[extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 18, 2005, at 2:19 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:
> Samantha wrote:
>> That itself is a rather cynical view in that it says
>> $$ makes right
>> effectively.  Taiwan broke off from China as a
>> relatively much more
>> free country wishing to be a separate entity.  China
>> keeps insisting
>> that it is not separate.  As supporters of freedom,
>> democracy and
>> self-determination it seem obvious that we would and
>> should support
>> Taiwan in its bid for continuing independence.    I
>> don't agree it is
>> wise to sell off the principles involved.
>>
>
> I don't either, but it is the UN's roster of
> sovereignity that makes a country a country. I could
> buy an island and call it Happyland but that doesn't
> make it a country unless the UN accepts it. If the UN
> decides preserving Taiwan's independence is a
> priority, then we should do our duty, otherwise I say
> we stay out of it.

The US has refused  to stand behind such UN recognition.   So the US  
can hardly fob it off on the decision of the UN.  What is right is  
not determined by what the UN does or does not do.  If you agree  
about what is right thn this argument you make is  clearly abrogation  
of morality thinly rationalized.

>
>
>> There are questions of principle and of precedent at
>> stake.
>>
>
> What principle? That communism must be contained? What
> precedent? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea?
>

That a people have the right to self determination and that a free  
people deserve our support.

>
>>
>> Taiwan is its own country.  Not the pawn or chattel
>> of either the US
>> or China.   The US cannot stop buying Chinese goods
>> without extremely
>> negative economic consequences.  China cannot
>> liquidate all its US
>> holdings without extremely negative economic
>> consequences.  If China
>> tries to bully Taiwan then the right thing to do is
>> to call their
>> bluff.
>>
>
> No we let the UN decide. We should be ready to do so,
> but not unilaterally.
>

So we should never speak of what is right again but just do whatever  
the UN decides?  How inspiring!


>   They have little rational choice but to back
>   down.
>
> That's the paradox of detente. War is inherently
> irrational and both countries should rationally back
> down. But the point of detente is for one country to
> convince the other that one is irrational enough to
> keep going. Just like a game of chicken... and chicken
> fatalities DO happen. Around 3% of all fatal boating
> collisons are caused by people playing chicken.
>
>

So we should back down on our principles first when we are the more  
powerful?  Why?


>> Yes and no.  Shades of gray still presume  notions
>> of black and
>> white.   Different countries and policies can be
>> weighed as to degree
>> of good or bad.  All countries, political systems,
>> cultures and so on
>> are not equally good or bad.
>>
>
> China's government is not THAT bad.

That is not the point and from earlier comments above you know it is  
not the point.  So let us not waste time on whether the country that  
wants to take over a free and productive separate country (recognized  
by the UN or not)  is "that bad".

>
>
>> Do you believe then that there are no threats to
>> national security?
>>
>
> I believe that national security should be called
> governmental security since that is what it actually
> means. There may be threats to the U.S. government
> lurking out there, but I don't feel threatened. Not by
> China, Iraq, or any other country. I do feel just an
> itsy bitsy bit threatened by islamofacist terrorists
> but they are not a country are they?
>

If no country is any real threat as you (incorrectly) claim then why  
on earth would we not stand up for the rights of the Taiwanese people  
and nation?

> You would think that a SUPERPOWER would show a bit of
> backbone and not give in to the "let's get them before
> they get us mentality". Especially since nobody really
> CAN get us and we can get ANYONE. Unless of course we
> just want to be sadistic.

What are you talking about now?

>
>
>> Do you believe we would somehow be better off with
>> one global
>> government?
>>
>
> No, but there should be an international court of law
> that actually has some teeth.

With laws determined how?


> And an international
> legislative body composed of the leaders of all the
> world's countries.

With governing principles determined how?

> Call it an international senate if
> you would. I don't see the point of having any
> executive branch, with a Parliament of Countries, the
> whole point of this "pseudogovernment" is that it be
> as fractious and innefficent as congress on a bad day,
> but could with a quorum make international law.

So it is an irrational circus that occasionally come out with some  
decree that all nations and people everywhere regardless of their  
cultures, principles, local governments and so on must obey?  Why is  
this good?

>
> Sort of like the UN only not a fairy tale on paper.
>

 From the above it is an international circus everyone volunteers to  
be subject to.  Why would they?

>
>
>> Calling it paranoia is an assumption.
>>
>
> No I think of it as self-confidence. Believing that
> another country could threaten a free people with guns
> strikes me as cowardly. We just need more guns.
> They won't nuke us... We grow their rice after all.
>

So Taiwan can't be threatened by Chinese guns eh?  So our  
manufacturing base moving in large part to China is no threat at  
all?  Our economy is not a stack of cards largely vulnerable to other  
countries, very much including China, deciding to stop buying up the  
glut of dollars and extending us endless credit which is what our  
trade deficit amounts to?  In a contest of only arms we would win.   
But that is not the extent of the situation.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050818/e2f6bb97/attachment.html>