Revitalizing Nato's Identity

[shdejong]

NATO deserves attention both in terms of its current activities in Afghanistan and because of the current debates revolving around NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia. NATO’s quest for a new identity since the end of the Cold War has rightly resulted in much debate about the utility of the Alliance in a world with contemporary threats that can no longer be defined by East and West. Several articles published recently at the Atlantic Community provide an excellent framework for anchoring discussions around NATO.

Andre Kelleners, a member of the Atlantic Community, argues that rather than sidelining Russia, NATO membership states should consult with Russia to determine a common understanding of NATO’s role. It makes sense, he contends, for Partnership-for-Peace countries to eventually join the alliance as full members, but only together with and at the same time as Russia. It is in all parties’ best interest for NATO and Russia to share the same vision.

Andreas Umland of the National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv, continued the debate about when and how to offer a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Ukraine. He highlighted the February 2008 statistics which revealed that a staggering 53% of Ukraine’s population were against NATO membership and only 21% in favor. He blames NATO rather than Germany for this statistic, saying that NATO “has done too little too late in terms of explaining to Ukrainians what NATO is about. Instead, Ukraine's political and public discourse remains corrupted by Soviet legacies.”

Timo Noetzel and Benjamin Schreer of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin focus the discussion around NATO on the difficulties which NATO is currently facing in Afghanistan and argue that the chances are high that the Alliance will fail. NATO, they contend, is both politically and militarily ill-prepared to execute the required counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan. An Afghan disaster might not be a death sentence for the Alliance, but would certainly have major repercussions.

 

[Scott Free]

I think any military alliance as expansionist as NATO runs the risk of propagating too much peace. It would be impossible to have a decent war if everyone belonged to it. Definitely the bar for membership must be kept high enough to prevent that.

"In other words, war is horrible. There is no question about it. But so is peace. And it is proper, with the kind of calculations we are making today, to compare the horror of war and the horror of peace and see how much worse it is." - Herman Kahn testifying before the subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, June 1959

When asked about this he answered:

"I meant that the quality of life after a thermonuclear attack would not be much different than before. And who the hell is happy and normal right now? We'd be just about the same after a war and we'd still be economically useful." Herman Kahn, San Francisco Chronicle, March 1961.

So what I mean is that we must make no mistake, there are people out there who are actively making war and creating an environment for war. NATO may have run its natural coarse because it is now an obstacle to that means.

War is sell and war is industry. Be careful of the propaganda.

IMO the UN also poses such a risk and this is why the USA refuses to cooperate with that world forum except to get its way or hinder its ability. If the UN were relevant peace could break out - how horrible would that be?

 

[MikeyDB]

Mankind has organized for war far more often and with much greater resolve than we have ever organized for peace. Mutuality of intent is key to these various component elements involved in answering the threat of war and violence. There is a relationship between the productive capability and resources that can be focused by the wealthiest members of any coalition and it is the complete transparency and full disclosure of intent behind participation that needs to comprise one of the critical determining factors in both accepting participation and inviting participation. An agenda that clearly establishes the end being sought and declaring the process and steps regarded as furthing the pursuit of this end has to be one of the fundamental ingredients. A national agenda of embedding military in foreign states for protracted periods is cause for concern. A philosophic "position" that favors one nation-state or one political ideology ahead of all others is another consideration that should be involved in assessing the appropriateness of membership to a community of defense hailed as involvement with common purpose.

While the mechanics of coalition are and will forever be dependent on the access to and facility to deploy resources to the theatre, the rationale, the impetus behind this endeavor on a state by state must be included as crucial significant component of any nations overtures to some "greater-good". When a nation-state in the service of it's own interests, like for example, Russia invading Afghanistan to further the potential to market and transport its gas and petroleum products, represents an action that demands that the world focus attention on this behavior and respond accordingly. When the United States calls for a "war on terrorism" that as time has revealed is largely based on lies and that has critically relied on covert machinations by the United States in creating the climate and opportunity for terrorism to emerge...this is an issue that should be focused on as well.

Responding to an immediate threat is essential, but responding out of ignorance or simply a willingness to "be seen as" aligning with the "correct" party line often results in far more damage than necessary. It should be obvious to Americans that participation in Southeast Asia was undertaken without a full understanding of the dynamics at play and similarly, the United States once again demonstrates it's aversion to study and consideration by invading Iraq....

