[extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick

[The Avantguardian]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 am not suggesting that the US needs a counterbalance
but can you truly say that the idea that "power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is
not based on priciples, morals, or philosophy? And I
don't understand why every proposed change to the
current U.S. attitude is considered marxist. Surely in
all of infinite idea space there exists more than
consumer-driven laissez-faire capitalism and marxism? 

> 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.

That is the karma we made for ourselves for destroying
a man like Hitler and then turning a blind eye to a
man like Stalin that was WORSE than Hitler simply
because it was politically convenient. We could have
easily have avoided nuclear proliferation and the
entire cold war, if we had just listened to our
generals (like Patton) who wanted to topple Stalin as
well. Inconsistent attitudes toward other countries
sends mixed messages and makes for  crappy
consequences. 

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

Well then if that's the communo-fascist view,
shouldn't our view be different? We are the ones in
power currently so the onus of reponsibility is on US
as is the perogative for change. If we don't take the
first step in the direction of a better world, then
who will? China? Germany? Djibouti? Any supposed
leader who has no vision beyond consolidating and
maintaining power is a very poor one whether you are
speaking of countries or cub scouts.

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

Allowing others to fight their own battles hardly
equates to fucking them over. Spain didn't lift a
finger to help us out during the American Revolution
when we were the underdogs taking on the world hegemon
at the time. Do you think this constitutes Spain
fucking us over?

> 
> 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 would prefer open war to bribery? Accepting a
bribe is not an option for somebody who is not in
power. And offering a bribe is a pretty clear
indication of deference to said power.

> 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.

I am half Korean and I understand the Asian mentality
better than most. Furthermore I can understand your
scenario, which is why I question our need to
intervene. If NY tried to take Manhattan back, would
it be any business of Canada to intervene? 

> 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.

Yes, but not instaneously on a daily basis in such a
way that one could see how the media of various
countries spin the news in favor of their respective
governments.

> The
> overwhelming majority of the first gen immigrants
> here today are from
> Mexico.

Yes, and China might be a close second. So what's your
point?

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

Again with the accusations of communism. I have never
even read the Communist Manifesto and I could care
less about it. I understand the utility of free
markets. I want to IMPROVE what we have and not scrap
it altogether to live in a giant hippie commune as you
seem to constantly suggest.

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

And maybe they were right. What were the hawks so
worried about? Pearl Harbor was a minor setback in the
grand scheme of things and gave us an unquestionable
mandate to wage war. In retrospect WW-II was about the
best thing that happened to US in terms of prosperity
down the road. Preparedness for war is one thing,
eagerness for war is another thing entirely. One that
flies in the face of my martial arts training and
philosophy.
 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

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