From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Sep 25 2005 - 23:37:25 BST
[Arlo previously]
Platt had stated he supported using military force on nations who did not
sell *their* oil on the free market the way *we* (America) want them to.
[Platt objected]
No. I said a nation has a right to use military force if it believes its
survival is threatened. Check what Pirsig said about Lincoln and our Civil
War.
[Arlo]
No, that's is not what you said. Case had made the following statement:
"It's their oil, they dont want to sell it to us and would rather give it
to the chinese for free, it's their choice."
You replied:
"It's not a free market if a seller restricts buyers to certain nations."
This was your justification for military occupation:
"Of course our interests are partially economic, or would you rather live in a
tent huddling around a campfire to keep warm?"
There are many ways I could respond to this, but first I want to focus on a
simple one. If "it's not a free market if a seller restricts buyers to certain
nations", and that unsupplied nation is morally justified in using military
means to attempt to secure those products... then you've just argued that (1)
the US is in violation of upholding a free market for refusing to trade with
Cuba, and (2) Cuba would be, in your opinion, morally justified to use military
action to secure what we are denying by preventing a "free market".
But let's get away from the "denial of service" aspect and just talk price. What
if, say, the OPEC nations decide to charge ten times the current price per
barrel of oil (using an extreme figure). This might not be "sound business" but
within the neocon model, it is the right of the owner to set a selling point.
If no one can afford the product, we can't "force" them to lower their price,
can we?
[Arlo previously]
If we can claim "it's part of the survival thing", I'm sure he supports
(other countries) claiming too...
[Platt]
Sure. Most wars are economic, Japan and Germany being prime examples in
World War II. You have pointed out a number of times that terrorism stems
from economic deprivation. So you think they should win?
[Arlo]
The point is not that they *do*, its that you feel they are morally justified to
do so. If the U.S. is morally justifed in using military action to force access
to goods denied to it, or threatened, by the "free market", then these other
nations too must have your moral justification.
Or, again, is it only morally justified when the U.S. does it?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 25 2005 - 23:49:13 BST