Big Think

Craig Murray on January 16, 2008, 9:52 PM

Often the biggest and most powerful [nations/companies/people] need to watch what everyone else is doing and quickly adapt. It's rare that the 800lb gorrila does the innovation.

To neglect the advancment of other nations in terms of something like human rights is a clear and obvious attack on the people of of nation, perpatrated by powerful people who want to remain in control of that nation.

I agree with the professor

Craig Murray on January 17, 2008, 2:52 AM

Often the biggest and most powerful [nations/companies/people] need to watch what everyone else is doing and quickly adapt. It’s rare that the 800lb gorrila does the innovation.

To neglect the advancment of other nations in terms of something like human rights is a clear and obvious attack on the people of of nation, perpatrated by powerful people who want to remain in control of that nation.

I agree with the professor

Timothy Monicken on January 18, 2008, 3:54 PM

'Ditto' to what Craig said… we can no longer afford to be an island onto ourselves. I have one caveat, and that pertains to the so-called "tyranny of the majority:" We must often assess thing in terms of cultural 'dissonance' – and we need to keep in mind that the entrenchments of each culture are where the often insidious and maladaptive practices find refuge and protection against all reason. In short EVERY culture – sub, anti, or mainstream, has it load of 'ordained' or canonized 'BS". the global community/ UN needs to meet collectively and determine what cultural "traditions" violate the human spirit/ mental/physical/social ecologies. The emissaries from the various cultures need to meet in a spirit of NOT taking their respective cultures too seriously. It would do humanity a world of good if it were generally accepted that we, collectively, as a species are infantile in our understanding and that most of our entrenchments are born of conjecture, dogma, are mere speculation. Basically, we are all woefully inadequate, but collectively, IFF we leave our cultural egos at the door, we just may get somewhere.

Samantha Cantrell on January 18, 2008, 8:26 PM

I agree with the professor and the other comments. I am glad to hear these things spoken instead of an echo in my mind.

Timothy Monicken on January 18, 2008, 8:54 PM

‘Ditto’ to what Craig said… we can no longer afford to be an island onto ourselves. I have one caveat, and that pertains to the so-called “tyranny of the majority:” We must often assess thing in terms of cultural ‘dissonance’ – and we need to keep in mind that the entrenchments of each culture are where the often insidious and maladaptive practices find refuge and protection against all reason. In short EVERY culture – sub, anti, or mainstream, has it load of ‘ordained’ or canonized ’BS". the global community/ UN needs to meet collectively and determine what cultural “traditions” violate the human spirit/ mental/physical/social ecologies. The emissaries from the various cultures need to meet in a spirit of NOT taking their respective cultures too seriously. It would do humanity a world of good if it were generally accepted that we, collectively, as a species are infantile in our understanding and that most of our entrenchments are born of conjecture, dogma, are mere speculation. Basically, we are all woefully inadequate, but collectively, IFF we leave our cultural egos at the door, we just may get somewhere.

Samantha Cantrell on January 19, 2008, 1:26 AM

I agree with the professor and the other comments. I am glad to hear these things spoken instead of an echo in my mind.

Gnos Grajab on January 22, 2008, 6:02 AM

I agree with the sentiments of Mr. Tribe, given our existing political and global environment. I however, overall, have a more fundamental objection to the ideologies and trends that have gotten us here. It is my opinion that, looking back at history, there are some trends we can identify. One of these trends is that of powerful individuals (or small groups) using their power to gain more power and influence, which inevitably leads to the abuse of that power and civil unrest, if not open revolt (cake anyone?). Democratic governments have been more resistant to this than past political institutions but are not impervious, and the capitalist system is quite susceptible to this trend. In the past 30 years we've seen a push toward smaller weaker democratic institutions while enabling larger stronger private organizations (corporations and now multinational corporations). To me, it appears that those interested in power are working to consolidate economic power because it is the least democratic while weakening democratic civil institutions. It could be argued that the best way to counter global economic power is for democratic institutions to consolidate political power as a counter; to this end Mr. Tribe's assessment would be valuable. This option is also the most practical given our current state of affairs. My fear is that such actions would only change the tactics of those seeking power. When the federal government (in the US) was strengthened it became the new target for those seeking power. The same would become true if we consolidated global political power. Any consolidation of power (economic, political, military) will become a target. To me, the solution is not uniformity and consolidation but diversity and decentralization. Decentralize and diversify everything, break apart multi-national companies, allow for alternative economic (Marxism, socialism, …, hell, anarcho-syndicalism if someone really has the balls to try it) and political models (direct democracy,…?) that would deny the overly interested the opportunity to concentrate power. To this end, Mr. Tribe's efforts would be in the wrong direction.

