Western complicity in the killing of pro-Democracy protestors in the Arab world

[Alassius]

You are obviously talking out of your arse because there's nothing inherently Marxist about that notion. It's a notion that appears prominently in literature produced during the Enlightenment and might thereby on occasion appear in Marx's writing. But I can think of other thinkers who subscribed much more heavily to that idea of an innocent nature that has become corrupted, such as Rousseau. So Rousseau had Marxist notions?

Well if you are looking for precedences I suggest you start with the Bible "State of nature" is not a new concept. But, not all thinkers supposed it as the ultimate ideal society. God chose to give men commandments, instead of restoring innocence by taking away the knowledge. Rousseau would probably say, if you abolish his social contract, new tyrants would raise in absence of a binding between the power of kings and the will of the people. In comparison, Marx sought to abolish all existing social order, to be replaced with an explicitly innocent society, which mirrors the primitive communism that he considered the state of nature. I'd say that's more emphasis on the concept than most other philosophers.

Anyway, your response only shows that your posts have so far been irrelevant to the topic at hand. The question is whether the West is complicit in oppression happening elsewhere, and whether this complicity should be openly acknowledged or admitted. Then it was asserted that this indicates a kind of hypocrisy when the West condemns certain countries for acts of oppression that are similar to what they are complicit in. You are not even disputing this. You acknowledge that a certain degree of hypocrisy is indicated here. So what is the point of what you're saying? That the West is still better because it doesn't actually commit those acts itself and what it is complicit in is not so horrible? What a petty argument.

You might have something worth reading if you say that it's better to be hypocritical and condemn select acts of oppression than to do nothing at all, but you're not even really saying that.

Erm, I said it's better to be hypocritical and condemn select acts of oppression, than not to be hypocritical and just oppress your people. Are you disputing that?

Your argument primarily boils down to "The West is still better". Any intelligent person should be ashamed of that kind of argument.

Care to suggest who else did it better than the West?

No, but they would be stuck convincing their constituency (if it can be called that) to make the means to further the oppression. I'm guessing that would not be so easy.

It was quite easy for all the tyrants prior to imperialism?

As an aside, you can't cure a greed-based problem by just ignoring the greed bit as if it were not there.

No you can't. What you can do is to make it so that greed can't hurt that much. Capitalism does this by on one hand making everyone greedy, so one man's greed is checked by his fellows', and on the other hand prevent the greed of the more powerful from overwhelming the less powerful, by ensuring negative liberties. This works much better than preaching the majority of people to be content with what pittance they have, while letting a few privileged to get away with whatever they want.

The flawed assumption here is that they need weapons to oppose those regimes.

What do you mean?

 

[aelf]

Well if you are looking for precedences I suggest you start with the Bible "State of nature" is not a new concept. But, not all thinkers supposed it as the ultimate ideal society. God chose to give men commandments, instead of restoring innocence by taking away the knowledge. Rousseau would probably say, if you abolish his social contract, new tyrants would raise in absence of a binding between the power of kings and the will of the people. In comparison, Marx sought to abolish all existing social order, to be replaced with an explicitly innocent society, which mirrors the primitive communism that he considered the state of nature. I'd say that's more emphasis on the concept than most other philosophers.

Yeah, if you ignore the Hegelian aspect of his thinking, which is like one of the most central aspects. Like I said, talking out of your arse.

Erm, I said it's better to be hypocritical and condemn select acts of oppression, than not to be hypocritical and just oppress your people. Are you disputing that?

Care to suggest who else did it better than the West?

I wasn't intending to dispute it. Merely pointing out the juvenile nature of the argument.

 

[Rashiminos]

It was quite easy for all the tyrants prior to imperialism?

Actually, no. Those tyrants tended to have power-sharing agreements to keep their supposed positions: the "nobility."

No you can't. What you can do is to make it so that greed can't hurt that much. Capitalism does this by on one hand making everyone greedy, so one man's greed is checked by his fellows', and on the other hand prevent the greed of the more powerful from overwhelming the less powerful, by ensuring negative liberties. This works much better than preaching the majority of people to be content with what pittance they have, while letting a few privileged to get away with whatever they want.

Who does the preaching? (I could go on from here, but that would be less fun.)

What do you mean?

Trolls need to feed, Stop feeding them.

 

[The Dragon]

Hypocrisy is a good thing in diplomacy/world politics. It's what separates the states with principles from those without.

 

[Alassius]

Yeah, if you ignore the Hegelian aspect of his thinking, which is like one of the most central aspects. Like I said, talking out of your arse.

And how exactly am I wrong by "[ignoring] the Hegelian aspect of his thinking"? Does the Hegelian influence mean the state of nature is any less central?

I wasn't intending to dispute it. Merely pointing out the juvenile nature of the argument.

Apparently some people think it's better to be a cold blood killer than a hypocrite, because the former is more honest. Are they less juvenile than me, or more?

Actually, no. Those tyrants tended to have power-sharing agreements to keep their supposed positions: the "nobility."

The nobility has just as much incentive to oppress the people. Historically, especially in England, the conflicts between kings and nobles were about foreign wars, not domestic oppression. And surely you can't seriously mean that it's easier for Arabic kings and presidents for life of today to oppress, than despots of the old?

Who does the preaching? (I could go on from here, but that would be less fun.)

In the past, churches. More recently, Stalinists.

Trolls need to feed, Stop feeding them.

I'm even more lost... Who are the trolls?

 

[Rashiminos]

The nobility has just as much incentive to oppress the people. Historically, especially in England, the conflicts between kings and nobles were about foreign wars, not domestic oppression. And surely you can't seriously mean that it's easier for Arabic kings and presidents for life of today to oppress, than despots of the old?

