Venezuela off the rails

[Gorgon]

I wrote the first sentence as I was reading the link, I probably wouldn't have by the time I was finished.

 

I don't agree that individual rights have anything to do with the definition of Capitalism except in a very general sense, or when held up against an extreme opposite. Individual rights is more the purview of (economic) Liberalism, which is maybe what Capitalism.org means by Capitalism, who knows.

[Junai]

In essence our way of doing things are quite similar to the rest of Europe.

Yep, that it is. It's just from an american perspective it can be called socialist, see the awesome Daily Show series on Norway :D

Don't worry. Norwegian neocons attended the Bilderberge conference a couple'o yrs ago, and now the papers in Norway give them all the attention they want. They're leading us towards a truly enlightening program including; eutanacy, the use of professional US contractors to secure Norwegian interests abroad, breaking of all contact with countries like Iran (evil axis!) and a hastened march towards environmental disaster. Maybe the famous Katrina of foreclosures and spray-painted lawns will hit us too. Soon to be a security state with a US termite hive mind of authoritarian appetites which brings rot, decay and an ambient humming cacophony of screaming kids programmed by CNN to cheer everytime **** Cheney orchestrates one of his media drive-bys.

 

It's RFID time..

 

J.

[Gfted1]

Cool, welcome aboard.

[Gorgon]

Lol

[Junai]

[Humodour]

So I take it you exclude democracies from the category of statism seeing as how the people can reject their leaders and their policies.

wow, what a strawman. you're at best disingenuous, at worst... well, we all know. yes, btw, pure democracies are statist. if you had bothered to read the link you would have seen them included.

 

The definition itself appears to me to be soaked in ideology.

no, just you are.

 

What tax rate and redistribution level constitutes slavery ?

any on income, since there is no choice.

 

Also calling Capitalism a political system is a secondary meaning, the first is always the Capitalist market system,

only to myopics such as you that don't truly understand what the word capitalism means. it is a socio-economic system, which includes not only the functions of government, but the free-market economy, and the concept of individual rights. i should add, no statist system includes any concept for individual rights (only "privileges" granted by the state).

 

this often leads to further confusion when people forget to mention the difference.

not to anyone that rationally thinks about such things.

 

taks

 

Oh look, it's Objectivism!

[Walsingham]

I finally took the time to look up neo-con. Apparently it means someone who think the USA should use its considerable power to help bring democracy and individual rights and so on to other countries. Which means I am a neo-con, along with plenty of my hippy friends, who say they should have been doing so for years.

[lord of flies]

I finally took the time to look up neo-con. Apparently it means someone who think the USA should use its considerable power to help bring democracy and individual rights and so on to other countries. Which means I am a neo-con, along with plenty of my hippy friends, who say they should have been doing so for years.

Neo-cons, in addition to being military interventionists (which I'll come back to in a moment) are also conservatives. They believe in an abolition or prevention of many rights, while simultaneously supporting economic policies designed to help the rich at the expense of the poor.

 

Neo-cons are also military interventionists, which means they believe in the (preposterous) idea that war will somehow make the world better. Furthermore, neo-cons tend to view their goals in a very black-and-white terms; that is, they have either achieved their goals, or they have not, with no middle ground. This can be seen most clearly in their rather dim view of diplomacy, since the purpose of diplomacy is reaching an equitable compromise, and their dislike of multilateralism, since they don't achieve their goals perfectly. Thus the neoconservative movement's demonization of desires to talk with "enemies of the United States" (Iran, Venezuela, et al).

 

It really is an atrocious foreign policy lead by atrocious people. Assuming the goals of spreading democracy and progressivism to societies worldwide, negotiations (particularly trade negations) would have far greater effects; if a foreign power is reliant on the United States' trade, that can be the knife that twists the last bastion of regressivism in a given nation.

 

Of course, the problem with the use of trade negotiations is that that relies on the US being willing to give something, let's say, money, for something else, let's say, oil. But once the United States does this, the game suddenly changes. Because the United States has built a trade relationship with a foreign power, they have also become economically connected to it. Big businesses now have an interest in ensuring that the status quo remains in effect - after all, progressivism and democracy mean workers' rights and minimum wages, which pulls money out of the businesses' pocket.

 

In the end, neo-conservative ideology and tactics are a failure, because they rely on unilateral military force and also connect themselves to plutocracy, which means they cannot easily advance their goals non-militarily.

[Monte Carlo]

Neo-cons are also military interventionists, which means they believe in the (preposterous) idea that war will somehow make the world better.

 

Yeah, war is preposterous. I mean, declaring it on Nazi Germany in 1939 was, like, total FAIL!

 

The only reason that War isn't as optimal as it used to be is squeamish media and infantilized Western electorates. Can you imagine CNN on Omaha beachi n1944? The focus groups in Iowa and California would have resulted in the invasion forces hopping back on their landing craft and heading for Portsmouth.

