Doomsday scenarios — are conservatives or Progressives better at predicting the future?
Bookworm on Mar 07 2011 at 9:10 am | Filed under: Conservative ideology, Leftist morality
In America, each side of the political aisle routinely accuses the other of engaging in “scare” tactics. Each side is right. Doomsday scenarios are how you engage an increasingly distracted population. My question for you is, when it comes to predicting doomsday scenarios to engage the population, which side is more accurate?
I’ve got three Progressive predictions, two of which were definitely wrong and one of which I think is proving to be wrong:
Progressives argued global cooling, and they were wrong.
Progressives argued anthropogenic global warming, which they’ve now altered to anthropogenic climate change, which I’m sure they will alter to some other fine name when their predictions fail to come to pass. Currently, I count them as wrong.
Progressives promised that, if “welfare as we know it” ended in 1994, the poor would be dying in the streets. They were wrong.
Here are three conservative predictions that were correct:
Conservatives said that if ObamaCare passed, health care costs would go up immediately and dramatically. So far, they’ve been right.
Conservatives said that withdrawing from the Vietnam War would result in a blood bath. They were right.
Conservatives said that “welfare as we know it” was a miserable, enslaving institution and that reforming it would not result in instant death of all poor people. They were right.
Obviously, I’ve cherry-picked to find incorrect Progressive predictions and correct conservative predictions. Can you support my position or disprove it? I’ll be interested either way.
Email This Post To A Friend
150 Responses to “Doomsday scenarios — are conservatives or Progressives better at predicting the future?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Progressive promises:
Pass TARP and unemployment will fall below 8%.
“We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies”
Just thought I’d throw in a quote.
SADIE: Pass TARP and unemployment will fall below 8%.
TARP was signed into law by Bush, and its purpose was to forestall the collapse of the banking system.
I don’t think you need to worry about being quite so specific – painting with a broad brush is fine. Thus: Every country on the planet that has been governing itself by the liberal-progressive-socialist model for the past half century is broke. Those that have abandoned it – in Europe that would only be Sweden – are fine.
Simple, completely accurate.
True. TARP was signed by Bush – after he consulted with Obama as the incoming president. It may have simply postponed the collapse of the banking system. The jury’s still out on that one.
It looks like it’s still a mess, that there is the definite possibility of financial terrorism as a factor, plus shoddy – and quite possibly illegal – practices by the banks themselves. There should probably be some people in jail. If you don’t enforce laws, you might as well not have them.
The Federal Reserve is iffy as well, imo.
bookworm: Doomsday scenarios — are conservatives or Progressives better at predicting the future?
Considering the strawman versions of liberals put forth in other threads, making clear distinctions about progressives is problematic. We’ll take it to mean people who advocate government solutions to societal problems, such as child labor or pollution.
Bookworm: Obviously, I’ve cherry-picked to find incorrect Progressive predictions and correct conservative predictions.
Not the best examples.
Bookworm: Progressives argued global cooling, and they were wrong.
Global cooling never reached any sort of consensus within the scientific community (indeed, most scientists considered warming by greenhouse gases to be more important than cooling due to aerosols), nor did it reach consensus within the progressive community, however you might reasonably define it. No point for either side.
Bookworm: Progressives argued anthropogenic global warming, which they’ve now altered to anthropogenic climate change, which I’m sure they will alter to some other fine name when their predictions fail to come to pass. Currently, I count them as wrong.
Global warming is strongly supported by the scientific community. Saying it isn’t so, doesn’t make it so. The only question, then, is the appropriate response. As this concerns ‘the commons,’ a coordinated response is reasonable. Point to progressives.
Bookworm: Progressives promised that, if “welfare as we know it” ended in 1994, the poor would be dying in the streets. They were wrong.
Not sure how many progressives predicted “starvation”, but certainly welfare reform was overdue. Key was providing the jobs and support necessary to move people off welfare into the workforce, a process which many progressives supported. Still, we’ll grant the point to conservatives.
Bookworm: Conservatives said that if ObamaCare passed, health care costs would go up immediately and dramatically. So far, they’ve been right.
Medical costs are expected to rise regardless. No point to either side.
Bookworm: Conservatives said that withdrawing from the Vietnam War would result in a blood bath. They were right.
It was already a bloodbath. It’s very unlikely that the corrupt South Vietnamese government could have survived, so the consequence of its fall was likely inevitable. It’s arguable that expansion of the war probably led to the collapse of Cambodia. No point to either side.
Bookworm: Conservatives said that “welfare as we know it” was a miserable, enslaving institution and that reforming it would not result in instant death of all poor people. They were right.
You already counted that one.
suek: Those that have abandoned it – in Europe that would only be Sweden – are fine.
Sweden has a VAT of 25%, the highest in Europe, a top personal income tax rate of 57%, and a corporate tax of 26%. Total taxes are close to half of the economy. They implemented one of the largest stimulus packages in Europe, 6.6% of GDP. Nevertheless, they have a robust private sector, with overall GDP expected to increase nearly 5% this year. One key factor is that they are not part of the eurozone, and can set their own monetary policy.
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Sweden
suek: There should probably be some people in jail.
Yes, but they would argue that they shouldn’t be put in jail because what they did was legal.
President-elect Barack Obama asked President George W. Bush on Monday to seek another $350 billion to bail out the financial sector so that Obama can have the money at his disposal promptly after taking office.
Bush agreed to notify Congress, the White House said. Congress has 15 days to reject the request, but efforts were afoot to have the money available for Obama much sooner.
The request would give Obama, who takes office Jan. 20, not only the opportunity to get quick access to the money, but also to change the program’s goals and conditions. The Bush administration’s handling of the first $350 billion has come under widespread criticism in Congress and from watchdog organizations…
Earlier Monday, Bush told reporters that he would not request the money form Congress unless Obama “specifically asked me to make it.” About two hours later, White House press secretary Dana Perino said that Obama had indeed asked Bush to submit the request.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-asks-for-tarp-money-for-obama
“TARP was signed into law by Bush, and its purpose was to forestall the collapse of the banking system. ”
If so, why did Obama predict that unemployment would drop below 8%.
And don’t forget all the predictions of gun-related bloodbaths that never came into being when Concealed Carry laws were passed in state after state.
I’m wondering if Zach would care to offer us two statistics:
1. How many people died in South Vietnam after North Vietnam occupied the country? (This inlcudes deaths at “re-education centers.”)
2. How many “boat people” fled South Vietnam after the North Vietnamese conquered the country?
SADIE: If so, why did Obama predict that unemployment would drop below 8%.
You are apparently confusing TARP with stimulus spending, some of which was authorized during the Bush Administration, and a much larger package passed during the Obama Administration. The original prediction included a number of caveats and margin of errors.
>>suek: Those that have abandoned it – in Europe that would only be Sweden – are fine.>>
Someone else – not me. I consider Sweden to be socialist.
>>Yes, but they would argue that they shouldn’t be put in jail because what they did was legal.>>
Legal because there are no laws on the books, or legal because they haven’t been enforced? All crooks say they’re innocent. And if no one enforces the laws, or if the laws are enforced at the whim of those in power, then maybe they _are_ innocent.
Personally, I call it “crony capitalism”, and it’s despicable. The underpinnings of the US require all laws to be enforced equally, regardless of the “who” involved. When it is not so enforced, it’s repugnant.
suek: Someone else – not me.
Yes, that would be jj.
Zach, you’re interesting, about like a freshly-defrosted mastodon would be interesting. You’d be a genius if only you weren’t not a genius.
Firstly, Sue didn’t say it, I did. Secondly, don’t tell me old stories. Pay attention.
Decades ago Sweden became the very model of the modern wealthy, democratic welfare state. (Doesn’t scan as well as “modern major-general,” but what the hell.) And – proceeded to spend itself right up to the edge of bankruptcy. The Social Democrats worked on building the Swedish welfare state beginning in the 1930s.The state was supposed to save people from the real world by protecting them from (especially) unemployment and economic swings. The public sector was the main tool used to lower unemployment and boost the economy in bad times through government spending. The result was just as inevitable and predictable there as it is here. By the first of the oil shocks in the 1970s, Sweden had just about no business left, was famously unfriendly to business (excessive regulation and insane taxes – the usual progressive BS) and was teetering. To “protect domestic industries” huge amounts of money were pissed in to sectors that could not stand on their own. By 1979 the top marginal rate in Sweden was 79%.
