Australian Politics Forum - What is international law?

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14892
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #60 - Jan 13^th, 2026 at 11:18am

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 10:28am:

If 10% of the population is earning $9,990,000 per year, and the rest are earning $1000, the median salary is $1000, and the average is $1,000,000. Your little switch from the median to the average merely covers up the fact that most Chinese workers earn less than half of what our unemployment benefits are by pretending that China's mega-rich (and there are plenty of them) are sharing their income with China's workers.

The point is the trend.

In 1980, the Western world had high consumption levels and poverty rates c.10-20%, without the increasing extremes in wealth evident today, whereas in 1980, with China's population soon to reach 1 billion people, extreme povery affected over 90% of the population:

(google)

In 1980, China's average income varied by sector, with rural per capita net income around 155 to 191 yuan (c. 2 USD) while GDP per capita was approximately $195 USD, reflecting a largely agrarian economy just beginning its market reforms under Deng Xiaoping, a stark contrast to later decades.

Today Western nations still typically have poverty rates c. 5-10% (but with unaffordable housing for average wage earners in Oz), while in China the poverty rate has decreased from 90% to around 17% today.

(google)

China has drastically reduced extreme poverty, declaring rural extreme poverty eliminated by its official $2.30/day (2017 PPP) standard in 2021, though using higher World Bank lines reveals lingering poverty, with around 17% below $6.85/day (2017 PPP) in 2021

Which nation is likely to reach common prosperity sooner - Oz (or the US) or China?

Let's have a look in a decade, the answer should be clearer by then.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52183
At my desk.

Re: What is international law?
Reply #61 - Jan 13^th, 2026 at 2:10pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 11:18am:

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 10:28am:

If 10% of the population is earning $9,990,000 per year, and the rest are earning $1000, the median salary is $1000, and the average is $1,000,000. Your little switch from the median to the average merely covers up the fact that most Chinese workers earn less than half of what our unemployment benefits are by pretending that China's mega-rich (and there are plenty of them) are sharing their income with China's workers.

The point is the trend.

The point is, you said I was wrong. I wasn't. You keep telling lies, then insisting they are beside the point. The CCP is not trustworthy. They say something, but mean something entirely different, and you never know when they are going to reveal what they really mean. Just like their little pinks. But at the end of the day, you simply can not trust them.

If the CCP puts their foot on your throat until you are almost dead, when they remove their foot your health will trend upwards at a miraculous rate. It doesn't mean you will live forever. It merely means they have taken their foot off your throat. You may even thanks them for removing their foot. But you would have to be a moron to trust them while they gloat about how helpful they have been.

Now, back to the point. The median Chinese income is still less than half of what our unemployment benefits are. Do you agree with this now?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14892
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #62 - Jan 14^th, 2026 at 12:56pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 2:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 11:18am:

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 10:28am:

If 10% of the population is earning $9,990,000 per year, and the rest are earning $1000, the median salary is $1000, and the average is $1,000,000. Your little switch from the median to the average merely covers up the fact that most Chinese workers earn less than half of what our unemployment benefits are by pretending that China's mega-rich (and there are plenty of them) are sharing their income with China's workers.

The point is the trend.

The point is, you said I was wrong. I wasn't. You keep telling lies, then insisting they are beside the point.

Wrong on both counts, poverty is decreasing at a faster rate in China than in the West, while Jobseeker payment is increasingly sinking below the poverty-line in Oz, so any comparison with the mean wage in China is irrelevant - which IS the point.

Meanwhile, given the thread's topic, you refuse to discuss the tension between individual and universal 'rights', demonstrating your mental incompetence.

fyi:

1. 'rights' don't exist except as defined in law.

2. eg, the'right' to pursue happiness (preamble to the US Constitution) is little more than a desire possesed by all individuals; personal desires aren't 'rights'.

3 The UN Universal Declaration of Human (ie the collective) Rights envisions and defines the conditions required for peace and prosperity for all.

3. 'Communism' was born out of a desire for a better life for all, amid the social injustices of the Industrial Revolution.