 

Howabout Serbia and the great UN Balkan 'peace-keeping' operations of the 1990's (yeah, the ones where Western troops were ordered to sit back and watch genocide)? A war would have solved that with palpably less casualties and a clear mandate afterwards.

 

War is a constant. It's not very nice, but then again lots of other things aren't either. It should be like any emergency surgery - quick, focussed, proportionate. The Allies defeated the Axis in five years - the US will be in Iraq for twenty five and achieve much less with greater technology. I wonder why?

 

As for all your other arguments - meh. You clearly only answer the points that suit you.

[Humodour]

I finally took the time to look up neo-con. Apparently it means someone who think the USA should use its considerable power to help bring democracy and individual rights and so on to other countries. Which means I am a neo-con, along with plenty of my hippy friends, who say they should have been doing so for years.

 

You're not a neo-con. I, like you, believe in spreading democracy, and military intervention where necessary, but we have a very particular view of such military intervention and we don't think diplomacy is for losers. Moreover, we're not religious conservatives and we're not afraid of the second coming of communism.

[lord of flies]

Neo-cons are also military interventionists, which means they believe in the (preposterous) idea that war will somehow make the world better.

 

Yeah, war is preposterous. I mean, declaring it on Nazi Germany in 1939 was, like, total FAIL!

Hey, you know why the United Nations (Britain, France, Poland, et al) got into World War 2? It's because Nazi Germany attacked first. You know why the Soviets got into it? Same reason. The Americans? The Japanese Empire attacked first. Even in that last case, though Japan was (admittedly) purposefully provoked by the USA with an oil embargo, that was only in response to the Japanese invasion of China.

The only reason that War isn't as optimal as it used to be is squeamish media and infantilized Western electorates. Can you imagine CNN on Omaha beachi n1944? The focus groups in Iowa and California would have resulted in the invasion forces hopping back on their landing craft and heading for Portsmouth.

The United States has been in Afghanistan for seven years. In 1944, it had been at war for three. In 2008, the citizens of the US elected a president who was hawkish on Afghanistan. Do the math. You know what the difference is between Iraq and Afghanistan? You're a smart fellow, so tell me.

Howabout Serbia and the great UN Balkan 'peace-keeping' operations of the 1990's (yeah, the ones where Western troops were ordered to sit back and watch genocide)? A war would have solved that with palpably less casualties and a clear mandate afterwards.

Yeah, right, a war would have definitely reduced the amount of casualties. :roll:

War is a constant. It's not very nice, but then again lots of other things aren't either. It should be like any emergency surgery - quick, focussed, proportionate. The Allies defeated the Axis in five years - the US will be in Iraq for twenty five and achieve much less with greater technology. I wonder why?

Hmm, could it be that the US defeated the Iraqi government in a months time, and that they're just in a gigantic quagmire now? No, impossible! It must be because "**** modern Americans" with their "moral codes" and some half-assed "attempts to not kill civilians."

As for all your other arguments - meh. You clearly only answer the points that suit you.

? Edited May 30, 2009 by lord of flies

[Wrath of Dagon]

Diplomacy worked great with North Korea, keep it up guys.

[lord of flies]

Diplomacy worked great with North Korea, keep it up guys.

Is this sarcasm or something? Because war worked/would work so much better, right?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Unless a country is hostile to us and attacks us on our soil we should leave them alone. If they do attack us we should use our entire military might to wipe them out, then return home. No interfering in other countries' affairs, no rebuiilding them afterward, none of that. The US has gotten more in trouble and in worse debt whenever we poke our noses where it does not belong.

[Humodour]

Diplomacy worked great with North Korea, keep it up guys.

Is this sarcasm or something? Because war worked/would work so much better, right?

 

What's your stance on all the millions of starving and brainwashed North Koreans? I mean you say you hate imperialism and colonialism so much - surely it's for reasons of human rights?

[lord of flies]

What's your stance on all the millions of starving and brainwashed North Koreans? I mean you say you hate imperialism and colonialism so much - surely it's for reasons of human rights?

It is a bad thing, but there are certainly solutions that the USA can pursue which are not war. Firstly, they can establish trade with North Korea, enabling them to push reforms on the government (which is currently in massive debt), which worked to great success with the USSR. Secondly, they can covertly aid members of the current power structure in overthrowing the current government in a coup, which is a whole lot riskier and could easily result in a civil war, but might be necessary given juche. Thirdly, they can covertly fund local militants, which will more-or-less certainly result in a civil war which could result in NK deploying its nuclear weapons. Clearly, here, the best option is the first.

 

War would only end in a quagmire, kill civilians in bombings, cause North Korea to use its nuclear weapons, and lead to even more starvation as the infrastructure of the nation is destroyed. It was already tried, and it was an utter failure.

