Jump to content

Spain's Mistake


xtreme69

Recommended Posts

Accuse me of being Stalinist (which is not the same - Stalinism is the belief that any act committed to further socialism is a moral act), and then totally misunderstand the point. Nice job

Stalin-esque, then. :rolleyes:

Did I say that was the end goal? No. In fact, I said that it does not necessarily matter what the end goal is, thanks to the invisible hand. The end goal of capitalists and corporations is to get rich, but the end result is prosperity and wealth for everyone. Similarly, the end goal of US foreign policy is the perpetuation of US power and dominance, but because the values of the US are those of political, economic, social and religious freedom, perpetuation of US power is in itself good - so long as those values hold true, and relatively, they are. Take a look at what the rest of the world stands for, and tell me who you'd rather see dominant. Red China, where being Buddhist or Christian is grounds for imprisonment? Fascist Islam, where the penalty for religious conversion is throat-slitting?

I see U.S. ideals of political, economic, social and religious freedom are really taking of fin Uzbeckistan, China (who's appalling human rights record is ignored in exchange for "favored nation" trading status).

What is the invisible hand?

How does it provide these "ethical results" you speak of? Can you cite some examples of where application of U.S. power has corresponded with the fostering of democratic values? Kuwait, maybe?

Regardless, I see we're back to insults, foul language and refusal to engage in debate, which apparently is what passes for a concession from you as you've done it in several threads now where you have been shot out of the water, according to other participants and readers.

You just can't resist playing the victim, can you? Where are these insults and foul language you speak of? If you have a case, let Greg know and let him act. Or you can just keep hurling your baseless accusations to keep your alleged fan club (none of whom, interestingly enough, bother to back you up on the board itself) amused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can you cite some examples of where application of U.S. power has corresponded with the fostering of democratic values?

Um, Germany? :rolleyes:

Where are these insults and foul language you speak of?

Let's see... you accused me of "giving blowjobs" (figuratively), and in this latest post of yours alone you accused me of being Stalinist, of speaking "jibber-jabber", and "bo**ocks" is a swear word where I come from. Would you say that word to your grandmother?

But anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm not complaining to Greg because I feel that the weakness of your arguments is well illustrated by your boorish and insulting debating "tactics".

Onward and upward...

Stalin-esque, then.

You are, once again, missing my point. I'm not talking about the means, I'm talking about the ideas behind them. If you want to discuss the means of Gulf II, let's see, a multilateral organisation of 30 nations agreed that Saddam's regime posed a threat to world peace and acted upon it in full accordance with the Geneva Convention and with no more force than was necessary. I think that the motivations behind Gulf II were genuine, the war was fought as cleanly as wars can be fought, and the end result was perfectly desirable for all except Saddam and those who prospered under his tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, Germany? 

Germany had a pre existing democratic tradition going back to post World War 1 days. Hitler, you'll recall, was elected. You shoulda said Japan.

Let's see... you accused me of "giving blowjobs" (figuratively), and in this latest post of yours alone you accused me of being Stalinist, of speaking "jibber-jabber", and "bo**ocks" is a swear word where I come from. Would you say that word to your grandmother?

But anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm not complaining to Greg because I feel that the weakness of your arguments is well illustrated by your boorish and insulting debating "tactics".

the BJ comement was old news, and I retracted it. i didn't accuse you of being Stalinist, but implied you harbour Stalinist views vis a vis "the ends justify the means." The Mr. T-ism "jibber jabber" is hardly grounds for hurt feelings, and never mind the bollocks.

I think the weakness of your arguments is illustrated by the speed with which you play the victim card, but whatever...

I think that the motivations behind Gulf II were genuine, the war was fought as cleanly as wars can be fought, and the end result was perfectly desirable for all except Saddam and those who prospered under his tyranny.

Well, I, millions of others the world over and, more importantly, thousands of Iraqis, respectfully disagree.

