This is pointless. You cannot be convinced. You have established quite clearly that no evidence or argument will sway you. You acknowledge that the paterns of the past do not logically necessitate the patterns of the future, yet you contrarily insist that they do. You acknowledge that peoples and individual people have been able to live at peace for long periods of time, yet maintain that war is essential and inevitable to the human condition. You ask what new developments could reduce the tendencies to war, but discard all the extreme and very new changes humanity is experiencing as irrelevant. You have the unmitigated arrogance to think you can predict with certainty the outcome of an unprecidented age for humanity, and deride those who hope for and want to work for a better future. You are not making an argument, not having a discussion, just preaching your cynical faith. What are you here for? Clearly, you’re goal is not to convince. Perhaps, you really do want to be convinced, you want to have hope, but whatever has made you so angry and sad has hardened you. I’m going to stop arguing with you now. Your desperate rage will continue flaring for as long as we feed it, and obscure your vision. I know what it’s like to be angry inside, to be hurt. May you find peace, brother.
I take it you have no practical answers to offer, except faulty logic.
I can’t find an exact source, but it seems that David Ricardo said something alone the lines of “If you want peace starve the government”.
Here’s an article for you. I suppose you’ll see it as a fairy tale, but maybe it contains some historical facts you are missing.
Laissez faire and little englanderism: the rise, fall, rise, and fall of the Manchester school
Well, I certainly not be convinced when no convincing evidence is presented, can I?
I acknowledge that patterns do not persist merely because they have always persisted…but real changes must take place if any deviation is to occur. I have seen no evidence of such a change. Not social changes (which are fleeting and artificial) or technological changes (changing the tools does not change the who we really are).
I acknowledge that a long, long time ago, far, far away, isolated groups of people were able to, temporarily live in a peaceful state. I merely contend that they were the exceptions to the rule and that for the other 99% of people for 99% of mankind’s time on Earth, it is war, rather than peace, which is the norm.
Am I full of rage? If it makes you feel better to think so, don’t let me stop you. It’s more like dismay at the ignorance being displayed here. You’re right, though…it is not necessarily my goal to convince. It would appear that most of you here are too far gone for that. Too invested in your fantasies to really be able to face reality.
And know what the ironic thing is? It is the war fighting capabilities of your nation that allow you the luxary of discussing the justness of fighting wars…
An interesting read. I’ll have to get in-depth with it later, but what I saw was interesting. Full of fantasy, yes, but interesting. It just shows that your philosophy is not new. Nor is the failure of your philosophy to make any real changes. My arguments, on the other hand, were as valid in the 19th century (and 18th and 17th and so on) as they are today.
Anyway, my assessment of you has not changed…at least your compatriots here have been somewhat able to offer halfway…um, well, somewhat ingelligent sounding, anyway, arguments. You have failed to reach even that low bar. I will grant you, however, that if this discussion was being held in Spanish, I would be at a far greater disadvantage than you are with an English discussion.
Can I infer from what you say that you didn’t know that ‘our’ philosophy is not new ?
[*-)]
Sorry, that was the closest I could find to a :rolleyes: smiley.
Infer whatever you want if it’ll make you feel better. It’s obvious your debating “technique” mainly involves cherry picking words here and there and responding to them, mostly out of context or with your own made up context.
Well, you sound to me like a neocon(or maybe leftist) teenager who hasn’t got a clue about Western history and philosophy. If you knew what you are talking about, you’d never say “libertarianism is not new” in a libertarian forum.
Wow, you are priceless. What you lack in intellect, you more than make up for by being entertaining. Time and time again, you make up positions or statements for me and then think yourself clever when you expertly rebutt them.
Wow…what’s next? I can’t wait to find out. I’m genuinely amused here.
The Libertarian elite has arrived! Great job Juan.
If he is the Libertarian elite, I weep for the future of the Libertarian movement.
Are you a libertarian? If not, how would you describe your ideology?
I have certain libertarian leanings, but cannot agree with some of the ideas. I like small, local government, low taxes, legalized drugs and guns, the death penalty, relatively strict controls on abortion, and strong national defense. I support “civil unions” but not marriage for gays and have no problem with polygamy if that’s what floats your boat. I am also a realist and prefer to see, and respond to, the world as it is, rather than how I wish it might be. It would be nice if we could all just get along, but that’s not realistic, so I believe that policy based on “let’s all get along” is doomed to failure.