A coalition or an "international organization" like NATO or the U.N. will be held hostage to the demands and the coercion of the wealthiest or the strongest member, whether that strength is in money or in terms of military might.

The whole issue of what our perspectives are on the basis of the entire community of mankind is required in today's climate of space-war technology and proliferation of nuclear weapons by submarine and "international treaties" and "missile defense shields".

We must look at where the balance lies between provocative overtures to incite resistance and precipitate defiance and possibly war and where prudent international behavior assuring peaceful co-existence falls.

 

[darkbeaver]

Who needs NATO besides the Bankers? Revitalize it into history and the Bankers with it.

 

[jimmoyer]

Ever wonder why no dictatorship has ever defeated a democracy ?
(excepting a major exception of the Peloponesean Wars between Oligarchic Sparta and Democratic Athens)


Every wonder why history records no war between two democracies ?
I can think of no instance in history that records war between 2 democracies.

 

[Scott Free]

Every wonder why history records no war between two democracies ?
I can think of no instance in history that records war between 2 democracies.

I think that is because the nation state is a new phenomenon and democracy is historically very rare. The democracies of old were nothing like ours are today.

Also I would point out that the Germans certainly thought they had a democracy before the start of the second world war. It is only in retrospect that Hitler was deemed a fascist. Some outside observers thought he was a dictator too but the majority of Germans certainly didn't think so. Which brings me to a second point; democracies are very short lived, in general, and it isn't always obvious to the inhabitants when it is over. There is a lot more to democracy then just the name and word.

In this way it can be said that many democracies have fallen to democracies and many wars between democracies have been fought. It just appears as though this isn't the case because the definitions and labels change after the fact; I expect for PR purposes.

 

[jimmoyer]

I think that is because the nation state is a new phenomenon and democracy is historically very rare. The democracies of old were nothing like ours are today.

Also I would point out that the Germans certainly thought they had a democracy before the start of the second world war. It is only in retrospect that Hitler was deemed a fascist. Some outside observers thought he was a dictator too but the majority of Germans certainly didn't think so. Which brings me to a second point; democracies are very short lived, in general, and it isn't always obvious to the inhabitants when it is over. There is a lot more to democracy then just the name and word.

In this way it can be said that many democracies have fallen to democracies and many wars between democracies have been fought. It just appears as though this isn't the case because the definitions and labels change after the fact; I expect for PR purposes.
------------------------------------Scottfree--------------------------------------------------------

What is this post ?

Mush ?

Have you convinced yourself that there are cases in history where a democracy has fought another democracy ?

Has your mushy definition caused you to miss something here ?

Is this so surprising and unbelievable that you have to find a way to believe that such a thing has not happened in world history ?

.
.
.
.
.

 

[Praxius]

In regards to NATO, I think the whole thing should be scrapped.

If your country is going to goto war.... a war in which my country is not involved in, nor has any interests invested in it, then my country shouldn't have to tag along in the war just because we signed into the group.... this is what's currently happening with the countries in NATO who are currently in Afghanistan. Many have their own people who oppose being there and want a withdraw rather then contribute more of their men and women to a cause they don't believe in.... yet at the same time the governments of those people signed a contract to NATO and the UN stating they'd go if and when they are needed, conflicting the best interests of their people and their nation as a whole to suit the needs of other nations and their personal objectives.

If you want an alliance with other nations when it comes to a war, then deal with those nations on a case by case basis and what suits their own interests. If they feel the war your nation is going to is justified, then they should have the "Choice" to join in or not... not be forced into something because some government before your own signed a contract which is basically a blank cheque for other nations to use your troops and resources as they need it.

The reason why Canada is in Afghanistan right now is because we're a part of NATO and the UN approved NATO to go into Afghanistan to help bring stability to the nation after the US invaded and made it a bigger mess then it already was.

"Every wonder why history records no war between two democracies ?"

Democratic peace theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

The democratic peace theory is a relatively new development. One explanation is that democratic governments were scarce before the late 19th century. Although the philosophical idea has circulated since Immanuel Kant, it was not scientifically evaluated until the 1960s.

