Posted on 10/07/2011 6:15:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Wow, that's a tough one. Give up access under Admiralty Law to all the seabeds and sea lanes of the world, in order to "nail down" one little patch of it? I don't think that's a good swap. We are the ones with the 1-1/2-ocean navy.
That said, I'm talking a larger principle here: Natural Law competition.
But the biggest champions of Natural Law in history have been the British, proud and successful operators of the East India Company and the Royal Navy. It still seems to me that open sea lanes protected by Admiralty Law and an English-speaking navy are still the way to go. This other scenario sounds like Marxist-Leninists offering us Esau's mess of pottage for our birthright.
On the domestic side, that "Pax Americana" has operated as a subsidy by which to export American jobs and technology.
No, it hasn't. It didn't in the 19th century, when the pax Britannica protected the sea lanes from piracy and claims of "closed seas" all alike. We prospered then, and our industries prospered then, and having a Navy and open sea lanes did not detract from our happiness one whit. Instead, open and protected sea lanes accelerated commerce worldwide and prospered many peoples, some of whom had lived in utter rudeness and darkness of mind as recently as 250 years ago.
Letting Europe for example defend itself would wake those babies up in a hurry.
Letting Europe defend itself will result in a rapidly overwhelmed and occupied Europe. They will not change their bad habits of mind, so carefully nurtured by schoolhouse Reds all these years. They need a long period in intellectual intensive care, protected by us from parties interested in making of Europe a trophy.
So give me a bit and I will get back to you. Suffice it for now to say, the projections in your post does not reflect where I'm coming from.
Wow, that's a tough one. Give up access under Admiralty Law to all the seabeds and sea lanes of the world, in order to "nail down" one little patch of it?
The entire Pacific and the bulk of the Atlantic Ocean is a "little patch"? I'm talking about COLONIZING the oceans, then to sell parcels as private property. So, you see, you were not even close to understanding where I was going.
But the biggest champions of Natural Law in history have been the British, proud and successful operators of the East India Company and the Royal Navy.
British Common Law is an entirely outdated and ossified understanding of Natural Law, particularly as regard mobile assets such as air and water. To understand where I'm going on that front, I suggest you read Chapter 1 of my first book, Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature and follow that up with the Thesis.
This other scenario sounds like Marxist-Leninists offering us Esau's mess of pottage for our birthright.
Considering what you know of me, this comment is entirely unworthy of you. Further, apparently little do you know of Esav.
No, it hasn't. It didn't in the 19th century, when the pax Britannica protected the sea lanes from piracy and claims of "closed seas" all alike. We prospered then, and our industries prospered then, and having a Navy and open sea lanes did not detract from our happiness one whit.
Besides a false rendering of history, I'm surprised you don't recall that the British did NOTHING to deter the Barbary Pirates from raiding American shipping. Bribery payments to Tripoli became the largest single expense on the American ledger.
Instead, open and protected sea lanes accelerated commerce worldwide and prospered many peoples, some of whom had lived in utter rudeness and darkness of mind as recently as 250 years ago.
Some of those "dark peoples," knew and know a lot more about land management than did the colonists who converted their managed lands into "wild animal parks" which then became an ecological disaster. Until the people were allowed to own and hunt that commons (as declared under your precious British law) as private property, those game animals were going extinct, CITES or not. When the animals became property, the big game hunting in Africa became the finest and most cost effective in the world. It was racism.
Letting Europe defend itself will result in a rapidly overwhelmed and occupied Europe.
That's not what we just saw in Libya, is it?
They need a long period in intellectual intensive care, protected by us from parties interested in making of Europe a trophy.
I don't think the Czechs or Poles need to learn a thing from us; indeed, quite the opposite. Really, this is an astonishing point on your part. It's as if you think the welfare state doesn't breed dependency.
Frankly, I think your read on history is too full of textbook truisms and could use some serious infill. You quite clearly do not understand why this country was built up by the Marxist global banking community after they took control subsequent to the Civil War (which they abetted). I could suggest some reading, but I'm fairly sure you'd not take me up on it. I just don't think you understand the coercive power attendant to holding public debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.