But the Swedes, unlike the Obamites and – apparently – you, were not stupid. During the 1980s they went in the opposite direction. They deregulated the financial market, and they sucked it up and devalued their currency – on more than one occasion – to correct structural problems in the economy. This of course led to high inflation and increased borrowing. The economy overheated, which led to a crisis in the 1990s.
So they appointed non-partisan commissions. (Primarily to save the face of the hapless Social Democrats, who’d just spent sixty years running the thing into a ditch. Nobody can blame a genuinely non-partisan commission.) They reformed their taxes, and their entire tax structure. They cut a lot of the crap out of the economy while simultaneously paying lip-service to equality and protection of the middle-class – neither of which they had in fact been protecting. (The S-Ds could hide behind the commissions, and assure their constituents the new deal wasn’t their idea. Smart. But then, the Swedes seem to be smart.)
In the 1990s they again lowered tax rates, and privatized numerous government-owned companies. They established a voucher system to allow parents to send their kids to whatever school they wanted. The rules for receiving sick benefits were tightened, so generally healthy people were no longer allowed unlimited sick time. The pension system was reformed, and gift and inheritance taxes were abolished.
And the identity of Sweden as a socialist paradise was shot in the head with finality when a right-of-center government was elected in 2006, and re-elected with greater gains in 2010 – ending 75 years of failed left-of-center rule and general stupidity. (Aw, nuts – the people saw through the Social Democrats.)
The new government has continued down the same road. The “wealth” tax was eliminated. Social insurance benefits have been lowered, unemployment benefits have been tightened. Government financing is in balance. Public debt, which not so long ago was 76% of GDP, is now down to 36% – which is manageable – and it’s forecast to fall to 26% by 2013.
They still have high tax rates, yes; and they still have absurd labor and housing market regulations, yes; but they’re in the process of going away. Spending and regulation have been reduced, and will be reduced more. They have pulled their debt back to 1980s levels. They also spotted that high taxes kill capital investment – so they’re a lot smarter than what we have running things.
So – their economy grew at 5% overall in 2010, with 8.7% growth in the last quarter. How’d the rest of Europe do? Hell – how’d we do? (In case you were wondering, the rest of Europe managed 1.7% – we did 2.8% for the year.) The unemployment rate in Sweden is 7.1%. How’s the rest of Europe doing? How are we doing? (In case you were wondering, Europe’s at 10.4%, we’re at 9.4%, [as long as you don't count another 8% who have given up looking.])
Sweden is far from perfect, but as you are evidently unaware they have wised up, and they have spent the last dozen years making fundamental changes to their entire outlook. They way they function and do business has been irrevocably altered, and they’ve become just about the least socialist economy in Europe; and therefore the most healthy economy.
You are apparently still carrying the old “socialist paradise” model for Sweden in your mind. Alter it – Sweden has fundamentally altered.
suek: I consider Sweden to be socialist.
Interestingly, their economy is experiencing robust growth when much of the rest of the developed world is struggling to recover from the recession.
Charles Martel: 1. How many people died in South Vietnam after North Vietnam occupied the country? (This inlcudes deaths at “re-education centers.”)
Estimates vary, but most historians put the number at 200,000 to 500,000. That’s on top of the 2 million who died during the war.
Charles Martel: 2. How many “boat people” fled South Vietnam after the North Vietnamese conquered the country?
Hundreds of thousands, at least.
suek: The underpinnings of the US require all laws to be enforced equally, regardless of the “who” involved.
Surely.
jj: Sweden is far from perfect, but as you are evidently unaware they have wised up, and they have spent the last dozen years making fundamental changes to their entire outlook.
Yes, they have modernized their economy, but they are still much more heavily invested in government services than the U.S. You may like the current trend, but that doesn’t explain why they have done so well with what you apparently believe to be an oversized public sector.
Each country has to find the right mean for their own social situation, but modern industrial powers are all based on mixed economic systems.
I’m wondering if Zach would care to offer us two statistics:
1. How many people died in South Vietnam after North Vietnam occupied the country? (This includes deaths at “re-education centers.”)
2. How many “boat people” fled South Vietnam after the North Vietnamese conquered the country?
=CRICKETS=
No surprise.
Zach, sorry, didn’t see your incredibly evasive reply before posting mine.
Let’s try again:
Which historians made the estimate of 200,000 to 500,000? I would like their names and their methodology. (Of the 2 million you say died before the North Vietnamese conquest, how many were at the hands of the Communists?)
“Hundreds of thousands at least.” May I ask why they fled in such great numbers?
Yes, it does explain why they’ve done so well. Business sees a reason to go there again, and invest. They have done so, they are doing so, and indications are that they will continue to do so. Ergo – the economy does well. Duh.
Charles Martel: sorry, didn’t see your incredibly evasive reply before posting mine.
You were provided clear answers, so you aren’t trying to elicit a discussion. The war was brutal, millions were killed by both sides, and the Communists committed war crimes both before and after the war. But the government in South Vietnam had no credibility or popular support. For every dollar of American aid that flowed into South Vietnam, half was siphoned off by the communists and turned against the government.
If you need additional information, you are free to survey the literature for yourself.
jj: Business sees a reason to go there again, and invest.
So, you’re saying they want to invest in a country with much higher taxes and regulatory strictures than the U.S. Or is it because they maintain a robust free market even while providing social services?
They want to invest because they see the direction it’s going, and they see that the “social services” stuff is not being allowed to drown the economy, and because of that debt is far more under control than in the rest of Europe, taxes are going down more than the rest of Europe, and regulation is being eased. This is obvious stuff. It’s pretty simple. Sweden is moving in the complete opposite direction than the rest of Europe has been moving. The current conservative government makes clear they aren’t through lowering taxes and costs yet, and have really only begun to create a business-friendly environment, and the results come in: strongest economy in Europe. This isn’t – or shouldn’t be – real tricky.
Milton Friedman on Sweden:
“A Swede once boasted to him that ‘We have no poverty in Sweden.’ Friedman said ‘That’s very interesting. In America we have no poverty among Swedes either.’ “
“The war was brutal, millions were killed by both sides, and the Communists committed war crimes both before and after the war.”
This is the kind of outright evasion that typifies your discourse. SHOW the exact numbers and their origins. Specify the war crimes the Communists comitted. (How come you can always specify American atrocities but can never quite get around to describing others’?) Quit pontificating!
Charles Martel: SHOW the exact numbers and their origins.
The exact numbers are not known. Do you have a point?
Charles Martel: Specify the war crimes the Communists comitted.
Did you want them broke down by crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace?
Indiscriminate fire, summary execution, prisoner torture, slave labor, breaching the peace, slaughtering foreigners. There are still many political prisoners and religious persecution in Vietnam.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/24/testimony-sophie-richardson-tom-lantos-human-rights-commission
You know that “millions were killed,” but can’t be bothered to tell us how you know it. I understand: I should take your statements simply on your authority.
I also see you are not going to describe Communist atrocities. What you are afraid to answer you always ignore. Not a reassuring pattern, Perfesser.
Charles Martel: You know that “millions were killed,” but can’t be bothered to tell us how you know it.
You’ve shown you aren’t particularly interested in the specifics. We could cite a number of primary sources, Kutler or Eckhardt, or even the Vietnamese government. But this cite is interesting on its own merit.
