|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 14, 2014 07:10 PM |
|
|
When intervention is morally justified is very much related to the thread topic.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 11:09 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
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.
You can say that's a right, but that just changes the question to why we should care about that right.
Because freedom is important, for all.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 11:14 PM |
|
|
That's a meager explanation. Someone could respond to that by saying that freedom is important for themselves, but that they don't have a reason to care about the freedom of others. It is this skeptic that you must persuade.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 11:20 PM |
|
|
There's overwhelming support among Swedish liberals for enforcing human rights globally using military means. People don't care much for the nation state and we lack the American isolationist tradition. What I don't get is why a libertarian philosophically would limit his or hers defense of individual freedom and rights to the nation state when these are universal.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:03 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:13, 15 Oct 2014.
|
xerox said:
Why should taxpayer dollars only provide Americans with defense of their individual rights? If libertarian principles are universal, the night-watch man state should defend these universally. People's rights are not lesser because they happened to be born in a county where these are not respected.
you know for what a global watchman would fight? his own interests. I mean, the interest of the rich dudes who give the money to make it run.
who else would you expect to control such a force? it would be independent from governments, and people would not agree on what its goals should be.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:22 AM |
|
|
Fauch said:
xerox said:
Why should taxpayer dollars only provide Americans with defense of their individual rights? If libertarian principles are universal, the night-watch man state should defend these universally. People's rights are not lesser because they happened to be born in a county where these are not respected.
you know for what a global watchman would fight? his own interests. I mean, the interest of the rich dudes who give the money to make it run.
who else would you expect to control such a force? it would be independent from governments, and people would not agree on what its goals should be.
I'm imagining Nato evolving into such a role. Of course it's going to be driven by the interests of its member states, but its member states are liberal democracies.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:34 AM |
|
|
great, so we can export "democracy" everywhere 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:35 AM |
|
|
Of course we should. Or do you think Middle Eastern countries should remain dictatorships forever?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:40 AM |
|
|
I was joking btw.
and we can't choose for them (moreover, that isn't democratic  )
besides, is electing a king every 5 years that much better?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:40 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:45, 15 Oct 2014.
|
@Xerox
You are still acting and arguing as if liberal democracies care other countries turn into liberal democracies. Some intellectuals do, idealists, activists, they have such a notion. But on a governmental basis, this cant be further from the truth. On the contrary, most of the time, they prefer developing countries on such a balance that they are not too primitive and they can be part of the ever-expanding market, buy their products and sell raw materials, yet not too advanced, so that they are not competitors on a threatening level.
Look at how even you formulate things: "Is Iran a threat to Western interests?" There is conflict of interest between Iran and some of the Western countries, sure, but there is conflict of interest between Germany and UK also. Why don't you define that as a threat?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:50 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:55, 15 Oct 2014.
|
I heard the USA actually has investments in Iran. they told France it was cooperating with the enemy, so they withdrew their investments from Iran, then the USA took the market.
artu said:
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.
that's better than a bloodbath, a "democracy" where people vote with their weapons I guess.
what's unfortunate is that it works the other way around too. the dictator keeps thing in order, but you can also fabricate a threat, cause chaos, to create the need for a dictator, precisely the guy who will serve your interests.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:53 AM |
|
|
In most cases, intervention adds complexity to problems that could solve themselves.
One does not have the right to intervene in every other nation's political affairs. When it does, it causes the winner to not be trusted by his own people, when compromise or even a civil war would have settled the issue. Injustices occur around the world, but one nation will quickly lose its people and resources, when trying to fight for other's justice. Which brings the next point: cost.
Wars are costly. Take the combined Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan war. In total they combined a sum of over 3.7 trillion $$, that could have been used more effectively. This money had been wasted and now America is in an abysmal deficit. Did the war solve something for those countries? No, and totally ineffective both geopolitically and morally (Iraq democracy lol?)) while triggering very negative impact in those people attitude vs US. Which brings the next point: Anti-Imperialism.
During the Cold War, both America and Russia preferred to either directly intervene in internal affairs of other countries, in violation of Westphalian principles, or indirectly intervene through proxy wars. This, overall, made the world more chaotic and unstable.
On a global level, national boundaries exist for a reason. Most countries would not dream of trying to invade America or Europe, and yet we violate the borders of other countries all the time. On some occasions, this is justified and provoked. But, when we are the instigators, it only proves to their youngest citizens that we are imperialists. We might get what we want in the short term, but we're only inspiring the next generation of terrorists.
