What is the core of your beliefs?

[reefedjib]

Military force is only properly used in response to attacks against our sovereignty.

No. Coming to the aid of a massacred or enslaved people is just.

 

[Andalublue]

If I let you take away my analogies, next you'll be taking away my guns, my jobs, and my women. I won't stand for it.

S'okay, take a seat.

Okay. What kind of animal is a human? It is a primate, an opportunistic pack predator. The natural order of the human being, contrary to the speculation of the liberals, is to belong to a pack with subordinates to command and superiors to obey. Humans instinctively crave this order, and will create it for themselves in institutional settings that do not provide it for them. Belonging to the pack is life, and being excluded from the pack is not only death, it is a horrible slow death. A pack needs a strong leader and a common culture to hold it together.

I'm afraid this analogy is no better. Humans are not pack animals operating on instinct and primeval urges. They may have been at some point in their primeval, pre-civilised state (although that's debateable) but now certainly are not. Were this comparison to work, any of your options would be morally neutral. Why would it matter whether they drove off their neighbours, exterminated them or co-existed with them? The difference, a big bloody difference too, is that word 'morally'. Were humans merely pack animals they would not have any use for concepts such as justice, fairness, peace, ethics etc. Pack behaviour is instinctual, not rational. The fact that humans behave as reasoning, moral beings means that your assertion that, just like mere pack animals, all it needs is a strong leader and a common culture is fallacious.

Also fallacious is the idea that the State "is the ultimate expression of the tribal instincts of the human animal". Where does that platitude come from? Modern humans may indeed retain tribal instincts from their collective memory of pre-civilisation (I've no idea one way or the other tbh. Do you have some proof of this?) but they are as likely to be displayed through a variety of displays of group dynamics such as supporting a sports club, military discipline, flocking to the beach on a sunny afternoon. The superstructure of social organisation that we call the State may have its deepest roots in pre-historic anthropology, but you'd better be ready with a very large archive of studies and papers to back up such a claim.

When two or more packs are close together, there are only three possible results: one drives off the others, one exterminates the others, or they sort themselves out and form a nation. A nation needs all of the same things as a pack, but it is larger; it is larger than any conceivable pack, and thus the leader and the culture that hold them together must be even stronger. A nation requires institutions that support the leader and enforce the culture; a nation requires the State.

Where is your evidence of pack animal behaviour in which several packs 'sort themselves out and form a nation'? Have there been many documented cases of a number of chimpanzee packs, for example, coalescing rationally under a single leader by peaceful consent? I'm afraid this seem to me to be applying pseudo-anthropology to the body politic in order to equate political organisation with the autonomic behaviour of non-sentient beings. It makes no logical sense. Sorry.

And, of course, the Leader and the State must deserve this devotion. They must act for the goodwill of the nation. They must be benevolent to their own people. They must institute and support mechanisms within the State that strengthen the people and strengthen their devotion to the State. The Leader must love the State and love the people as the people must love him.

How can a leader be removed if, by not loving the State and its leader, an individual or minority is seen as undermining the very nature of the State? In what way can the leader be held accountable for not loving the State or the people as he (you seem pretty certain the leader will be a he) is supposedly duty-bound to do so?

 

[ecofarm]

Iraq under Saddam was zero threat to the United States. There was nothing he could do to us. Now it's a hot bed of terrorist activity and has cost us thousands of American lives. Of course we were more secure before. Saddam never would have gotten thousands of us. Or is reality something you have a problem with?

A democratic state is far safer for the US than a dictator without qualms regarding genocide. If not a direct threat to the US, the mere existence of such a regime undermines US interest worldwide.

You can believe in anything you want. I'm saying that it's not our job and the government has not been empowered with that ability.

Congress can declare war in our national interest and I believe the democratization of tyranical governments is to that affect. In this regard, the government has been empowered to do just that - the only question is whether the people should decide to do so.

 

[Ikari]

A democratic state is far safer for the US than a dictator without qualms regarding genocide. If not a direct threat to the US, the mere existence of such a regime undermines US interest worldwide.