McNamara et al., Argument Without End 1999: “The Vietnam War, with which I was personally involved for more than seven years as U.S. secretary of defense (1961-1968), was among the bloodiest in all of human history. It is estimated that something on the order of 3.8 million Vietnamese (North and South, military and civilian) were killed. The United States lost 58,000. Had the United States lost in proportion to its population the same percentage as Vietnam, 27 million Americans would have died. Many times these numbers were wounded. During the course of the war, in addition, North and South Vietnam were nearly destroyed as functioning societies, and America was torn asunder by issues related to the war. ”
So when people say that Sweden is going away from socialism, Zach makes up some figures to say that Sweden is socialist. Then when Suek says that she considers Sweden socialist, Zach retorts that it’s funny that a socialist country is getting big economic growth, consistent with Zach’s claims of government “management” of the economy.
Did I miss something here?
Zach, back again to the credibility of your sources:
Kutler is an openly left-wing trasher of the Tea Party, defender of judicial dimwits like Sotomayor, and supporter of the false narrative that Gov. Walker has manufactured the Wisconsin budget crisis. I have no doubt that you drink copiously from the founts of his wisdom, but it is very hard for me to accept the veracity of figures generated by a leftist ideologue.
The assertion that millions were killed by both sides is a flat-out falsehood: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Note that Eckhardt contributed to the statistics given in this link. His estimates of military and civilian deaths in South Vietnam is 600,000.
The Vietnamese government is a communist entity. Statistics offered by communists are inherently untrustworthy.
Charles Martel: You know that “millions were killed,” but can’t be bothered to tell us how you know it.
Your question keeps changing. Eckhardt estimated 600,000 in the First Indochina War, and 2,000,000 in the Second Indochina War.
Charles Martel: The Vietnamese government is a communist entity. Statistics offered by communists are inherently untrustworthy.
The Vietnamese government always downplayed the extent of the casualties, but documentation has developed that indicates over a million NVA/VC died during the war. Modern estimates are now over three million, as stated by Rumsfeld.
In any case, you have yet to make any linkage to the discussion.
Ymarsakar: So when people say that Sweden is going away from socialism, Zach makes up some figures to say that Sweden is socialist. Then when Suek says that she considers Sweden socialist, Zach retorts that it’s funny that a socialist country is getting big economic growth, consistent with Zach’s claims of government “management” of the economy. Did I miss something here?
Yes. All modern, developed economies are mixed. That means they have robust markets *and* a significant government sector. Sweden has one of the largest government sectors, yet still maintains a very healthy marketplace and competes aggressively in the global markets.
Modern estimates {for total war deaths} are now over three million, as stated by Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld, er, McNamara.
“but documentation has developed that indicates over a million NVA/VC died during the war.”
Did it develop spontaneously or did it have an actual source? Sorry, I realize I have to accept it on your authority. (By the way, that sentence was as soul-less as McNamara at his delusional height.)
Say, bummer about my outing Kutler. But you have to admit that it is funny how your sources almost always skew left.
“Yes. All modern, developed economies are mixed. That means they have robust markets *and* a significant government sector. Sweden has one of the largest government sectors, yet still maintains a very healthy marketplace and competes aggressively in the global markets.”
Boilerplate non-answer.
Oh, I forgot, Skeet: Since I demolished your argument that the U.S. and South Vietnam killed millions of people, I notice that you are pretending you never said it.
Hi Folks,
Deeply imbedded in trade shows, whereby I earn my nickels these days. So, I don’t have much time to participate other than in between meetings.
Quick comment on Sweden:
According to CIA World Fact Book:
Population: less-than Chicagoland.
Annual GDP: about $350 billion
Annual Exports: $163 billion (47% of GDP).
Per-Capita GDP compared to U.S.: 89%
Standard of Living: well below U.S.
Sweden survived WWII intact through its collaboration with Nazi Germany. By 1970, it was the richest country in the world. When socialism took over, it drew down Sweden’s capital assets from the richest country in the world to one of Europe’s most stagnant. It is only recently that it started turning around.
With regard to Vietnam and Cambodia, I just don’t have time to deal with people that would argue that they were better off for falling to the communists. To even suggest this is loathsome, in my view. But that, of course, requires a subjective perception based on a fundamental understanding of right and wrong, not just casualty figures.
Charles Martel: Did it develop spontaneously or did it have an actual source? Sorry, I realize I have to accept it on your authority.
You asked a question. We answered it. We provided multiple sources, including McNamara.
Charles Martel: Say, bummer about my outing Kutler.
Whether you agree with Kutler’s politics or not, he is a respected historian, even editing an important resource on Vietnam, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, 1995.
Charles Martel: Boilerplate non-answer.
In fact, it was a precise answer. While Ymarsakar wants to pigeon-hole governments as either socialist or not socialist, in fact, all modern economies are mixed.
Charles Martel: Since I demolished your argument that the U.S. and South Vietnam killed millions of people, I notice that you are pretending you never said it.
You were provided several sources. Feel free to continue waving your hands.
Danny Lemieux: Standard of Living: well below U.S.
And the U.S. is behind Norway. Sweden is #14 in the world, well positioned, strong export markets, low debt, and free medical.
Danny Lemieux: With regard to Vietnam and Cambodia, I just don’t have time to deal with people that would argue that they were better off for falling to the communists.
No one’s made that argument, but the question is who decides. The French? The Americans? Or the Vietnamese people? Ho Chi Minh would have won free elections if they had been held as promised. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and had little support outside of Saigon. There was no there there.
No one’s made that argument, but the question is who decides. The French? The Americans? Or the Vietnamese people? Ho Chi Minh would have won free elections if they had been held as promised. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and had little support outside of Saigon. There was no there there.
Interesting: A little country that had “no there there” is invaded by another country that made a treaty with it. Its despised goverment is replaced by the government that would have been in place if a certain election had taken place years before. The new goverment quickly begins killing and imprisoning people, and winds up creating hundred sof thousands of refugees (a figure even you and your leftist academic authorities have to agree with).
Geeze, Skeet, why did all those people take to sea if the government they would have voted for way back when was now in power? Was it the Americans (or George Bush) that created their desperation?
As for your inability to condemn a Communist regime, there is an actual objective measurement that “decides” whether falling to Communism is a good or bad thing: The pile of corpses that appear in the aftermath of a Communist takeover.
A group of 10 Christians from Oakland, CA are traveling the country telling folks the Doomsday has been rescheduled for May 21, 2011.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363837/Doomsday-campers-Project-Caravan-say-world-end-May-21.html
I don’t know if these people are liberals or conservatives, but they’re playing for much higher stakes – immortal souls. It is Doomsday, after all.
I don’t believe Z knows a free election from a false one.
Indigo Red
Thanks for the tip. I’ll mark my “Heaven’s Gate’ calendar
Zach extemporizes on the Howard Zinn narrative of History: “No one’s made that argument, but the question is who decides. The French? The Americans? Or the Vietnamese people? Ho Chi Minh would have won free elections if they had been held as promised. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and had little support outside of Saigon. There was no there there.”
When the vote was supposed to be held after the separation of the two Vietnams, the democratic process was non-existent, due to a Viet Cong terror campaign that was assassinating its opponents throughout towns and the countryside (perhaps, to some, this is a legitimate tactic? See reports of terror threats to Sarah Palin’s family as a topical reference). But, such truths are easily airbrushed out of the Leftwing narrative of history. To Zach’s question “who decides”, the answer is “the gun”.
The Vietnamese people had no idea of the stakes involved and very few had any idea of what communism meant in the beginning. During the course of the war and once the communists took power, of course, they all discovered the tender realities of communism very quickly. Ergo, the boat people.
I recall a Vietnam veteran, an artillery officer and friend, asking a Vietnamese boat person from a peasant family why, if the South Vietnamese hated communist so much, they didn’t fight harder to defeat them. “We had no idea,” said the refugee.
Sort of like the ignorant Ukrainian and Byelorussian Jews welcoming the Nazis as liberators when they first arrived. They had no idea. Communists and Nazis: same thugs, different gang colors.
Ah, but, the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, says the one who waxes nostalgic on the halcyon days of the Clinton Administration. Oh, never mind.
Zach fondles their chins, murmuring “and the U.S.’s standard of living is behind Norway”!
Norway
Population: similar to Phoenix-metro area.
Oil exports: 9th largest in world.