Kant foreshadowed the theory in his essay Perpetual Peace written in 1795, although he thought that constitutional republics was only one of several necessary conditions for a perpetual peace. Kant's theory was that a majority of the people would never vote to go to war, unless in self defense. Therefore, if all nations were republics, it would end war, because there would be no aggressors. Other explanations have been proposed since, but the modern theory is principally the empirical claim that democracies rarely or never fight (Ray 1998. )

A problem with this concept is when one democratic country is extremely short on a paticular resource needed by the people of that nation, another democratic nation has that resource but democratically chooses not to trade or give that resource to the other nation...... in turn that other nation which needs that resource might vote for a war/invasion of that other nation to secure that resource in which they desperately need.

..... Others see one or two exceptions. Some wars commonly suggested as exceptions are the Spanish-American War, the Continuation War and, recently, the Kargil War. Some of those who see exceptions regard them as marginal cases.

Marginal cases, but cases none the less.

Would there be less wars if all other nations were democratic? Perhaps.

But then again, look at which democratic nations over the last couple of decades or so have started wars with other nations which had different governments then they did and one has to wonder just how "Wonderful" democracy really is.

In my view, Democracy isn't any better then any other form of government out there today, and a new system is long over due.

 

[Scott Free]

What is this post ?

My opinion.

Mush ?

Perhaps, but what it isn't is some rehashed propaganda.

Have you convinced yourself that there are cases in history where a democracy has fought another democracy ?

I think you missed the point. I realize that it is vogue today to change definitions whenever the situation seems to warrant it, however, there is a greater inescapable reality that nu-speak can not hide from.

Just because you or your programmers decide that because a country attacks another it is no longer a "democracy" does not, in reality, mean it isn't a democracy. The issue is a little more complicated than that but I can tell by your post that your not up to that challenge, so I won't elaborate.

Has your mushy definition caused you to miss something here ?

I purposefully avoid US propaganda and current opinion. I find it is always miss informed, coerced, conformist and programmed.

I suppose in a way that does make it mushy but in another way it doesn't. That really depends on your definition of "mushy." I consider it a strength to be able to think for myself; to make my own definitions from my own authentic experience. I suppose you think it is a strength to take orders and follow what is currently held as true. In one way, in terms of self preservation in times of a purge, your sheepish methodology will preserve your skin. On the other hand, however, considering that I am a free thinker (to the best of my ability), I am exactly what the establishment fears most; while you are not; which makes you mushy and me strong. It all comes down to definition.

Is this so surprising and unbelievable that you have to find a way to believe that such a thing has not happened in world history ?

I don't believe anything. I responded to your post which was the first time I had ever thought about this question. It seems to me you have found a way to believe something as you seem to have brought preconceived ideas to the discussion.

 

[jimmoyer]

LOL !!!

Let's establish a definition of a democracy, n'est pas ?

Then we can decide whether there are instances in world history of a democracy attacking another democracy.

Which one of the following nations is not a democracy in your eyes ?

Canada, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Denmark, United States, Israel, India, Austrailia, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland ?

 

[Scott Free]

Canada, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Denmark, United States, Israel, India, Austrailia, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland ?

In retrospect, that is, if it behaved badly, each country on your list could be said to have failed as a state. In fact, if it attacked anyone without provocation, reason or in violation of world law it would be a failed state - not a democracy. This always takes a long time to play out and isn't immediately obvious; especially to its own citizens. This is what I meant by my example of Germany. Take the US for example instead then; most people there probably think they are a democracy but the rest of the world knows better. That was the case with Germany too before and during WWII; they thought they were a democracy. Sure there were a few "liberal" dissenters but they were mostly discredited.

The propagandists would pull their usual trick and pick out some specific problems and harp on them until it seemed that was the entire problem to begin with.

The fact is that democracies are the most prone to corruption and failure. I'm not saying I don't like democracy because I do - I wouldn't want to live in anything else (since it seems to be the only option right now) but I also recognize the facts of its weaknesses.

I'm really not sure your up to this debate?

 

[jimmoyer]

I'm really not sure your up to this debate? -----------Scottfree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction "your" should be "you're."

Correcto un poco.

LOL !!

Your post has all the intricate intelligence of the Sophists.

Even you are wowed by it.

