Fragile Peace

[Lexicus]

I have yet to see any evidence of the Chinese trying to impose their views on morality, political system, economic system or anything like that on anyone.

Seems like there's a parallel here to how you have yet to see any evidence of Donald Trump or his administration being racist.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

No, I don't think China is attempting to force its views on morality or whatever. Doesn't seem to be the kind of power it is interested to become.

And that's all that matters. Big nations will always push smaller nations around economically. That's just the way the world is. Bit if I had to chose I'd rather have someone hit me over the head and rob me than someone hit me over the head and demand I live the rest of my life the way he thinks life should be lead.

More likely it'll use its economy to enforce its power abroad (which WILL convey its views on morality and social structure wether it's deliberate or not, BTW), and good old military when it's closer to home.

Conveying is fine. Terrorizing, bombing, sanctioning, invading and generally raping nations that do not comply is the problem. Especially when its done for no good reason other than disgusting moralizing. Also known as the american way.

The question is more : if it becomes a hyperpower like the US in the late XXth century, will it be actually any better ? For all the evil the USA did, I don't think it's ranking especially low compared to other hegemonies in the history of the world. I have some doubt a country which is fueled by a lot of (partially deserved admitedly) revanchist attitude, an authoritarian leadership and a claimed refusal of the validity of human rights, will actually be really benevolent if it ever become unconstrained.

You say all those as if they were a bad thing. There is nothing good about a nation having any sort of morality that it tries to push on others. Irregardless of the nature of said morality. And so far China has demonstrated that it's content to rob you as opposed to enslave you.

 

[Akka]

And that's all that matters.

No that's not. What matters is how willing a power is to constraint others when it can gets away with it. Also, "morality" is hardly the actual reason the USA does bad things. Powers do what they do because of power mechanics, not because they want to "liberate" you. Don't confuse pretexts and window dressing with real motives.

You say all those as if they were a bad thing.

Yes, being intent on revenge while supporting an authoritarian ideology and denying rights is a pretty bad thing.
I also find amusing that you resent mainly the USA for supposedly forcing their morality, but don't seem very concerned with the incredibly intrusive and orwellian systems for social control in China. If you consider "enforcing your morality" as bad, then China would basically be your worst nightmare.

 

[Broken_Erika]

They all just want to liberate you from the horrors of self-determination!

 

[PPQ_Purple]

No that's not. What matters is how willing a power is to constraint others when it can gets away with it. Also, "morality" is hardly the actual reason the USA does bad things. Powers do what they do because of power mechanics, not because they want to "liberate" you. Don't confuse pretexts and window dressing with real motives.

Which is why I refer to it as disgusting moralizing. The first being an obvious adjective invoking bad things and the later being a pejorative word used to describe people who hypocritically or otherwise emptily preach morality.

Yes, being intent on revenge while supporting an authoritarian ideology and denying rights is a pretty bad thing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting any ideology as long as you do it in your own borders. And being bent on revenge is hardly worse than being bent on empire.

I also find amusing that you resent mainly the USA for supposedly forcing their morality, but don't seem very concerned with the incredibly intrusive and orwellian systems for social control in China. If you consider "enforcing your morality" as bad, then China would basically be your worst nightmare.

To put it extremely simply I believe in absolute national sovereignty. In other words, I believe that a perfect world is one where each nation is free to do what ever it wants within its own borders as long as it has the consent of its people (demonstrated through a lack of revolution). So if the people of a country want an Orwellian nightmare, a genocidal regime, absolute democracy, theocracy, human sacrifice, slavery, utopian welfare state or what ever else that's what they would get. And the world wouldn't care a tiny bit. There would be no foreign pressure, no UN sanctions, no supernational laws and rules. Nothing.

Therefore I find america to be a greater evil because it keeps oppressing that right to self determination by imposing its ethical and political system on the world.

 

[Farm Boy]

A lack of revolution can be imposed through sufficient force, once that takeaway is subscribed to as appropriate, national borders are similarly flexible and meaningless under the same mechanic and justification.

 

[Phrossack]

Which is why I refer to it as disgusting moralizing. The first being an obvious adjective invoking bad things and the later being a pejorative word used to describe people who hypocritically or otherwise emptily preach morality.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting any ideology as long as you do it in your own borders. And being bent on revenge is hardly worse than being bent on empire.


