I think he’s making you pay for calling me a fascist by annoying the hell out of you.
Because, you see, if war is inevitable then those who are skilled in the ways of war are not only necessary (like the State) but are above criticism by people who live in some fantasy world where there could, just maybe, be a way to make war no longer a viable method for the State to increase its power.
Oh, wait…but war isn’t the inevitable result of the State but of human nature itself even though it can be proven that stateless people don’t engage in war…well, stateless Jews at least and they were a pretty free people before they got themselves a king from what I’ve heard. That may be outside the 5000 year self-imposed limit though.
All y’all so called libertarians need to get together and come up with some sort of agreement amongst yourselves just what exactly being a libertarian entails because this is not only getting confusing but you people are interfering with my efforts at spreading the Message of Freedom™.
“What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism; embargos, trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war.” – Ludwig von Mises
Another reason why trade very much influences the likelihood of war is specialization and division of labor. When you have free trade between people, labor gets divided according to their comparative advantages. So, it’s a little difficulty to fight a country when your people do some intermediary good and the other guys are doing the assembly. You know what I mean, it gets difficult to start wars when your economy depends on that of the enemy. Before going to war, you need some protectionism to kick in some auto-sufficiency. This in turn, will reduce productivity which will mad the people as their living standards decrease, and you can try to use that for your benefit pointing out the other guys as the responsible. I’m sure there are plenty more of economic and social reasons (as the culture mixes and all) why it is unlikely two countries that trade with each other can go to war. I think it may be clear to see it in smaller groups than countries btw…
I understand that concept. Like a lot of other political ideas, it’s good in theory but doesn’t seem to work out so well in the real world. Yes, economies are becoming much more interdependent. Yes, it does make one hesitant to pull the trigger when you know you might be killing a skill worker that produces something that your own country buys. Europe formed the EU specifically for economic and trade purposes (I know, that’s a simplified version, but it captures the basic idea) and Western European nations have not fought one another for the last 50 years or so.
But has that stopped German, British, French, Belgian, Italian, Polish, Spanish, or Dutch soldiers from fighting? Of course not. They are not fighting each other any longer, but they’re still fighting. Fighting terrorists, fighting Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, fighting seperatists within their own borders, fighting 3rd world warlords, “peacekeeping” missions all over Africa, etc.
In other words, the free market has changed the venues and the enemies, but it has not actually reduced war overall. Economic prosperity drives the demand for ever greater quantities of goods, both basic necessaties as well as luxuries…where do these goods come from? Increasingly from former colonial posssessions and other developing nations. When there is money to be made, whether it’s in diamonds, oil, drugs, or labor, someone is going to get rich at someone else’s expense…so now we have conflict diamonds, blood for oil, Colombian drug lords, and Chinese sweatshops. The violence and warfare continues, just not on European or American soil, so we can look the other way and pretend to be enlightened and pretend that we no longer find it necessary to fight wars. Just because it is not white Christians dying doesn’t mean there’s no war going on.
So what’s the answer? Spread the free market to these other regions? I find that unlikely, but not inherently impossible. In a roundabout way, we are sorta kinda trying to do that in Iraq. It’s a hot mess over there, but it might pull through. We turned the brutal, extremely aggressive dictatorships of Germany and Japan into find, upstanding, democratic, free market (more or less) members of the world community. Not quite as successfully, we pulled Russia into that fold also (although it’s only been less than 20 years and the verdict is still out on the success of Russia’s experiment with a system other than communism or monarchy). So how else do we spread a free market democracy to non-complying nations? It would appear that we first must GASP utterly defeat them in a war, tear them down, and build them back up (perhaps that’s why it’s not taking quite as well in Russia as it did in Germany and Japan). War being necessary to end war? Blasphemy! Or not, I don’t know.