This may be even more fun since we're steadily moving towards "Wrecked Beach" territory.

Anyway, I do understand your point that citizens are basically brainwashed and fooled into thinking they have a democracy even when their country is acting badly and even when the world knows more about their country than they do.

I am a believer in getting outside of the bubble, and that's why I sought out other anglo countries' fora (forums ?), y los paises hablan espanol.

However, I wonder if the US (given your obvious parallels to Nazi Germany) could attack another democracy. My country certainly finds excuses convenient when the country it is attacking is not a democracy. I think it would be a much harder sell. Not impossible, but much harder.

 

[Scott Free]

I'm really not sure your up to this debate? -----------Scottfree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction "your" should be "you're."

Correcto un poco.

LOL !!

Your post has all the intricate intelligence of the Sophists.

Even you are wowed by it.

I am? huh?

This may be even more fun since we're steadily moving towards "Wrecked Beach" territory.

That was what I meant by I don't think your up to this. I don't want to move to wreck beach but I realize that this is probably an emotionally difficult subject. I have had this conversation with a hundred Americans and they almost always lose their minds over it.

Anyway, I do understand your point that citizens are basically brainwashed and fooled into thinking they have a democracy even when their country is acting badly and even when the world knows more about their country than they do.

Good. I hope your aware I consider Canada in that vain too?

I am a believer in getting outside of the bubble, and that's why I sought out other anglo countries' fora (forums ?), y los paises hablan espanol.

I have posted for years on US forums.

However, I wonder if the US (given your obvious parallels to Nazi Germany) could attack another democracy. My country certainly finds excuses convenient when the country it is attacking is not a democracy. I think it would be a much harder sell. Not impossible, but much harder.

One US forum I am on right now people are calling for a genocide of the Arab and Persian people. It isn't too hard for me to imagine a scenario where the US could/would attack a democratic country. I would point out to you that in the 30s the US had plans drawn up to invade Canada and then again in the 60s to invade for our water (I have never found an internet link for this information but it is available in a documentary). I might point out the plan to invade Canada was originally part of a larger plan (War Plan Red) to invade England.

If memory serves both England and Canada were democracies at the time.

So, yes, I can quite easily imagine the USA attacking a democratic country.

I would also point out that while the USA doesn't like Iran their President was still elected. So their idea of democracy isn't up to US scratch apparently; which brings me to my original point; any democracy can be easily discredited because the definition is always evolving and, more importantly, is defined more by propaganda than reality.

 

[MikeyDB]

I'm not sure if this is the thread for this particular observation....

But hey...I've been wrong before...

Throughout the history of mankind there's never been a circumstance where the immediate impinges so robustly on the present. Bear with me here....

Economies subject to immediate influence by a single commodity of critical importance to the maintenance of a social organizing principle...like what passes for "democracy" in Canada and the United States...have rarely been victim to the balance of "supply and demand" as are these current social organizing principles. We have evolved structures of finance and credit, deficit spending and stop-gap-measures to immediate calamities in the financial and business sectors on the basis that the long term consequences of these actions have been relegated to the heap of "not-germane"...in terms of how and why the world operates the way it does....

The same goes for ...is illustrative of... the overarching thinking of postmodern society ...that we can play the game of non-responsibility when it comes to global warming and complete and utter destruction of moral principles....

While the "immediate" comfort of an SUV with a full gas-tank...and a flexible -mortgage schedule seems to satisfy the quest for ersatz "independence" the merry-go-round or the "roller-coaster" seems to be coming to a stop.....

We have deferred making and "taking" a stand on so many issues for so long that we've been deluded into believeing that our choices and our appetites know no bounds!

Suppose that Mr. and Mrs. Average Canadian and Mr. and Mrs. Average American were to answer a knock at their door one morning....

"Hello ...I'm from the Department of Justice and Moral Integrity and I'd like to talk to you about donating your income and your future income and the future income of your children's children...in the cause of bringing "justice" and "prosperity" to several million Afahanis..."or Iraqi...or Nigerian....or Timorese....." and all that's required from you is the willingness to forego any and all questions of propriety and self-interest.

Instead... we have embraced a system of finance and a social-organizing principle that moves the consequences of our choices some considerable distance from the "immediate".....

