DMB:
Out of context 'one liner' diplo speak? I don't even know what that is
supposed to mean.
RISKY:
Sorry. I meant that you can't fairly characterize foriegn policy in an
isolated quote taken out of context of the circumstances or the time. I do
not agree that the US ever knowingly supported African genocide. I could be
wrong though. Let me know, OK?
D:
But I'd say a good test of foreign policy is to ask how
we'd like it if the other guys adopted them. Lesser evils? Unintended
consequences? Regretable alliances? To say the least! I'd characterize it as
bad choices, short-sightedness and getting into bed with the worst kind of
thugish human rights abusers. I realize these actions were mostly justified
in the name of anti-communism, but this hardly constitutes an excuse. The
point was that we have to take responsibility for these actions regardless
of the reasons.
R:
Where your critiques were appropriate, I basically agree with your commentary
(as clearly shown below). I don't agree with many of the criticisms though,
and I think they provide a lopsided, unbalanced view. You know, kinda like
representing the Clinton era based only upon his follies (real or accused)
with Whitewater, Monica, Travelgate and the pardons. Even where true, they
are not necessarily balanced.
R (previously):
However, YOU ARE RIGHT that the US has made its share of mistakes (and
successes). We need to think more for the long term, hold ourselves
accountable and avoid contradicting our ideals. Some of the totalitarian
leaders we have supported in the past and today (Saudi Arabia comes to mind)
are evil and our support has and will continue to come back to haunt us.
And
that steel quota/tarrif thing is an absolute kick in the face of "free"
trade. We are more active in world events than any other nation, but that
brings more responsibility, not less.
R:
I think the above quote was pretty fair and balanced. Of course I'm biased.
Perhaps it is my mirror.
Dave B:
Hmmm. Petty, mean spirited AND RIGHT? That seems awfully contraditory. Or
maybe its that you're allowed to say it, but I'm not? You can't have it both
ways.
R:
See the Clinton example above. I clearly did not disagree with every example
you threw out. I disagreed with some, and disagreed with the lopsidedness of
your portrayal. I think the US is more complex and less one sided than your
list would reveal.
DMB:
The kind of short-sighted, regrettable alliance making goes on as we
speak. The northern alliance of Afganistan are one of the few groups in the
world that are actually worse than the taliban. I'll bet you dollars to
donuts that we'll be back there again to fight against them in ten or twenty
years. The military dictatorship in Pakistan are in our corner at the
moment, but we're going to regret that deeply too. And all of this shows
that stupid foreign policies continue even in this post-cold war era.
R:
The world is not so simple. Sometimes countries, like people, face difficult
choices. Where it is moral to form alliances, one must do so carefully and
with knowledge that unintended consequences can occur. There has been
nothing evil or wrong in these two... yet. We need to be careful that we do
not let either get out of hand. Failure to form alliances has consequences
too. We are responsible for this as well. I am not sure what you see as
stupid. Perhaps Condoleeza Rice should ask your opinion next time. ;^)
D:
And
the fact that we are "more active in world events than any other nation"
while at the same time our foreign aid donations rank at the very bottom
only shows how militaristic and irresponsible we are. It demonstrates
disrespect for other nations and cultures. That's imperialism.
R:
Not according to Horse's definition. Tsk, tsk! You guys should have
compared notes. There are a lot of ways to get involved. Foriegn aid is one
(one which i already said we should give more toward). Trade agreements,
military defense, peace accords, secured loans, infrastructure investments,
etc are all other means. The US commits twice as much resources to worldwide
defense as every country in Europe combined. We have repeatedly used these
resources to come to the aid of other countries. We have almost always tried
to quickly disentangle ourselves and self empower those we aid or oppose. We
have not always been successful, and some well laid plans have gone astray,
but at least we tried. What the hell have the Argentinians done lately for
the world? Damn them.
R (previously):
Certainly nobody is simplifying the problem with terrorism or lack of social
progress on any single dimension. The solution isn't just that they need to
get less "dysfunctional," or that US needs to cause less problems. Complex
problems often require complex solutions.
D:
Huh? I don't know what to say here. Those comments are too vague and
equivocal to have any real meaning. They amount to little more than saying,
"hard things are hard".