There is, of course, something very interesting going on in China right now along these lines. Their “special ecnomic zones” or whatever they call them, basically islands of capitalism in a vast sea of communism, are really taking off and slowly bringing a whole lot of Chinese into a more materialistic mindset that was once reserved for the West (and Japan). So will China’s flirtations with the free market soften their aggressiveness? Or will the populations pressures of millions of young men, with no hope of finding a nice Chinese girl to settle down with, outweigh the alleged inherent peacefulness that a free market brings with it? A billion and a half increasingly prosperous Chinese are looking across the border at vast expanses of empty Russian territory…territory that Russia has no chance of developing or occupying due to a falling population. Territory that China, with her long memory, might just consider to be properly Chinese territory.
And let’s not forget that the day after World Peace breaks out, and we start looking for fresh resources to fuel the worldwide free market that we have built, there’s always aliens…I guess we should hope that they have developed their own free market ideas, huh?
It’s pretty obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about, especially referencing a place like the Sudan (a country of villages primarily made up of 50 or so people all armed with the same weaponry, though ignore the fact that almost all fighting there has ceased, George Clooney) or China (a country that has no imperial ambitions except for the few border states like Tibet).
Never met anyone on these boards quite that ignorant… Usually they at least have a decent concept of the global implications and pressures that accompany them.
Also, I don’t think most people will punch someone on the street because they’re more enlightened than you are - not to mention the empirical findings and the fact that its not in their best interests.
I know I said I was going to stop, but I did think of another point about history that it is important to keep in mind:
That records of history are replete with war and violence is no surprise, but it is also no indication that it is the general condition of mankind. Indeed, it is in some ways the opposite. Wars and the like are the majority of recorded history because recording peace is boring. It is common, it is mundane. War is exceptional and exciting. If war were constant, we would cease writing about it, and windows of peace would be the remarkable exceptions. Historians write mostly about wars because they are the exception. Peace is the rule.
I mean, what do think they would write, “On March 19, 1009, a bunch of people farmed and Lord Mackerel had a nice birthday party”?
Yeah, because they’re taking a break from the slaughter in the Sudan, that disproves all my points, lol. You got me, I am humbled.
Before I go back to the caves, I’d like you to elaborate on why you think people realize that it’s not in their best interests to punch people in the face.
dunkel, I had prepared here a lengthy comment, but unfortunately some network error eat it up. Anyway, I thought you would be interest to check out Hoppe’s paper on the Marx class analysis, there on the media, where he makes the point that there is in fact a correlation between capitalism and imperialism (assuming capitalism as meaning protection of individual rights and then letting people left to their own devices). If I’m not mistaken, he makes the analogy of the state as a parasite: it grows stronger when it is a less burden to its host, sucking the blood little at the time. (I don’t think it is there, being a theoretical paper, but the GDP the USA and the USSR would spent in their armies during the cold war was some amazing difference — something like 25% and 75%, respectively. And the USSR didn’t even have uniforms for all its soldiers after its failed Afghanistan invasion.)
With regard to developed countries being prosper because they have suck on its colonies resources, I think Milton Friedman has written on this. I believe he published research on Britain and Indian where he showed that the netput was the other way around (Britain was putting more resources into maintaining it than it was taking in). In fact, Britain went more prosper after letting them getting their independence, while India went for abject poverty for quite some time (now they seem to be booming somewhat). Also most trade occurs between rich countries – pretty much every poor country has high tariffs and restrictions on trade (especially African countries). With regard to natural resources, I’m not sure if underdeveloped countries produce that much of them (possibly oil). Many people don’t appreaciate the efficiency that western factories and technology operates. And this is getting true for China as well – a guy that works in management in the glass industry tells me that China has facilities that are well over Portuguese standards. They still use a lot of coal energy though – where western countries have nuclear and hydroelectric generators that are renewable for all effects. I don’t think western countries use many natural resources from underdeveloped countries, and we have plenty of it to be auto-sufficient if need be, especially with our modern technologies. I expect many armed conflicts with underdeveloped countries, but they’ll be humanitarian wars against some guys in Africa that are doing an ethical cleanup, nation terrorists like North Korea and stuff along those lines. Not for economic reasons.