And that, I suppose, is the end of that conversation. No point going around this particular mulberry bush again, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler, you'll recall, was elected. You shoulda said Japan.

Not so much elected as constitutionally wrangled. But anyway, US power restored democracy in Germany and, you are correct, created it in Japan.

Well, I, millions of others the world over and, more importantly, thousands of Iraqis, respectfully disagree.

I'll leave you with some words to mull over. These come from Ali Mentari, nuclear physicist at Baghdad University.

"You got no idea of what we must do to survive under homicidal maniac... Saddam say 'build atomic bomb,' but we got no stuff to make bomb. So we…send reports to Saddam about great progress. We are truly sorry your CIA intercept them."

When Saddam himself had no idea that his WMD program was a fiction, it's not really surprising that the Bush administration didn't know either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you defend and advocate the continued power of an inhuman butcher like Saddam Hussein? Have you no ethics at all?

Hugo

Where & when exactly did I defend & advocate Saddam????? No where did I say that. Open your eyes...reeeaaad the words Hugo. I said I was against the war in Iraq, I did not say "I love Saddam!!" BTW, whats being done about those "inhumane butchers" in Rwanda, China et al????

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You got no idea of what we must do to survive under homicidal maniac... Saddam say 'build atomic bomb,' but we got no stuff to make bomb. So we…send reports to Saddam about great progress. We are truly sorry your CIA intercept them."

When Saddam himself had no idea that his WMD program was a fiction, it's not really surprising that the Bush administration didn't know either.

Thats an interesting quote, may I ask where you got it from? I'm surprised Bush hasn't used it in some way yet, or maybe he has and I just haven't come across it yet. Anyhow, the implication which arises is certainty of knowledge, particularly concerning the U.S. gov't. Now, you posted one possible (b/c I have yet to read such reports) reason that the Bush administration is questionable in their knowledge of Iraq's affairs. When I first read your post, I thought, following that story, what else does the U.S. not know? However, I'd be willing to bet this question does not "waiver" (popular word these days) your "steadfastness" and will to "stay the course" on the war in Iraq. Why is that? (A loaded question of sorts, almost rhetorical due to your assumptions, I apologize in advance, though I think it is still valid, and would like to hear your response).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the invisible hand. The end goal of capitalists and corporations is to get rich, but the end result is prosperity and wealth for everyone. Similarly, the end goal of US foreign policy is the perpetuation of US power and dominance, but because the values of the US are those of political, economic, social and religious freedom, perpetuation of US power is in itself good - so long as those values hold true, and relatively, they are. Take a look at what the rest of the world stands for, and tell me who you'd rather see dominant. Red China, where being Buddhist or Christian is grounds for imprisonment? Fascist Islam, where the penalty for religious conversion is throat-slitting?

Invisible hand? Well, at least you've read something, Adam Smith is a start I suppose. Theoretically, it seems logical: capitalists and corporations get rich, and out of their self-interest to continue basking in their wealth, they must invest something to allow the weak to survive, assuming they still require human labour (which I'd argue is the case today). Practically, sure it could work. You have the incentives of money to make people work, which should benefit everyone.

The problem is this trickle-down theory has yet to come in full effect, defying gravity if you will, a Hutchison effect in economic philosophy (pretentious enough for you? I mean nothing by it, just another subversive tactic) - of course I'm assuming you can step outside N.America and look at poverty-stricken countries globally. Or maybe thats not necessary, just step outside the centre of an American city (5 min outside) and you enter povershed gheto, with values of sex, drugs, money. Look at the physical and mental health of those people. And look at the popular culture...my latest humourous observation is the 2wd SUV. Whether you think it or not, capitalist societies (as well as communist or otherwise) have an effect elsewhere. Globalization, foreign trade, technology are among the more obvious effects. Things like the environment, health, etc. are slightly less obvious, presumably because they do not hit mainstream media in all its glory. All that was just to provide context to the effects of the all mighty buck and the necessary struggle for it. (Note that one does not necessarily have to assume those effects are 'good' or 'bad' in order to acknowledge they exist). Money was invented to provide a medium of trade, it was more efficient than a pure barter system. But now, money is no longer a means to survive, it is survival, the end.

