Proclaiming Liberalism, and What It Now Means

[Undertoad]

It's not a zero-sum game because the output of workers converts things that are not valuable into things that are valuable.

The major component of the $300 Intel multi-core microprocessor is less than a penny's worth of sand.

Before internal combustion, all the oil in the M.E. was worthless.

Before the industrial revolution, 50% of the population had to do hard farm labor in order to feed the rest.

Capitalism works better because it maximizes human energy into producing wealth in this way. If something is considered valuable, resources are automatically put into generating it, without anyone's plan or program or signature.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

... If there is a finite amount of stuff you can possess...

I think sometimes I subconsciously include qualifiers, even while ignoring their implications. At any rate, UG sliced right through this one with an enchanted Ocaam's Razor +3.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

On the present planetary scale, Flint, I'm not sure there is a finite limit. ...

That's what I get for not questioning assumptions (and I usually spend all day trying to find new ways of doing that!) UT continues...

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's not a zero-sum game because the output of workers converts things that are not valuable into things that are valuable.

The major component of the $300 Intel multi-core microprocessor is less than a penny's worth of sand. ...

I think, at the bottom of what I'm saying is the nagging fact that you can't eat microchips. Well, you can't eat sand, either, but what I mean is we could "run out" of, say, life-giving fresh water.

In that case, the Middle-East might face the awkward situation of having converted from water-hoarding tribes, to petroleum-hoarding tribes, only to convert back to water-hoarding tribes.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Capitalism works better because...

Please stop comparing things to other things. As rightful owner of this threadjack, I forbid it.

[glatt]

On an astronomical scale, there is definitely a finite amount of wealth/stuff/whatever. We may be able to keep adding value to sand by making it into chips, and then smashing those chips into sand, and making new chips, etc. But once the sun burns out, our energy source will be gone, and it will be done. It is finite.

[Rexmons]

i could never be 100% down with the views of any one group.

I agree, we need to pull out of the Middle-East completely, all aid, all military, EVERYTHING... just let em' go to hell.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I agree, we need to pull out of the Middle-East completely, all aid, all military, EVERYTHING... just let em' go to hell.

As much as I would love to disagree with this, it is for the best. Iraq is in the middle of a civil war right and by us staying there, we are only going to extend it and could possibly build tensions which will make it even worse than it is now. Yes, it could easily lead to genocide but what are we going to do to stop it?

I am against isolationism but there is a time when you need to intervene in other countries' affairs and a time when you don't. More times then most the latter is the best in the end.

The only real times I see when military action helps is:

1. When both sides want peace and need help keeping it (Palestine/Israel is getting closer to this….hopefully)
2. When it is a slaughter (Darfur/rest of Africa)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The only real times I see when military action helps is:

1. When both sides want peace and need help keeping it (Palestine/Israel is getting closer to this….hopefully)
2. When it is a slaughter (Darfur/rest of Africa)

And as an ex-military person I can tell you that the minority of troops support these mis-adventures. We made that mistake in Somalia. We are not the worlds policeman. We don't want to be in Iraq, but we are, not much we can do to change that as soldiers. Being in the middle of a civil war is the last place we want to be and both of your examples are extremes of that. Screw Darfur and screw the Israeli-palestinians conflict.

[Flint]

Almost as soon as "America" came into being, as a shining beacon of freedom, we began supporting Imperialism in neighboring countries. Not Democracy.

Why? Slave revolts. Slave revolts scared our slaveowners. Better to support the Imperial masters than risk insiring our slaves to revolt. So began the oxymoronic journey of our foreign policy.

We've never been in the business of spereading Democracy. We routinely bring about the removal of Democratically elected leaders that stand in the way of our interests.

Exactly, that we spread democracy is a myth.

[piercehawkeye45]

There is a difference between Iraq and two groups that actually want to work together for peace (Palestine/Israel wasn’t a great example but they are showing steps of wanting peace even if they aren’t close to being there yet). Iraq is not working for peace so there is nothing we can do there. If two places want peace, but just need help keeping it, America, along with other countries, should step in for the greater good. If things get out of control then leave.

Durfur is different because it is a slaughter. There is nothing the natives can do to stop the genocide in Sudan so higher authorities have to step in. You guys talk tough about everyone’s right to life but do nothing to protect anyone else's when they are asking for help.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

There is a difference between Iraq and two groups that actually want to work together for peace (Palestine/Israel wasn’t a great example but they are showing steps of wanting peace even if they aren’t close to being there yet). Iraq is not working for peace so there is nothing we can do there. If two places want peace, but just need help keeping it, America, along with other countries, should step in for the greater good. If things get out of control then leave.

Durfur is different because it is a slaughter. There is nothing the natives can do to stop the genocide in Sudan so higher authorities have to step in. You guys talk tough about everyone’s right to life but do nothing to protect anyone else's when they are asking for help.