I was not referring to war with undeveloped countries…I meant war between and within these countries over the resources that the developed countries need. No, we’re not importing food or beaver pelts, but stuff like diamonds, for sure we are. I don’t have a list on me, but there are a lot of strategic resources that are found in Africa and nowhere else. And there are a couple of oil producing African nations, as well, that are having problems with rebels taking over or destroying pipelines and refineries. Not to mention the various governments and rebel groups that use food aid as a weapon against their enemies. Then there is the non-economic related warfare, such as what was happening in Rwanda and, more recently, the Sudan. Then there are the good old fashioned civil wars that kind encompass all the various aspects…funded by diamonds, with ethnic or religious undertones, etc. Some of it related to the West and some isn’t. The point is, just because Europeans are not killing each other doesn’t mean war isn’t going on.
As for the colonial thing, yeah, towards the end of a colonial possession, the mother country certainly expends more resources than they get out of a colony. However, if colonialism, in general, were not profitable, or could not be profitable, I don’t think we would have seen 450 years of Europeans colonizing the rest of the world like we did. Depending on the time period and the location of the colony, they can be immensly profitable.
Anyway, my point has never been to argue specific types of war and between whom they might be fought. I have only ever said that there will be warfare, in some form. I’m seeing arguments why this type of war or that type of war might be minimized, and they might be valid arguments here and there…but there is no magic bullet (pardon the pun) to ending the problem of war in general. In theory, yes. In the real world, much much easier said than done, because you either have to change human nature or fix religious, economical, and political problems that have not been solved in the last 5000 years.
Good, glad you see the stupidity in implying that war is perpetual with empirical examples that show it is not.
A man once tried to punch me before, randomly. I broke every finger on his right hand. I saw him the other day, he didn’t bother me.
Most men understad the simple logic of defense and probability of success with violence in a world of ever larger and stronger people - these are enlightened people.
However, for some, the stupid, they must learn from their mistakes, but regardless they learn.
All the profitable colonies become independent after the second generation. People there lose their sense of nationality, since they were born there already, so if the people and the regional government can afford independence, you can bet your sorry ass that they’ll soon get it. Just three decades ago, Portugal still had the biggest world empire. Dispite the fact we didn’t participate in WW2, we had hunger in the mainland, just to afford our empire. It was just a matter of national pride, people would call Portugal to the entire empire, while using Continental to refer to the European part. Kids learned all rivers, all railroads, the sizes and shapes, and every other detail of the empire. Even now, our dictator of the time won the prize of the Greatest Portuguese in a public poll: old people loved the guy and they long the empire. We finally had a civil war in the mainland and most people returned from the African and Asian territories (all African countries were declared independent, and we just maintained the rich Asian ones). The most prosperor territory was Macau which was autonomous, otherwise they would went indepent in a heart beat (some years ago China asked for it, and we immediately obeyed ;)).
Yeah, because if war REALLY was the norm, rather than the exception, we’d stuff like “Well, the Mongols attacked…again. They destroyed a city of 100,000 again. Geez, I’m getting really bored with this since it happens all the time. If they attack again tomorrow, I probably won’t even write about it.”
I see…so one conflict ending, while others rage on, is proof that war is not perpetual. Well then, I guess there was no war before the Sudan either, right?
Surely you must realize that I did not say that ALL wars are perpetual, right? I mean…seriously, if you were to imply that I am wrong because one single war has reached a lull, you do realize how retarded that would be, right? I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are not that stupid…
Actually, you just proved my point. Setting aside the fact that I am awed by your awesome show of internet badass-ness (wow, you broke every bone in his hand? You are a BEAST!!), the story perfectly illustrates the point I was wanting to make. I was hoping I could lead you into saying something to prove my point, but I had no idea you’d do it so perfectly.
Even by your own definition, “enlightenment” is only being better able to calculate the risk versus reward equation. By your own admission, it’s not that “enlightened” people simply do not have the urge to use violence, but rather they are better able to determine when an attack might meet with success. Using that definition, if I am smart enough to figure out who to attack so that my chances of success are maximized, would I also then be considered enlightened?
