[extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick

[Mike Lorrey]

--- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Many of the arguments I have heard for and against the
> war, current U.S. foreign policy, and its dealings
> with other UN nations has led me to reflect on the
> current world situation.
> 
> For one thing, I see that many conservatives cling to
> a very old poltical frame of mind: real politick.
> That is the time honored cynical notion that
> nation-states are supposed behave as selfish
> sociopaths, futhering their own economic and political
> gain in a playing field without rules or consideration
> of other nations.

Conversely, many see the liberals and the europeans being the ones who
are clinging to realpolitik, in believing that the US needs a
'counterbalance' in the world, based on no principles, morals, or
philosophy, but merely on a corrupt and cynical idea of maintaining a
marxist dialectic conflict for the sake of power politics.

> 
> I understand that much of world history has shown this
> to be a fairly accurate description of how politics
> USED to work. Treaties are made and broken at the
> convenience of the participants in the mad scramble
> for eminence in the international theater.

This was also why, at the conclusion of WWII, when the US was the only
nuclear power, the communists in the scientific community here in the
US felt it was paramount that nuclear technology be given to Stalin if
only to ensure that the US, being the primary proponent of individual
liberty, free markets, and representative government in the world,
needed a counterbalance to prevent these ideas from spreading too
quickly or easily around the world.

> 
> While I understand that there was a time when such a
> world-view made a lot of sense. But in this day and
> age of economic globalism, weapons of mass
> destruction, and the Internet, the world seems smaller
> and more interconnected than ever. Can the nations of
> the world persist in this behavior for long without
> bringing about their own ruin?

In a very cynically communo-fascist POV, if they can't win, then nobody
will.

> 
> For example, there is much anticipation regarding a
> showdown between the US and China with respect to
> Taiwan. Now, I understand that Taiwan is a fairly
> prosperous little island. But I will wager that the
> current economic trade between the U.S. and China is
> worth more than the GNP of Tawain. The US and China
> have made many mutual investments with each other.

Your attitude here is very realpolitik, using a utilitarian and
consequentialist argument to justify fucking over millions of people.

> Since these days, a stock market crash in any one
> market cause a chain reaction of market crashes around
> the world, I just don't see how a confrontation of
> such a magnitude over such a small island is at all
> beneficial to either side. What good would serve China
> to regain control of Taiwan, if in the process, the
> U.S. stops buying Chinese goods and employing Chinese
> workers in its overseas factories. What good would it
> do the U.S. to keep Taiwan under its influence, if it
> means that we can no longer purchase cheap goods from
> China and the Chinese liquidate its investments in the
> US.

Within 8 months, all Chinese products will be 40% less cheap. Instead
of a Dollar Bomb attack, they likely are going to start in on a big
"Buy America" spree to get our industry so addicted to the Chinese
market that we'll look the other way when they march into Taipei.

You aren't Chinese and don't appreciate why they think getting Taiwan
back were so important. Imagine if Long Island seceded from NY state,
after being part of it for centuries, then proceeded to kick NY's
economic ass while delivering more freedom to its people.

> 
> These days as people make Internet penpals all over
> the world, it seems harder and harder to maintain the
> nationalistic illusion of "we are good, they are bad".

This doesn't hold water. In the WW1/WW2 era, a far greater percent of
the population of the US were only a generation descended from their
european relatives, and kept in touch via mail and telegram. The
overwhelming majority of the first gen immigrants here today are from
Mexico.

> I know that to many conservatives this sounds like the
> "it's a small world" disney land ride, but it seems
> that technology is making this so called "liberal"
> viewpoint much more rational than it was 50 years ago.

What 'liberal' viewpoint is that? The one in the Communist Manifesto
about world peace through global political reeducation?

> In fact it seems that much of the jingoism is
> manufactured by the respective leaders of countries to
> consolidate their own internal power by painting the
> rest of the world as a threat to national security.
> But when there are nukes and linked markets involved,
> can we truly afford this paranoia? Especially when
> there are global issues (like pollution, asteroids,
> etc.) that need to be addressed.

The isolationists called it paranoia right up until December 7th, 1941.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com