Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[RobAnybody]

No, you started having a discussion with me, so it would be preferable if you continued it for 2.4 years, or at least 2 or 3 weeks.

errr.... no - see post #182. You quoted & responded to me first.

Yes, but isn't that preferable to him actually learning from his mistakes, gaining knowledge and exercising virtue?

He never does, though.

 

[Goodfella]

Name me a country not named the United States of America or the Confederate States of America that required war to free its slaves.

Name me just one, and I'll repent.

What does this argument matter? Nothing hinges on this concept; the fact that other countries may have had a different response to slavery than the US neither proves that the US is imperialistic nor that Lincoln was tyrannical. It merely shows that the institution in the United States had a much more significant role than that of other nations. The pre-Civil War southern US had not only an economy based on slavery but an entire society. Add racism and the fear of the destruction of the white race into the mix and you get a bunch of pissed off southerners willing to die to defend what they think is a right to own other people.

Oh, and I can get you to repent with little effort (except I know you won't toss aside your political as a result of one internet debate). There are tons of conflicts fought over the matter of unfree labor. The list is too long so I'll just start with some you've heard of: the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Latin American Wars of Independence, and every bloody slave revolt that has ever happened. Do you honestly think that the entire world was able to do away with the owning of other people through peaceful means? To disagree would be to display total ignorance of history.

Villages burned. Civilians targeted. Suspension of Habeus Corpus. Enslaving young men to make them fight the South. Martial law? Heck, racism?

How do you justify any of it?

First, from none of those things can you conclude that Lincoln was either: fascist, warmongering, or totalitarian You're simply throwing around libertarian buzz words.

Here are the definitions of those words. Make some flash cards so you can learn them.

1.)Fascism: regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2.)Totalitarian: Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed

3.)Warmongering: used to describe someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war

Lincoln was in no way fascist, totalitarian or warmongering. Yeah, he suppressed the opposition by beating them out in democratic elections. So fascist! Seriously, he was merely president during a war and took several actions to help that war's conclusion in the time of a crisis (something the constitution permits through the Inherent Powers).

Anyways, the justification is quite apparent. The southern states had no right to succeed and they merely did so in order to protect their antiquated agrarian and aristocratic society which violated the rights of millions every day. Any state that permits the ownership of human beings has no legitimacy.

Villages burned. Civilians targeted.

I don't take the death of innocent people lightly, but there's no proof of any wide scale civilian targeting during the war. There weren't any wholesale massacres or any of the sort and the civilian to military death ratio was very low. Farms and homes were seized, but that's not anything unusual for a war so it can be shrugged off and saved for the reconstruction effort.

1. While the South did in fact secede (Primarily) to protect slavery, this was merely a circumstantial reason for the Lincolnian invasion. Not only did Lincoln claim that he didn't want to free the slaves, he actually, actively pursued an amendment that would ensure they would never be free at a Federal level. Lincoln was far, far more concerned about the "No right to secede" part than he was about the "Immoral, cruel institution" part.

I assume you're talking about the Ghost Amendment or the first 13th amendment. First, it was Buchanan that wanted it, not Lincoln. Second, "actively pursued" it is one of the worst stretches you've employed yet. Prior to his election he stopped short of saying that he wouldn't oppose it which was simply him being a politician and using it to calm democratic hysteria (so how's he a warmongerer?). Argument is shot down.

2. I don't have clear cut percentages for you but its worth mentioning that not all slavery applies as "Cruel." I'd agree that its always immoral, but some slaves were treated well. So to say slavery was inherently cruel is to undermine the meaning of the word "Cruel" and those slaves who were actually abused (Some slaves were actually happy where they were, and while that's no justification, it is a mitigating factor. This wasn't the Holocaust.)

So now you're a slavery apologist? I'm confused as to how you can justify this position given you're libertarian ideals.