Hardly a leftist, neo-con, teenager, as your “libertarian elite” friend would suggest. Thanks for asking.
And in turn you offered nothing but assertions, and supposed “history” to back you up.
-Jon
It helps if you hit the “quote” button. I had to dig a little to see what the heck you’re talking about.
So, my “supposed history”? Sorry, do you have an alternative view of history? Or is it enough to call it “supposed history” to prove me wrong? In fact, this whole post doesn’t make much sense at all…all I offered was “assertations”? What “assertations”, in particular, do you disagree with, and why?
I will grant you a do-over on this one, ok?
What type of war are you exactly referencing? Any military analyst will tell you that the types of war most people think of are going the way of the dinosaurs. With technology and the ease in accessing business transaction across the world, the idea that nations can afford to attack eachother is ludicrous. As the world has become a much smaller place, the natiosn of 100’s of millions are far more similar to the village of 20 natives than you seem to think. Not to mention the ease in ability to defend with the amount of technology in weaponry and the ability to pack a higher punch with fewer people remaining quick and nimble as opposed to large and overlording.
As for your human nature point, I find that in most cases those that speak of the nature of all men tend to merely be speaking of the nature of themselves. You might think you’re a boorish slob willing to take a punch at the guy across the street that looks at you the wrong way, but few others are.
Poor brain-addled fool. The word was assertions - look it up in a dictionary. Your thesis only makes much sense in the face of rigid determinism. Otherwise, it is flimsy and wholly conditional upon the existence of the state. You argue war is inevitable; perhaps, but you’ve offered no proof but “history” (as JCFolsom pointed out, even this is incomplete) to make your argument, nor have you shown why one cannot take measures to reduce its likelihood. Perhaps this kind of nonsense passes for argument at kindergarten, but it will not suffice here. I am not inclined to waste time or effort on people who merely assert their points and dogmatically cling to them.
-Jon
The irony of claiming my arguments are better left in kindergarten right after the childish name calling aside, let’s look at your actual points. Yes, I offer history to back up my beliefs. Foolish me, when I see a 5000 year trend, I tend to believe that the trend might just continue, especially when the causes of the trend have not changed.
And I have not shown why measures to reduce its likelihood cannot be taken, you’re right. Mainly because I think such measures should be taken. In fact, I said so several times right around the time of my entry into this discussion. I just think that any measures taken should be of a practical nature rather than of a fantastical nature. For example, to avoid being attacked, make yourself strong (or at least appear strong). This will not stop all attacks, obviously, but it will certainly reduce the likelihood of it.
The types of wars change all the time. I am not thinking of one particular type of war when I say that war will continue relatively unabated for the foreseeable future. It’s quite true that we do not see Great Wars like we used to. I doubt very much that France and Britain are going to go to war over colonial possessions in the Far East any time soon.
But that’s all irrelevant. As I said, the way war is waged may have changed over the centuries, but despite several wars “to end all war”, there is still warfare. The poor folks in the Sudan do not really benefit from the wonderful technology that you mention. And I doubt the Chinese are going to be much longer contained by any technological advantage that the West might currently possess.
I make no predictions as to when, where, how, or why future wars will be fought…but I have seen nothing yet that convinces me that those wars are not coming, whatever the details might be.
And why do you think that few people are willing to take a punch at someone for looking at them wrong? Because they are enlightened?
Yes, making assertions claiming absolute certainty based on mere historical trends (of which only partial knowledge is available) and dim views of human nature is indeed inadequate. Your argument amounts to nothing. Deligitimising war in the eyes of its potential financiers makes it all the harder to wage it. In fact, it has been deligitimised - without a state to extort the funds to finance its wars, how probable will the occurence of war be? But what does the state’s legitimacy rest upon, other than mere opinion? If you want to disregard the role of ideas, feel free; but it’s not going to make a good argument. If that is “fantastic” to you, so be it - but the fact is, it is practical for the very reason that humans are creatures that act based on beliefs.
-Jon
The beauty of this whole thing is that war will continue. You can cry about me saying so, but it will continue. You can complain that I’m using faulty logic or that my arguments are inadequate, but it will continue. You can call me names, but it will continue. You can discuss legitimacy issues, stateless societies, political elites, whatever, but war will continue. Every day that goes by proves me right, but I know that won’t satisfy you, because you refuse to face reality.
In five or ten years, when war is still very much the norm around the world, will you apologize and admit that I was right?