Yeah, the attitudes of the American settlers were pretty disgusting and the mass murders and relocations are of a Biblical magnitude (the Trail of Tears, for example). I was pretty disappointed when I learned about Jackson’s campaigns against the Indians. The man clearly had some backbone - rare in a politician even in those days when (we suppose) American politicians were more moral and decent. But then he had to go murder Indians…
Clayton -
I wonder about the trail of tears though. Was it really that bad? Wasn’t it just Indians walking from one place to another? Yes it was a government mandated migration but somehow I feel like this is something that has been historically distorted. Of all the episodes of mass death in American history how does this one distinguish itself. Who comes up with these figures of 4000 people dying? I don’t have any proof, but it just doesn’t really sound right. Plus wouldn’t it be great for the bankers if the great bank killer of the 20th century was just a stupid brutal racist?
Sounds right to me. Whenever you have a forced march people die. You wouldn’t say Bataan Death March was just Americans walking from one place to another, or that deportations in the Soviet Union were just Chechens riding a train from one place to another.
I don’t know anything about the Soviet Chechen deportation, but I do know (from what I’ve read) that in the Bataan Death March the Japanese soldiers were whipping and knifing American troops. I thought with the Trail of Tears Jackson was basically like “Hey, you gotta start marchin, so hop to.”
Mass democracy is mob rule and does not represent a higher order democracy. None are included on my list.
If you dont consider citations like Freedom HOuse as valid and reliable then provide your own. NOnetheless, it is my source and my criteria so deal with it. In other words, you don’t get to decide what constitutes a higher order liberal democracy for me. That being said, I didnt ask you to judge my criteria or source – I challenged you to provide a case study on which of the nations in the list would engage in conflict against each other and typically none has been forthcoming, save the expected “ropa dope” of diversions and fallacious arguments that is prevalent on this forum.
As for Gottfried’s critique, it does have merit and I might agree with many of his points (restriction on criticism of a parasitic muslim minority in Europe) – he is conservative in his bias. And I am a neoconservative, presumably like Gottfried.
So, I’ll stick with an imperfect, yet valid, reliable and time-tested Freedom House list since they appear to be reasonably objective in their methodology.
Nonetheless, I am not here to defend Freedom HOuse, my challenge was for someone to provide a realistic scenario in which two or more nations on the list I provided would engage in conflict.
SOmeone posited that Greece and Germany would fight a war over debt – I find this to be somewhat ludicrious. Perhaps this individual can offer a wager to back this up. I am sure we could find a reliable third party to manage the bet.
I am still waiting…
@ Thread
Native American Indians represented a primitive and inferior culture many of whom tried to murder en masse entire Western settlements – men, women and children.
What happened in the 19th century was the emergence of Total War practiced by both sides. At some point, the Indians were going to reliquinish their land – it was preferable to Americans that the Spanish (in Mexico and Florida), the French (in Louisiana and Quebec) or the Russians (in Alaska) did not fill that void.
It is hypocritical that many self-aggrandizing humanitarians who lament the brutal treatment of Indians daily benefit from the act by owning property that, by your definition, belongs to Native Americans.
Your views would hold more weight if you did the right thing, by your definition, and returned the property you currently own back to its rightful owner – Native Americans.
Otherwise, you are a hypocrite in my book. Btw, I am 1/16 native American so I will gladly take possession of anything you own when your conscious compels you to ‘do the right thing’ and match your rhetoric with action.
In ancient times, captivity was the psychological equivalent of the nuclear bomb. Rather than just killing the king and nobility, plundering all wealth and installing a foreign governor, a really powerful emperor would round up all the skilled laborers, women and healthy children and lead them off to be a slave class within the empire’s homeland. All that remained behind were the dead bodies and the old and sick.
The Indians had already been trapped into a kind of captivity on their home turf but at least it was their home. The Trail of Tears was a leading into captivity and was one of the most brutal acts of the US government in its long, brutal history.
Clayton -
Everybody’s 1/1th cherokee. I’ve stopped buying into that myth long ago.
But if I had any property to give the natives, or if I supported the property system in the first place, I would give some to them.
native american indians did not represent any single culture, so your ignorant and racist characterization has no basis in reality. As for any occurrences of aggression by tribes, you would first have to provide some details supporting your implicit assertion that the natives were not simply repelling a colonial invasion. Somehow I doubt such details will be forthcoming based on your previous behavior on this forum.
are you referring to the campaign of extermination conducted by agents of the united states and the subsequent attempts at self-defense by various tribes?
hahahaha land that is owned by people you consider to be subhuman is a “void”? Why dont you go to stormfront where you can find people who will take you seriously?
I dont think you understand what hypocrisy is. I should also point out that those native americans are dead, and so we cannot restore their property to them.
ok, how are we supposed to do that? Miracle them back to life?
youre 15/16ths racist murderer so your claim is invalid.
well what if general petraeus said that to every resident of a specific cultural/racial category in, say, some county in alabama? Do you think he would say it without some troops there to enforce his word? Do you think every alabamian would just obey him?