But yes, what an uncruel system. You may have been owned by a guy who had the legal right to own, whip, torture, or rape you but since he occasionally witheld his prerogative it's not the holocaust. No, slavery is always cruel in every form. The fact that you'd even entertain the idea shows that you either go to extreme lengths to win an argument or that you're racist. Which one is it?

Your last arguments are a repetitive waste of time that I've already addressed.

 

[ParkCungHee]

errr.... no - see post #182. You quoted & responded to me first.

Never the less, you responded to me second. So at some point we both felt at some point that it was a good idea to have a conversation, so we're stuck with that.

He never does, though.

So why don't you applaud him for that?

 

[RobAnybody]

Never the less, you responded to me second. So at some point we both felt at some point that it was a good idea to have a conversation, so we're stuck with that.

So why don't you applaud him for that?

I... that is... you're another! What? I'm lost at this point. "Well you are so I did! Bring out your dead!"

You win?

 

[ParkCungHee]

You win?

I'm afraid I can't do that. It wouldn't be right of me to accept such "shallow thoughts" as you admitting your wrong.

 

[RobAnybody]

*you're*

sheesh

 

[Crezth]

I thought you were an out and out anarchist, so you claimed? You're actually one of the most authoritarian people I've ever seen so I wouldn't go around with the facepalm so liberally.

At least I don't believe the government should be permitted to kill people. Or arrest them. Or exist.

 

[civver_764]

You're an anarchist Crezth?

 

[RobAnybody]

Now that that's over, I wanna dredge this bit back up:

Don't forget either, that the Chinese people are immensely resourceful. It doesn't pay to underestimate them, simply because they've been half asleep for the best part of the 20th century.

People forget that positive-sounding racism is still racism.

I don't think what Borachio said is the least bit racist. Imagine if he had said "the German people are immensely resourceful" or "the Brazilian people are immensely resourceful" or, to drive the point home, "the American people are immensely resourceful".

No one would've had a problem with any of those, I imagine. He just characterized a country, right? Not really a race of people, but a country. In this case, they so happen to be racially distint from "us", but if they weren't, or more to the point if it was us, it wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow.

"The Swedes are immensely good at chocolate making!" "The Egyptians have some kick-ass pyramids!" "The Chinese are immensely resourceful!" Why is one racist? Even, like, "good" racist, why is it racist?

Some cultures have traits. Some natons have traits. It is what it is. Germans have a good economy. Greeks have a crap economy. French people make good wines. Russians make good vodka. Americans are better basketball players. Brazillians are better soccer players.

None of that is racist, even "positive" racist.

 

[Crezth]

You're an anarchist Crezth?

Let me elaborate. I am sympathetic to libertarian desires. So much so that I cannot see the state, nor indeed the institution of property, as anything but what it is: the perpetual maintenance of a system of division and oppression.

I may often make posts that can come off as somewhat mainstream in that they don't seem to reject the premise of the debate, i.e. "why have laws in the first place" for example; but this should not be mistaken as me having views actually copasetic with these. I understand why the federal reserve exists, insofar as I understand how it came to be, for example, and I am correspondingly dismissive of deluded nuts like Ron Paul who somehow think "capitalism" would be "better off" without it, but this does not mean I am a big supporter of the fed. That'd require several layers of contrivance. Starting, of course, with being a big supporter of property.

So, why be so critical of Dommy? Because I think he is a hypocrite, and I think that his attraction to liberty is more an infatuation than any sincere romance. He is more than willing to force his views on other people, without a second thought, simply because he reckons them "right." That is distinctly authoritarian. Though I hate bringing up abortion, the idea that life begins at conception is utterly religious. It has no cultural basis whatsoever, so to force others to abide by that notion is a tyranny.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Let me elaborate. I am sympathetic to libertarian desires. So much so that I cannot see the state, nor indeed the institution of property, as anything but what it is: the perpetual maintenance of a system of division and oppression.

