I wrote:

> > it is not a foregone conclusion that *any* one country
> > should "dominate".

Kevin Gowen commented:

> Yes, it is, but you will never understand this fact so there is no point
in
> discussing it with you.

Well, in the spirit of trying to agree with you, let's recap what was said
back in the other thread. You said one country must dominate because in any
human relationship or grouping there is always one individual or party which
dominates. We worked through the example of the school playground, dominated
by a bully. I pointed out that if half a dozen kids grouped together they
would be strong enough to resist the bully. You then responded by saying
that one of the six would then emerge as leader of that group. I disagreed
with you.

Let us say I was wrong to disagree. Let us say you were right, and one of
the six kids would emerge as leader. Wouldn't we then have a bipolar
playground? And given that other groups of kids could do the same thing,
couldn't we have a multipolar playground?

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com