To put it extremely simply I believe in absolute national sovereignty. In other words, I believe that a perfect world is one where each nation is free to do what ever it wants within its own borders as long as it has the consent of its people (demonstrated through a lack of revolution). So if the people of a country want an Orwellian nightmare, a genocidal regime, absolute democracy, theocracy, human sacrifice, slavery, utopian welfare state or what ever else that's what they would get. And the world wouldn't care a tiny bit. There would be no foreign pressure, no UN sanctions, no supernational laws and rules. Nothing.

Therefore I find america to be a greater evil because it keeps oppressing that right to self determination by imposing its ethical and political system on the world.

Saying that people who don't revolt consent to genocide and slavery is like saying that people who don't fight back consent to rape.

There were no successful revolts against the Nazis, or the Soviet Union--does that mean their mass murder was the will of the people?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Saying that people who don't revolt consent to genocide and slavery is like saying that people who don't fight back consent to rape.

No it is not. There is a huge disparity of power when it comes to your typical rape. When it comes to the population of a nation that outnumbers any government forces by a factor of hundreds to one not so much. Or rather it's the other way around.

There were no successful revolts against the Nazis, or the Soviet Union--does that mean their mass murder was the will of the people?

Given that at no point in time their militaries exceeded a total of a couple percent of their population and had strong ties to said population via family, friends and just being human it does indeed mean that they governed with the consent of the populace.

 

[Phrossack]

No it is not. There is a huge disparity of power when it comes to your typical rape. When it comes to the population of a nation that outnumbers any government forces by a factor of hundreds to one not so much. Or rather it's the other way around.


Given that at no point in time their militaries exceeded a total of a couple percent of their population and had strong ties to said population via family, friends and just being human it does indeed mean that they governed with the consent of the populace.

Therefore the Holocaust was perfectly legitimate because it was done with the mandate of the people? I just want to be sure that's your argument here?

 

[Lexicus]

Therefore the Holocaust was perfectly legitimate because it was done with the mandate of the people? I just want to be sure that's your argument here?

I agree with your argument, but note that the probable rebuttal will be that the Holocaust was mostly carried out on territory the Germans had conquered from other states. Perhaps a better example would be the Armenian genocide, which AFAIK was conducted entirely within the territory of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Phrossack]

I agree with your argument, but note that the probable rebuttal will be that the Holocaust was mostly carried out on territory the Germans had conquered from other states. Perhaps a better example would be the Armenian genocide, which AFAIK was conducted entirely within the territory of the Ottoman Empire.

The victims of the Holocaust did not "properly revolt," so by his argument they were willing victims. In any case most of Poland had been formally annexed into Germany.

In any case, his argument seems to be that any and all actions done to people within a state and by that state are just, up to and including slavery, genocide, and human sacrifice, as long as the people are too cowed to rebel.

Another example might be an abusive husband who beats his wife and teenage children. Together they could easily beat him, especially if he's sleeping, but if they don't, then they must be consenting, at least according to him.

 

[metatron]

I agree with your argument, but note that the probable rebuttal will be that the Holocaust was mostly carried out on territory the Germans had conquered from other states. Perhaps a better example would be the Armenian genocide, which AFAIK was conducted entirely within the territory of the Ottoman Empire.

The victims of the Holocaust did not "properly revolt," so by his argument they were willing victims. In any case most of Poland had been formally annexed into Germany.

You could remove the complication of both your arguments by making this about the disabled and mentally ill killed in the Third Empire.

 

[Lexicus]

In any case, his argument seems to be that any and all actions done to people within a state and by that state are just, up to and including slavery, genocide, and human sacrifice, as long as the people are too cowed to rebel.

Well of course. And that argument is absolutely horrible, both morally and logically.

Personally I like the 'consent' argument, find it highly interesting. You may be interested to know that the "no rebellion = consent" point was actually already made centuries ago. In essence, the sophisticated arguments for authoritarianism made in the West have relied on "consent" since Late Antiquity, so the phrase "government by consent of the governed" is actually rather hollow - at least where "consent" is defined as "the absence of rebellion" (and there really aren't many other ways to define it empirically, if your society doesn't have opinion polling ). If we're being really silly we might even define "consent" as "the absence of rebellion strong enough to actually overthrow the regime," so that even if there is widespread civil disorder it can be written off as irrelevant if it poses no real threat to the government's survival.