Natural gas exports: 2nd largest in world.
Wow. Good point, Zach!
Come to think of it, Kuwait and Brunei have better standards of living than the U.S., too (for Kuwaiti citizens, anyway).
Oil basically artificially increases standard of living through to government largesse. It’s standard protocol for the government to give the people a cut of the oil profits if the country is noted for its large oil reserves.
lol. Freudian slip on Z’s part. Thinking about McNamara and then wrote Rumsfeld. Always confusing two different wars for each other, the Left.
With regard to Vietnam and Cambodia, I just don’t have time to deal with people that would argue that they were better off for falling to the communists. To even suggest this is loathsome, in my view. But that, of course, requires a subjective perception based on a fundamental understanding of right and wrong, not just casualty figures.
It goes back to judgment, as it always does with human affairs. Do you trust the guy making the decisions to know his head from his arse when it comes to making decisions that will decide the life or death of humans?
If the answer is a resounding NO, then it doesn’t matter what else there is. None of it is relevant.
Charles Martel: A little country that had “no there there” is invaded by another country that made a treaty with it.
The South Vietnamese government had little support. The treaty was to have elections towards reunification.
Charles Martel: why did all those people take to sea if the government they would have voted for way back when was now in power? {Why did thousands of loyalists leave America after the Revolution?}
Because the communists were going to purge those who sided with the South Vietnamese government, because it considered them traitors, along with other foreign colonialist influences.
Charles Martel: As for your inability to condemn a Communist regime …
Did you want the condenation of the Vietnamese communists broke down by crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace? Indiscriminate fire, summary execution, prisoner torture, slave labor, breaching the peace, slaughtering foreigners. There are still many political prisoners and religious persecution in Vietnam.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/24/testimony-sophie-richardson-tom-lantos-human-rights-commission
We’ve said this before. You’ve made repeated mischaracterizations of our position, and never corrected yourself, even after many attempts to rectify your misconceptions.
Danny Lemieux: When the vote was supposed to be held after the separation of the two Vietnams, the democratic process was non-existent, due to a Viet Cong terror campaign that was assassinating its opponents throughout towns and the countryside
It was Diem who called off the elections. The Viet Cong was marginalized, and the communists had decided on political struggle for the time being. Nevertheless, if free elections had been held, Ho would have won overwhelmingly. What that means is that the government in South Vietnam had no credibility with the majority of the population.
Danny Lemieux: To Zach{riel}’s question “who decides”, the answer is “the gun”.
Ideas are hugely important. Most Vietnamese rejected the U.S. presence, and cooperated with the nationalist forces. For every two bullets the U.S. provided to the South Vietnamese government, one ended up in an insurgent’s rifle.
Danny Lemieux: The Vietnamese people had no idea of the stakes involved and very few had any idea of what communism meant in the beginning.
Perhaps. But they had been colonized by the French, then the Japanese, then the French with American aid, then the Americans blundered in. There is little doubt what most patriots would do. They would resist.
Danny Lemieux: Ah, but, the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, says the one who waxes nostalgic on the halcyon days of the Clinton Administration.
You undercut your argument by making such a facile comparison.
The question isn’t the will of the majority of the Vietnamese people. The majority, north and south, wanted Ho to lead a unified Vietnam. The legitimate question is the rights and security of the minority, a question that could have been more easily dealt with before the war. But the U.S. would never have stood for land redistribution to help correct the inequities left by French colonialism, and imagined the nationalist movement as part of an international communist conspiracy.
Danny Lemieux: Norway
Population: similar to Phoenix-metro area.
Oil exports: 9th largest in world.
Natural gas exports: 2nd largest in world.
Which is why directly comparing the U.S. to other countries, such as Sweden, doesn’t always give an accurate pictures of the merits of their economic systems.
Norway
U.S.
Netherlands
Sweden
U.K.
Each start in different places and work with different natural resources. The U.S. has had huge natural resources and vast expanses of land to exploit. All these countries are reasonably comparable in wealth and productivity.
Just to juxtapose the two points.
Danny Lemieux: Sweden: …
Per-Capita GDP compared to U.S.: 89%
Standard of Living: well below U.S.
You compared the U.S. to a small Nordic country.
Danny Lemieux: Norway
Population: similar to Phoenix-metro area.
Oil exports: 9th largest in world.
Natural gas exports: 2nd largest in world.
Wow. Good point, Zach!
Sweden has 89% of the U.S. GDP per capita, with a strong social safety net, including higher education and universal, but decentralized health care, a robust market, strong exports, and plenty of economic opportunity. They have also decoupled economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions, a technological feat apparently beyond the Americans. In some respects Sweden is better off than the U.S., though not as many rich people overall.
Norway has somewhat larger GDP per capita compared to the U.S. Like the U.S., they were endowed with large oil reserves, but don’t have those vast stretches of arable land. Norway is a highly technological society, has an educated workforce, large cash reserves, and the midnight sun.
Diem made the right decision of course. Z can’t see that. Because Z would have made the wrong decision. See how simple that is.
Of course the one that doesn’t know how to do something will believe the person doing it right is… Wrong. That’s just how humans are.
Btw Martel, this is for you and all the other parents that were talking about smut in music videos.
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/western-culture-vs-other-cultures/
People may wonder why I’m much invested in Japanese culture, even though I am not Japanese. Well…, unlike my fellow Americans that seem to find Asian features exotically beautiful, I can’t quite claim that as an excuse either.
There is little doubt what most patriots would do. They would resist.
Since when did Z become able to understand what patriots would do?
Since when did Z, who can’t even quote an exact number for casualties, instead claiming it is unknown, now the Wise Man on how many Vietnamese constituted “most” in rejecting the US?
*snorts*
Several decades too early to be fooling me.
Ymarsakar: Diem made the right decision of course.
Diem forwent elections. Most people believe that people have the right to elect their leaders, and that nations have the right to self-determination. Perhaps you differ.
Ymarsakar: Since when did Z become able to understand what patriots would do?
patriot, one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriot
Ymarsakar: Since when did Z, who can’t even quote an exact number for casualties, instead claiming it is unknown,
The exact number is unknown, however, plausible estimates are available. McNamara, who has every reason to minimize the number, says 3.8 million.
Ymarsakar: now the Wise Man on how many Vietnamese constituted “most” in rejecting the US?
“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader … the mass of the population supported the enemy. ” — Well-known leftist sympathizer, Dwight Eisenhower.
Diem forwent elections. Most people believe that people have the right to elect their leaders, and that nations have the right to self-determination. Perhaps you differ.
Unless they live in Iraq, of course. However, with regard to say…..Nazi Germany, I do see your perspective: the Germans certainly had the right to elect and support Hitler. When you live in a moral vacuum, the best thing to do is to take out the globalist rule book and look up the chapter on “elections”. Too bad about all those Jews, Gypsies, Communists and gays, though. Oh well, to make an omelette….
I’ll have to catch up on these comments and posts later this evening. In any case, Zach’s team has provided us with a veritable cornucopia of commentary upon which to feast.
Danny Lemieux: Unless they live in Iraq, of course.
The people in Iraq certainly have a right to self-determination and an elected government.
Danny Lemieux: However, with regard to say…..Nazi Germany, I do see your perspective: the Germans certainly had the right to elect and support Hitler.
We broached that subject above. It’s clear that a majority of Vietnamese supported Ho, and rejected the U.S. as another in a long line of colonialists. However, minorities have rights too, and if the U.S. had concentrated their efforts on this issue while they still had influence, then it is quite possible that the result would have been better for Vietnam over the long run. Instead, incredibly, they backed French re-colonization, then supported a corrupt government in Saigon that had called off elections, and invested in a devastating war that led to millions of deaths.
>>Instead, incredibly, they backed French re-colonization>>
I don’t remember the details, but didn’t we have one of those pesky treaties with the French, and _that_ was the reason for our support for their actions?
I have an experimental question. Out of all the people here, and we might as well include Danny L, C Martel, Book, Obama, and Z, do you TRUST MORE to protect your family from pirates and marauders out to rape and pillage anything they can obtain?