[Walsingham]

Firstly, answering the question 'what about WW2 stopping Nazism?' with 'Germany attacked first', isn't an answer. Unless you are suggesting some mechanism I don't understand which means that you have to be attacked first in order to make a go of the political dimension in warfare.

 

I don't believe war is the correct option with Venezuela for the very simple reason that we're already engaged in one elsewhere. I do, however, believe you can exact political chaneg by violent means because um... the whole entire history of mankind backs me up.

 

We could agree to disagree on this point, but I think a far more pithy and effective rejoinder by me would be to find you and stick a fork in your head. We can debate reason versus force while I waggle it about.

[lord of flies]

Firstly, answering the question 'what about WW2 stopping Nazism?' with 'Germany attacked first', isn't an answer. Unless you are suggesting some mechanism I don't understand which means that you have to be attacked first in order to make a go of the political dimension in warfare.

Yes, I responded with Germany attacked first. Because they did. That's what separates Germany from most other countries. To say that warfare is a valid, moral means of achieving your political agenda implies that the declaration, the starting of warfare is such. If I say that shooting someone is a valid, moral means to stop them from dating your sister, it's more-or-less assumed that I'm not talking in self-defense.

 

When you start a war, it is quite a different thing than when your opponent starts a war. There is always the possibility of political compromise outside of warfare. Even the most ideologically opposed and rivaling countries can compromise and even totally politically convert via nonviolent, economic means: see the USSR more-or-less adopting the US' political ideology.

I don't believe war is the correct option with Venezuela for the very simple reason that we're already engaged in one elsewhere. I do, however, believe you can exact political chaneg by violent means because um... the whole entire history of mankind backs me up.

Show me where I said you can't exact political change via violent means? I have no illusions about that. I have a firm, grounded belief that political change by starting violence is immoral, and is also ineffective in comparison to other methods.

[Junai]

Yeah, war is preposterous. I mean, declaring it on Nazi Germany in 1939 was, like, total FAIL!

Sure was, especially when you consider how Prescott Bush and his I.G. Farben company helped Hitler ascend to power, while at the same time telling US citizens that war needs to be waged.

 

J.

[Gorgon]

No one actually goes through the trouble of declaring war anymore, they just start shooting.

[Walsingham]

Firstly, answering the question 'what about WW2 stopping Nazism?' with 'Germany attacked first', isn't an answer. Unless you are suggesting some mechanism I don't understand which means that you have to be attacked first in order to make a go of the political dimension in warfare.

Yes, I responded with Germany attacked first. Because they did. That's what separates Germany from most other countries. To say that warfare is a valid, moral means of achieving your political agenda implies that the declaration, the starting of warfare is such. If I say that shooting someone is a valid, moral means to stop them from dating your sister, it's more-or-less assumed that I'm not talking in self-defense.

 

When you start a war, it is quite a different thing than when your opponent starts a war. There is always the possibility of political compromise outside of warfare. Even the most ideologically opposed and rivaling countries can compromise and even totally politically convert via nonviolent, economic means: see the USSR more-or-less adopting the US' political ideology.

I don't believe war is the correct option with Venezuela for the very simple reason that we're already engaged in one elsewhere. I do, however, believe you can exact political chaneg by violent means because um... the whole entire history of mankind backs me up.

Show me where I said you can't exact political change via violent means? I have no illusions about that. I have a firm, grounded belief that political change by starting violence is immoral, and is also ineffective in comparison to other methods.

 

 

1. A doctrine of only defensive war means only waging war when your enemy wants to fight you. Which means you must have pretty awesome faith in your ability to defend yourself or you're going to lose.

 

2. I devote a large part of my tiem to helping resolve conflicts without violence. But I also know from all sorts of experience, and written history, that reason only goes so far. I'm not just atlking war. Consider the police. Do you think they should carry a blackboard and chalk rather than a baton?

 

3. Waffling while people die in their hundreds of thousands or even millions is not moral just because you're not shooting _if you have the capacity to intervene and chose not to_. Balkans, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan. Korea is an example of successful intervention for the South who would otherwise be 'north korean'.

[Humodour]

lord of flies: So we should leave North Korea alone, throwing money at it and hope they switch to a market economy that respects individual rights, all while people continue to starve there? 2 million people died in the engineered famine of the 90's. 2 million people.

 

Yes, lots of people would die during war with Korea - possibly hundreds of thousands (most North Korean soldiers would actually run away according to defectors and spies - only something like 1 in 10 have real guns). But would it be 2 million? Or 10 million? Or whatever the death toll due to totalitarianism is in North Korea now (it's been like 60 years, and if we don't act, it will continue on indefinitely, so I imagine you could actually place it well above that).

 

You're basically arguing for the perpetuation of a brutal totalitarian state because it's 'easier' and doesn't require you to have made any moral judgement.