Anyway, like I said, sophisticated arguments for things like slavery, autocratic government and so on were made on the basis that the subjects "consented" to the contract (whether it was a "social contract" between a ruler and a society or an implicit contract between a slave or servant and a master). So the use of "consent" to defend the indefensible actually has quite a long history.

The way to defeat it is to go to "inalienable rights". If our rights are inalienable we cannot "consent" to have them taken away.

 

[Akka]

No it is not. There is a huge disparity of power when it comes to your typical rape. When it comes to the population of a nation that outnumbers any government forces by a factor of hundreds to one not so much. Or rather it's the other way around.

The idea that people that don't manage to overthrow their government means that they agree with the government is just ridiculous and simplistic.

Especially when technology allows for more and better surveillance (one aspect where China is indeed one of the world's pioneer, but hardly a point of pride).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The victims of the Holocaust did not "properly revolt," so by his argument they were willing victims. In any case most of Poland had been formally annexed into Germany.

That doesn't seem to me to be anything like his argument. "The consent of the governed" does not mean that every minority splinter of the population agrees with what the government does. In the case of the holocaust there was a small minority group being persecuted to the point of extermination by the government, which did in fact have the consent of "the people." The pretense that the Nazi regime ran around doing what they did in the midst of a bunch of innocent German volk who just didn't know or they'd have never gone along is undoubtedly popular in Germany, but it's not realistic. It's also popular in pretty much every country full of people that have watched their government do horrific things and pretended they have nothing to do with it. USians who say "of course I want the government to keep stealing oil, but it's not like I support wars in the Middle East," yes, I am pointing squarely at you.

 

[Phrossack]

That doesn't seem to me to be anything like his argument. "The consent of the governed" does not mean that every minority splinter of the population agrees with what the government does. In the case of the holocaust there was a small minority group being persecuted to the point of extermination by the government, which did in fact have the consent of "the people." The pretense that the Nazi regime ran around doing what they did in the midst of a bunch of innocent German volk who just didn't know or they'd have never gone along is undoubtedly popular in Germany, but it's not realistic. It's also popular in pretty much every country full of people that have watched their government do horrific things and pretended they have nothing to do with it. USians who say "of course I want the government to keep stealing oil, but it's not like I support wars in the Middle East," yes, I am pointing squarely at you.

The I can change it to "The Holocaust was perfectly fine because it occurred with the consent of the people, and outside powers interfering with it were evil to do so." His argument seems like "Countries have wills, expressed by the government's actions and their citizens' lack of revolt; anything they do within their own borders, including slavery, genocide, and human sacrifice, are good, and outside interference with that is evil."

And the "innocent German public" idea is actually very unpopular in Germany, where the country's collective guilt is a central idea in their culture and education.

 

[Moriarte]

To put it extremely simply I believe in absolute national sovereignty. In other words, I believe that a perfect world is one where each nation is free to do what ever it wants within its own borders as long as it has the consent of its people (demonstrated through a lack of revolution).

Revolution isn’t a flipside to consent. It’s more complex than that: there has to be certain degree of poverty, suffering and lack of grip from the state in order for it to happen. Plus, you have to have acolites of a differing ideology all set (and paid) to spread their view of perfect governance. On top of that they have to have the guts and knowledge to realize it. Therefore it’s an exceptional occurence, not the automatic ‘flipside to consent’.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The I can change it to "The Holocaust was perfectly fine because it occurred with the consent of the people, and outside powers interfering with it were evil to do so." His argument seems like "Countries have wills, expressed by the government's actions and their citizens' lack of revolt; anything they do within their own borders, including slavery, genocide, and human sacrifice, are good, and outside interference with that is evil."

And the "innocent German public" idea is actually very unpopular in Germany, where the country's collective guilt is a central idea in their culture and education.

How do you get that out of it? My take is that it was outright evil and the thing that was perfectly fine was that outside powers were completely justified in putting a stop to it and subjugating the German people who obviously at that point could not be trusted with self government.