@Centinel: Whatever shred of credibility you might have had before now has been completely destroyed. I don’t understand how you think bald-faced bigotry and anti-human mores are supposed to pass for enlightened values. While even many surviving native Americans recognize the inevitability of European conquest as a result of the pitilessness of human nature and the technological superiority of the Europeans, no one who has moved beyond caveman morality would attempt to justify it as right or even indifferent. It was wrong, plain and simple. You need to do some soul-searching and shed your moral nihilism.
Clayton -
SRsly dudes, how am I going to engage in intelligent debate against emotional vitriol like yours?
I mean “racist murderer’” and “bald faced bigotry and inhuman mores” ?
ANd malachi, arent you the dude who refused to cite a single objective source for your conspiracy theory that WMD are present in Iraq claiming that the CIA was behind the cover-up?
Forgive me, if I don’t respond further to contributors who engage in this type of self-rightous invective absent any shred of logic and empirical evidence.
Particularly those like malachi who rationalize that it is okay for him to own land in the US that was gained by murder and plunder (by his definition) because the former Native AMerican owners are dead.
Nice.
And I am supposed to be a hypocrite with inhuman mores ?!
dont pretend that you suddenly are interested in intelligent debate. There are plenty of substantive criticisms of your “position” that you could respond to if you wished.
I’m sure your mother will give all kinds of shits about the names that the meanies on mises.org called you.
either you smoke crack daily, you were educated in public schools, or you arent even a real american, because your grasp of the english language is horrendous. You need to go back and read that thread (for the first time? You didnt appear to have read anything prior to your cowardly retreat), the cia supports my claims and you were/are the only one who mentioned conspiracy theories and cover-ups.
funny you would mention religion when we already established that your political beliefs are religion. That was a point open to intelligent debate but you are unable or unwilling. Perhaps you dont have the necessary prerequisites for intelligent debate.
Well I would be interested in any arguments to the contrary but I doubt you will be making them. Polemics dont seem to be your strong point.
maybe one day you will take Clayton’s advice and perform a critical moral self-inventory. The sooner, the better, because one day, you are going to regret all the hatred and racism to which you have devoted your intellectual (using the term loosely) life.
You need to come up with coherent and rational arguments.
Today you posted:
either you smoke crack daily, you were educated in public schools, or you arent even a real american, because your grasp of the english language is horrendous. You need to go back and read that thread (for the first time? You didnt appear to have read anything prior to your cowardly retreat), the cia supports my claims and you were/are the only one who mentioned conspiracy theories and cover-ups. – Malachi, Mon, Nov 7 2011 11:53 AM
In the thread in question you posted:
again, your reading comprehension leaves you arguing against ghosts. I told you that the cia report substantiates my claims, I simply did not reference it earlier because you asked for “objective” and “independent” evidence which a report by the cia is not. --Malachi Mon, Oct 24 2011 6:39 PM
And this quote which requires a professional in the health care industry to interpret:
My source for the claim that wmd were/are extant, accessible to the public, and potentially lethal is the location in iraq where all of these claims can be verified objectively and independently. However, if you write all of this down and put it online (as the cia has done and a cursory google search would reveal) it ceases to become objective and independent. This is fundamental to the craft of rhetoric, so I am not surprised that you find it difficult to grasp.–Malachi Fri, Oct 21 2011 11:37 AM
The bottom line is that there isn’t any unsecured WMD in Iraq, save those pre-1991 weaponry that is probably lost and inert. Also, for the record, I am not a racist-murderer as you implied in a previous post.
Good luck to you dude.
no shit. I had to tell you that like 4 times.
false. Are you so desperate to save face that, not only did you run, terrified from the battlefield, that you must lie about my positions in an unrelated thread? If you’re not done, lets have at it. You gave up and ran, nobody did a ten-count on your prostrate body.
another lie. That is not my source, that is evidence that corroborates my source, as I stated repeatedly. Is this all you can do? Lie to hide your shame at losing an argument ON THE INTERNET WHERE NO ONE KNOWS YOU ON A BOARDS WHERE NO ONE RESPECTS YOU HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
no shit, you finally read it. Maybe if you had actually taken the time to understand my claims, you would have realized that before now. The cia report is exactly what I claimed it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.
fixed it for you
Yah, I could tell you were a chickenhawk. Its irrelevant because you made a transgenerational claim based on aborigine fractional ancestry. I was simply observing that were your claim valid, the greater fraction would appear to have also inherited the guilt of past wrongdoing. Your facetious little quip was just as idiotic as the rest of your post, and I wanted you to know it. Of course, it went over your head because you are a crackhead.