And on a very personal note: What about we stop, for once, forcefully injecting assistance of any kind in Middle East. We are always so delicate and quickly shocked in our censure of racial differences, yet we constantly refuse to this part of the world to achieve by its own capabilities what our ancestors already did, through their blood, their sweat and their sacrifices: our freedom.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 01:09 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
What I don't get is why a libertarian philosophically would limit his or hers defense of individual freedom and rights to the nation state when these are universal.
Because, as the cliched saying goes, freedom isn't free. Defense costs money. To see it at most basic level, imagine there were no state and no private defense organizations, and everyone would have to defend themselves personally. Would you personally go out of your way to defend others? More importantly, would you force other people to defend others? Now imagine that there's still no state, but there are private defense organizations that protect your neighborhood, funded by you and your neighbors. Then one day the organization announces that it's going to charge more, and instead of providing better defense of your neighborhood, it announces that it'll instead provide free defense to another neighborhood that doesn't have a defense organization. Even if you'd be fine with this, would your neighbors (who are paying the fees) be justified in being upset at this development? If there were a competing defense organization, it could offer lower prices (or better service) by not giving away free defense, and your neighbors would switch to it, because they'd prefer its services and/or price.
The applicability to defense provided by states should be obvious.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 01:19 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Wars are costly. Take the combined Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan war. In total they combined a sum of over 3.7 trillion $$, that could have been used more effectively. This money had been wasted and now America is in an abysmal deficit. Did the war solve something for those countries? No, and totally ineffective both geopolitically and morally (Iraq democracy lol?)) while triggering very negative impact in those people attitude vs US. Which brings the next point: Anti-Imperialism.
wars stimulate economy in a way that doesn't threaten the privileges of the elite. it allows to destroy the excess of production, instead of using it to enhance people's life (planned obsolescence does that too). by elevating standard of life too high, people may find more time and will to care about public affairs, and democracy could appear and threaten the privilege of the elite.
also, if you have the dominating military force, you can compel anyone into using your money, which is why the USA doesn't really care about its debt, even though it's so high that the dollar is basically worth nothing anymore. they can just use threat to make other nations accept dollars and emit an infinite amount of them without any serious negative consequence for them.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 01:56 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 02:16, 15 Oct 2014.
|
Mvass: I understand and agree with your argument from an anarcho capitalist perspective, where tax, like all coercion, is utterly unacceptable. But I don't see how the same reasoning applies to a premise where we tolerate the existence of states and taxation to fund defense. Libertarians support the state as means to defend their rights. These rights are universal. Therefore, it does not make sense to me that we should not strive to enforce these rights universally. Ideally, the Iraqi state should enforce the rights of its citizens. But right now that isn't a possibility. The people in Iraq have no rights, for they are not enforced. It should be a libertarian cause to call for the international community to implement them.
artu said:
@Xerox You are still acting and arguing as if liberal democracies care other countries turn into liberal democracies.
No, I don't think its that simply. What military interventions can achieve is getting rid of authoritarian regimes and organizations that do not pave the way for a liberal development. Saddam Hussein did not do that. IS is not doing that. For there to be a liberal development in the Middle East, which is what I find desirable, illiberal actors must perish. Once they are overthrown (and the following part is where interventions have failed), there needs to be a long-term committment to national security in these countries. The alternatives, as we've seen, is a form of anarchy which only results in the emergence of new illiberal forces, such as IS in Iraq.
Quote:
Some intellectuals do, idealists, activists, they have such a notion. But on a governmental basis, this cant be further from the truth. On the contrary, most of the time, they prefer developing countries on such a balance that they are not too primitive and they can be part of the ever-expanding market, buy their products and sell raw materials, yet not too advanced, so that they are not competitors on a threatening level.
Are you suggesting that the US and other major powers do not have an interest in seeing the Middle Eastern countries progress? I think you're wrong. A liberal development in the Middle-East would benefit the US, both economically and strategically. Trade is mutually beneficial and countries based on liberal democracy tend to cooperate with each other.
Quote:
Look at how even you formulate things: "Is Iran a threat to Western interests?" There is conflict of interest between Iran and some of the Western countries, sure, but there is conflict of interest between Germany and UK also. Why don't you define that as a threat?