I may often make posts that can come off as somewhat mainstream in that they don't seem to reject the premise of the debate, i.e. "why have laws in the first place" for example; but this should not be mistaken as me having views actually copasetic with these. I understand why the federal reserve exists, insofar as I understand how it came to be, for example, and I am correspondingly dismissive of deluded nuts like Ron Paul who somehow think "capitalism" would be "better off" without it, but this does not mean I am a big supporter of the fed. That'd require several layers of contrivance. Starting, of course, with being a big supporter of property.

So, why be so critical of Dommy? Because I think he is a hypocrite, and I think that his attraction to liberty is more an infatuation than any sincere romance. He is more than willing to force his views on other people, without a second thought, simply because he reckons them "right." That is distinctly authoritarian. Though I hate bringing up abortion, the idea that life begins at conception is utterly religious. It has no cultural basis whatsoever, so to force others to abide by that notion is a tyranny.

I like this post.

 

[civver_764]

Let me elaborate. I am sympathetic to libertarian desires. So much so that I cannot see the state, nor indeed the institution of property, as anything but what it is: the perpetual maintenance of a system of division and oppression.

I'm with you there buddy.

So, why be so critical of Dommy? Because I think he is a hypocrite, and I think that his attraction to liberty is more an infatuation than any sincere romance. He is more than willing to force his views on other people, without a second thought, simply because he reckons them "right." That is distinctly authoritarian. Though I hate bringing up abortion, the idea that life begins at conception is utterly religious. It has no cultural basis whatsoever, so to force others to abide by that notion is a tyranny.

He is a hypocrite, but so is everybody. I don't think most of us have very good reasons for our political beliefs. Dommy is pretty open-minded in a way that most mainstream conservatives aren't. I could seriously see him becoming a hard-leftist once he goes to university. I don't think continuously giving him crap for his views is the most productive approach, especially when you consider his background.

 

[RobAnybody]

*stuff, quite reasonable stuff*

I like you better with this avatar. It's easier to process what you're saying, as opposed to that cartoon space cadet avatar. Don't know why that matters, it just does. FWIW.

 

[Gatsby]

I don't understand the obsession people have with decline narratives. Most of them are overstated and inaccurate. Take for instance the Byzantines who "declined" over the course of 382 years (Manzikert to the fall of Constantinople) or the Ottomans who "declined" over the course of 220 years (The Great Turkish War to World War I). I don't buy that you can call something a decline if it takes several hundred years to result in a fall. If America is in "decline" but we're still around in 2398 then it's not a decline.

So declines only happen instantaneously, is that what you're suggesting? I guess the fact that Byzantine Empire went from once controlling the entire eastern Mediterranian to being a mere rump state by the time Constantinople fell is not relevant? Nor the fact that the Ottomans went from being a leading world power to being an economic and technological backwater by the time WW1 came around? Maybe there will be a USA in 2398, but that doesn't mean it will be anywhere near as large and grand as it is now by the time Washington DC finally falls to the advancing armies of The Great Mexican Empire.

History shows that the decline and fall of a nation or empire often resembles a termite infestation in a building: the rot sets in gradually, and nothing *seems* to be wrong on the face of things, but eventually large parts of the structure suddenly start to collapse.

There's nothing in the US that can't be fixed. Infrastructure can be rebuilt and modernized, socio-economic reforms can result in more equitable distribution of wealth and greater economic growth, scale down in military presence in certain places abroad that don't particularly need large deployments and refocusing on Asia-Pacific, the Middle, East and Africa doesn't mean our influence in Europe has diminished. Rather we're focusing on the future, places that are going to matter or already matter more than Europe. We have an intransigent political party but it's no worse than the kind of political polarization we faced on the eve of the Civil War. We survived that, and it was the greatest existential challenge the US ever faced and we managed. This is nothing compared to that.

