Neodoxy: Although nationalism is superior to world government, I consider the ideas involved with nationalism more aggregeous and utterly vulgar than just about any other, so I would have a hard time choosing between them
What if that nationalism was imbibed with the belief that individual rights and responsibility was the key to a happy civilization ?
and what is preventing that sentiment from becoming part of a nationalist fiber ?
Yeah, look, globalism isn’t about presenting a facade of a single state to the sheeple, you still need to have wars to keep the population docile and under control in terms of numbers. I mean, there was supposed to be more than one de jure government in 1984, but that’s not really how the system worked, is it?
Germany and Japan took the centralisation route, and they’re still occupied by American troops.
You can say that it’s peaceful, if you like, but you can’t say that it’s free, nor that they could choose not to pay. I mean, if the Pashtuns put down their rifles and sent half their goats or poppies, or whatever, to Kabul, they’d probably also be left alone. That’s what they’re fighting over. The American Revolution was fought over a miniscule tea import duty, ffs, and now look at what you hand over to the government.
Oh come now, do you also think that the economy should be centrally planned? That’s not where wealth comes from.
As for plundering wealth from foreign shores, hah, it lines the pockets of the state’s minions and serves as a big fat inflationary dump on the relevant markets for the mundanes. They’re not plundering Iraq’s oil for you, it’s not like Saddam wasn’t going to sell it to you. You think the war made it any cheaper? He just wasn’t going to do it in Dollars.
I think Geography may have something to do with that. You wouldn’t need anything remotely resembling the United States military as it exists today to defend North America from a force which is that powerful. Hitler, in one of his more lucid moments, once said that Germany could as easily invade the United States as the moon.
Where’s this fantasy land you’re talking about? The US government is as clear as mud.
Political revolutions are engineered from above when someone important feels we need one, much like wars. I don’t know what your idea of “anarchy” is, but it’s not going to be embodied in a violent uprising against the status quo, it’s going to be a revolution of thinking, like the Great Enlightenment.
The funny thing about it is that Stalin never trusted anyone, not his own generals, not his political colleagues, not his spooks, not his experts, not his family, not anyone… But he trusted Hitler. There’s probably more to it than that, but I don’t know.
But it’s not just an isolated example. “Never trust an alliance with the powerful” is a Roman proverb, which many of their enemies would have done well to heed. I believe it used to be an American proverb to trust in God and keep your powder dry.
States are hopeless at rescuing people from genocide. I don’t know what you’re advocating now, some sort of neoconservatism… Suddenly it’s not all about defending “liberal democracy” at home any more. Genocides are performed exclusively by states, and others do nothing to stop them. What genocide was ever stopped by some foreign cavalry riding in and altruistically saving the day, except perhaps by complete accident?
How is this not a de facto world government, then? So much for nationalism. Oh wait, I guess it’s really a question of whose nationalism gets to rule over everyone else’s.
So you say. It seems to me that other countries are, one by one, indeed trying to break away from US hegemony. The US power elite doesn’t like that, of course, hence the escalation of economic, diplomatic, and military pressure being applied by the US against those countries.
Can you please substantiate this? I don’t think you will, though - which I think is very telling.
You’re saying that decentralization per se doesn’t prevent the presence of hostile armies? How does that follow?
What kind of centralization would you take? And how far does the centralization go? You never answered my question (again, very telling IMO) about what you think constitutes a “nation”. For example, if my buddies and I got together and declared ourselves an “independent nation”, would you go along with that?
Brush up on your history, kid. The last time the continental US was invaded was during the War of 1812, coming up on its 200th anniversary. Furthermore, how do you know that the US has been considered uninvadable because of its centralized military forces, and not from either the great distance and logistics that would be involved or the fact that US citizens are still very well-armed?
In any case, why are you so concerned about whether anyone “gets his ass kicked”? Besides, who got their asses kicked at the end of the Vietnam War - the Vietcong or the US military?