Gnos Grajab on January 22, 2008, 11:02 AM

I agree with the sentiments of Mr. Tribe, given our existing political and global environment. I however, overall, have a more fundamental objection to the ideologies and trends that have gotten us here. It is my opinion that, looking back at history, there are some trends we can identify. One of these trends is that of powerful individuals (or small groups) using their power to gain more power and influence, which inevitably leads to the abuse of that power and civil unrest, if not open revolt (cake anyone?). Democratic governments have been more resistant to this than past political institutions but are not impervious, and the capitalist system is quite susceptible to this trend. In the past 30 years we’ve seen a push toward smaller weaker democratic institutions while enabling larger stronger private organizations (corporations and now multinational corporations). To me, it appears that those interested in power are working to consolidate economic power because it is the least democratic while weakening democratic civil institutions. It could be argued that the best way to counter global economic power is for democratic institutions to consolidate political power as a counter; to this end Mr. Tribe’s assessment would be valuable. This option is also the most practical given our current state of affairs. My fear is that such actions would only change the tactics of those seeking power. When the federal government (in the US) was strengthened it became the new target for those seeking power. The same would become true if we consolidated global political power. Any consolidation of power (economic, political, military) will become a target. To me, the solution is not uniformity and consolidation but diversity and decentralization. Decentralize and diversify everything, break apart multi-national companies, allow for alternative economic (Marxism, socialism, …, hell, anarcho-syndicalism if someone really has the balls to try it) and political models (direct democracy,…?) that would deny the overly interested the opportunity to concentrate power. To this end, Mr. Tribe’s efforts would be in the wrong direction.

Jes Saunders on January 24, 2008, 7:47 PM

I partially agree with Professor Tribe, however, if the justices think too much of what other countries reactions will be to our justice system, we loose what makes us an individual country. Of course a global view should be taken whenever making an important decision, however, it should not sway the individual's perceptions of right and wrong.

Jes Saunders on January 25, 2008, 12:47 AM

I partially agree with Professor Tribe, however, if the justices think too much of what other countries reactions will be to our justice system, we loose what makes us an individual country. Of course a global view should be taken whenever making an important decision, however, it should not sway the individual’s perceptions of right and wrong.

Michael Ing on January 28, 2008, 6:02 AM

Basically, the Supremes should evaluate cases on their particular merits, using the Constitution as a guide. The problem is that although the guide is classical, and was meant to be an example to others, too many Supremes of late are a mediocre bunch of sad sacks.

Michael Ing on January 28, 2008, 11:02 AM

Basically, the Supremes should evaluate cases on their particular merits, using the Constitution as a guide. The problem is that although the guide is classical, and was meant to be an example to others, too many Supremes of late are a mediocre bunch of sad sacks.

baraca yo-bama on February 1, 2008, 5:05 PM

Right on Marvin

baraca yo-bama on February 1, 2008, 10:05 PM

Right on Marvin

Stephen Harris on April 6, 2008, 5:15 AM

This raises the question about why the USA or any other nation should work in concert with the global community, and the answer is this: Countries that strive for a common set of ethics are countries that are committed to the one value we all share: humanism. And this is a value that encompasses fairness, the humane treatment of people, respect for the sovereignty of other nations, etc. The USA gives lips service to these but the rulers utlimately do not want to sign their names on the dotted line because they want to be able to play the American Exceptionalism card when it's convenient: e.g. interventions into other nations, giving wholesale support to Israel, etc.

As a consequence, Americans live within a dichotomy, ostensibly supporting a humanist philosophy but actually living an imperialist, egocentric existence. The latter always seems to trump the former.

Stephen Harris on April 6, 2008, 9:15 AM

This raises the question about why the USA or any other nation should work in concert with the global community, and the answer is this: Countries that strive for a common set of ethics are countries that are committed to the one value we all share: humanism. And this is a value that encompasses fairness, the humane treatment of people, respect for the sovereignty of other nations, etc. The USA gives lips service to these but the rulers utlimately do not want to sign their names on the dotted line because they want to be able to play the American Exceptionalism card when it’s convenient: e.g. interventions into other nations, giving wholesale support to Israel, etc.

As a consequence, Americans live within a dichotomy, ostensibly supporting a humanist philosophy but actually living an imperialist, egocentric existence. The latter always seems to trump the former.