The problem with capitalism and corporations is not necessarily the entities of which they are. It is the fact that their ideals (some beneficial, some horrific) are not met, and people are under the impression that they are. How do you propose prosperity and wealth will find everyone, or maybe visa versa? Another thing is all the subversion, doublespeak that seems to be occuring. You talk about the obvious faults in various communist states, but (so it seems), the faults of capitalism are not so obvious to the majority. Why is that? I think, to some extent, it is because many of us are incapable, not willing, or simply too lazy to contemplate the effects of their actions, and therefore cannot begin to understand the actions of others. I'm not saying it is humanly possible to figure out everything, but I don't know, at least be aware of your assumptions, and move from there(?). Progress away from arrogance, apply the same thinking in their shoes...sounds a lot like that 'Golden Rule' huh? I suppose I am advocating it. Nonetheless, arrogance and this Golden Rule pose serious problems in this ideological conquest of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open your eyes...reeeaaad the words Hugo.

You're pretty uppitty for somebody who cannot defend his own opinions. Where is your reply to my post, directed at you, at the bottom of page 3 of this thread?

BTW, whats being done about those "inhumane butchers" in Rwanda, China et al????

You have a really schizoid idea here. Half of the time, you want the US to become isolationist and stay at home, the other half you're asking why other evil regimes are not being invaded.

So, do you want the US to ignore tyranny and terrorism brewing overseas forever? Or would you rather they went out, guns blazing, against the whole despotic world?

Because if you think the first, I invite you to read The Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill. It should illustrate nicely to you the problems with ignoring tyranny overseas.

And if you think the second, I'd like to see your idea of a military plan whereby the US could successfully fight a war on so many fronts of this magnitude. 40% of the world's population live in undemocratic nations, and I think it is very unrealistic to expect the US to take on that 40% all at once.

Oh, and if you claim to be a follower of international law and the UN, one might equally ask what, exactly, the UN is doing about Rwanda and China?

Thats an interesting quote, may I ask where you got it from?

I originally read it in a column at www.capmag.com, although that author gleaned it from an interview.

However, I'd be willing to bet this question does not "waiver" (popular word these days) your "steadfastness" and will to "stay the course" on the war in Iraq. Why is that?

Personally, I believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq first. I would have eliminated Iran before Iraq if I were President, since they are bigger sponsors of terrorism and a bigger threat to world peace and a much better case can be made against them. Saddam had to go, but there were more pressing countries to be dealt with first, in my opinion. Some of the evidence that George W had to get rid of Saddam was false, we know that now. That doesn't necessarily make it his fault, because we all make decisions based upon what we know or what we think we know and if our knowledge is incomplete or wrong, our judgements will be too. It doesn't mean we are evil or stupid, though, just misinformed.

So hindsight is 20/20, and what's done is done. The war has happened, Saddam has gone, and the question now is whether or not the US stays and tries to foster democracy and freedom for the Iraqis. If they leave now, almost certainly they are handing the country over to the militants and the Islamic fascists, which would be very irresponsible, much as in Gulf I when George Sr. incited the Iraqis to rise up and then decided to pack it in and go home, leaving Saddam to brutally squash the uprising.

Practically, sure it could work.

Practically, it does work. You have to recognise that capitalist nations have far greater real incomes, average incomes, standards of living, life expectancy, literacy and so forth than uncapitalist nations. Theories are all very well, but theories that do not fit the empirical facts are wrong, and therefore theories that state that capitalism does not produce the best quality of life for the average man are wrong. Plain and simple.

Or maybe thats not necessary, just step outside the centre of an American city (5 min outside) and you enter povershed gheto, with values of sex, drugs, money.

