6th May 2003, 1:00 PM
Quote:Well unlike conservatives I actually trust the government to do some good things and think that it'd be a better world with a true world government.
How? How could a government stationed in say, Brussels, have a better idea of what you in Pluckdump, Wyoming need than one in Washington DC? How could a government that applies the same principles to Twa Pygmies living in the forests of Burundi and to you could work better than a smaller, more regional one? Explain to me how a world government would work.
Quote:But, if we alienate the world enough, in some number of generations in the future some group will come along and defeat us like every other group that dominated by using force.
If this is about the survival of America, don't have any illusions. The United States will disappear some day, there are no two ways about that. If you think you'll manage to extend it to immortality by befriending everybody, you're dreaming. America will fall some day, just like every other political entity on Earth.
Quote:And make no mistake about it -- if we act uniaterally and do things without international sanction it IS using force. No matter how much you sugar coat it... its force. Pure and simple. Exactly as we did to Iraq.
It's still using force even if a semi-corrupt, mixed group of unelected former businessmen and lawyers gives you the green light.
And there is nothing wrong with force, should it be used for correct goals.
Quote:So its bad to be proud of your history? Uhhhhhhh.....
What pride can you get from acts which aren't yours? I suppose if it helps you sleep better...
Quote:Oh, and Napoleon a great man? NO. Sure, he wasn't brutal like many dictators, but he did try to essentially conquer the world for his greater glory... "betterment of mankind"? No way! Essentially all he wanted was money, power, and land... look, sure, the governments of Europe weren't perfect but Napolen wouldn't have been much of any better! All he'd do is put relatives in charge... like he did in Spain...
And Napoleon didn't let off on oppression and wasn't some liberal. He was conservative...
Are you arguing that feudalism is superior to Napoleonic code? Didn't think so. When the main difference between two styles of government is one enslaves an entire nation to one person and the other doesn't, there's no point arguing.
There is no denying the Napoleonic era ushered into a new age of nationalism, with people all over Europe claiming their rights as free men.
Napoléon Bonaparte WAS a great man. He was a superior tactician, an eminent strategist, and carried the ideals of the French Revolution to all corners of Europe, defeating all in his wake. Ironically, he was in the end beaten by Great Britain, the only country whose populace could claim a similar or greater level of freedom. This, I will remind you, because of men who challenged royal authority and gave their blood for those rights.
Of course he did things for his own glory. What man wants no legacy? But his acts, in the end, brought good things.
Quote: and it'd be great if every nation could be a democracy. But look what you get when unprepared nations become democracies... *looks at Africa*
Yeah, civil war, dictators, "elections" with troops ready to assure the victor, etc. Oh, and he is also correct that it is stupid to think that "they" any stupider than we are. "they" aren't... they're just in a more unfortunate situation. Looking down on them and "telling them what is right" like a parent insults them. Yes, teach them... but not in a condecending, 'i know best' fashion and not just by yourself. Having others around to agree on what to do and to help teach them is clearly the best way to be successful...
"they have sad ideas and we must help them see the light" is neither a productive nor a successful policy... as many empires over the years learned. It just leads to unrest and the hatred of the people of those nations being dominated and "taught". See: British Empire, esp. India.
The fact that former colonizing powers did a shit job organizing Africa doesn't make democracy a bad idea. They didn't create democracy, they just drew lines in the sand and left.
And for India, oh what are you going on about! India is run by the British parliamentary system, and is one of the most successful democracies (considering its huge population) in the world. If you're going to show me where instituting democracy failed, by (insert deity) don't mention India. The entire Indian subcontinent was divided and three centuries behind Europe under Moghol domination, and after just a hundred and fifty it's now fairly well united and has a thriving film and high-tech industry (the area around Bangalore is called mini-silicon valley or something of the genre). Of all the dismal failures in the region, with Pakistan and Myanmar governed by military governments, Afghanistan by religious fundamentalists up to a few months ago, and China by the flaming commies, India is a resounding success.
In fact, mentioning the entire British Empire as an example of failed imperialism is a terrible idea. HM's Empire was slowly dismembered by its own leaders with no great bloodbaths (except, I'll concede, for Ireland), with Britain proper being basically untouched. They had their time in the sun, now they're less of a power... but it's not like they were totally and utterly destroyed by masses of revolutionary anarcho-marxists or anything.
Quote:First, the point isn't whether it is true now -- its whether the same person, in that situation, could have said that with as much conviction as Weltall did and sounded right. They could have. Just like Weltall now proclaiming that WE KNOW BEST.
No, the point IS whether it is true- both now and then. What it "sounds like" is irrelevant. That reasoning claims that you, as a human being, are not fit to know what kind of government suits you best. That you are incapable of deducing, using logic and reasoning, how you want the schools your children go to administrated, how you want the hospitals you will go to when you're a dying old man administrated, which you prefer of freedom and security, and so forth. Thus, as you are not able to decide the form of government you prefer, you should simply reject all ideas and stick with what you have now (which is entirely paradoxical btw, because people before you did think and decide on that particular form of government). That IS what you are implying, and don't say I'm "not getting the point". I have seen the point, and I have found it retarded your honor.
Anyone can claim superiority. You, as a person, have to examine that person's claim. A Fascist claiming superiority in government would have been confounded, as his ideas have been tried and found wanting. Democracy has been tried and found better than all other forms of government.
Liberalism used to be about freedom. Today, it's been so corrupted by socialism that it sacrifices that freedom for equality. First it was economic equality, then that equality slowly creeped into everything else. Now every man is equal, every idea is equal, science and superstition of every walk of life are put on an equal level. Fuck that, I say. We'll destroy ourselves much more efficiently and painfully by stagnating in the ideological cesspool proposed by the liberals than any war or conflict possibly could.