Yes, it is. They have better tools (sometimes provided for a token monetary cost).

In the past, churches. More recently, Stalinists.

Is that all?

I'm even more lost... Who are the trolls?

In a discussion about tyrants, I would have thought that to be the easy one.

 

[Alassius]

Yes, it is. They have better tools (sometimes provided for a token monetary cost).

I'll ask you again: do you seriously think autocracy in the Arab world is as bad as an average medieval kingdom? That people's freedom and ability to protest against oppression are comparable between the two?

Is that all?
In a discussion about tyrants, I would have thought that to be the easy one.

Perhaps I'm too dumb to understand you... who are the trolls you are talking about?

 

[Rashiminos]

I'll ask you again: do you seriously think autocracy in the Arab world is as bad as an average medieval kingdom? That people's freedom and ability to protest against oppression are comparable between the two?

I couldn't say for the first question until we define what an "average" medieval kingdom entails, but we can certainly make comparisons between the two in terms of government and law.

Perhaps I'm too dumb to understand you... who are the trolls you are talking about?

You were asking me about how the regimes could be "opposed" without using weapons, and I responded by saying "stop feeding the trolls." Which side of the oppression is the one coercing the other side to give them things?

 

[Alassius]

I couldn't say for the first question until we define what an "average" medieval kingdom entails, but we can certainly make comparisons between the two in terms of government and law.

I meant "comparable" as in you can actually find good reasons to pick either option, as opposed to one option being obviously better; not as in you can draw up lists of similarities or differences. So let me ask you this way: do you seriously think people's freedom and power in Arab autocracies are not massively better than any sensible definition of "average" medieval kingdom?

You were asking me about how the regimes could be "opposed" without using weapons, and I responded by saying "stop feeding the trolls." Which side of the oppression is the one coercing the other side to give them things?

Assuming by trolls you meant oppressors. By calling them trolls, do you mean if you don't feed them, they'll go away themselves?

 

[Rashiminos]

I meant "comparable" as in you can actually find good reasons to pick either option

In that case, neither is appealing in contrast with known alternatives.

So let me ask you this way: do you seriously think people's freedom and power in Arab autocracies are not massively better than any sensible definition of "average" medieval kingdom?

Not really, no.

Assuming by trolls you meant oppressors. By calling them trolls, do you mean if you don't feed them, they'll go away themselves?

Things that cannot eat tend to starve. (Let alone reproduce)

No you can't. What you can do is to make it so that greed can't hurt that much. Capitalism does this by on one hand making everyone greedy, so one man's greed is checked by his fellows', and on the other hand prevent the greed of the more powerful from overwhelming the less powerful, by ensuring negative liberties. This works much better than preaching the majority of people to be content with what pittance they have, while letting a few privileged to get away with whatever they want.

Except that greedy people can have a vested interest in helping others to give to them through negotiation, coercion, and other measures. Make a person greedy enough, and the lives of others are of no concern. Greed encourages the accumulation of power. It does not disperse it as you seem to think.

 

[Bad Player]

No you can't. What you can do is to make it so that greed can't hurt that much. Capitalism does this by on one hand making everyone greedy, so one man's greed is checked by his fellows', and on the other hand prevent the greed of the more powerful from overwhelming the less powerful, by ensuring negative liberties. This works much better than preaching the majority of people to be content with what pittance they have, while letting a few privileged to get away with whatever they want.

Interesting read, what do you mean by negative liberties?

 

[Bad Player]

in Riyadh last week was the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.

Why? Because the US is as worried as King Abdullah. Washington has supported the House of Saud, with a military base in the country, since 1945 under Roosevelt.

As the American resource academic Michael Klare explains in his book Resource Wars: "At the core of this arrangement is a vital but unspoken quid pro quo: in return for protecting the royal family against its enemies, American companies will be allowed unrivalled access to Saudi oilfields."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ask-the-colonel--and-king-20110228-1bbmi.html


Has the USA and other Western countries (perhaps to a lesser degree) been deliberately opposing democracy in the Middle East and supporting a regime that fundamentally opposes what the USA and other Western nations claim to vehemently support?

 

[Tee Kay]

Has the USA and other Western countries (perhaps to a lesser degree) been deliberately opposing democracy in the Middle East and supporting a regime that fundamentally opposes what the USA and other Western nations claim to vehemently support?

That shouldn't even be a question.

 

[GamezRule]

Yes

 

[BasketCase]

But part of that bargain is taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Responsibility for what??

When somebody is murdered, who do you put in prison? The guy who pulled the damn trigger. All you guys did ("you guys" being the UK) was sell a bunch of guns. The dictators were the ones stupid enough to pull the trigger.

You can't take responsibility for someone else's idiocy.

 

[GamezRule]

Knowingly giving a crazy guy a gun is fine?

 

[Formaldehyde]

While saying "We won't say anything if it accidently goes off and tortures and murders thousands of innocent people. By the way, could you do the same to these 60-70 people for us?"

 

[MeteorPunch]

Knowingly giving a crazy guy a gun is fine?

He's gonna have guns anyway because other nations will sell them to him. What are you gonna do? Invade Libya and say that you guys can't have guns, but the rest of the world can? How else are you going to achieve a gun-less Libya?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Good point. Why should the US have ethical standards when dealing with brutal autocratic governments when so few other backward regimes do? We would be missing out on corrupting those governments to suit our own political agenda.

 

[Rashiminos]

Responsibility for what??

When somebody is murdered, who do you put in prison? The guy who pulled the damn trigger. All you guys did ("you guys" being the UK) was sell a bunch of guns. The dictators were the ones stupid enough to pull the trigger.

You can't take responsibility for someone else's idiocy.

You take responsibility for providing someone a tool when you know they were not ready to use it properly.