R:
Mideastern poverty and terrorism are complex issues that defy one dimensional
answers. The world and the US need to assist in the advancement of this
atrophied culture. Somehow, we need to help these people replace their
totalitarian governments with secular democracies (as opposed to propping up
these tyrants.) We need to help them see the value in freeing, educating and
empowering the other half of their citizenry (their women) in ways that won't
threaten the men. We need to help them see the folly of mixing church and
state or of repressing religious freedom. We need to encourage the creation
of free speech and open criticism. We need to foster property rights,
liberty and free enterprise. We need to help them to see the folly of
fundamentalism and replace it with an open spirit of scientific inquiry. We
need to assist them with free trade and with well directed aid (aid that
doesn't prop up the aforementioned dictators.) We need to help them
establish a solution to the Palestinian problem.
That is what I mean. Of course, some of the above ideas may not work. We
should keep trying though.
DMB...
Exactly. Its no accident that US imperialism resembles the UK's colonialism.
The US began to absorb Europe's colonies beginning in the late 19th century.
It started with Spain's Cuba and the Phillipines in the 1890's, and was
wildly excellerated after WW2 when the UK pretty much said, "Here, take
these countries. We can't afford to keep them anymore." Naturally, the US
has developed a more efficient form of imperialism. After all, colonialism
is a rather expensive way to exploit nations. All that's left now are
puppets, allies and enemies. "You're either with us or you're against us."
R:
Post cold war I do not see any validity in this criticism. Could you
elaborate with representative examples of imperialism as per Horse's
definition? I promise to keep an open mind. None of your examples was post
cold war. Which by the way I believe we led the world in winning. Please
send thank you cards to Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher (I am sure these are two
of your favorites).
Dave B:
The second sentence is confused? [Most Americans believe they live in
a democratic nation, but in fact are citizens of a global thermo-nuclear
empire.] I don't think so. Its a statement about the
confusion of others. It speaks to the difference between what people believe
and what is really true. The fact is, the principles of democracy are
inconsistent with the features of an Empire. Empires are willing to exploit
other nations for their economic goals. Empires are about extracting wealth,
whether that extratction process violates democracy and human rights or not.
The US has overthrown nations and propped up authoritarian governments for
the sake of cheap bananas, coffee and oil. That's an empire.
R:
So you do have some examples? Could you please share them? Which countries
did we overthrow excluding the already agreed-to errors of the cold war?
Which did we prop up for cheap bananas, coffee and oil? You may be onto
something here... but I am not sure yet.
D:
I can
understand where one might get these wrong impressions. The actual state of
affairs in the world is far, far away from the impression one would get from
government spokesmen or from corporate news. A person has to go out of their
way, seek out alternative news sources, has to read some books on history
and foreign policy to even begin to see what's really going on.
R:
Cool. Please get me that list as requested above.
D:
The idea that Socialism has "been thouroughly disasterous" is debateable at
best. Canada is considered to be a socialist country and it has the best
human rights record in the world. The list of nations that have kept their
promises and been the most generous in terms of foriegn are mostly socialist
countries.
R:
No they are not. These are not socialist, centralized, command economies.
They are basically modified free enterprise countries with strong social
safety nets and extensive governmental interference. I have no qualms with
these types of social experiments. If your ideal of Socialism is Canada,
then I have no beef with you.
D:
To construe this as some kind of tyranny or athoritarianism is
little more than parroting cold war propaganda and contradicts the Pirsigian
notion that socialism is morally superior to capitalism.
R:
Capitalism was more moral because it was more dynamic. Truth be told though,
Pirsig is a bit behind the times nowadays when it comes to intellectual
theories. With complexity theory, it is obvious that complex, centralized
command economies can never compete with effective decentralized models.
Another MOQ dilemma solved.
D:
But what I was actually referring to in complaining about the
export of corparate values is the McDisneyfication of the world. I mean, its
not as if the US is spending a whole lot of money or energy actually
educating people in economics. Its not about speading the "social knowledge
of capitalism", as you put it. Its about selling burgers, action movies and
junk like that.
R:
The horror! Do they have to wear the ears? Do they still get to supersize?