You can discuss all these propostions, or confirm your mental incompetence to address these fundamental issues underlying the impetus to international law.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 52183 At my desk.	Re: What is international law? Reply #63 - Jan 14^th, 2026 at 1:02pm I responded to the covid post in the covid thread.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 14892 Gender:	Re: What is international law? Reply #64 - Jan 14^th, 2026 at 1:08pm freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2026 at 1:02pm: I responded to the covid post in the covid thread. Your mental incompetence confirmed; you can't discuss international law even when a discussion plan is laid out for you. Deplorable.
Back to top	IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Израиль Навсегда

Posts: 6816

Re: What is international law?
Reply #65 - Jan 21^st, 2026 at 11:32am

Revelations from Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney delivered to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday.

Quote:

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works..

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-speech-davos-rules-based-order-9.7053350

Back to top

עַם יִשְרָאֵל חַי

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14370
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #66 - Jan 21^st, 2026 at 1:32pm

For 200 years, US law ruled South America.
'The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, was a foundational U.S. foreign policy warning European powers against further colonization or interference in the Americas, asserting the Western Hemisphere's separate sphere of influence, while the U.S. pledged not to meddle in European affairs, establishing a policy of non-intervention and a principle of distinct New World and Old World political systems. It declared the Americas closed to new European colonies and viewed any such attempts as hostile acts, becoming a cornerstone of American strategy for asserting dominance in the hemisphere.'

It has moved forward to real US colonies with Cuba, Colombia and Mexico next in line. The police are the Pentagon and the judge is Mr President.

Back to top

IP Logged

Captain Nemo Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14105 Melbourne Gender:	Re: What is international law? Reply #67 - Jan 22^nd, 2026 at 9:04am Ouch!
Back to top	The 2025 election WAS a shocker. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 56190
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #68 - Jan 23^rd, 2026 at 3:52pm

Trump Announces New Round Of Tariffs On Everyone Who Didn't Laugh At His Jokes In Davos

"I thought it was very rude and disrespectful," Trump told reporters before leaving. "None of the other speeches people gave were funny at all, quite frankly. They should be ashamed of their speeches. My speech was very funny. Probably the funniest speech ever given here at Davos, from what people are saying. It really was something. All of the smart people were laughing. The leaders who laughed will be rewarded, but the people who didn't laugh will pay a heavy price, believe me. America will remember."

Trump's speech, which interlaced clever humor with scathing attacks against European leaders, made the rounds on social media, drawing a mixture of praise and criticism. The White House later made it clear that refusal to laugh would bring consequences. "The president is seeing who his allies are," said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. "Nations with leaders who are not willing to laugh at perfectly delivered jokes will learn an important lesson."

At publishing time, Trump had stated that seizing any territory controlled by leaders who didn't laugh at his jokes was vital to the U.S.'s national security.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14370
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #69 - Yesterday at 2:08pm

Just as Trump degrades the UN, so does China, by making its own law of the sea and diplomatic rules.

Philippine Sen. Risa Hontiveros said in a speech Monday that Chinese diplomats have violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations when they publicly censured and tried to restrain Filipino officials’ views and criticisms in their own country. In a criticism of Hontiveros, the Chinese diplomatic mission in Manila recently said it has no intention of silencing anybody in the country, but it would respond to any attempt to “smear” China and its leaders. Greenland's parliament (Trump Organisation Inc) is silent and the Philippines Senate (Pentagon, Republican) is learning Chinese.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14892
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #70 - Yesterday at 2:51pm

tallowood wrote on Jan 21^st, 2026 at 11:32am:

Revelations from Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney delivered to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday.

Quote:

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works..

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-speech-davos-rules-based-order-9.7053350

Yes, and "this bargain no longer works" because certain dogmas of Neoclassical economic orthodoxy eg trade comparative advantage, resulted in the US - subject to WTO rules like everyone else - became de-industrialized in favour of a fake 'financialized' economy in which the US, possessing the world's global reserve currency backed by the Pentagon, can now threaten tariffs on anyone who doesn't follow MAGA.

Unfortunately, Carney - a former central banker - is part of the problem not the solution.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14892
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #71 - Yesterday at 2:55pm

Frank wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2026 at 3:52pm:

Trump Announces New Round Of Tariffs On Everyone Who Didn't Laugh At His Jokes In Davos

"I thought it was very rude and disrespectful," Trump told reporters before leaving. "None of the other speeches people gave were funny at all, quite frankly. They should be ashamed of their speeches. My speech was very funny. Probably the funniest speech ever given here at Davos, from what people are saying. It really was something. All of the smart people were laughing. The leaders who laughed will be rewarded, but the people who didn't laugh will pay a heavy price, believe me. America will remember."

