Yes, I see Zsolt Hermann's point. Furthermore, if we examine the basis of any nation state's existence, supremacy of that particular nation state and it's ability to thrive is the very reason it exists. It's clear that until each nation has at it's core, the same overall premise for existing, there will be no real progress. There are just too many agendas and seemingly these cannot be combined into anything coherent.At this point in our history we as humans assembled into nations should adopt a new motivation for existing such as to further the development of mankind general. In this way each nation could contribute it's unique resources, talents and ideas toward a common goal.ostensibly, the ability of mankind as a species to not only survive but thrive.
The insecurity in the world system has been created as have the shortages and discontent, by an ego driven, profit at all costs philosophy dependent upon exploitation. So now the defense industry wants a bigger piece of the pie and they know they can't risk too many pesky wars so these entities are creatively marketing fear so that people will come aboard and leave what so-called freedoms they have behind. If you believe this article I challenge you to investigate Jacques Fresco, and his thorough future models for a safe and sane economy.
We live in an integrated, intertwined global social and economic system. Such a silly notion.. that a speech, directed to one countries' needs, could inspire the healing of a worldwide addiction. An addiction to greed, which by the way the United States and friends, delivered to the rest of the globe. We have "developing" nations now, that just want continue this model in order to gain a piece of this American Pie. We can't blame them for wanting to become powerful and rich nations. We unleashed the proverbial Pandora's Box. Help the poor? Let's step back and examine our popular form of world dominance and creative shortages spawned by our outdated notions of progress. We created "the poor" in our own coutry and across the world by engaging in overproduction and fostering a society based on self interest. The hypocrisy will not be respected and the United States is not existing in a vacuum. We live or die by he cooperation of all countries. I doubt that we can craft a truly progressive society under the same circumstances and using the same model that created our societal and economic chaos. We ned a better foundation. Transparency would be a good start, however, I see no leaders who are ready for this.
A short course in history will easily show us what we already know: Power brokers rely on planned shortages, dominance of resources and thus war and poverty are strategic creations. Can the UN address this salient issue which persists? Beautiful plans become withering pages in an archive of philosophies and provide only a model for sociologists to puruse and discuss. The round table of the UN is thus far only a model. When will all the world's power brokers have to sit at a round table and consider how they affect the entire global society? What is their incentive thus far to change? The building of a better world for all is likely to come about through some kind of global catastrophe which the power brokers feel acutely. Perhaps there is still time for mass education and change to push mankind ito a better form of development, however, it will have to come about through the empowerment of the common man. Currently it's a catch 22 situation at best.
It’s interesting that the outcome of any political party system in a democratic style government structure is that theoretically the polar opposites will create a middle ground giving an opportunity for moderates to emerge and unite each end of the spectrum. Since a minority of any population is politically inactive, we have to re-examine the premise. We’ve already seen how political party systems don’t create the healthy competition and decision making that we had hoped they would. It’s such a fair and wise idea but it certainly does need the participation of equal numbers of politically active people for successful decision making. How can we integrate people into a system that will take this non-participation quotient into account? Shouldn’t we be examining what would create participation and move into this direction? How can we create a system in which everyone understands that they have an important contribution to make? The fact is that even when citizens make the “choice” not to participate, they have already chosen an outcome that won’t be necessarily beneficial. If we are to envision a future worth living for, we must understand how interconnected we are and how to use this interconnection to capitalize on our abilities to solve problems for everyone's well being in this global system. The party system , as the world knows it, is easily corrupted and incapable of leading us to a positive future.