|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:32 AM |
|
|
|
You realize that you have given yet another example of social chaos and uprising to prove how well your policy works, dont you?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:39 AM |
|
|
What? Ukraine?
I'm happy with how Ukraine is moving faster than ever towards the EU and NATO while Russia is facing financial collapse.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:44 AM |
|
|
|
Wishful thinking never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:46 AM |
|
|
How is it wishful thinking? Poroshenko is winning the elections.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:55 AM |
|
|
|
You are talking like capitalism will always and necessarily result in a liberal regime, which is not the case at all. Capitalism is simply expanding business based on profit. If a dictator suits the needs of it, so shall it be. The historical correlation between individual rights and capitalism is not a strictly deterministic one. There is a causality between them in the way it evolved in the West but that doesn't mean it will always be so, especially in an age where transnational corporations are sometimes more powerful than states. Have you seen Syriana? The Arab prince there explains it rather well. Just watch the dialogue in the link.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 02:01 AM |
|
|
Authoritarian regimes tend to be more corporatist than free market capitalist.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 02:05 AM |
|
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 02:12 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 02:13, 14 Oct 2014.
|
Well, post-material values are more prevalent in prosperous societies, and capitalism has proven itself to be the best way of creating prosperity.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 02:35 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:25, 14 Oct 2014.
|
|
I wont get into that for the sake of simplicity. The point is you base your argument on a premise like this: US is capitalist, capitalism had led to relatively more liberal regimes in the past, so if it invades authoritarian countries and stays there for a decade or so, they will also turn into capitalist regimes and they will start to recognize the rights of their citizens. First of all, The US isnt invading those countries to lecture and guide them on capitalism, it invades them for its own profit. Capitalism isnt spread around like some religion by missionaries teaching the righteous way. It requires a sociological background, a middle-class, infrastructure, these take decades at least, not a decade. And even if you finally have capitalism, it doesnt necessarily mean a liberal democracy. Saudi Arabia or China are also capitalist regimes in practicality, they are just not democracies. Capitalism does not always end in that. I am really amazed how liberals (liberterians in US) always tend to reduce every historical progress to trade and treat it like some magic wand that will put things in order eventually. The factors determining a civilization's path is much more complicated than that and you cant puff away every inconvencience by selling and buying things. That's nothing but intellectual laziness to say the least.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 03:19 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
Should we sacrifice global liberty just because people don't want to pay taxes for brown people's rights?
People pay taxes for the protection of their own rights. If they want to fund some kind of militia for the protection of others' rights, that's their choice - if they care about foreigners' liberty and think they can do something to increase it, that's a good they can try to buy. Let's remember why and when taxes can be justified, and see whether the arguments apply to the defense of foreigners. What is the difference between the goods a night watchman state would provide and the goods it wouldn't provide? It's that the goods it would provide are public goods, or have high positive externalities, such that in a free market, they would be underprovisioned according to the would-be taxpayers' own preferences. Therefore, it is in their self-interest to be taxed in order to provide those goods - but only those goods. Compared to national defense, the externalities of foreign defense are arguably negative - certainly not hugely positive as they'd have to be in order to be justified.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 08:38 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Therefore, it is in their self-interest to be taxed
I smell socialism 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 09:19 AM |
|
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 09:38 AM |
|
|
|
How is all this libertarian crap and the objections to it related to the Middle East?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:21 PM |
|
|
I was under the impression that the whole idea of capitalism stems from: value from the outside being stripped cheaply to increase wealth. (obviously value can be created from labour, but just exploiting outside sources and then turning a profit by selling it in developed countries is more commonplace) Much the same as imperialism where sovereign nations exploited their colonies in order to increase the wealth, except in this instance it's corporations that profit, not the nations, (not directly anyhow) which is the worse of the two evils imo.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 02:42 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 14:43, 14 Oct 2014.
|
artu said:
I wont get into that for the sake of simplicity. The point is you base your argument on a premise like this: US is capitalist, capitalism had led to relatively more liberal regimes in the past, so if it invades authoritarian countries and stays there for a decade or so, they will also turn into capitalist regimes and they will start to recognize the rights of their citizens.
