
We open our doors for political refugees whom we deem “in need”. The people who choose to stay have made it work.
The article argues that a strong centralized government is not necessary as long as there is an established rule of law in place. The warlords are fighting each other to usurp power but the strongly united clans do not require tyrannical leadership. Hence it indeed works.
Here are the current polls. This far out, before the negative adds and the actual head-to-head campaigns, it’s still pretty close with Rudy and Hillary, with undecideds still fairly significant.
Clinton also has significant unfavorables - almost as high as her favorables. Congress has ridiculously low unfavorables - significantly lower than the President’s.
I wouldn’t count on anything at this point in the race (over a year out), though the Republicans will need to field a strong ticket to win.
Congress unfavorables are because they haven’t ended the war, and are in large part coming from their own base all of whom will vote for Hilldog.
Nope, I think everyone across the board thinks Congress sucks. Dems may think they suck because they can’t force action on Iraq, but the independents and Republicans don’t seem to care about that as much – and the independents are the ones who will need convincing come November 2008.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It doesn’t work for them! How many Somalian refugees in your town? Did they flee the liberty and natural law for the tyranny of the US?
We open our doors for political refugees whom we deem “in need”. The people who choose to stay have made it work.
The article argues that a strong centralized government is not necessary as long as there is an established rule of law in place. The warlords are fighting each other to usurp power but the strongly united clans do not require tyrannical leadership. Hence it indeed works.[/quote]
Maybe we should adopt the Chinese view of the world. Yeah, we’ll trade with you, but we won’t interfer with the internal workings of your country or government. Your country could go to shit for all we care, as long as we make money.
We’ll see how long it’ll be until rebels and terrorists start targeting Chinese contractors and killing them. What will the Chinese say then?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Maybe we should adopt the Chinese view of the world. Yeah, we’ll trade with you, but we won’t interfer with the internal workings of your country or government. Your country could go to shit for all we care, as long as we make money.
We’ll see how long it’ll be until rebels and terrorists start targeting Chinese contractors and killing them. What will the Chinese say then?[/quote]
Countries that are able to trade can take care of themselves and if they can’t, then oh well. We have no authority to protect weaker societies. We have no authority to protect even American businesses. Do you not see that by taking the role of protector of the world that we are creating a dependency that is not sustainable? Think Rome but, more arrogant.