Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday April 24 2018, @07:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-sure-that-threats-will-work dept.

President Rouhani warns that White House failure to uphold Iran nuclear deal would prompt firm reaction from Tehran.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has called on US President Donald Trump to uphold the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, or "face severe consequences". 

In a televised speech, Rouhani said the "Iranian government will react firmly" if the White House fails to "live up to their commitments" under the agreement. 

The warning comes weeks in advance of a May 12 deadline for Trump to renew the deal.

The US president has previously said he would scrap the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which he has called the "worst deal in history", unless "a better option" is presented to him. 

[...] The landmark deal reached in Lausanne, Switzerland in April 2015 with China, Russia, France, Great Britain, Germany and the US offered Iran more than $110bn a year in sanctions relief and a return to the global economy in exchange for halting its drive for a nuclear weapon.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @11:20PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 24 2018, @11:20PM (#671413)

    I'm not convinced that you understand the word.

    A lot of folks think that it means "chaos".
    That's NOT what it means.
    An == without
    Archy == rulers

    Anarchy is using the smallest amount of organization needed to get a task done.
    ...and dissolving the organization upon completion of the task.

    self-annihilating?

    Yup. See "dissolving" (above).

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 25 2018, @09:27AM (4 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday April 25 2018, @09:27AM (#671562) Journal
    The problem that the grandparent is talking about is how to prevent the formation of a ruling class. In an anarchic society, you require cooperation to accomplish nontrivial tasks. At some point, you end up needing specialisation and so you develop administrators who are responsible for coordinating this cooperative activity. And then you end up with the administrators slowly morphing into managers. How do you stop the managers from becoming rulers? That's the fundamental problem that democracies have grappled with for a couple of thousand years and pretending that it will just go away doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the debate.
    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @01:12PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25 2018, @01:12PM (#671609)

      In modern organization, the specialist knowledge is extracted and codified in form of System of Quality, allowing (in theory) to switch agents (humans) between tasks with ease. With time, quality procedures should get more refined and detailed.
      Informational society without secrets - without Intellectual (Private) Property, and with AI deployed for actual benefit of humankind, should be able to provide an anarchic society's ad-hoc cooperation groups with both specialist knowledge and coordination services on-demand. That would be a "Subsingularity" which would still be a boon in overall development of humanity.

      At some point, you end up needing specialisation and so you develop administrators who are responsible for coordinating this cooperative activity. And then you end up with the administrators slowly morphing into managers. How do you stop the managers from becoming rulers?

      But I don't think that this is how rulers sprung into being. I assume it is a sort of popularity contest, where people become sort of celebrities, by providing entertainment or meaning to their peers, and through popularity (and occasional undermining of the opposition through ridicule or violence) acquire influence. Study children or primates' groups behavior and you'll gain insight into the nature of emergent social hierarchies.

      Hopefully, an anarchic society would be enough educated and prepared to resist creation of permanent power structures, but any unforeseen crises, or serendipitous discoveries, and the heroes they will produce may become a crackle in the perfection ...

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 25 2018, @04:46PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 25 2018, @04:46PM (#671694) Journal

        It probably happened in lots of different ways, but way back in Sumeria they only had rulers in times of crisis. The candidates would meet on "The field of Enlil" (the wind god) and give speeches about why they should be chosen to handle the crisis. At some point they selected a ruler who made the crisis permanent. (OTOH, before that happened they had lots of priests who had considerable power, so it's not a creation from nothing. The priests just didn't control armed forces.)

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:25PM (1 child)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday April 25 2018, @08:25PM (#671840)

      How do you stop the managers from becoming rulers?

      Term limits?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday April 26 2018, @08:53AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Thursday April 26 2018, @08:53AM (#672088) Journal

        That works for individuals, but not for dynasties. It also doesn't avoid the problems of real power shifting to a position with no term limits and the position with term limits becoming more of a figurehead. This can happen very easily with political parties, where it doesn't actually matter who the nominal leader is, they're doing whatever the executive committee (which holds no public office) tells them to do and won't get the backing of the reelection engine next time or the cushy jobs for former leaders afterwards if they don't.

        This is the fundamental problem that libertarians never seem to address: It's easy to impose limits on the powers of the organisation that calls itself a government, but it's much harder to prevent that from just shifting power to less accountable organisations.

        --
        sudo mod me up