You’ve never once clarified what you mean by “gain power”. Can you try doing so now?
How can any limitation be imposed upon government by government? That is, how can any limitation really be imposed upon a government if that government is the final judge of its own limits to power?
Finally, I can’t help but note that here you’re supporting decentralization whereas elsewhere you oppose it. How do you reconcile that contradiction? I can’t wait to (not) find out.
What’s your definition of “statist”? Who’s “we”?
To be quite honest, I think the US itself has a good chance of becoming a dictatorship at this point. The unchecked growth of executive power, principally due to ‘wartime necessities’, seems to be the chief risk factor there.
How is the above anything more than just platitudes?
I certainly see things a different way, namely that the world is already under a de facto economic, political, and military hegemony by the US.
Your assertion stands on air. Do you really think anyone is intimidated by you beating your e-chest and saying your assertion stands over and over? Or maybe you think we’re all idiots and that, if you repeat something loudly and often enough, we’ll inevitably come to just believe it.
How do you know whether “anarchists don’t do rescue of maligned nations”? Oh guess what, you don’t. So this is yet another timeless claim and therefore an argument from ignorance.
No matter how many times you try to re-assert your fantasy world, people like me will come along to point out that your emperor actually has no clothes.
By that reasoning, non-profit organizations would never exist.
What is nationalism necessary for, then? Why aren’t individual rights and responsibility enough?
James:
Germany and Japan took the centralisation route, and they’re still occupied by American troops.
You can say that it’s peaceful, if you like, but you can’t say that it’s free, nor that they could choose not to pay
look at everywhere the USA is in charge, these regions are peaceful, stable, and relatively free unlike their past which was dominated by violence, and dictatorship:
It is not an occupation. Germany could ask the US to leave today and they would be gone tomorrow. Even a nation with a critical geographic location like Subic Bay and Angeles city air base told the US armed forces to leave and we left in short order. So the US presence in Europe is welcomed, not occupation.
And the argument that germany and japan lost because they were centralized misses the point that the allies Russia, Britian and the USA were also centralized so that argument is a wash.
James: Oh come now, do you also think that the economy should be centrally planned? That’s not where wealth comes from.
of course not. I am a minarchist who believes that the only role for government is preservation of life and liberty and maintaining a framework for vibrant competitive commerce. not redistributing wealth, or picking winners and losers
but our founding fathers intentionally packaged political power in as small a package as possible in a central location with balances, decentralization of miitary power and transparency so the citizenry could watch it and control it when necessary.
in anarchist society all of the elements physical force are combined in an opaque Private military corporation with absolutely no checks and balances.
it is a vertical and horizontal monopoly of power that will eventually become despotic, unless you reject the tenet ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’
James: I don’t know what your idea of “anarchy” is, but it’s not going to be embodied in a violent uprising against the status quo, it’s going to be a revolution of thinking, like the Great Enlightenment.
I disagree. anarchist are going to use violence to get their way just like statists. it is scary but anarchist violence would probably be more dangerous and destructive because they are more efficient and cost effective at getting what they want.
violence isnt a means exclusive to government, it is a means that everyone uses when the opportunity presents itself.
James: The funny thing about it is that Stalin never trusted anyone, not his own generals, not his political colleagues, not his spooks, not his experts, not his family, not anyone… But he trusted Hitler.
YOur right and that is kinda funny. dont know why he trusted hitler. maybe a psychologist could explain that, I cant.
James: But it’s not just an isolated example. “Never trust an alliance with the powerful” is a Roman proverb, which many of their enemies would have done well to heed. I believe it used to be an American proverb to trust in God and keep your powder dry.
Wise words and I agree with you. like the one adage I offered above. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely which means that if a PMC gains a monopoly in a given geographic area than all bets are off. bye bye freedom.