Those problems are far worse in noncapitalist societies. Also, capitalism isn't perfect. The world is not perfect. You are going to have to accept that human sin has been with us since the dawn of time and will always be with us. Men are not angels.

How do you propose prosperity and wealth will find everyone, or maybe visa versa?

I really cannot explain it here. I just suggest you read Adam Smith, Michael Novak, Benjamin Franklin, Jacques Maritain or the later works of Rienhold Niebuhr (very interesting to read this last guy, as he began his intellectual life as a die-hard Marxist and ended up a staunch democratic capitalist).

Thousands of pages have been committed to explaining how the democratic capitalist system produces the best for humanity and I cannot condense that to a few paragraphs for you, I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A decent response Hugo, thank you, you have restored my motivation to post here, for a while I succumbed to sarcasm.

Anyhow...

Personally, I believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq first.
I think it is a mistake to go into any country in the manner of the U.S. (I do tend to pick on the U.S. because they are going about this relatively blatantly - and I live closeby, and we're all to some extent influenced by political geography).

If capitalism and democracy are the better ideologies, then should it not be immediately evident that this is so, and thus people will, by their own choice, adopt them in time? Why go to such lengths- political, psychological, biological warfare - to advance one's ideas? This applies to all leaders/people trying to advance their ideology. And it seems to me that such behaviour is rooted merely in arrogance, and possibily the drive to survive (animalistic instinct? If you want to know what I mean, look to Dawkins, arguably cleans up Darwin).

All of these ideologies are based on assumptions, and first generation followers either believe or disbelieve if they have such a choice. Second generation followers, third, fourth, and so on merely follow tradition, and usually (so it seems) are unaware of the assumptions they live by. Thus when the U.S., or otherwise, enter another country claiming that their ideology is better than the existing one, I can see no possible reason as to why. Sometimes all I see are animals trying desperately to survive from what is their assumption that anyone/anything against the ideology is essentially a threat. I guess my question to myself (and now to you) is what how would the world look if we no longer had the assumption that such threats exist and also that if the so-called threats are left alone, it will lead to the demise of an ideology. I really hate to use the word threat because I know someone out there is going to read that word and say to themselves, 'threat? hell, if we don't take out threats, we die!'. (Sorry for hinting at an accent, but if you pick up on it, you obviously have the same stereotype). Of course, by saying such a thing, you are not realizing the assumptions I am talking about, and cannot apply the assumptions to those on the other side of them.

That doesn't necessarily make it his fault, because we all make decisions based upon what we know or what we think we know and if our knowledge is incomplete or wrong, our judgements will be too. It doesn't mean we are evil or stupid, though, just misinformed.
I agree. Except, I doubt Bush or any president makes all the decisions because its simply not possible to know enough. Personally, I doubt he makes any decisions, but from time to time I generalize faults of the administration on Bush because he is the one who takes responsibility of the good and the bad decisions.

But for a response with a bit more substance, I agreed with what you said above. So I ask, shouldn't that humble us, in acknowledging the problem of certainty of knowledge. There are concepts like belief, justified belief, and true justified belief. But forget all that for a second. I think I'm getting too deep into metaphysics now, but here it goes. I think everything we think of as knowledge is rooted in some type of assumption. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think some assumptions are necessary. For example, if I fail to assume the existence of a concrete wall and decide I can run through it, I'm sure my forehead will not appreciate that assumption. I would say this would be an instance of the highest (or very high at least) certainty of knowledge. As for something like, capitalism is the best system. How can you be so certain, as to be willing to take the lives of thousands (and that is a gross understatement)? Now, I'm sure someone will answer with their "reasons" to rid the "threat", so I'll ask that once you do, ask yourself where you get those reasons.

You have to recognise that capitalist nations have far greater real incomes, average incomes, standards of living, life expectancy, literacy and so forth than uncapitalist nations.
What exactly is your point? Basing this type of argument on numbers does not necessarily translate into absolute benefits of the system. However, when you think inside the capitalist system, numbers make sense. But how can you think inside the capitalist system and go on to discredit other systems?