If someone wants to buy a Mcnuggets I think you should let them David. There
are bigger problems in the world than whether people choose to drink coke or
pepsi. I am being facetious obviously, but I really don't get it. What's the
big deal? (and yes the way you learn economics is by doing it, NOT by
studying it)
R (previously):
If you have any actual economic argument, please make it and cite examples.
Otherwise, there is only one proven contender that countries and people are
freely looking at for economic advancement and that is variations on the
theme of good old fashioned, provincial, free enterprise.
D:
One proven contender? Only if money is the only thing that matters. As I
understand it, the MOQ suggests the best solution would be some kind of
Dynamic socialism, that is to say an intellectually guided system that
recognizes the need for real economic freedom. The fact that most people see
the two as incompatatble is understandable, but its just not true.
R:
You are right. It is true of modified free enterprise. Free enterprise
empowers decisions to be made at the level of individuals, corporations and
other agents. It allows complex coordination to occur in real time based upon
a diversity of adaptive values. It isn't perfect, and it requires some
controls to balance properly, but it sure beats anything going on in Cuba or
N Korea. Possibly the most important intellectual rule (and most dynamic) is
that ideas need to be born out in actual experience. Big ideas that don't
play out in the real world are not quality ideas. The MOQ is empirical. We
need to be too.
R (previously):
As for your tacked-on argument that "provincial corporate values" lead to
extinction of plants and animals and languages, may I remind you that you
might want to support this allegation with a semblance of argument? For
example, please provide evidence that biodiversity or cultural diversity are
more threatened in free enterprise democracies than in theocracies or
socialist states or other totalitarian regimes. I think you will find that
biodiversity is protected much better in advanced western
capitalist/democracies than in any form of totalitarian state.
D:
You present a false dilemma. Of course theocracies and totalitarian
governments would also be equally monolithic. They would wipe tend to wipe
out diversity insofar as they insist on the world-wide export of their
particular values, but you can't honestly believe that I was making a case
for either of them, can you?
R:
So every type of culture that spreads is a problem? What are you suggesting
be done to prevent that spread? Should it be prevented at the expense of
those desiring it? Who gets to decide David? The intellectuals again?
D:
Multinational
corporations show very little respect for the cultures where they export of
do business. What I'm talking about is the "billions and billion sold"
mentality, the mass production, interchangable parts, amoral nature of
Western technology. Its abut the sheer scale of it. Selling Mcburgers in
India, where cows are held sacred, would be like selling Korean hot dogs on
every corner here - hot dogs actually made of our little canine friends that
is.
R:
Now there is a hell of a business model. I am going to sell dog meat in
California and beef in India. Yea, that would go beyond immoral David. It
would probably qualify as downright stupid. I think these evil entrepeneurs
are below our contempt and unlikely to last more than a week or two in the
real world. As for the imorality of "mass production and interchangeable
parts" I am at a loss for words. Again, I hope you aren't suggesting we hide
the idea from others.
YOU CAN HAVE OUR TECHNOLOGY AND OUR SCIENCE, BUT OUR METHODS OF MASS
PRODUCTION WILL NEVER BE REVEALED!!!
R (previous):
As for the loss of language, I would like to ask what you are recommending?
Are you suggesting that people in New Guinea NOT be allowed to assimilate?
Are you recommending they be forced back out into the rain forest? Talk
about imperialism. If people voluntarily give up their language, then what
right
do you have to stop them? (And I too believe that the loss of
language/culture
is regretable.)
D:
Allowed to assimilate? Voluntarily give up there language? I don't think so.
People are pressured to do so in order to survive and that's nothing to be
happy about. People are left with little choice. Forced to back into the
rain forest? I don't think so. More like forced into the city becasue the
forest has been turned into lumber, a living breathing dynamic ecosystem
reduced to a commodity. Its is the rampant economic activity that is
resulting in a loss of choices.
R:
So in your view, these people are all leaving the forest because someone is
pressuring them to do so or chopping down their trees? I suppose some of this
must occur, but if that is the primary problem, then I would suggest the
answer is to stop cutting down forests and stop pushing them around. The
reality i am afraid is that many of them also CHOOSE to go to the city, or
due to the benefits of modern technology and medicine they overpopulate their
habitat and are forced to go to the city due to ann inability to sustain
their population. Is economic activity really the immoral thing here David?
Are you REALLY suggesting more choices? Or fewer?
Risky
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:59 BST