James: States are hopeless at rescuing people from genocide. I don’t know what you’re advocating now, some sort of neoconservatism… Suddenly it’s not all about defending “liberal democracy” at home any more. Genocides are performed exclusively by states, and others do nothing to stop them. What genocide was ever stopped by some foreign cavalry riding in and altruistically saving the day, except perhaps by complete accident?
I agree with you on that one. but I dont think anarchism is the way to deal with govt abuses since it removes the shackles that liberal democracy puts on dictatorships. transparency, balance of power, decentralization, civilian control of the miiltary, congress funds war, president commands, military doesnt benefit from plunder, different competing branches of military. all of these things are put in there to deter a dictator from gaining power.
i think it works that a look at europe and US. not much danger of us losing our political and civil rights. hell even kids in cali can play violent video games without govt. censorship.
but we do need to put a clamp on govt spending and regulation of commerce and private property. but guess what. people have figured out that this is a problem and our liberal democracy is moving to solve the problem without too much violence. yeah it is slow, but i think this is the end of the beginning of governments partying at the expense of the people. when we gut govt. spending and regulation with the appropriate amendments than it will be a signal that we are at the beginning of the end of the big govt era that we all as Austrians know is unsustainable.
and i dont think all austrians are anarchists.
Iraq and Afghanistan are stable and peaceful?
Do you mean government spending like this?
Yes, voluntary occupation. Let me show you how voluntary occupation works in Okinawa:
Nov 9, 2009:
Demo of 21,000 people demand closure of Futenma air base
Dec 6, 2009:
Yukio Hatoyama said a decision on Futenma issue will be made soon
December 19, 2009:
Doubts Grow in Japan About Premier Amid Money Scandal
May 5, 2010:
Full Futenma move impossible: Hatoyama: Okinawans are again called on to accept burden of U.S. bases
Jun 3, 2010:
Hatoyama falls victim to Futenma dilemma
Jun 22, 2011:
Japan, U.S. delay Futenma base relocation until after 2014
God, people will just believe any damn thing they’re told by those in authority. It is good to be King.
Clayton -
Muffinburg: Iraq and Afghanistan are stable and peaceful?
They have not been pacified. and it is questionable whether they can be to the same extent that liberal democracies in Europe, the Pacific, and South America. also, i dont think that the US should be using conventional forces in this nations or wasting resources nation-building.
our military has a comparative advantage in conventional arms and conventional battles against large statist armies, not fighting primitive insurgents on their own turf.
although, do you seriously think that these nations were better off under the taliban and saddam ?!
p.s. i love it when the anti-american crowd shifts into their ‘defend saddam’ ‘defend taliban’ ‘defend bushido japan’ ‘defend hitler’ mode or when they state that these heinous dictatorships were ‘victimized’ by US aggression.
it exposes the sheer hypocrisy of much of their dogma of selective and misdirected hate.
The greatest non-anarchist military in the history of the world hasn’t defeated a bunch of primitive insurgents?
You seem to be confusing the consistent condemnation of tyranny in all its forms (both the hypocritical Western variety and the more naked varieties you mentioned) with your own partiality. Abuse, oppression and war are never justified. It doesn’t matter if the people doing it are flying the stars and stripes or some other flag.
No, the dictatorships often survive intact. The Emperor of Japan lived (he wasn’t a dictator, BTW). Many Nazi war criminals survived and escaped. The vast majority of the European nobility and royalty is still intact, even if thrones are a bit scarce. It’s the civilians who get slaughtered. Dresden. Hamburg. Tokyo. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Etc.