You know what, I can at least question your argument from inside the capitalist system. What good is a greater real income when people are spending their money to kill themselves (slowly and subtly - maybe not even themselves, but definitely future generations). I say this because look at popular culture and the environment for starters. I think we all feel something is wrong, we just dont care (?) or what too lazy (?) to change? Tell you what, you pick something that a lot of disposable income is spent on, and tell me how it is beneficial. It will be good for me as well as for you. You could maybe tie this mysterious link between numbers and benefits to capitalists. I might be defeated on some things, and the same for you. As for life expectancy, same thing as above. Literacy? What good is the ability to read when no one is willing to think for themselves at the same time? And just look at what people are reading. I heard something once, but I forget who said it so I'm hesitant to bring it up, but it is that as the literacy rate of the world increases, the quality of literature decreases because it must cater to the masses. Its not an argument I bring up, just something to ponder I suppose.

Theories are all very well, but theories that do not fit the empirical facts are wrong
This coming from someone advocating Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'? What empirical facts are you looking at. What I see in this society is much decay. Unfortuneately, hypocrisy seems to be more common than altruism. Now, as you know and have said, no one is perfect, so I'm not attacking you personally, but you illustrate my point. You believe in the invisible hand, and then say "Men are not angels". Adam Smith relies on men to be angels for his capitalism to work. Well, thats an exageration, but he definately underestimates the power of self-interest. Or maybe you can defeat my interpretation?
Thousands of pages have been committed to explaining how the democratic capitalist system produces the best for humanity and I cannot condense that to a few paragraphs for you, I'm afraid.
I understand, and you don't think its the same for how the democratic capitalist system of today is pathetic at living up to its own ideals? Besides, the point of my questions here is to find out what you personally know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If capitalism and democracy are the better ideologies, then should it not be immediately evident that this is so, and thus people will, by their own choice, adopt them in time?

They are. In 1900, there were no democracies. In 1950, 31% of the world's population lived in democracies. In 2000, 58%. Democracy and capitalism also go hand-in-hand, because political freedom demands economic freedom, and economic control is impossible without political control.

Why go to such lengths- political, psychological, biological warfare - to advance one's ideas?

Why, indeed? Any message spread with violence is not worth spreading. I'm a pacifist, and strictly opposed to war and violence, but I look at Gulf II not as the beginning of a war waged by the USA and her allies, but the end of a war waged by Saddam Hussein against his own people - a people almost completely handicapped in their ability to fight back.

Is it not good and heroic to use one's superior strength to fight for life on the behalf of those too weak to fight for it themselves? Is that not what firefighters or police officers do - use superior training, skill and dedication to assure life and safety for their fellow men who cannot assure it for themselves in the situations that firefighters and police officers deal with?

Thus when the U.S., or otherwise, enter another country claiming that their ideology is better than the existing one, I can see no possible reason as to why.

What - if anything - do you define as being good, irrevocably and forever? The right to life? Liberty and the right to pursue happiness?

That is a leading question, because if you do believe that those things are good, it means that America's system is, indeed, better than Saddam's, because America values all of those things and Saddam values none of them (save for himself).

And if you believe none of those things are intrinsically good, then you are technically amoral, which means that we are not on the same page and probably never will be.

What good is a greater real income when people are spending their money to kill themselves (slowly and subtly - maybe not even themselves, but definitely future generations).

Well, now you are getting confused about the main point of capitalism, and that is freedom.

People may be killing themselves - it's their right. They are free. There's junk food around, cigarettes, alcohol, nobody forces you to use any of it. I don't drink, smoke, take any drugs, caffeine, eat processed food, I exercise on a very regular basis and that's my right. I'm exercising my freedom. My neighbour can eat McDonald's all the time, smoke and drink a bottle of wine a day. That's his right too. He's exercising his freedom.