Those are your opinions. I can tell you that it is not the job of American's to step into any shit hole. Darfur is a shit hole. That is the problem of Africa, they need to deal with it. The government of Sudan should deal with those issues. What you are saying is double-speak. On the one hand to talk about the US as a "higher authority" and at the same time say we should impose our will on other people because you think the cause is just. Bush thought that sending us to Iraq was just and look where that got us.

Who said anything about "us guys talking tough about everyone's right to life"? Certainly you are not making assumptions about my belief's?[/quote]

If two places want peace, but just need help keeping it, America, along with other countries, should step in for the greater good. If things get out of control then leave.

This is exactly what we should not do... Our history is littered with countries where we went in with good intentions and pulled out when things got tough only leaving the country in shambles. Maybe that is why people in the know are resistant to pull out of Iraq, I don't know. You don't step in with force and impose your will on others and pull out cause things are suddenly a bigger shite sandwhich for you to swallow...

Neo-cons are those who think that they are right and that gives the the right to make others bend to their will, that religion has a place in politics, that the police having more power is a good thing, that saying lower taxes during a campaign but raising them as soon as they are elected is acceptable, that the military is a tool for foreign policy, the federal government is a tool to be used to bully states into doing as the party wants, ignorant stuff like that.
Basically BushCo.
Conservatives believe that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are good as they are and should be respected, that the people's rights are more important than the police, that lower taxes are better, that State's rights are important and private property should not be stolen by the state.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Neo-cons are those who think that they are right and that gives the the right to make others bend to their will, that religion has a place in politics, that the police having more power is a good thing, that saying lower taxes during a campaign but raising them as soon as they are elected is acceptable, that the military is a tool for foreign policy, the federal government is a tool to be used to bully states into doing as the party wants, ignorant stuff like that.
Basically BushCo.
Conservatives believe that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are good as they are and should be respected, that the people's rights are more important than the police, that lower taxes are better, that State's rights are important and private property should not be stolen by the state.

The problem is that it is as common for me to lable people "liberals" as it is for anyone who has a conservative view on any one issue to be labled as "neo-con". If you look at the available terms on line it really should be narrowed quite a bit more than the things you listed. True "neo-cons" are actually a very small but vocal minority portion of conservatives.

Democrats currently in power are certainly people who "they are right and that gives the the right to make others bend to their will". Happens every day in Congress right now...

Many conservatives believe "that religion has a place in politics" and they are not "neo-cons". (I do not, I am more of a anti-religion state guy).

"the military is a tool for foreign policy"... well unfortunately this is a true statement regardless of one's political leanings. Name a president and I will name a case where the projection of military power was used as a tool of foreign policy. Any one in the last 100 years...

"the federal government is a tool to be used to bully states into doing as the party wants"... this is a common thing that Congress (the Federal Government) does to States all the time. It is unrelated to whom is in power or who is the President. Federal mandates handed out which hold money in check unless the States comply abound.

[piercehawkeye45]

Yes, they are my opinions but it goes deeper than what we've said. I never said we should go to other countries without that country's consent (I'll go more into that later). If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on. You scratch their back and they will scratch ours. The biggest problem is that these "peacekeeping" missions are used much more frequently then needed. Peacekeeping missions should only be used when both groups will work and sacrifice to begin and keep peace. These situations are rare but they do show up.

The second situation is true one-sided genocide, when one group takes complete control of another and starts methodically murdering them. The oppressed group wants help but there is nothing they can do to stop it. Even though this is obviously opinion, I think it is the UN's responsibility (note I didn't say US) to step in and put an end to it.

You don't have to have a higher authority to do either of those. Both times an outside source is asking for help, not where we say they need help.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yes, they are my opinions but it goes deeper than what we've said. I never said we should go to other countries without that country's consent (I'll go more into that later). If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on. You scratch their back and they will scratch ours. The biggest problem is that these "peacekeeping" missions are used much more frequently then needed. Peacekeeping missions should only be used when both groups will work and sacrifice to begin and keep peace. These situations are rare but they do show up.

The second situation is true one-sided genocide, when one group takes complete control of another and starts methodically murdering them. The oppressed group wants help but there is nothing they can do to stop it. Even though this is obviously opinion, I think it is the UN's responsibility (note I didn't say US) to step in and put an end to it.

You don't have to have a higher authority to do either of those. Both times an outside source is asking for help, not where we say they need help.

Please tell me of a historical situation, esp one in the case where the world knows that there is a genocide, and both sides want us to come in and keep peace by force?

"If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on." In fact the opposit is more true. One side wants our help and we believe that we should help them because we have current or future interests in the region. This is one aspect of power projection used by every government in the world.