It's technically possible that the sort of problems you allude to can be fixed, but will they be actually be fixed? Where will the necessary political and financial capital come from to sufficiently fix these things in time? If more and more of the country's resources are being devoted to pork barrelling, maintaining the status quo, and responding to emergencies, that means less and less resources left over to prepare for the future.

The two major factors determining how America is now positioning its forces around the world are the long term decline in global oil supplies and the rise of China to superpower status. Both are basically inevitable no matter what America does at this point, and so far America's response to these realities has primarily been to double down on their established ways of doing things (i.e. more emphasis on military spending in order to maintain a status quo which distributes an inordinate share of the world's resources and goodies to the USA). This is the classic behaviour of an imperial power that has become so set in its ways - both domestically and internationally - that it is no longer capable of figuring out how to effectively respond and adapt to changing realities. And it is precisely these changing realities which will substantially alter the set of conditions under which the US was able to acquire and maintain its strong position.

The brush-off about the Civil War is a bit like saying "I survived that head-on collison a few decades ago, so if I ever get hit by a truck I should be fine." The Civil War is the greatest existential challenge the US has faced *so far*, but then you could just as easily turn that around and say "this country was such an inherently unstable geopolitical entity from the get-go that it already managed to nearly self-destruct when it was less than a century old!" You'll also notice that the underlying grievances of the Civil War were far from resolved when the fighting stopped, especially as far as The South was *and still is* concerned. If anything, the lingering political and cultural differences and tensions from the Civil War and the Mexican-American War are like tinderboxes waiting to explode and further catalyse the decline and fall of the US once a certain tipping point is reached.

 

[Verbose]

"The Swedes are immensely good at chocolate making!"

Well, that one's patently wrong at least.

We only started making proper chocolate because the French moved the heavens, earth and the EU over our crap. Otherwise it's what the Germans tellingly refer to as "Fettglasur", "fat coating", and we're not allowed to pass it off as "chocolate" anymore...

By my count, this is one of the greatest favours France has ever made Sweden.

 

[Borachio]

Now that that's over, I wanna dredge this bit back up:



I don't think what Borachio said is the least bit racist. Imagine if he had said "the German people are immensely resourceful" or "the Brazilian people are immensely resourceful" or, to drive the point home, "the American people are immensely resourceful".

Can I just make one point crystal clear here, please?

I do indeed think Chinese people (however you might like to define them) are immensely resourceful.

I think they have this in common with absolutely everybody else.

I only mentioned this about Chinese people (however you might like to define them) because they were the topic of discussion at the time.

So tell me please, anyone, am I racist? I have gone to some trouble over a number of years to ensure I'm not, either overtly or casually. Have I succeeded yet?

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't take the death of innocent people lightly, but there's no proof of any wide scale civilian targeting during the war. There weren't any wholesale massacres or any of the sort and the civilian to military death ratio was very low. Farms and homes were seized, but that's not anything unusual for a war so it can be shrugged off and saved for the reconstruction effort.

South Carolina caught a pretty bad time, dinnit?

Though I hate bringing up abortion, the idea that life begins at conception is utterly religious. It has no cultural basis whatsoever, so to force others to abide by that notion is a tyranny.

Actually, wouldn't it would be more theocratic than tyrannic?

 

[sophie]

Now that that's over, I wanna dredge this bit back up:



I don't think what Borachio said is the least bit racist. Imagine if he had said "the German people are immensely resourceful" or "the Brazilian people are immensely resourceful" or, to drive the point home, "the American people are immensely resourceful".

No one would've had a problem with any of those, I imagine. He just characterized a country, right? Not really a race of people, but a country. In this case, they so happen to be racially distint from "us", but if they weren't, or more to the point if it was us, it wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow.

No. I have a problem with all of these statements. You can't really ascribe economics to some sort of "inherent cultural ideal". That's how you get ridiculous ideas like the Dutch and English succeeded in the 16th and 17th centuries because of some sort of "Protestant Work Ethic", or something like Mitt Romney describing the Palestinians as being incapable of running a modern nation state because their cultural values preclude them from succeeding in a modern economic environment. It's ridiculous and heavily generalizing.