"Yes you too can enjoy the potential "profit" to be found in negotiating a mortgage rate and a credit-card interest rate based on potential future earnings...based on OUR fiscal and long-term earning-potential projections...."

"Yes there is no guarantee that Acme Industrial won't relocate some of its assets and production capability to Indonesia or Sri Lanka and yes, our responsibility to our stockholders and investors demands that we capitalize on sub-prime wage liabilities available in foreign markets...but you'll always have your principle investment as yor "fall-back" postiion...."

No I'm sorry but we can't offer unequivocal assurance that radical religious factions in the nations that supply products and resources critical to maintaining our current level of "prosperity"...{growth predicated on a fixed or at least reasonably stable state of co-operation and mutuality..} will remain that way....

No I'm sorry but we can't offer any assurances that impropriety in government spending and mismanagement of the national treasury will NOT effect crucial elements like infrastructure maintenance and development or that governments will not exercise the right of "eminent domain" under circumstances wherein a government exercises the right to withold and/or re-direct taxpayer funds to prosecute a war {based on lies and misdirection} for the purposes of hidden agenda by petroleum cartels and the military industrial complex.

All that we're asking is that you voluntarily donate everything you currently own and everything you may possibly earn or (should the dynamics of consumption and waste achieve some semblance of balance...} may possibly earn for the rest of your life and the rest of the lives of your children and their children...to the fancy and whims of the wealthy and powerful of today...."

"Please sign on the dotted line...."

We have been conditioned-out-of a recognition of the obvious and the immediate through a course of programming that pursuades (through "credit-financing") that the world and reality is something we can put on "hold".....

 

[jimmoyer]

Response to Scott free:

Actually you are right about US plan to invade Canada but it's not just the 1930s, but also the plan gets updated and is kept current.

This goes way back in history, of course.
The middle school here is named after Daniel Morgan who is buried here in Winchester VA, who but because there was dispute on who was in command, a Brit officer remarked that Daniel Morgan would have had both Montreal and Quebec City and in effect all of Canada were it not for that dispute.

And then under President James K Polk around 1845, George Custer, famed for the Battle of Bull horn was involved in an attack on an island near Vancouver Island.

Of course boundary disputes dotted the years too with Maine, the Land o lakes neighborhood of Minnesota etc....

I'm just hard pressed to see in world history where functioning democracies ever attacked other democracies.

Is Iran a democracy ? It is, if your definition is that of having elections and a vote.
But I believe that is where most people mistake what a democracy is. The least important thing about a real democracy is the vote. What gives a democracy power and more freedom to the people are those rules that protect us from the tyranny of the majority whereby a majority vote is not moved by the fad of the moment or the zeitgeist.
And those provisions like separation of powers between judiciary and legislative are important. Can you point out abuses in all democracies of rights being trampled ?
Of course you can.

But after we go around and around in circles on what a democracy is, I doubt that one of those countries listed as democratic above would attack the other. I just have not seen a democracy attack another democracy. It's just harder an idea to sell to too many power groups within the democracy. I have not seen one instance of it in world history.

Was nazi Germany a democracy because of an election ? I think other more powerful things shape a true democracy. The vote is the least of what makes you free in whatever amorphous way you want to describe it.


Response to MikeyDB:
Oh you're right about that knock on the door.
That knock happens even in functional democracies.

 

[Scott Free]

I'm just hard pressed to see in world history where functioning democracies ever attacked other democracies.

That's my point though. What is functional? Democracies are so prone to failure and corruption that they are always barely functional. That's why the WB promotes democracy (Greg Palast) since, they admit, it's easier to implement their desired changes through "bribertization" (their word) if the country is a democracy.


Is Iran

a democracy ? It is, if your definition is that of having elections and a vote.
But I believe that is where most people mistake what a democracy is. The least important thing about a real democracy is the vote.

We have no problem declaring older systems like Rome (pre-Cesar) or Greece democracies and they certainly had more restrictions than Iran does. In Sparta hardly anyone had the vote except a few rich men but that was democracy.

What gives a democracy power and more freedom to the people are those rules that protect us from the tyranny of the majority whereby a majority vote is not moved by the fad of the moment or the zeitgeist.