It's not about "capitalism" invading countries. Middle Eastern countries already have the basics of capitalism. It's not like their biggest problem is socialism. Their biggest problem is lack of security, which damages capitalism since essentials things such as property rights are not enforced. The US and other interventions should intervene primarily to get rid off oppression. THEN there should be decades of liberalization, where foreign troops stay in the country to secure stability, while the country takes steps to liberal democracy.
mvassilev said:
xerox said:
Should we sacrifice global liberty just because people don't want to pay taxes for brown people's rights?
People pay taxes for the protection of their own rights. If they want to fund some kind of militia for the protection of others' rights, that's their choice - if they care about foreigners' liberty and think they can do something to increase it, that's a good they can try to buy. Let's remember why and when taxes can be justified, and see whether the arguments apply to the defense of foreigners. What is the difference between the goods a night watchman state would provide and the goods it wouldn't provide? It's that the goods it would provide are public goods, or have high positive externalities, such that in a free market, they would be underprovisioned according to the would-be taxpayers' own preferences. Therefore, it is in their self-interest to be taxed in order to provide those goods - but only those goods. Compared to national defense, the externalities of foreign defense are arguably negative - certainly not hugely positive as they'd have to be in order to be justified.
I don't agree with your justification of tax. I think tax is only justified to fund the collective defense of individuals. This collective defense extends beyond the nations state. If human rights are universal, then they are to be enforced universally.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 03:35 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
It's not about "capitalism" invading countries. Middle Eastern countries already have the basics of capitalism. It's not like their biggest problem is socialism. Their biggest problem is lack of security, which damages capitalism since essentials things such as property rights are not enforced. The US and other interventions should intervene primarily to get rid off oppression
This is literally false. One thing authoritarian regimes have no problem achieving is security, since you cant hear a peep from any opposition and criminal behavior is squashed like a bug. It's why some of the Middle-Eastern folk love their dictators, because they keep things in order. And as you can see for yourself in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and so on, the first thing that happens when the regime is overthrown is various groups killing each other to fill that position of power. You can not prevent that unless you fill that position permanently.
Europe was also in a similar position, until, at some point, they finally realized they should find a way to get along and stop the endless bloodbath. The thing about Middle East is, that phase can never be reached because the countries are weak but the land is very rich with natural resources. So you always have some major player like US, Russia, China etc arming or financing X group against Y for their own political (and of course capitalist) interest.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 03:57 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:28, 15 Oct 2014.
|
Meh. If someone ---- you up, and you want to punch him in the face, it's best to punch the guy in the face rather than his father or sister or second cousin. From what I hear, Sweden has a Muslim problem, aka politicians allowed too many in instead of having a more varied immigration policy, and now Swedish folk are gradually losing their culture over there.
Maybe you should fight the Swedish Muslims instead of the Middle East ones?
MOD EDIT: Please censor your language according to the Code of Conduct
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 03:59 PM |
|
|
artu said:
This is literally false. One thing authoritarian regimes have no problem achieving is security, since you cant hear a peep from any opposition and criminal behavior is squashed like a bug. It's why some of the Middle-Eastern folk love their dictators, because they keep things in order. And as you can see for yourself in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and so on, the first thing that happens when the regime is overthrown is various groups killing each other to fill that position of power. You can not prevent that unless you fill that position permanently.
See the thing I wrote about oppression? That disqualifies the authoritarian regimes. However, I agree that it is stupid to overthrow an authortarian regime if you can't replace with a monopoly of violence. The resulting anarchy emerging during the absense of that, makes the situation worse for everyone. That's why, again, I would have liked the troops to have stayed in Iraq for decades.
Quote:
Europe was also in a similar position, until, at some point, they finally realized they should find a way to get along and stop the endless bloodbath. The thing about Middle East is, that phase can never be reached because the countries are weak but the land is very rich with natural resources. So you always have some major player like US, Russia, China etc arming or financing X group against Y for their own political (and of course capitalist) interest.
*corporatist you mean, its governments, not corporations that are invading middle eastern countries
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 06:16 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I don't agree with your justification of tax. I think tax is only justified to fund the collective defense of individuals. This collective defense extends beyond the nations state. If human rights are universal, then they are to be enforced universally.
Why should someone have to pay for other people's defense when it's not a situation like the one I described above? You can say that's a right, but that just changes the question to why we should care about that right.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 07:08 PM |
|
|
Please stick to the thread topic.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