Trump's speech, which interlaced clever humor with scathing attacks against European leaders, made the rounds on social media, drawing a mixture of praise and criticism. The White House later made it clear that refusal to laugh would bring consequences. "The president is seeing who his allies are," said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. "Nations with leaders who are not willing to laugh at perfectly delivered jokes will learn an important lesson."

At publishing time, Trump had stated that seizing any territory controlled by leaders who didn't laugh at his jokes was vital to the U.S.'s national security.

Er Frank ...isn't this a TDS-inspired satire?

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14370 Armidale Gender:	Re: What is international law? Reply #72 - Yesterday at 3:03pm No, tgd it's factual imperialism. The statements are based on Xi's speech to the Great Hall of Party People on the occasion of China Sea of Land and Oil Victory Islands.
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14892
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #73 - Yesterday at 3:58pm

chimera wrote Yesterday at 2:08pm:

Just as Trump degrades the UN, so does China, by making its own law of the sea and diplomatic rules.

Yes.

But I would suggest China's behaviour in the SCS is caused by US meddling in China's affairs eg selling arms to Taiwan (while the UN agrees Taiwan is part of China).

To reclaim Taiwan from US-backed Taiwanese 'individual freedom/rights' ideologues, China needs military bases in the SCS, to counter US bases in Japan (and Okinawa), and the Philippines, all bordering the SCS.

Which gets us back to the failure to establish international law, namely, your delusional natural 'individual rights/freedom' nonsense, which many philosophers have rightly rejected:

(google)

Jeremy Bentham: The most prominent critic, who famously described natural rights as "nonsense upon stilts". Bentham, a utilitarian, argued that rights are solely creations of law, and that talk of rights inherent in nature is an "anarchical fallacy" that undermines legal order.

So true, look at the breakdown of the socalled rules-based system today - which Carney is bemoaning.

Edmund Burke: A conservative thinker who opposed the abstract, a priori reasoning behind natural rights (as expressed in the French Revolution). He believed that rights are not inherent, but rather inherited and derived from social evolution, tradition, and established law, calling natural rights a "digest of anarchy".

and

Karl Marx: Criticized natural rights as "bourgeois ideology," arguing they are not universal but rather designed to protect the interests of private property owners in a capitalist society.

and

Thomas Hobbes: While often associated with early modern rights discussions, Hobbes argued that in the "state of nature," there are no moral rights, only a chaotic "war of all against all" where individuals have a right to everything, including others' bodies, making life "nasty, brutish, and short". He argued that rights must be surrendered to a sovereign (the state) to create order, making him an opponent of the idea of inalienable rights.

...to name a few.

Quote:

Philippine Sen. Risa Hontiveros said in a speech Monday that Chinese diplomats have violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations when they publicly censured and tried to restrain Filipino officials’ views and criticisms in their own country. In a criticism of Hontiveros, the Chinese diplomatic mission in Manila recently said it has no intention of silencing anybody in the country, but it would respond to any attempt to “smear” China and its leaders. Greenland's parliament (Trump Organisation Inc) is silent and the Philippines Senate (Pentagon, Republican) is learning Chinese.

Yes ...well your debating 'technique', namely, looking for the contradictions in opposing veiwpoints isn't really advanced by such narratives (eg your comment re Frank's 'amusing' narrative).

While you - like FD who has run away, ashamed of his mental incompetence to discuss the concept of international law - refuse to forgo your belief in non-existent 'individual natural rights', a wide-spread delusion which is why delegates present at the founding of the UN were unable to establish effective international law at the start of the age of MAD, despite the fact most of them were prepared to subsume national sovereignty to the UN, to achieve a peaceful world based on concepts of universal justice, morality and fairness, as opposed to law based on individual self-interest... aka 'individual rights', and in the case of individual nations - might is right

Back to top

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 4:13pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14370
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: What is international law?
Reply #74 - Yesterday at 5:44pm

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 3:58pm:

your delusional natural 'individual rights/freedom' nonsense,..
While you refuse to forgo your belief in non-existent 'individual natural rights',

And you don't change your nonsense. Where have I ever mentioned what you accuse me about?

How is the national sovereignty of Philippines different from national sovereignty of PRC? How can it be 'individual rights'?
You are completely scrambled.

Back to top

IP Logged