I agree in that your definition is a very historically narrow perspective. Even if you read the white papers distributed to the colonies before US independence you will see your above description was not present in founding the USA. The purpose was to secure property and suppress revolt - see Howard Zinn.

And those provisions like separation of powers between judiciary and legislative are important. Can you point out abuses in all democracies of rights being trampled ?
Of course you can.

That's my point. So changing the definition after the fact does not change the fact. Hitler enacted war time measures and was not a dictator; something your President could do himself tomorrow. Would that make the USA a dictatorship? That would depend who won the ensuing war.

Was nazi Germany a democracy because of an election ?

Yes.

Before the war it was considered to be a democracy. After the war and after all the propaganda it wasn't considered to be.

Hitler got in through shenanigans not a majority vote, however, so too did Bush; so did Canada's own conservatives according to the latest scandal.

 

[MikeyDB]

What's a "functional democracy" Jim?

A "democracy" that purposefully deludes adherents to the mysical and fantastic...?

The mystical and fantastic that permits the fantasy that we can as societies (and perhaps as a species) continue to live lives of "prosperity" and "exuberant consumption without the reality of having to deal with the outcome of this dead-end ignorance?

Every dynamic, from the "promise" of an after-life ...to "our evolution through technology will save us from our indiscretions"... we'll never experience the consequences of our dis-affiliation with reality soooooo therefore.... we can do whatever we want...!?

What's more dangerous than investing in willing self-delusion?

 

[jimmoyer]

"What's a "functional democracy" Jim?" ----MikeyDB


"....your above description was not present in founding the USA. The purpose was to secure property and suppress revolt - see Howard Zinn." --- Scottfree

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No state can be functional or viable if it first does not "secure property and suppress revolt. " Let's take any negative spin off of that. It's a good thing. For everyone.
If property is not secure and revolt is going on ---what do you have ?
Anarchy? No one feels safe to do the things we do everyday.

The French Revolution or in Iraq : toppling off the King degenerated into just that anarchy of taking property at will and rebellion and killing in the streets.

It also degenerated into a tyranny of the majority, mob psychology whipped up and manipulated by the few --------a thing the American forefathers feared more than having a King. And so after property rights were understood, and separation of power and balance of powers were understood, then came the bill of rights.

....welll um, lecture over, as if I'm saying something you don't know already...sorry.

But I'm trying to achieve an agreeable definition for a "functional democracy."

LOL...Oxymoron ? Functional ? Democracy ?

Anyone ?

Anyone ?

Bueller ?

And so full circle, as Scott Free has predicted, we come to what he said:

That's my point though. What is functional? Democracies are so prone to failure and corruption that they are always barely functional. That's why the WB promotes democracy (Greg Palast) since, they admit, it's easier to implement their desired changes through "bribertization" (their word) if the country is a democracy.

 

[MikeyDB]

I dispute the functionality of "democracy" based on the exercise of control over populations conditioned to consume by industry and corporations that funnel wealth and political power to the one percent of these "democracies".

When one percent of the population controls the wealth of the other 99% how does this speak to the notion of "democracy"?

 

[jimmoyer]

When wealth is allowed to dominate society this is what we get, everytime that wealth will nurture itself and nothing else.IMO
---------------------------------------Darkbeaver----------------------------------------------------------

Wealth dominating is the culprit ?

How can that happen, unless you squelch the natural tendency of the spirit of mankind ?

If you accumulate wealth, you will seek to protect it. And only you will want to be the final arbiter of what you do with that wealth. Maybe you want it for the kids ? Or for your favorite charity, or to build or acquire another company to expand ?

Unless you come up with a formula to change the psychology of humans, you are going to see always a bell curve in any society where there are haves, medium haves and have-nots.

Demographics.

Amortization tables.

Bell Curves.

Median, averages

Each one of comprises just one part of the aggregate that is predictable.

So many of us will accomplish great things, so many of us will accomplish less. Some of us will be paupers, others kings, writers, artists.

Statistics.

MikeyDB, just as the average of our lifespans are predictable so is the average of success and accumulation of wealth predictable when looking at the bell curve in any society.
What's not as predictable is the individual. But society as a whole is.

Also we need to leaven (hah !! LOL !) our politics to match that more of our basic psychology and therefore our predictability in the aggregate.
.
.
.
.