 

Just an addendum: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-dead-land.html

Edited June 1, 2009 by Krezack

[lord of flies]

1. A doctrine of only defensive war means only waging war when your enemy wants to fight you. Which means you must have pretty awesome faith in your ability to defend yourself or you're going to lose.

Hmm, yes, a given country can lose a war. But when was the last time a first world country lost a defensive war on their own soil? Was it... World War 2? And were the losers the ones who started it? Yes, they were?

2. I devote a large part of my tiem to helping resolve conflicts without violence. But I also know from all sorts of experience, and written history, that reason only goes so far. I'm not just atlking war. Consider the police. Do you think they should carry a blackboard and chalk rather than a baton?

I don't believe I ever said that reason factors into it, did I? As I recall, I said

3. Waffling while people die in their hundreds of thousands or even millions is not moral just because you're not shooting _if you have the capacity to intervene and chose not to_. Balkans, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan.

The doctrine of not declaring was is not in and of itself moral, it is a reasoned response to the fact that war is ****ing terrifyingly bad. The total people killed on the Eastern Front of WW2 rivals the greater holocaust, and dwarfs the Shoah. And that's one front of the war. Also, come on - Iraq?

Korea is an example of successful intervention for the South who would otherwise be 'north korean'.

Hmm, did you notice that the US was allied with South Korea, and North Korea started the war? Hmm, I wonder what that means?

lord of flies: So we should leave North Korea alone, throwing money at it and hope they switch to a market economy that respects individual rights, all while people continue to starve there?

If you want to put it in the most blatantly biased way, sure. "Hope" is the wrong word, however.

2 million people died in the engineered famine of the 90's. 2 million people.

 

Yes, lots of people would die during war with Korea - possibly hundreds of thousands (most North Korean soldiers would actually run away according to defectors and spies - only something like 1 in 10 have real guns). But would it be 2 million? Or 10 million? Or whatever the death toll due to totalitarianism is in North Korea now (it's been like 60 years, and if we don't act, it will continue on indefinitely, so I imagine you could actually place it well above that).

Do you really think that most people who die during a war are soldiers? Do you not realize that North Korea has nuclear weaponry? Yes. Yes it ****ing would be that high.

You're basically arguing for the perpetuation of a brutal totalitarian state because it's 'easier' and doesn't require you to have made any moral judgement.

No, I have made a carefully considered moral judgment, laid out in this very post.

[Walsingham]

Quoting is getting cumbersome, so excuse me if I dispense with it for a spell.

 

Defensive wars:

 

You deftly bat aside the example of world war 2, but it is the only example of industrialised total war. In it, despite Germany being wholly outnumbered and technically deficient, she managed to put most of Europe under her thumb in a matter of months. Only a tiny strip of green-grey water kept this island safe. Germany then went on to inflict staggering losses on Soviet Russia, which only Stalin could have weathered. I make no reference to the political aspect. I am simply saying that with the extension of weapon effects range, we are living in an age where strategically defensive thinking is redundant.

 

The political dimension in war:

 

You mention the cost of war, which is fair. Wars are fought using people, and amongst people. The essence of conflict is to destroy the system of your opponent. If he has a human system then humans will be overcome, and (because it's the most simple way of doing so) injured or destroyed. But wars are also fought FOR people. Wars arise from, and end in politics. You say you acknowledge this, but at the same time tell us that war is not a force for political change. How can this be? Did Soviet annexation of Eastern Europe have no effect? Did the Khmer Rouge's military victories have no impact on the daily lives of Cambodians? Has the invasion of Iraq not changed its government and resulted in two free elections?

 

Morality:

 

You mention the cost of war. You imply that the cost of fighting Hitler was greater for the World than the cost of the holocaust. Even supposing that such a tally really represented the cost in lives of each option, it is a nonsense because it does not take into account the cost in living. Dying, it must be said, is a foregone conclusion. How one lives before one dies is not. One can certainly fight wars to minimise the eventual casualties as I said at the outset. But the really important wars are the ones where you maximise living. The ones where military action is oriented on destroying a malevolent system to permit the political creation of a better one.

 

~~

 

I have set out my philosophy. Force destroys systems. At the strategic level such destruction permits the creation through political means of new better systems. At the tactical level, due to the technical changes in weaponry, such destruction is threatened to any system which is purely defensive. I assert that it is pointless and dangerous to deny this. It is physically dangerous because we may be destroyed as people and as a system of society. But it is also morally dangerous because to keep our hands 'clean' we abandon the final abiter of change and of progress, thereby surrendering it to our enemies.

 

I know I'm being terribly pompous, but it's the only way I could challenge you effectively to say precisely what YOUR philosophy is. So far all I hear is a lot of hand-wringing and cynical eyebrow pointing.