That's just conjecture and supposition. There's nothing real there. We may attack that which threatens our sovereignty. Iraq, even with Saddam in charge, was never a threat. And Iraq was more secure and less a threat to overall stability in the Middle East when Saddam was in charge. We made it worse. And in so doing, sacrificed thousands of American lives. Saddam would never have been able to get that number. We made it worse through reckless action, interventionist war, and horrible planning.

Congress can declare war in our national interest and I believe the democratization of tyranical governments is to that affect. In this regard, the government has been empowered to do just that - the only question is whether the people should decide to do so.

You can believe anything you want. But without proof it doesn't mean ****. The US government is made to protect our welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Nothing about other people's freedom. Nothing about supposed "interests". And only Congress was given the power to declare war and that declaration is what gives ability to the President. But the last time war was declared was in WW II. Things would be a lot simpler if we followed the Constitution. But some people will scrape for any excuse to ignore it. Dangerous and stupid if you ask me.

 

[rathi]

Should we liberate Syria, ecofarm? The government there is brutal and repressive, they once slaughtered 30,000 people in a day by bombarding a city with artillery. There are many people within Syria who don't like the tyranny and would welcome overthrowing the government. Why not liberate them?

 

[Ikari]

No. Coming to the aid of a massacred or enslaved people is just.

We're not justice. We're a nation. Those aren't our problems less said nation directly threatens our own sovereignty.

But to all the people who excuse our aggressive war tactics into places we don't belong because we got to "liberate" folk....what about Africa? Hmmm? Been ****ed up for decades, horrible horrible **** goes down there. What about it? Should we go there, should we "free" those people? What about China? You know how many human rights violations that commie POS has? I mean how many times do they get to slaughter monks before someone steps in for the poor guys? Hmmm? Should we intervene militarily in this? I mean, after all....it's just.

 

[ecofarm]

Should we liberate Syria, ecofarm? The government there is brutal and repressive, they once slaughtered 30,000 people in a day by bombarding a city with artillery. There are many people within Syria who don't like the tyranny and would welcome overthrowing the government. Why not liberate them?

That's a lame question that I've already headed-off. Do I really need to explain priorities and why they exist? Do you suppose the US can afford to do everything at once?

Iran is the best option at the moment.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm afraid this analogy is no better. Humans are not pack animals operating on instinct and primeval urges. They may have been at some point in their primeval, pre-civilised state (although that's debateable) but now certainly are not.

All of our closest relatives behave this way. Human behaviors can be traced to similar instincts. Have you read The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo?

Were this comparison to work, any of your options would be morally neutral. Why would it matter whether they drove off their neighbours, exterminated them or co-existed with them? The difference, a big bloody difference too, is that word 'morally'. Were humans merely pack animals they would not have any use for concepts such as justice, fairness, peace, ethics etc. Pack behaviour is instinctual, not rational. The fact that humans behave as reasoning, moral beings means that your assertion that, just like mere pack animals, all it needs is a strong leader and a common culture is fallacious.

These things you mention, "justice", "fairness", "peace", "ethics", are they not subjective? Are they not determined by the cultural values of the human, and thus the cultural values of the pack?

Also fallacious is the idea that the State "is the ultimate expression of the tribal instincts of the human animal". Where does that platitude come from? Modern humans may indeed retain tribal instincts from their collective memory of pre-civilisation (I've no idea one way or the other tbh. Do you have some proof of this?) but they are as likely to be displayed through a variety of displays of group dynamics such as supporting a sports club, military discipline, flocking to the beach on a sunny afternoon.

These things only formed after the formation of nations, when the governments of nations did not provide them. Fascist nations explicitly provided things like sports clubs and military discipline in order to strengthen devotion to the State.

How can a leader be removed if, by not loving the State and its leader, an individual or minority is seen as undermining the very nature of the State? In what way can the leader be held accountable for not loving the State or the people as he (you seem pretty certain the leader will be a he) is supposedly duty-bound to do so?

The same way that such a Leader achieves power: he loses the Mandate of Heaven and someone else seizes power from him.