Also, by your definition, I am actually “enlightened”. I have never taken a swing at anyone for looking at me wrong, mostly because I have always made the risk v reward calculation and have never determined that taking the swing would be in my best interests (for whatever reason). You, on the other hand, broke every bone in a guy’s hand for taking a swing at you…did you first do a risk versus reward calculation? What if he had a gun or knife tucked in his belt? What if he had friends with him? Did you take all that into account, or did you just retaliate out of anger and a desire for vengence? Why did you not simply hold him down or push him away? Why did you not simply remove yourself from the area? Why did you not reason with him and try to understand his motivations? You might have crippled him for life, affecting his ability to work and provide for his family…all over a relatively minor offense. Especially considering that you are such a beast of a man that you were able to break every bone in his hand…surely you were strong enough to find a less debilitating answer? Or did you do it because he “deserved it”? Did he have it coming for what he did to you?
Now, for the sake of argument, how would you have felt about it if he swung at you, you attempted to retaliate, but failed and he proceeded to stomp you into the ground? Who would have been the enlightened one in that case? You would have failed to adequately calculate your chances of success of your counterattack…what would that have made you? Or what if he had used a gun or knife, instead, dramatically increasing his odds of success?
Ok, you get the idea. And you’ve proved my point. Thanks.
Wanted to add that you also perfectly illustrated a point I made earlier in the thread. The way to reduce war, or to reduce being attacked more specifically, is to have a strong military. You never know when some crazy person might take a swing at you, so you have to appear big and strong, as you yourself said. You have to be better at violence than the other guy. And the other guy needs to know it. It is not through reason that we avoid war, but through strength. Your little episode so perfectly makes my point that even if I believed it (which I don’t), I could have said it better myself.
It makes sense according to your theory. I’m contending that warfare, rathar than peace is the norm. You’re saying that really it’s peace that was the norm and warfare was the exception. As proof, you’re offering that we hear so little about peace. Why? Because people get tired of writing about what happens every day.
So clearly, if warfare was truly the norm, people would get tired of writing about it, so we’d hear very little about it.
Or did I miss something in the point you were trying to make?
Wars are not homogenous and the mere implication that you say “one conflict” implies that war is not perpetual.
There was, and then it ended.
What are you talking about? Your point was that wars are perpetual, but they aren’t. If one war is not perpetual, then the nature of war is such that it cannot be perpetual. This is called intelligence, “dunkel.”
What was your point? That there is only all out war or all out pacifism? I am not a pacifist. If someone tries to hit me, I will defend myself.
I guess even your instincts are too slow to react…
Sigh… I did not really give a definition of enlightment; I gave a reason why most people don’t violate the rights of others on a regular basis, which is a variable of enlightenment.
Furthermore, that is not even close to an accurate derivative of my “admission.” Violence itself is not the issue, violation of rights is. It isn’t about efficiency, it’s about… - gasp - enlightenment.
First, you’re using the assumption about the definition of enlightenment to create implications of the definition. I don’t care to reply to it because it has nothing to do with what I said.
Second, when someone deserves to be punished, when retribution must occur, when atonement is necessary, it is not only right, but virtuous to take it - this is called justice.
Its easy to prove a point when you create a strawman… That’s kind of the purpose.
It wasn’t a point, it was a fact and it has little to do with psychology.
The practicality of documenting every action that does not involve an extreme circumstance of violence is very difficult. Typically extreme acts of violence that you are referencing are documented for purposes of justice or ethical education. It is difficult to bring justice to acts that are not unjust and to learn of what is immoral from acts that are moral, “dunkel.”
Before going to war, you need some protectionism to kick in some auto-sufficiency. This in turn, will reduce productivity which will mad the people as their living standards decrease, and you can try to use that for your benefit pointing out the other guys as the responsible. I’m sure there are plenty more of economic and social reasons (as the culture mixes and all) why it is unlikely two countries that trade with each other can go to war. I think it may be clear to see it in smaller groups than countries btw…