As to the whole "collective guilt" thing...I see two very different versions of "I'm sorry" running loose in the world. When I say "I'm sorry" you can take it as "I see the consequences of what I did, and you can count on me not doing that again." Nine people out of ten say "I'm sorry" and mean "please forget what I just did so I can do it again tomorrow." Which of those would you say appears closer to this "collective guilt" of Germans?

 

[Phrossack]

How do you get that out of it? My take is that it was outright evil and the thing that was perfectly fine was that outside powers were completely justified in putting a stop to it and subjugating the German people who obviously at that point could not be trusted with self government.

As to the whole "collective guilt" thing...I see two very different versions of "I'm sorry" running loose in the world. When I say "I'm sorry" you can take it as "I see the consequences of what I did, and you can count on me not doing that again." Nine people out of ten say "I'm sorry" and mean "please forget what I just did so I can do it again tomorrow." Which of those would you say appears closer to this "collective guilt" of Germans?

Oh, I'm not saying that's your stance, but PPQ Purple's.

As for the guilt: your misgivings are understandable, but as far as I've seen, war guilt, or at least acknowledging German responsibility for the atrocities, is sincere and deep-rooted in German culture at this time.

True, for the first two decades after the war, Hitler maintained fairly high approval in Germany and Nazism was all too often seen as a "good idea, poorly implemented." This began to change with the new generation of the '60s, which asked the older ones why they were so quiet about the war, and why didn't they stop the war and the genocide from happening.

Nowadays this responsibility is pretty deeply ingrained in German culture. Germany renounced its claims east of the Oder-Neisse Line, and Brandt asked Poland for forgiveness on behlaf of Germany, which was a start. Generations of Germans now have been brought up in an increasingly pacifist culture and the military is largely unpopular. Germans tend to avoid ostentatious displays of national pride, which it was such a big deal when they waved flags after their World Cup win. Their national military museum is designed to with a glass façade splitting the old armoury like an arrowhead to symbolize the transparent and democratic break with the authoritarian past, with the exhibits designed to show the human cost of war rather than to glorify the military.

This is unlike any other country to my knowledge. Germany was sufficiently broken and humled, and its atrocities were sufficiently bad, that German society managed to change and face its past. Contrast with, say, Japan, which has never really owned up to the Empire's crimes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, I'm not saying that's your stance, but PPQ Purple's.

As for the guilt: your misgivings are understandable, but as far as I've seen, war guilt, or at least acknowledging German responsibility for the atrocities, is sincere and deep-rooted in German culture at this time.

True, for the first two decades after the war, Hitler maintained fairly high approval in Germany and Nazism was all too often seen as a "good idea, poorly implemented." This began to change with the new generation of the '60s, which asked the older ones why they were so quiet about the war, and why didn't they stop the war and the genocide from happening.

Nowadays this responsibility is pretty deeply ingrained in German culture. Germany renounced its claims east of the Oder-Neisse Line, and Brandt asked Poland for forgiveness on behalf of Germany, which was a start. Generations of Germans now have been brought up in an increasingly pacifist culture and the military is largely unpopular. Germans tend to avoid ostentatious displays of national pride, which it was such a big deal when they waved flags after their World Cup win. Their national military museum is designed to with a glass façade splitting the old armoury like an arrowhead to symbolize the transparent and democratic break with the authoritarian past, with the exhibits designed to show the human cost of war rather than to glorify the military.

This is unlike any other country to my knowledge. Germany was sufficiently broken and humbled, and its atrocities were sufficiently bad, that German society managed to change and face its past. Contrast with, say, Japan, which has never really owned up to the Empire's crimes.

And yet the EU seems constantly beset by the image that it is just Germany's latest way to turn the continent into their little fiefdom. From my admittedly distant view, Germans may have lost their taste for war, but they seem to still see themselves as the "natural" ruling class and the rest of us would just be better off if we let them take charge. For being "sufficiently broken and humbled" as a group, my limited in person experiences with individual Germans have pretty consistently left me with an impression somewhere in the neighborhood of "what an arrogant prick." Of course, tending heavily towards arrogant prick myself I do bring that out in people.