As far as the sex of the Leader, I am mostly neutral on this matter. While the Leader is most probably male, he could be male or female. My exclusive use of male pronouns is due to that erratic feature of the English language that the correct singular pronoun for those of unknown gender is the male.

 

[rathi]

That's a stupid question that I've already headed-off. Do I really need to explain priorities and why they exist? Do you suppose the US can afford to do everything at once?

Iran is the best option at the moment.

As we saw in Iran, the people aren't willing to take real action against Khamenei, even when he stole the election. In Syria, thousands of people sacrificed their lives fighting against the dictator Al-Assad. Doesn't that make them more deserving?

 

[ecofarm]

Who's more deserving is not as important as who is more capable in regard to social capital (has intact revolutionary elements) and who is more capable of funding their own rebuilding. We do not want to spend so much in one place that we cannot afford more economically (and politically) efficient ventures elsewhere.

I'd like to see Syria liberated, and thus Lebanon, but it is far more costly (as far as foreign funding due to lack of resources) and is lacking the potential of the vibrant revolutionary elements in Iran. I'd put Syria before North Korea though, that's for sure.

 

[rathi]

I'd like to see Syria liberated, and thus Lebanon, but it is far more costly (as far as foreign funding due to lack of resources) and is lacking the potential of the vibrant revolutionary elements in Iran. I'd put Syria before North Korea though, that's for sure.

Wrong answer. If you had any clue what sensible foreign policy was, you would have said "we aren't going to liberate Syria". There are two main power groups within Syria, the nationalist secular Al-Assad dictatorship and the radical fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. Despite being brutally oppressed, the Muslim Brotherhood would fight to the death against the U.S. if we invaded them trying to "liberate" them. They may hate each other, but they hate foreign invaders even more.

Foreign policy should be based on reailty, not absurd fantasies that stroke your ego. You may actually believe your own moral superiority, but the people you want to "liberate" do not. Many Iranians are fed up with their own government, yet they have no love for us either. They haven't forgotten the time we overthrew their government and propped up a puppet so we could get access to their oil.

 

[Teh Internets]

To be born raised and educated equal, but to live based on your own actions.

 

[TurtleDude]

To be born raised and educated equal, but to live based on your own actions.

how do you make people born equal? raised equal? I was blessed by High IQ (dad-dean's list at yale, mom summa cum laude at bryn mawr) parents. Do you think Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf's kid might have more natural athletic talent than most children?

how are you gonna equal that out?

 

[Gardener]

. Do you think Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf's kid might have more natural athletic talent than most children?

But what if they only inherit the premature hair loss from their dad and the grunt from their mom?

 

[TurtleDude]

But what if they only inherit the premature hair loss from their dad and the grunt from their mom?

sucks to be them even though SG was not a grunter anywhere near Shriekapova, Moaning Monica or Screaming Serena

of course if they have dad's hand eye coordination and their mom's speed they will be winning lots of money

and if a daughter gets mom's body she will be set for life

 

[spud_meister]

of course if they have dad's hand eye coordination and their mom's speed they will be winning lots of money

Or spend an inordinate amount of time masturbating.

 

[Teh Internets]

how do you make people born equal? raised equal? I was blessed by High IQ (dad-dean's list at yale, mom summa cum laude at bryn mawr) parents. Do you think Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf's kid might have more natural athletic talent than most children?

how are you gonna equal that out?

I meant born and raised with a equal opportunities not equal in every way. Basically showing everyone the road, but making them walk it on their own.

 

[TurtleDude]

Or spend an inordinate amount of time masturbating.

that makes no sense dude

neither here nor down under

 

[TurtleDude]

I meant born and raised with a equal opportunities not equal in every way. Basically showing everyone the road, but making them walk it on their own.

ok that makes some sense-thanks

 

[digsbe]

The core of my beliefs is my Christian faith.

 

[digsbe]

that makes no sense dude

neither here nor down under

Read the sentence slowly and carefully... :mrgreen:

 

[Andalublue]

All of our closest relatives behave this way. Human behaviors can be traced to similar instincts. Have you read The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo?