@Centinel: I don’t know you personally but I was in a similar position as you back before 2008, die-hard, empire-worshipping neocon. I’ve since realized that I was just being an ideological waterboy for the warmongers who run this country and most countries in the world. I’d strongly encourage you to ask yourself the question “How much of what I believe is the result of my own, unhampered, unmotivated investigation into truth and how much of it is influenced by what I was taught in school by professors (who can be motivated), how much of it is influenced by my relatives (who can be motivated). How much of it is the result of the peer-pressure of friends?” While there is no grand conspiracy, everyone tends to root for the ideas from which they are benefitting. The CEO of Lockheed-Martin’s son is probably pro-military, pro-US empire, pro-police state, etc. Why shouldn’t he be? He owes every blessing he has in life to these things.
When you “follow the money”, even in personal relationships and friendships, you find that bias and motivation are a pervasive feature of human ideology. However, contrary to the postmodernists, this is not an excuse for fatalism and resignation. There is truth, there is falsity and only through a self-conscious awareness of the omnipresence of human bias and motivated belief is it possible to tease apart honest pursuit of truth from ideological propaganda masquerading as the truth.
Unless you’re the son of a defense corporation CEO or working in senior position at some DC think-tank, you’re not benefitting from the US empire that you’re constantly defending. So, you need ask yourself whether you’re standing for what you believe or whether you’re carrying water for somebody else.
Clayton -
I issued the following challenge and the challenge remains unanswered, save the typical divisive and diversionary ad hominem and fallacious arguments like yours above:
Democratic peace theory is on a sound logical and empirical foundation.
The notion that he inflates some figures does nothing to discount the fact that it is a virtual impossibilty that any of the following higher order democracies will ever engage in conflict:
### FREE
1.0
Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States
UruguayOf course if anyone would like to provide a hypothetical scenario in which 2 or more of these nations would go to war, then have at it.
I am always open to a good laugh.
Again, your amateur psychological remonstrations not with standing, you have still not answered my simple challenge to present a rational hypothetical scenario or case study that would predict war between any of the higher order democracies listed.
If you or the rest of the peanut gallery are unable or unwilling to meet this challenge, then spare the bandwidth and admit the obvious – liberal democracies are inherently peaceful when dealing with likeminded societies.
@Centinel: I don’t do psychoanalysis. I’ve simply noticed some similarities between your positions and my positions pre-2008. My admonitions are friendly invitations, not condescending reprimands, I hope you’ll take them that way and do with them what you like.
As for why democratic peace theory is wrong, I’d recommend you take a look at Hoppe’s Democracy: The God that Failed. The central thesis of his book is that all governments without exception are aggressive and expansionary - monarchies, tyrannies, republics, democracies, whatever - and if there is a difference between monarchy and democracy it is that the temporary-care-takes/rulers of democracies have much higher time preference than monarchs, resulting in more rapacious plundering of the public’s wealth and eventual siphoning of the country’s entire capital stock. Furthermore, contrary to the DPT’s contention that more liberal governments (domestic policy) have more liberal foreign policy, Hoppe shows that precisely the opposite is the case. The more liberal a government, the more war-like and expansionary it is precisely because of the greater resources at its disposal due to the greater economic prosperity of the public resulting from the government’s liberal domestic policies.
So, DPT is backwards and upside-down. These conclusions can be reached from a praxeological approach. Data such as a list of democratic states is problematic for two reasons… first, because the data are subject to innumerable arbitrary judgments in what counts as a democracy or what counts as war, and so on, and second because an empirical observation is only true until it is not. Correlation is not causation… even if it were true that “no democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy”, it still wouldn’t give us any reason to believe that no democracy ever will go to war with a democracy. There is no causal theory, just a correlation.
Finally, as another poster noted above, it is not true at all that no democracy has gone to war with another democracy. France (republic) went to war with Germany (republic) just 80 years ago. That’s two major representative governments engaged in total war. You can’t wiggle out by saying “oh, but Germany wasn’t a democracy at the time” because this is moving the goal-posts… any modern democracy could also vote in an Enabling Act for a charismatic leader and then become a warring ex-democracy within a year or two.
Clayton -
How is this for arbitrary?
I challenge you to submit $1000 to a mutually agreed upon 3rd party to hold these funds for a minimum of 10 years. If after that time ANY of the two nations on the list wage war against each other, then you collect the $1000 (plus interest). If ALL of the nations avoid war with each other. Then I collect the funds.
Note that I cannot add or subtract nations to the list during the agreed upon time period. not less than 10 years. Not only are liberal democracies peaceful, they are also relatively stable compared to anarchist societies which last about as long as Yterrbium in its natural state.
Match your rhetoric with cash in a free market oriented challenge, or go home. But please don’t bore me with another fallacious diversion or misrepresentation.
I love to watch the anarcho-capitalist and statist frauds run and hide when challenged with real consequences testing their failed and flawed ideological beliefs.
IN fact, I challenge Hoppe to put his money where his mouth is and deposit $10,000 into a similar fund from which interested parties can vote whether ANY these nations will engage in war with one another in the next 10 years.
How is that for arbitrary.
Centinel
Centinel, you know full well that we don’t trust you. It’s that simple. So why should any of us accept “challenges” from such as you?