If the definition of self-interest is really that broad, then your statement means basically nothing.

And a statement that means nothing cannot generate conclusions that don't mean nothing.

You claim that nations act on their own pragmatic self interest. Explain the British ban on slavery, how was that pragmatic? I claim it was self-interest: idealistic self-interest, for the most part.

My arguement is that the world isn't nearly as pragmatic as you seem to believe. Ideals do matter, and nations act on them.

Yes. I'm clear on how you see things.
Thanks.

Art is clearly backing out of this discussion. His last few responses have been non-committal, non-sensical equivocation. He must be realizing the old adage 'Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics, win or loose, you're still a retard.'
OT, but I guess for me it's just fun. I know I'll never change anyone's mind (or win or loose), but since I'm procrastinating...

Ahh well, it really is time to get some work done.

Actually, I believe this is not quite as described above. So it merits repeating. I think this is a gentlemen's way of moving forward and I offer it here as an example of how this board might improve its interactions.
......................................

Thanks for your thoughtful extended views. There's much to agree with in what you say. Our differences are a matter of degree. Your position is an important one to hear as is mine. Together, we represent a sampling of the current views held by people of good will. I'm sure we can find ways to work toward ensuring the survivability of the cultures that support and value our lives as well as ways of minimizing the threats from those who value only something inconceivably narrow.

We are, after all, on the same side of history.