And this is how it always goes. The tyrants hurl battalions of expendables at each other and when things get desperate, they escape. Even if caught by the victor, they’re frequently spared because killing a head of state undermines one’s own aura of permanence.
my original post:
Centinel:
They have not been pacified. and it is questionable whether they can be to the same extent that liberal democracies in Europe, the Pacific, and South America. also, i dont think that the US should be using conventional forces in this nations or wasting resources nation-building.
our military has a comparative advantage in conventional arms and conventional battles against large statist armies, not fighting primitive insurgents on their own turf.
although, do you seriously think that these nations were better off under the taliban and saddam ?!
p.s. i love it when the anti-american crowd shifts into their ‘defend saddam’ ‘defend taliban’ ‘defend bushido japan’ ‘defend hitler’ mode or when they state that these heinous dictatorships were ‘victimized’ by US aggression.
it exposes the sheer hypocrisy of much of their dogma of selective and misdirected hate.
your reply:
Muffin: The greatest non-anarchist military in the history of the world hasn’t defeated a bunch of primitive insurgents?
from my original post for your benefit:
Centinel: our military has a comparative advantage in conventional arms and conventional battles against large statist armies, not fighting primitive insurgents on their own turf.
the moral of the story is that it would help if you actually read posts before responding to them.
I mean It is a waste of time to respond to your random nonsensical jabs when it is apparent that you arent reading posts.
How is having nukes not a comparative advantage against primitive insurgents? Why don’t they simply nuke entire cities to rid of them?
Who here has defended Saddam, the Taliban, Bushido Japan, or Hitler? I wantz objective and empirical evidence and proof.
Centinel, is there such a thing as a war that was fought by the United States that you do not like, or would you defend every one of them?
I’m amazed Centinel will self-describe as a neocon - you guys are the ones who tried to pass this off as “dunking in a little water.”
And, as always, it turns out that whatever dirt the government propagandists willingly talk about is just a diversion and is the tip of the iceberg.
Clayton -
Marko: Centinel, is there such a thing as a war that was fought by the United States that you do not like, or would you defend every one of them?
We shouldnt be using our cadilllac conventional miliitary forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It is like swatting a gnat with a hammer. better to support indigenous fighters with a few arms and a little drone air support when necessary at a fraction of the cost and no US casualties.
Like we are doing in libya which to date costs about 1 hour of federal government spending (most govt spending in entitilements, conventional military forces, and interest on debt)
If we use conventional forces it should be with a declaration of war from Congress, overwhelming force to get the job done, no borrowing (gotta raise taxes to pay for it, a balanced budget amendment), and a clear exit strategy (no mission creept).
To assist nominal allies in civil wars like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I would support training, support, and weapons to these fighters. A few special forces dudes to help them and coordinate air support, but no conventional forces and no nation building.
Hell, we cant even build our own nation, how in the hell do we build a nation in a the middle of Asia among a group of peasants whose culture we know nothing about. Just give them some guns and let them kill the bad guys (or at least keep them occupied so they dont bother our national interests) and let these guys nation build their own nation in which they lived for thousands of years.
Just a little rumination from your friendly neighborhood war mongering, gun crazy, flag waving, kitten torturing neocon.
I will rephrase the question. Is there a case in American history where the US went to war but you think it shouldn’t have done so? Where you think it should have done nothing at all.
That is still engaging in acts of war. You’re just disagreeing with the tactics.
Marko: I will rephrase the question. Is there a case in American history where the US went to war but you think it shouldn’t have done so? Where you think it should have done nothing at all.
Marko: That is still engaging in acts of war. You’re just disagreeing with the tactics.
Your question is all wrong.
The means are absolutely essential to determining if war is fought.
I can support a small scale operation to liberate American medical students in Grenada, but I definitely would not support nuking St. George’s to accomplish this end.
The means, ends, and ways (tactics as you call it) are essential to determining if war is fought.
I definitely support war in Afghanistan, I just don’t think that the way we are waging it is cost effective in human and economic terms. We would be better served to just give the anti-Pashtun rebels (Northern Alliance) a bunch of radio and guns and watch them work their magic without the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine and for considerably less cabbage then we are spending now.
Hell, the Libyan operation to date has cost a little over one hour of federal spending and not one US casualty.
That’s the kind of war I like. Let the bad guys attrit each other.
Why do you want there to be a war in Afghanistan?