Context matters. This is a thread on the Middle East and Iran's relations with the West is a common topic within that context. If you want to make a thread about the European Union and talk about the conflicting interests of the UK and Germany there, then go ahead.
Salamandre said:
In most cases, intervention adds complexity to problems that could solve themselves.
One does not have the right to intervene in every other nation's political affairs. When it does, it causes the winner to not be trusted by his own people, when compromise or even a civil war would have settled the issue. Injustices occur around the world, but one nation will quickly lose its people and resources, when trying to fight for other's justice.
It is a bad idea to engage in interventions in countries where the populace will not support them. But this has not been the case in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. In those countries, the public has overwhelmingly supported foreign troops getting rid of authoritarian regimes.
Quote:
During the Cold War, both America and Russia preferred to either directly intervene in internal affairs of other countries, in violation of Westphalian principles, or indirectly intervene through proxy wars. This, overall, made the world more chaotic and unstable.
On a global level, national boundaries exist for a reason. Most countries would not dream of trying to invade America or Europe, and yet we violate the borders of other countries all the time. On some occasions, this is justified and provoked. But, when we are the instigators, it only proves to their youngest citizens that we are imperialists. We might get what we want in the short term, but we're only inspiring the next generation of terrorists.
Jihadists tend to be way more focused on killing people "of their own kind" rather than plotting to destoy the West. The struggle in these countries are not between unified muslims versus evil Western imperialists. The struggle is a sectarian, among various domestic groups seeking to fill the vacuum of power that exists in these countries.
Quote:
And on a very personal note: What about we stop, for once, forcefully injecting assistance of any kind in Middle East. We are always so delicate and quickly shocked in our censure of racial differences, yet we constantly refuse to this part of the world to achieve by its own capabilities what our ancestors already did, through their blood, their sweat and their sacrifices: our freedom.
It took Europeans hundreds of years to liberate themselves from the oppression of authoritarian monarchies. I see no need to prolong the suffering of the people in the Middle East when other people in the world already know the recipe for freedom and prosperity.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 02:41 AM |
|
|
|
recipe for prosperity, you mean plunder?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 02:44 AM |
|
|
Xerox, I think I see where our differences are. The question then is, can the state be justified? I think it can, on the grounds I've given earlier, but in that case it would be much like a private defense organization except funded by taxes, and like a normal defense organization should protect its customers, the state should protect its customers (taxpayers) too, without giving its services away. And if the state is unjustified, then it should be abolished, in which case it should do as little as possible, meaning non-intervention would be better than intervention. So either way, the scales are tipped against intervention.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 02:49 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:51, 15 Oct 2014.
|
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the US and other major powers do not have an interest in seeing the Middle Eastern countries progress? I think you're wrong. A liberal development in the Middle-East would benefit the US, both economically and strategically. Trade is mutually beneficial and countries based on liberal democracy tend to cooperate with each other.
I'm sorry but this is just naive. Yes, they cooperate but they are still rivals and they compete for their share in the market and resources. Of course, in the -very- long-term, that kind of civilized rivalry completely replacing warfare is something everybody desires but that does not change the fact that centers of power do not want other potential centers of power to develop beyond a certain line and outgrow them. They want to keep things in their own control. That is the one thing which does not change through any period of history. Also I must emphasize that capitalism is not just any kind of free trade, we are not talking about medieval merchants trading silk and pepper here. Virtual values are literally created and the market is something that is open to speculation.
Quote:
Context matters. This is a thread on the Middle East and Iran's relations with the West is a common topic within that context. If you want to make a thread about the European Union and talk about the conflicting interests of the UK and Germany there, then go ahead.
Yes, context matters and there is nothing in the context to suggest, when talking about Iran, that a regular conflict of interest should be rather called a threat. Obviously, I gave UK and Germany as a random example, hinting that you wouldn't have called their conflicting interests as "a threat." It displays how you perceive things.
Quote:
It took Europeans hundreds of years to liberate themselves from the oppression of authoritarian monarchies. I see no need to prolong the suffering of the people in the Middle East when other people in the world already know the recipe for freedom and prosperity.
I agree, it shouldn't take THAT long but
a)There is no universal path that can be followed that guarantees prosperity, this is not a railway where you cant take a wrong turn. Historical progress is much more complex, full of surprises and once again, a free market is not a magic wand. Besides, the West went through two world wars and more to share that wealth, you are talking as if people are living in heaven, since John Locke wrote his books.
b)There is no quick "recipe" either, social progress takes time, not necessarily centuries but you can not fast-forward change. Especially with such an annoying behavior of "look how perfect we are, just imitate us."