Contrast this with socialism, where the rule is coercion. Nobody has freedom, because there is a big state telling you what to do. A person is not in charge of his own life, and a person should be the only ultimate agent of his own destiny, as far as possible. Socialism falls a long way short of that.

I believe in freedom, liberty and personal choice, so I have no alternative than to be a capitalist. It's not perfect. The world isn't perfect. I can accept that, as God accepts that, as Christ accepted that. Can you accept that? It's about freedom and choice.

What empirical facts are you looking at.

That capitalism produces the greatest wealth, is the best solution to poverty, and creates the most freedom. I wish my fellow man the choice between poverty or wealth, so I endorse capitalism. I don't wish to condemn my fellow man to follow a course set by somebody else, or to poverty, or to suffering that I know can be avoided, so I cannot endorse socialism.

Adam Smith relies on men to be angels for his capitalism to work.

Quite the opposite. Adam Smith relies upon the sin of greed for his theory to work and has very accurately discerned self-interest and devised a system whereby self-interest can be harnessed for the benefit of the community. Socialism, conversely, relies upon the sin of envy to gain support and then expects men to live without sin for the system to work - that a man will work as hard as he can for no gain to himself. Laudable, but completely unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I heard something once, but I forget who said it so I'm hesitant to bring it up, but it is that as the literacy rate of the world increases, the quality of literature decreases because it must cater to the masses. Its not an argument I bring up, just something to ponder I suppose.

I also heard something once... it was that the average American newspaper only requires a Grade 3 reading level. Talk about catering to the masses...

I prefer to read British newspapers to American ones because the quality of writing is so much better. I've also noticed that literature written even as recently as 50 years ago is of a substantially higher level than most writing today. I'm not sure if this is simply because only the higher-class works survive, or because of "catering to the masses".

Seems to me that if newspapers weren't written so an 8-year old could easily understand them, perhaps the average adult wouldn't be virtually illiterate. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer to read British newspapers to American ones because the quality of writing is so much better.
I've also noticed that literature written even as recently as 50 years ago is of a substantially higher level than most writing today.

These comment are so subjective as to be laughable. Read any text of Charles Dickens and you will be struck by its wordiness. Why was Dickens wordy? He was paid by the word and his readers thought more words implied more meaning.

Mozart and Hemingway are arguably great because of their apparent simplicity.

But even taking your argument at face value - modern US culture panders to the masses - what's wrong with that? I thought democracy was a good thing, and the House of Commons an important institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

modern US culture panders to the masses - what's wrong with that? I thought democracy was a good thing, and the House of Commons an important institution.

There's nothing wrong with it, but is there no longer a place for higher expectations and even higher culture? The average American has been so removed from class and culture that they can no longer be bothered to use proper English.

There's a movie, I forget what it's called, but it's premise is about the "lowest common demoninator". Because all people are NOT created equal, it's the government's job to make them equal. And because dumb people cannot be made smarter, the smart people must be made dumb. Take away the government plot aspect, and that's where we're headed anyway.

I think that the more we dumb-down the media and popular culture, the more we lower our expectations of the masses, the lower the masses will stoop. Why pay for 12 years of public education, when we only need 3 years to understand the events around us? Maybe they had it right 150 years ago when you went to school to learn language and math, and maybe a little about the world, then you went right to work after grade 6 or 8. Everybody got along fine back then.

And the issue is not just language. Democracy is a great thing, but the fact is that some people are smarter than others, and maybe they should be put in charge a little more. (Anyone wanna vote for me? :lol: j/k.... i shouldn't be in charge of anything) That's the reason we have representatives.

Anyway, I just think it's a shame the level of education many high school graduates have. (or don't have, which may be more telling)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average American has been so removed from class and culture that they can no longer be bothered to use proper English.
People are as they are. In my experience, they are quite smart in managing what matters to them.

But I have never failed to be surprised in watching the ways some criticize others in a way to benefit. The benefit usually turns on the idea "I'm better."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...