Moreover I have a problem with Borachio's statement because not only is he patronizingly belittling while simultaneously making a ridiculously generalized statement about literally over a sixth of the entire human race, he is flippantly trivializing the struggle and hardship of the "Chinese" (in the sense of residents of the PRC). He's essentially saying the entirety of the Chinese revolution(s), Sino-Japanese War, Great Leap Forward, etc. were just the "Chinese being asleep". Not only is it disgustingly condescending but it's just plain insensitive.

That is my problem with it, just like how I would have a problem with anybody ascribing any kind of phenomenon to some kind of inherent cultural or ethnic value, be it the Germans being "a naturally aggressive and warlike people" or the Protestants being "naturally hardworking and individualistic" or the "Africans" being "savage and incapable of understanding technology". Whichever way you paint it it is disgustingly racist, and frankly has no place in this day and age (or any age, for that matter).

 

[Borachio]

Moreover I have a problem with Borachio's statement because not only is he patronizingly belittling while simultaneously making a ridiculously generalized statement about literally over a sixth of the entire human race, he is flippantly trivializing the struggle and hardship of the "Chinese" (in the sense of residents of the PRC). He's essentially saying the entirety of the Chinese revolution(s), Sino-Japanese War, Great Leap Forward, etc. were just the "Chinese being asleep". Not only is it disgustingly condescending but it's just plain insensitive.

That is my problem with it, just like how I would have a problem with anybody ascribing any kind of phenomenon to some kind of inherent cultural or ethnic value, be it the Germans being "a naturally aggressive and warlike people" or the Protestants being "naturally hardworking and individualistic" or the "Africans" being "savage and incapable of understanding technology". Whichever way you paint it it is disgustingly racist, and frankly has no place in this day and age (or any age, for that matter).

Well, here it is, then. I'm sorry to tread on your sensitive toes. Honestly, I am.

I'm not the first to characterize China as sleeping though, am I? And historically they have been rather inward-looking.

I will accept it's an over-generalization. But, in this particular case, I was thinking of the Cultural Revolution especially. Which struck me as unnecessarily plainly daft.

Notice, once again, I would like to point out that I believe all people are immensely resourceful. Paint me "disgustingly racist" for it, if you will.

I only referred to the Chinese specifically because they were the topic in hand.

Anyway, I apologize, most sincerely, if I have offended the sensibilities of anyone on the entire planet. Can I help my own stupidity?

 

[strijder20]

People refer to their families as "we." People refer to their alums as "we." People refer to their sports team as "we." At our better moments, we may even refer to our neighbors as "we." "We" just means that we as members of our country share in it's communal shame when we do something harmful in our aggregate. We send soldiers places. We ask our sons to die in places they may care not about, be they desert sands in the Middle East or the fields of France. We do these things. We owe our soldiers care. We owe our children opportunity. We owe our parents gratitude for that which they have done right. We also deserve some, diluted, credit when we get something right. Maybe at some point in a happier future it will be more accurate to ascribe functions of aggregate human actions in a more global scale. As is, many communal actions are still undertaken at the level of a nation. There is no reason I see fit to not have some shared pride with my countrymen when our aggregate effort winds up being laudable. Likewise, I am still ashamed of us when we destroy, even if I explicitly voted against the developments that caused it to come to pass.

I can understand why you'd use the word 'we' when you're talking about your fellow countrymen. Even if you're against or even countering some of their actions, you could still call them 'ours'. But he was saying 'we, America defenders' and I hadn't seen any post of him explicitly America yet. Mind you, that probably has to do with my bad memory and not seeing overly many of his posts than him being against America

He never does, though.

GW is being polite, quite reasonable and open for debate on a forum where most posters have political views radically opposed to his. He's being about nice as it can get in his situation, and definitely not changing his views slower than others would do in his situation.