I’m not asking for absolute trust, for that is not the subject. Who do you trust more? Some will say yes, some will say no, some will say maybe, that’s all right. Who do you trust more?
With that thought in mind. Let me paint the scenario for you.
Armed drug gangs are expanding their influence across the border in military strength. You and a few confederates in the local region have bandied together to construct fortified emplacements and gathered together men, arms, and munitions for a defense and deterrence. Out of the group, few are able bodied for fighting. The women and children lack either strength or the skills required to fight. The armed gangs outnumber your village and are organized with a chain of command. They have experience in taking over territory. Defeat means the death of all the males and the enslavement of the children and women.
Between Obama, Zach, and Danny, who would you trust to do the negotiations? Between Obama, Zach, and Danny, who would you trust to form the strategy and composition for an eventual fight? Who will you depend more upon to achieve victory for you and yours in an unsafe world.
Obama? Z? Danny? Choose.
Z has the dictionary definition of a patriot? Interesting.
I don’t remember the details, but didn’t we have one of those pesky treaties with the French, and _that_ was the reason for our support for their actions?
LOL
http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/HIS135/Events/nato49/nato49.html
Look at the date when it was formed. I suppose United Strates “promises” on paper are worth more than the paper it is written on. For it is written in blood on top of the bodies of US soldiers.
Ymarsakar: Look at the date when it was formed.
NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
“The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
…
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ”
Vietnam is not in the North Atlantic area, nor did the Vietnamese initiate an armed attacked in Europe or North America. International commitments concerning Vietnam made at Geneva were for elections and reunification. NATO was not involved in the Vietnam War.
Zach, could you provide resources to support your contention that the U.S. supported French recolonization following WWII? I distinctly remember the U.S. under Eisenhower and Truman being staunchly against France and Britain colonial policies and in favor of national liberation.
This is very different than opposing communism, as communism was viewed as an imperial movement directed by the Soviet Union and China and a huge threat to the U.S.
You can’t conflate the two.
Danny Lemieux: could you provide resources to support your contention that the U.S. supported French recolonization following WWII? I distinctly remember the U.S. under Eisenhower and Truman being staunchly against France and Britain colonial policies and in favor of national liberation.
“In early 1950, when France had granted the Associated States of Indochina a mostly fictitious independence, the U.S. granted diplomatic recognition to those states and quickly began sending military aid to Indochina, or, to be more specific, to the French in Indochina; all U.S. aid, from beginning to end, went only to the French, who used it as they saw fit. This was made possible by the Mutual Defense Assistance Act passed toward the end of 1949…
“By January 1953, 900 combat vehicles had been delivered to the French, along with ‘,000 other vehicles, almost 2,500 artillery pieces, 24,000 automatic weapons, 75,000 small arms, and nearly 9,000 radios. In addition, French air units had received 160 F-6F and F-8F fighter aircraft, 41 B-26 light bombers, and 28 C-47 transports plus 155 aircraft engines and 93,000 bombs.’ By the time of the final French defeat, U.S. aid was running at over $1 billion a year (about $5.8 billion in 2004 dollars) and paying some 78% of the French war costs.”
http://www.us-foreign-policy-perspective.org/index.php?id=301
From Eisenhower’s memoire, Mandate for Change, 1963:
“Why was the very considerable amount of material American aid not more effective in helping the French? … the mass of the population supported the enemy.”
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/ike1.html
Letter to Truman, 1945:
“We ask what has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED STATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.
“I am Dear Mr. PRESIDENT
Respectfully Yours,
Ho Chi Minh”
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/collection_of_letters_by_ho_chi_.htm
“They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence — in 1945 — after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
Danny Lemieux: could you provide resources to support your contention that the U.S. supported French recolonization following WWII? I distinctly remember the U.S. under Eisenhower and Truman being staunchly against France and Britain colonial policies and in favor of national liberation.“In early 1950, when France had granted the Associated States of Indochina a mostly fictitious independence, the U.S. granted diplomatic recognition to those states and quickly began sending military aid to Indochina, or, to be more specific, to the French in Indochina; all U.S. aid, from beginning to end, went only to the French, who used it as they saw fit. This was made possible by the Mutual Defense Assistance Act passed toward the end of 1949…
“By January 1953, 900 combat vehicles had been delivered to the French, along with ‘,000 other vehicles, almost 2,500 artillery pieces, 24,000 automatic weapons, 75,000 small arms, and nearly 9,000 radios. In addition, French air units had received 160 F-6F and F-8F fighter aircraft, 41 B-26 light bombers, and 28 C-47 transports plus 155 aircraft engines and 93,000 bombs.’ By the time of the final French defeat, U.S. aid was running at over $1 billion a year (about $5.8 billion in 2004 dollars) and paying some 78% of the French war costs.”
http://www.us-foreign-policy-perspective.org/index.php?id=301
From Eisenhower’s memoire, Mandate for Change, 1963:
“Why was the very considerable amount of material American aid not more effective in helping the French? … the mass of the population supported the enemy.”
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/ike1.html
Letter to Truman, 1945:
“We ask what has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED STATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.
“I am Dear Mr. PRESIDENT
Respectfully Yours,
Ho Chi Minh”
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/collection_of_letters_by_ho_chi_.htm
Why the hell should anyone care what MLK J thinks about Vietnam.
If he’d have been in Vietnam fighting for “liberation”, they’d have strung him up before even got two words out of his mouth, let alone the grand Dream speech.
The State Department in 1945 was infested with Communists. They were the ones that decided to get America into Vietnam as payback for Afghanistan. They were the ones that decided to get Diem assassinated. Now Z here wants to use the fruits of their labor to make a point for himself, is that how it is.
Unbelievable.
But all too true how disgustingly vile and pathetic Leftist agents are.
Ymarsakar: The State Department in 1945 was infested with Communists. They were the ones that decided to get America into Vietnam …
So, the communists in the State Department decided to militarily support French re-colonization against an indigenous communist insurgency.
Ymarsakar: … as payback for Afghanistan.
For what in Afghanistan?
Skeet, Skeet, Skeet. . . .
Charles Martel: A little country that had “no there there” is invaded by another country that made a treaty with it. Skeet: The South Vietnamese government had little support. The treaty was to have elections towards reunification.
I see. So, if the United States makes a treaty with a government that has little popular support, it would have the right to invade that country. Very good logic, Skeet. You just keep digging yourself further.
Charles Martel: why did all those people take to sea if the government they would have voted for way back when was now in power?
Dukakis: {Why did thousands of loyalists leave America after the Revolution?} Because the communists were going to purge those who sided with the South Vietnamese government, because it considered them traitors, along with other foreign colonialist influences.
False analogy (what else is new with you?) I dont believe the American revolutionists tortured Tories or placed them in concentration camps. Now Wiki, one of your favorite authorities, says that there were 2 million boat people. That’s a huge number of traitors and collaborationists, no? Yet you blithely wave your Dukakis hand and see it as a logical consequence of the war. In your pinched world, America can do no good and communist atrocities are expectable—and unremarkable—outcomes.
Charles Martel: As for your inability to condemn a Communist regime …Zach: Did you want the condenation of the Vietnamese communists broke down by crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace? Indiscriminate fire, summary execution, prisoner torture, slave labor, breaching the peace, slaughtering foreigners. There are still many political prisoners and religious persecution in Vietnam.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/24/testimony-sophie-richardson-tom-lantos-human-rights-commission We’ve said this before. You’ve made repeated mischaracterizations of our position, and never corrected yourself, even after many attempts to rectify your misconceptions.
No misconceptions, and no mischaracterizations. Notice how you left out the part where I said that the test of who gets to decide the rightness or the wrongness of falling to Communism is the piles of corpses that inevitably accummulate once Communists take power? I’ve never seen you (and never will) outright condemn the inhumanity and evil of Communism wherever it is found. That would distract you from your mission to mischaracterize America’s world role.
