A Few Hypothetical Questions Here...
A Few Hypothetical Questions Here...
If you had to choose, which would you prefer....
...living in a nation under the suzerainty of a more powerful nation or empire while having vastly better economic opportunity or...
...living in a nation completely autonomous and sovereign while having vastly limited economic opportunity?
And...
If you had to decide the numerical equivelency of the inherent worth of one of your nation's soldiers to any number of citizens of any other nation. In other words, if you had the power to save the lives of 3 Ethiopians, the cost being the lives of 2 of your own military servicemen or women, would you?
Would you only trade nothing less than 5 for 2? Or nothing less than 6? Or any at all?
If you had to choose, which would you prefer....
...living in a nation under the suzerainty of a more powerful nation or empire while having vastly better economic opportunity or...
...living in a nation completely autonomous and sovereign while having vastly limited economic opportunity?
And...
If you had to decide the numerical equivelency of the inherent worth of one of your nation's soldiers to any number of citizens of any other nation. In other words, if you had the power to save the lives of 3 Ethiopians, the cost being the lives of 2 of your own military servicemen or women, would you?
Would you only trade nothing less than 5 for 2? Or nothing less than 6? Or any at all? Wow, you actually sent me to the dictionary:
Suzerainty (pronounced: [ˈsuzəɹɪnti] or [ˈsuzəˌɹeɪnti]) is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy to control its foreign affairs. The more powerful entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the head of state of that more powerful entity, is called a suzerain. The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has some (limited) self-rule. A suzerain can also mean a feudal lord, to whom vassals must pay tribute.
As to your hypothetical, I will choose neither and keep my citizenship in the USA. Few choices are absolute...
And when it comes to the battle and who is worth saving and who should die, let me just say I am a total chauvinist. :)
i dont care which one..as long as im buff
There are too many variables to give an absolute answer to your first question. It really depends on how benevolent that empire is and exactly what the relationship is.
It really depends on how benevolent that empire is and exactly what the relationship is. At which point, or "threshold" would that empire have to cross before you consider being under it's subjugation?
For instance, perhaps it's leaders dictated to your leaders your country's alliances and enemies. Or perhaps it's leaders exercised their influence to win the right of the empire's corporations to flood your country with their products. Or, perhaps they stationed their soldiers in your country?
If the tradeoff being was a vastly improved economic situation, would you be ok with it?
All that aside, if you were presented with the first two options, those being two diametrically opposite of each other, and without the ability to choose something in-between, which would you choose?
If you had to choose, which would you prefer....
...living in a nation under the suzerainty of a more powerful nation or empire while having vastly better economic opportunity or...
...living in a nation completely autonomous and sovereign while having vastly limited economic opportunity?
And...
If you had to decide the numerical equivelency of the inherent worth of one of your nation's soldiers to any number of citizens of any other nation. In other words, if you had the power to save the lives of 3 Ethiopians, the cost being the lives of 2 of your own military servicemen or women, would you?
Would you only trade nothing less than 5 for 2? Or nothing less than 6? Or any at all? For your first question, I'll say that I wouldnt really be that bothered, though if I had to choose, probably the former of the choices.
For your second question, I think it's impossible to answer. I don't believe it's within the realm of human capabilities to decide the worth of a human life in comparison to anything, or anyone, else. Unfortunately, many disagree with me...
If you had to choose, which would you prefer....
...living in a nation under the suzerainty of a more powerful nation or empire while having vastly better economic opportunity or...
...living in a nation completely autonomous and sovereign while having vastly limited economic opportunity?
And...
If you had to decide the numerical equivelency of the inherent worth of one of your nation's soldiers to any number of citizens of any other nation. In other words, if you had the power to save the lives of 3 Ethiopians, the cost being the lives of 2 of your own military servicemen or women, would you?
Would you only trade nothing less than 5 for 2? Or nothing less than 6? Or any at all?
Answer:
If you had to choose, which would you prefer....
...living in a nation under the suzerainty of a more powerful nation or empire while having vastly better economic opportunity or...
...living in a nation completely autonomous and sovereign while having vastly limited economic opportunity?
And...
If you had to decide the numerical equivelency of the inherent worth of one of your nation's soldiers to any number of citizens of any other nation. In other words, if you had the power to save the lives of 3 Ethiopians, the cost being the lives of 2 of your own military servicemen or women, would you?
Would you only trade nothing less than 5 for 2? Or nothing less than 6? Or any at all? Wow, you actually sent me to the dictionary:
Suzerainty (pronounced: [ˈsuzəɹɪnti] or [ˈsuzəˌɹeɪnti]) is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy to control its foreign affairs. The more powerful entity in the suzerainty relationship, or the head of state of that more powerful entity, is called a suzerain. The term suzerainty was originally used to describe the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and its surrounding regions. It differs from sovereignty in that the tributary has some (limited) self-rule. A suzerain can also mean a feudal lord, to whom vassals must pay tribute.
As to your hypothetical, I will choose neither and keep my citizenship in the USA. Few choices are absolute...
And when it comes to the battle and who is worth saving and who should die, let me just say I am a total chauvinist. :)
Answer:
i dont care which one..as long as im buff
Answer:
There are too many variables to give an absolute answer to your first question. It really depends on how benevolent that empire is and exactly what the relationship is.
Answer:
It really depends on how benevolent that empire is and exactly what the relationship is. At which point, or "threshold" would that empire have to cross before you consider being under it's subjugation?
For instance, perhaps it's leaders dictated to your leaders your country's alliances and enemies. Or perhaps it's leaders exercised their influence to win the right of the empire's corporations to flood your country with their products. Or, perhaps they stationed their soldiers in your country?
If the tradeoff being was a vastly improved economic situation, would you be ok with it?
All that aside, if you were presented with the first two options, those being two diametrically opposite of each other, and without the ability to choose something in-between, which would you choose?
Answer:
If you had to choose, which would you prefer....
...living in a nation under the suzerainty of a more powerful nation or empire while having vastly better economic opportunity or...
...living in a nation completely autonomous and sovereign while having vastly limited economic opportunity?
And...
If you had to decide the numerical equivelency of the inherent worth of one of your nation's soldiers to any number of citizens of any other nation. In other words, if you had the power to save the lives of 3 Ethiopians, the cost being the lives of 2 of your own military servicemen or women, would you?
Would you only trade nothing less than 5 for 2? Or nothing less than 6? Or any at all? For your first question, I'll say that I wouldnt really be that bothered, though if I had to choose, probably the former of the choices.
For your second question, I think it's impossible to answer. I don't believe it's within the realm of human capabilities to decide the worth of a human life in comparison to anything, or anyone, else. Unfortunately, many disagree with me...