Yes, I did read the Naked Ape about 25 years ago. I don't particularly hold with ideas of evolutionary psychology, it's a very contentious area with no scientific concensus. I think Morris himself is a bit of a charlatan and there are huge problems with applying theories developed while observing other primates to human behaviour. The whole idea to me seems like a wilful dismissal of human sapience.

To use Morris and the other evolutionary psychological theorists to explain 'natural' forms of social organisation is a risky strategy. Our behaviour as pack animals is no more proven in this field than any of those endless studies showing that J-Lo has the sexiest ass in evolutionary terms. Check out some of the funnier and more ludicrous claims of evolutionary psychology here. It's no theory on which to base a political ideology.

These things you mention, "justice", "fairness", "peace", "ethics", are they not subjective? Are they not determined by the cultural values of the human, and thus the cultural values of the pack?

Of course they are determined by cultural values. The disagreement is about from where you believe these cultural values derive. The problem here is that I simply reject your idea that humans behave as pack animals. Some do, some don't. Many have transcended that evolved mass psychology, many more reject the idea that our social behaviour is pre-programmed. There are many, many examples of where humans have freely decided not to depend on the notion of a society led by some figurehead 'leader'.

These things only formed after the formation of nations, when the governments of nations did not provide them. Fascist nations explicitly provided things like sports clubs and military discipline in order to strengthen devotion to the State.

You didn't address the main point of that paragraph, questioning where you get the idea that the State is the ultimate expression of tribal instincts. Whose theory is that? What is the scientific basis for that assertion?

The same way that such a Leader achieves power: he loses the Mandate of Heaven and someone else seizes power from him.

Well, I guess, that might work in a state where people believe in the operation of metaphysical forces to impose accountability on leaders. As a Buddhist I might believe in the concept of karma, but I wouldn't rely on it as a bulwark against an oppressive government.

Over the centuries many, many despots and tyrants (and some more enlightened leaders too) have invoked the Mandate of Heaven/Divine Right of Kings idea to explain (rarely are they called to justify) their notions of political legitimacy. Many, many wars have been fought over the issue from the English Civil War onwards. Fortunately, it is a concept that has now been overwhelmingly rejected due to it's inability to satisfy a demand for legitimacy that, rather than being the product of evolutionary psychology, is an idea that derives from enlightenment philosophy and the application of reason.

From Chinese emperors, through Louis XIV and Hitler up to Kim Jong-Il the idea that L'État C'est Moi makes for the opposite of what you propose. In place of stability you have endless jockeying for position, corruption and abuse of power. In place of legitimacy you have power exercised at the point of a gun. You have no outlet for 'natural' dissent. Conformity, in order to achieve the cohesion you crave, must be imposed on the individual and enforced. Can you conceive of a way to do that that doesn't run the risk of operating a police state?

As far as the sex of the Leader, I am mostly neutral on this matter. While the Leader is most probably male, he could be male or female. My exclusive use of male pronouns is due to that erratic feature of the English language that the correct singular pronoun for those of unknown gender is the male.

There is no 'correct' use of such pronouns in English, any more than 'labor' is more correct than 'labour'. Custom and practice rules this and your choice to use exclusively the male pronoun is eloquent in itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Read the sentence slowly and carefully... :mrgreen:

do you have problem engaging in such an act due to a lack of hand eye coordination?:2razz:

 

[Goshin]

Hm, to sum up the core of my political beliefs in one sentence...


"I don't like being coerced."


Yeah, that's pretty much the root of it. I don't like being told what to do, by anyone.

I acknowlege that it is necessary sometimes, and once in a while even useful and benevolent. Laws against murder for example.... this might restrain me from killing someone who needs killin' badly, but it also tends to restrain people from trying to kill me for reasons they might consider sufficient but I might disagree.

In short, this is why I tend to favor minimal government. All government is force and coercion; government is unfortunately necessary; therefore government should exist but be a minimal as possible.

 

[Gardener]

that makes no sense dude

neither here nor down under

Actually, it does, because said action necessarily involves reaching down under in order to implement the proper procedure for completing the act.