Charles Martel: I see. So, if the United States makes a treaty with a government that has little popular support, it would have the right to invade that country.
You’re making little sense. The Geneva Conference of 1954 recognized the independence of Vietnam and scheduled internationally supervised elections leading to reunification. The U.S. did not sign the agreement, but promised to work towards unification through ”free elections, supervised by the United Nations.”
Charles Martel: That’s a huge number of traitors and collaborationists, no?
They were considered traitors, quite a different thing entirely. Few were given even summary trials. Guilt was by association or denunciation. They called it reeducation, but much of it was slave labor under the pretext of restitution.
Charles Martel: Yet you blithely wave your Dukakis hand and see it as a logical consequence of the war.
As usual, you seem incapable of representing our position squarely. It is a common occurrence of war, but not a logical or inevitable consequence.
“You are making little sense. The Geneva Conference of 1954 recognized the independence of Vietnam and scheduled internationally supervised elections leading to reunification. The U.S. did not sign the agreement, but promised to work towards unification through ’free elections, supervised by the United Nations.’”
=SIGH=
Skeet:
May I suggest you take a reading comprehension course? My reference to the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam was clearly with regard to the terms of the 1973 Paris ceasefire agreement. Here are two provisions of that truce (from Wiki, your beloved authority):
—There would be negotiations between the two South Vietnamese parties — Saigon and the Vietcong — towards a political settlement that would allow the South Vietnamese people to “decide themselves the political future of South Viet-Nam through genuinely free and democratic general elections under international supervision.”
—Reunification of Vietnam was to be “carried out step by step through peaceful means.”
Didn’t happen, did it? Why was that? Now, before you rationalize the North’s invasion of the South, in direct violation of the truce, remember that the Americans weren’t around to kick anymore. (Quick, rush to the Zinnerator for a boilerplate explanation!)
Charles Martel: My reference to the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam was clearly with regard to the terms of the 1973 Paris ceasefire agreement.
Thank you for clarifying your oblique reference. The North Vietnamese repeatedly violated the peace accord. They should have sought a peaceful resolution.
Charles Martel
How often do you go skeet shooting
LOL
SADIE, as often as I can. It’s exhilirating and I haven’t missed yet.
>>They should have sought a peaceful resolution. >>
Shoulda woulda coulda.
That’s the story of life, Zach. There are all kinds of things people _should_ do, but they don’t. They don’t because they _want_ something other than what they _should_ have. The purpose of government is to concentrate the power of the people of a society to punish those people within a society that do things they should not do. When the power of law enforcement is removed, it means that criminals can do whatever they have the power to do. The North Vietnamese were treaty breaking criminals. The US was in Vietnam to keep the Viet Cong in check. The US left, Congress defunded any efforts to assist South Vietnam (in violation of _our_ treaty, by the way) and millions suffered.
But the US is/are the bad guys???
You have an odd sense of right and wrong.
suek: The purpose of government is to concentrate the power of the people of a society to punish those people within a society that do things they should not do.
Countries are much like people in that regard. If they find it advantageous, they can usually find some way to justify even the most unjust act. But when consequences reinforce their better natures, then they are more likely to accept temporary inconveniences. So, if they find making treaties to be advantageous overall, they will be less likely to unilaterally renege on one promise because it might undermine other, more valued agreements.
This can be modeled in game theory. It can be shown that players will cooperate, as long as they can establish a history of reliability in their partners, and have some measure of accountability.
suek: The North Vietnamese were treaty breaking criminals.
Yes (though it has often been argued on this forum that there is no such thing as international law).
suek: But the US is/are the bad guys???
Where did we say that?
“They should have sought a peaceful solution.”
Two questions occur:
1. What is the origin of your “should?”
2. Why are you ignoring the elephant in the room? What could possibly be the reason why North Vietnam did not seek a peaceful solution (and never would have)? Is it because they were Communists, and Communists do not honor treaties that put them at a disadvantage? Can you think of anything that would have persuaded North Vietnam to act morally and not impose its will on South Vietnam by force?
Charles Martel: What is the origin of your “should?”
Should denotes an ought. Keeping promises is an ethical duty.
Charles Martel: What could possibly be the reason why North Vietnam did not seek a peaceful solution (and never would have)?
The same reason many other countries go to war, perceived self-interest.
Charles Martel: Is it because they were Communists, and Communists do not honor treaties that put them at a disadvantage?
As discussed above, cooperation depends on accountability. Please note that the U.S. has broken many treaties as well, treaties promised to last “as long as the grass grows and the water flows.”
Charles Martel: Can you think of anything that would have persuaded North Vietnam to act morally and not impose its will on South Vietnam by force?
Doubtful. From their perspective, the gain far outweighed any negative consequences.
suek: But the US is/are the bad guys???
z-group: Where did we say that?
This is your chance to list 5 positive things about America.
Charles Martel
Quite a shot, too
SADIE: This is your chance to list 5 positive things about America.
Only 5?
* World’s first modern republic, especially the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights; and a symbol of freedom and opportunity for the world’s huddled masses.
* Progressive causes such as ending child labor, worker safety laws, shorter workweeks and a social safety net for the elderly.
* Instrumental in the fight against fascism as part of an alliance of nations, and helping establish an international system of laws after WWII.
* Provided an alternative vision to communist totalitarianism per Kennan’s Long Telegram.
* Technological innovations, from the polio vaccine and the lightbulb to the moon landing and Google.
Skeet, I love ya to bits! You are so predictably evasive and fallacious.
Tu quoque and question begging: (My paraphrase)—The U.S. has broken treaties, therefore Communists always breaking treaties is excusable and understandable. I refuse to expose myself by responding to your query about whether Communists are capable of acting morally, so will pretend I’ve answered it by citing broken U.S.-Indian treaties.
“Should denotes an ought. Keeping promises is an ethical duty.”
This is where I know you dare not tread: What is the basis of your personal morality? How do you justify imposing an “ought” on anybody? I know you’ll give me a canned response, but it’s fun to watch you run away from actually arguing anything from a personal, rather than a boilerplate-derived, perspective.
“Provided an alternative vision to communist totalitarianism per Kennan’s Long Telegram.”
More Dukaka. A better description: “Poured trillions into defending the West and most of the rest of the world against Communism. Was the only power with the will and might to confront the Soviet Union. Its efforts eventually liberated hundreds of millions of people.”
Also: Bastion of free-market economics that has led directly and indirectly to lifting 1 billion people out of poverty since 1990.
Also: In the absence of a real international enforcement mechanism, has provided the naval muscle to protect the world’s sea lanes.
Also: In times of disaster, reaches afflicted areas with vast amount of help within hours. (UN saunters in 6 weeks later with its usual retinue of child rapists and career bureaucrats.)
Also: On a per-capita basis provides more private and charitable assistance to other nations than any other nation on earth.
“Instrumental in the fight against fascism as part of an alliance of nations, and helping establish an international system of laws after WWII.”
Poured billions in aid and war materiel into the USSR and opened a second front, allowing the Soviets to win a war they would have otherwise lost. Almost single-handedly defeated the Japanese in the Pacific War. Was absolutely crucial and pivotal in “helping establish” a post-war system of international laws, and backed those laws with military power.
Charles Martel: Tu quoque and question begging: The U.S. has broken treaties, therefore Communists always breaking treaties is excusable and understandable.
Again, you can’t seem to grasp simple distinctions. We didn’t excuse Vietnam breaking their treaty by pointing to the Americans breaking treaties, nor does what the Americans may have done mitigate what the Vietnamese did. We addressed this very specific point:
Charles Martel: Is it because they were Communists, and Communists do not honor treaties that put them at a disadvantage?
Rather, nations tend to honor treaties when it is in their own perceived self-interest. However, as these agreements become more important to nations, maintaining a reputation becomes an important benefit in its own right. You ignored this argument twice now.
In addition, we have examples of communists honoring treaties. For instance, China and the U.S. both trade under a complex set of rules that make up the World Trade Organization. Nor does one need to point to communist morality when simple self-interest can explain it, but reputation and self-image is clearly a part of it.