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 03:09 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:10, 15 Oct 2014.
|
artu said:
I'm sorry but this is just naive. Yes, they cooperate but they are still rivals and they compete for their share in the market and resources. Of course, in the -very- long-term, that kind of civilized rivalry completely replacing warfare is something everybody desires but that does not change the fact that centers of power do not want other potential centers of power to develop beyond a certain line and outgrow them. They want to keep things in their own control. That is the one thing which does not change through any period of history. Also I must emphasize that capitalism is not just any kind of free trade, we are not talking about medieval merchants trading silk and pepper here. Virtual values are literally created and the market is something that is open to speculation.
Of course the US wouldn't want other countries to outgrow them in power and influence. But do you really think a country like Iraq or Syria is ever likely to outgrow the United States? The US trading and cooperating with Middle Eastern countries does not weaken it.
Quote:
Yes, context matters and there is nothing in the context to suggest, when talking about Iran, that a regular conflict of interest should be rather called a threat. Obviously, I gave UK and Germany as a random example, hinting that you wouldn't have called their conflicting interests as "a threat." It displays how you perceive things.
No, it doesn't. I don't perceive Iran as a threat. I used that as a potential topic in the OP because in America, there's a contemporary debate on Iran being a threat to the West. That relates to a thread that's about contemporary discussion about the Middle East.
Quote:
Ža)There is no universal path that can be followed that guarantees prosperity, this is not a railway where you cant take a wrong turn. Historical progress is much more complex, full of surprises and once again, a free market is not a magic wand. Besides, the West went through two world wars and more to share that wealth, you are talking as if people are living in heaven, since John Locke wrote his books.
b)There is no quick "recipe" either, social progress takes time, not necessarily centuries but you can not fast-forward change. Especially with such an annoying behavior of "look how perfect we are, just imitate us."
The West did not bypass the rest of the world by chance. I recommend the documentary and book "Civilization: Is the West History?", where historian Niall Ferguson makes a convincing case for some of the things that made the West more successful than the rest.
mvass said:
Xerox, I think I see where our differences are. The question then is, can the state be justified? I think it can, on the grounds I've given earlier, but in that case it would be much like a private defense organization except funded by taxes, and like a normal defense organization should protect its customers, the state should protect its customers (taxpayers) too, without giving its services away. And if the state is unjustified, then it should be abolished, in which case it should do as little as possible, meaning non-intervention would be better than intervention. So either way, the scales are tipped against intervention.
But the state isn't a private defense organization. It does not have "customers". It is merely means to an end. That end is enforcing individual freedom and rights. If we can do that universally, we should. To restrict that to the nation state is statist.
____________
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 15, 2014 03:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course the US wouldn't want other countries to outgrow them in power and influence. But do you really think a country like Iraq or Syria is ever likely to outgrow the United States? The US trading and cooperating with Middle Eastern countries does not weaken it.
The threshold isn't Iraq or Syria becoming a super-power. Governments that can make decisions that benefits their people first can be inconvenient enough. Of course, they wouldn't nuke Iraq in such a scenario but they wouldn't support that with liberal idealism either.
Quote:
The West did not bypass the rest of the world by chance. I recommend the documentary and book "Civilization: Is the West History?", where historian Niall Ferguson makes a convincing case for some of the things that made the West more successful than the rest.
I never suggested it did. But it wasn't all brotherly trade and liberal ideals flying around either. WW2 is just yesterday by historical standards. And keep in mind that I live in a country that has been going through Westernization since 1830's and especially made a radical shift since the 1920's. Half the historians and sociologists study Westernization here. Now, let's look at the results. In Egypt, around 90 percent of the people answer "yes" when asked if converting from Islam should be punishable by death. (Although, I personally guess much less genuinely believe in that and care for it, most of them probably just nod yes with a reflex.) In Turkey, that ratio is around 10 percent. I'd say that is a qualitative difference in social norms. However, 50 percent of the people still vote for an Islamist party with very conservative values. Part of that is a reaction to such a vast change in social habits. We're talking almost 200 hundred years of reform here and still there is a reaction to it by a large sum of people, who freely vote for a party, that puts religion in a central role. So, excuse me if I skipped Niall Ferguson (I'll check him out) but I'm not talking out of my ass here.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
