On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:09 PM Zenaan Harkness <[1]zen@freedbms.net>
   wrote:

     So you're American, and some rogue trainers, agency guys and
     atheletes
     have been doping, like say your cyclists, sprinters and the odd
     swimmer.
     Since this doping scandal is "systemic" in North Amerika, it is
     evidently appropriate to ban all American's from participating at
     the
     games, unless they can prove their innocence.
     Oh, and just to teach a lesson, those atheletes that have never been
     involved in doping, if and only if they can prove they never doped
     their
     bodies, well they can participate in the upcoming Olympics, but they
     are
     not allowed to represent North America, and if the get a gold medal,
     the
     American national anthem will NOT be played - since Russia is
     hosting
     the Olympics, the Russian national anthem will be played instead.
     That is definitely fair and appropriate to the North American
     athletes
     who have always done the right thing - a little bit of healthy
     national and personal punishment before any trial and before any
     conviction.
     Yep, that's how a democratic world should definitely work. Just the
     way
     I thought of it too there Sean.


   I am pretty sure I understand your position, and I'm sympathetic to it,
   but as an unpatriotic (in the sense that I do not support the
   government and I feel physically ill when I see people waving flags)
   American, I'm afraid that swapping America for Russia helps me see it
   better.
   I think this points out a fundamental flaw in the Olympics, and in fact
   in the entire international system: Individuals do not exist as
   entities in the international system. There is absolutely nothing
   democratic about the Olympics. The games exist to glorify states over
   individuals. The Western media do highlight superstars, but for the
   most part only American athletes get highlighted in the US.
   I gave up on the Olympics years ago. It is a fundamentally corrupt and
   hypocritical institution. And as you can see, it's being used as a tool
   of the West to try to punish Russia.
   So I totally agree with you, that's not the way a democratic world
   should work. But I'd add that the Olympics are not the way a democratic
   world should work. In a democratic system, states exist to serve the
   people. They should be at the bottom, not at the top.

     Not!
     Western schooled persons (no point calling them humans) have lost
     touch
     with empathy, justice, don't even comprehend the rule of law and
     checks
     and balances, innocence until proven guilty and all that democratic
     "rubbish".

   I agree, though I think most people have always just followed the herd.
   Most people have always thought "rule of law" has meant "order", and
   that a powerful government unconstrained itself by law, as long as it
   was tying to do "the right thing" was the way to maintain "rule of
   law." Never mind that precisely the opposite is true.
   Which means the line has been being held by... what, exactly? Inertia,
   probably. The West has been essentially coasting on the inertia of WWII
   and then on the Cold War, which kept lots of people employed in a
   system that is unsuited to anything but mass construction for mass
   destruction. The old corporate/crony capitalist system is breaking down
   because the only thing it's good for is war. The "war on terror" is the
   wrong kind of war to keep it going, because high tech weapons are for
   the most part useless. Terrorism requires political, policy, *human*
   solutions. But the system is not evolved to put the kind of people in
   power who are capable of creating those kinds of solutions.
   Ironically, as undemocratic as it was, the system that existed in
   Europe prior to WWI was probably better suited to small scale conflicts
   than our current system. The French Revolution introduced the concept
   of "total war" to Europe, and the old system was not adapted to that.
   Now "total war" would likely destroy us all, but we're also pretty
   shitty at small scale wars. As you've said before, we need to have a
   multipolar system again. Such a system would reward diplomacy over
   saber-rattling. Doesn't matter so much if there's still a lot of
   tension, as long as it doesn't escalate to war. As long as individuals
   don't get too caught up in the tension, because the only reason to have
   states in the first place is to let individuals conduct their lives in
   relative stability and peace.

References

   1. mailto:zen@freedbms.net