Charles Martel: What is the basis of your personal morality? How do you justify imposing an “ought” on anybody?
Not imposing anything on anybody. If you don’t agree that promises are meaningful, then no one can argue otherwise. Either you share that value, or you don’t. Should the Vietnamese have honored the peace accords?
* World’s first modern republic, especially the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights; and a symbol of freedom and opportunity for the world’s huddled masses.
How on earth did you manage to include Emma Lazarus into the sentence?
* Technological innovations, from the polio vaccine and the light bulb to the moon landing and Google.
The polio vaccine, the light bulb and Google are the results of individual Americans.
Once again, in plain English: What is the basis of your morality?
SADIE, tin ear meets boilerplate.
SADIE: Let’s race to see
which of us can reach
100 first
A 100 bottle of beers on the wall…
100 clay pigeons…
This is my first cyber race
you won the first contest
..that was before z-days.
that left me dazed.
Zachriel: World’s first modern republic, especially the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights; and a symbol of freedom and opportunity for the world’s huddled masses.
SADIE: How on earth did you manage to include Emma Lazarus into the sentence?
As with all good poetry, a lot of meaning is compressed into a few words. Did you disagree with the sentiment?
SADIE: The polio vaccine, the light bulb and Google are the results of individual Americans.
Yes, and most Americans were born after an individual American penned the Declaration of Independence.
Charles Martel: What is the basis of your morality?
Why do the birds sing? Why does a mother love her child? Same reason.
my server is having a nervous breakdown. LOL
Birds sing because they can’t speak.
Sentiment is fine, placement sucked.
Why do the birds sing? Why does a mother love her child? Same reason.
You lack depth, son. Nobody takes seriously a kid who cites morality (what you call “values”) endlessly, but cannot and will not explain his own.
(I win, SADIE.)
Dang!
Awww. shucks Chuck…no Mardi Gras parade.
I WON I WON – good thing it was a finger race and not on foot.
>>Should denotes an ought. Keeping promises is an ethical duty. >>
Says who? Who establishes the “ethical duty”? Who defines it? Who enforces it? Is it just a nice idea?
Sadie and Charles…
Stop it stop it!!!
You had me speed reading!!!
Zachriel: Should denotes an ought. Keeping promises is an ethical duty.
suek: Says who? Who establishes the “ethical duty”? Who defines it? Who enforces it? Is it just a nice idea?
The utilitarian argument is that promises are the basis of all human cooperation, and that cooperation can lead to mutual success. However, even that presumes that a benefit to humans is a positive value. We are rather fond of the little monkeys, but perhaps that is just our predilection.
Most people share fundamental values, but if you don’t share the belief that humans have intrinsic value or that promises are good things to keep, there is no argument that can convince you.
So, the communists in the State Department decided to militarily support French re-colonization against an indigenous communist insurgency.
As you noted, Ho Chi wasn’t allied with the Communists until the US rejected him. So why wouldn’t Communists reject Ho Chi M, acting on the part of the US, in order to push HCM into the Communist camp.
Are you sure you can understand how even basic foreign policy is conducted here?
Martel, didn’t anybody ever tell you not to count your chickens before they hatch.
“The utilitarian argument is that promises are the basis of all human cooperation, and that cooperation can lead to mutual success. However, even that presumes that a benefit to humans is a positive value. We are rather fond of the little monkeys, but perhaps that is just our predilection.
Most people share fundamental values, but if you don’t share the belief that humans have intrinsic value or that promises are good things to keep, there is no argument that can convince you.”
Zach has finally walked into the trap of his own philosophical incoherence. Thank you, room, for being so patient to get him to take the bait.
First, no utilitarian argument says that promises are the basis of all human cooperation. If that were true, then coercion—”I promise I’ll slap you silly if you don’t stop hitting your sister”—would also be a basis for cooperation since it’s based on a promise. Can we assume that Zach finds coercion a laudable thing because it leads to cooperation, thus “mutual success?”
Next is the cliche, “fundamental values,” conveniently undefined because that would require explaining what they are. Would that be Islamic fundamental values, such as hatred for women and homosexuals? Perhaps Chinese fundamental values, such as antipathy toward female infants? Perhaps North Vietnamese fundamental values, such as their politicians’ hatred for keeping promises? Perhaps the feminist fundamental value that the power to legally eviscerate inconvenient uborn children ranks among humanity’s greatest achievements?
“Intrinsic value?” According to what? Based on what? If Skeet is going to trot out the pathetic argument that he made above, that intrinsic value is just an a priori, doesn’t-need-explanation thing, like birdsong and mother love, then he has proven once and for all his lack of qualification to engage the minds in this room.
(An interesting ”tell” here is Dukakis’s “we are rather fond of the little monkeys, but perhaps that is just our predilection.” If it is, indeed, just his predilection, he wrecks his own intrinsic value argument. Whether he likes humans or not is immaterial—otherwise he’s like the mother who decides to have her unborn child disassembled: if she likes “the little monkey,” it must have intrinsic value. If she thinks it has no intrinsic value, then off with its head. . .and arms, and legs, and torso.)
Finally, if a promise is a “good thing to keep,” why do so many people break them? What makes them so special if they fail so miserably? What is there that would make people want to keep them? A bedside paperback of The Works of Jeremy Bentham?
Now scoot, Skeet.
Ymarsakar, LOL. Bust-ed!
I seriously doubt it can be considered ethical to keep promises to do harm to the innocent. Which is a lot of what treaties and lawyer crafted stuff are.
What Z has begun to describe isn’t so much utilitarian ethics as it is duty ethics. Duty ethics says you don’t have a choice, that the right thing to do is what you are required to do when proper authority commands it.
As such, it is different from utilitarian philosophy in that utilitarians at least place prime import on individual free will. The will to choose what is the best for the most people, at least. An individual’s choice, thus counts as one of the many. Duty ethics, however, completely disregards free will and even treats free will often times as an ethical evil.
Overall, I would say it suits Z’s perspective and what he has written to date on historical events.
moving off in a completely different direction…
I think about this a lot actually. Predictions not coming true from the late ’60′s of doom and destruction put me on my guard re: global warming. (Where have I heard this before? same tune, different lyrics). What are the core values of liberal left in the West? Do they even know? I wonder…
Below are my rambling thoughts. then there’s a link to a Zombie post with a nifty chart that I think clarifies the state of things in the modern world.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/
There are two different views of the world.
One is based on scarcity, restriction, unforgiving boundaries, and limits.
The other is based on expansion, abundance, freedom and growth.
On the one hand you have entropy: everything is falling apart.
On the other hand you have the universe is expanding. (Or is that the same idea?
I guess I just assume that entropy is everything collapsing on itself in a heap.)
Life requires intervention.
Where to intervene, is the question.
Liberals/statists/socialists want to solve problems and control life by fiat or legislation from the top down .
They have very simplistic view of cause and effect in human affairs. “People are poor because they don’t have money. So give them money and our society won’t have any more poor people.”
They don’t see that problems are made up of the individual and his choices.
They have a low opinion of other humans: ignorant at best, stupid at worst, short sighted and unsophisticated, incapable of reasoned, rational thought or planning.
They don’t trust individuals or groups of humans to chose what is best for them. Probably because they aren’t capable of making healthy choices in their own lives so they project that on the rest of us: serial monogamy/divorces, debt, regular job-address changes, mind altering substance overuse or abuse, overweight. Bad or no relationship with family, children or friends.
Getting things in order requires intervention: Betty Ford type lock down clinics, therapy, Anon. Groups, legal action, surgery, jail time.
They cannot be responsible for themselves. Or they are choosing not to be responsible in day today life .
They also seem to be blind to facts on the ground.
In the late ’60′s, we were told by the experts that the world couldn’t possible support more than a certain number of people, the Population Explosion was going to bury us alive in our waste materials, and we would all be over crowded and die of starvation because the ecology of the planet wouldn’t be able to support us. Those that survive will be pushed back to living under the conditions of the Middle Ages.
And that didn’t happen. We’re close to 7 billion people on this planet and air’s still good enough to breathe. If anything, judging by what is going in on in Asia, the overall standard of living is rising. ( yes I know that 12 people die every hour of starvation-is that more, less or same as 1969? life expectancy is also rising)
Liberal’s belief system rejects objective facts and rejects individual responsibility.
They accept all the failings of the human beings which are many! And chose to be blind to the open miracle that we are surviving despite the retched humans. In my opinion the root of the problem is not believing in G*d or a higher power. They refuse to recognize that there is a purpose behind all the history of humankind. What is happening is being directed by a Higher Authority. Higher Authority means that we have responsibility in all our actions, that we are answerable in the end, long or short run, to something other than ourselves. Living life with responsibility eliminates a lot of hubris and arrogance and vanity. A human being must constantly question his actions, attitudes and ideas. It is much more difficult to live this way, because one can’t just take things for granted and run forward on autopilot, but in the long run it’s easier because one has always had a benchmark to judge from when making decisions.
So do Liberals make accurate predictions? No. When working, as they are, from a false set of premisses, the result will be false.
They aren’t even like the broken clock that reads the right time twice a day. You can’t tell time with only one hand. Or in the modern version, if your screen is broken.
Ymarsakar: As you noted, Ho Chi wasn’t allied with the Communists until the US rejected him. So why wouldn’t Communists reject Ho Chi M, acting on the part of the US, in order to push HCM into the Communist camp.
The U.S. didn’t start materially supporting the French until Ho was already in the communist camp. Indeed, the aid was justified as a fight against the communist conspiracy.
Charles Martel: Can we assume that Zach{riel} finds coercion a laudable thing because it leads to cooperation, thus “mutual success?”
Carrot and stick can both be part of developing cooperation. This is standard game theory. Notice it’s the threat of punishment that is at issue. The credibility of the threat, based reputation (history of previous actions, whether it’s an idle threat or not), help determine whether the threat will be effective. (An ironic example is found in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.)
Charles Martel: Next is the cliche, “fundamental values,” conveniently undefined because that would require explaining what they are. Would that be Islamic fundamental values, such as hatred for women and homosexuals? Perhaps Chinese fundamental values, such as antipathy toward female infants? Perhaps North Vietnamese fundamental values, such as their politicians’ hatred for keeping promises? Perhaps the feminist fundamental value that the power to legally eviscerate inconvenient uborn children ranks among humanity’s greatest achievements?
That’s a good point, actually. Values vary considerably across human societies. Without quibbling over your examples, and more specific to our above general description, people usually value other people who are defined as being in the in-group, and value less or not at all those in the out-group. Sometimes the in-group only includes one person, the self. Sometimes, people don’t value people at all.
Charles Martel: “Intrinsic value?” According to what? Based on what?
That what we asked. According to you. Are you a misanthrope?
Charles Martel: Finally, if a promise is a “good thing to keep,” why do so many people break them?
Another interesting question. Because of competing values. Taking an extreme case, hiding Jews from the Nazis may require lying to the authorities. The person has balanced the value they place on other humans, and the importance of telling the truth. Other people may reach different conclusions, or place little value on promises.
The key is that fundamental values can’t be argued. No one can argue you into loving someone. Yet most mothers need no prompting to care for her child.
binadaat: Liberals/statists/socialists want to solve problems and control life by fiat or legislation from the top down.
The left is defined by the trend towards egalitarianism. That doesn’t always translate into top-down, but often so in the modern world.
binadaat: There are two different views of the world.
One is based on scarcity, restriction, unforgiving boundaries, and limits.
The other is based on expansion, abundance, freedom and growth.
What’s odd about your view is that liberals are often considered the utopians. Conservatives typically believe life has practical limits, and that humans are fallible, but reach their greatest potential when challenged.
binadaat: They have very simplistic view of cause and effect in human affairs. “People are poor because they don’t have money. So give them money and our society won’t have any more poor people.”
Well, you’ve already created a strawman. Not everyone on the left has such a simplistic view, just as not everyone on the right has a subtle view.
binadaat: In the late ’60′s, we were told by the experts that the world couldn’t possible support more than a certain number of people, the Population Explosion was going to bury us alive in our waste materials, and we would all be over crowded and die of starvation because the ecology of the planet wouldn’t be able to support us. Those that survive will be pushed back to living under the conditions of the Middle Ages.
You apparently weren’t paying attention. For most on the left, the problem was soluble. (Some were obviously alarmists.) The reason the air and water are relatively clean in the west is because the left lobbied successfully for changes, such as pollution limits.
binadaat: Liberal’s belief system rejects objective facts and rejects individual responsibility.
Again, you’re battling a strawman. You take a flattened and distorted view of liberalism to represent all views on the left.
Let’s see if we can understand your view better. In the early twentieth-century, progressives lobbied to effect laws ending child labor. Was this a reasonable response to a societal problem? What about limiting factory pollution? Worker safety laws?
The U.S. didn’t start materially supporting the French until Ho was already in the communist camp.
So you prove the point that it was Ho, rather than the US, that made the mistake of putting HCM in the Communist camp.
Rather than supporting French colonial interests, for which the US had no interest in, not even Democrat Wilsonians or Hamiltonians, the US sought to protect an ally’s armed forces, France’s, from Communist insurgencies.
The reason the air and water are relatively clean in the west is because the left lobbied successfully for changes, such as pollution limits.
That’s like saying the US won WWII because the Germans successfully lobbied for more US war planes.
It’s kinda cute, in a way.
In Zach’s world, the Left was all for sweetness and light. Conservatives and Republicans were against clean air, clean water, labor, woman’s suffrage, civil rights, American Indian rights, good weather, Valentines Day, motherhood and apple pie.
Quite a sophomoric re-write of history.
>>.if you don’t share the belief that humans have intrinsic value or that promises are good things to keep, there is no argument that can convince you. >>
And then what?
>>We are rather fond of the little monkeys, but perhaps that is just our predilection.>>
This is the second time that you’ve used that designation for humans. I assume that it’s in line with your theory of evolution, that you are an atheist, and place no special value on humans. Therefore, all of your preferences are simply based on your person preferences.
Hows that for megalomania (or something)!! You’d like the whole world ordered in a certain way, and for humans to behave in a certain way – because you’re “fond” of them. There are no underlying values other than “Zach likes it that way”. Are there any limits to satiating Zach’s preferences?
Ymarsakar: So you prove the point that it was Ho, rather than the US, that made the mistake of putting HCM in the Communist camp.
It was the whole idea of either-or camps of the Cold War that prevented a peaceful resolution. It was certainly possible for Vietnam to have found a middle path that included some land distribution while maintaining fundamentals of liberal democracy.
Ymarsakar: Rather than supporting French colonial interests, for which the US had no interest in, not even Democrat Wilsonians or Hamiltonians, the US sought to protect an ally’s armed forces, France’s, from Communist insurgencies.
The U.S. didn’t protect France from communist insurgencies, but French colonial interests.
Ymarsakar: That’s like saying the US won WWII because the Germans successfully lobbied for more US war planes.
That makes no sense whatsoever. People lobbied successfully for environmental protection laws. This led to significant improvements in air and water quality in the West. In communists countries, which restricted the right of people to peacefully assemble, the air and water quality continued to deteriorate.
Danny Lemieux: Conservatives and Republicans were against clean air, clean water, labor, woman’s suffrage, civil rights, American Indian rights, good weather, Valentines Day, motherhood and apple pie.
Don’t confuse being against clean air and water with being against clean air and water regulation. Conservatism, by definition, means deference to existing institutions. Political pressure to regulate pollution generally came from the left, while resistance came from the right. However, long term political change usually comes by developing a consensus, that is, by convincing the naysayers. Also, don’t confuse conservative and Republican. Nixon, a Republican, was instrumental in enacting pollution controls. Each of other points, including apple pie, have their own unique histories.
You all have a strange definition of “conservative”, Zach.
For example, much of the environmental (conservation) movement came from conservative and Republican quarters, such as hunting and fishing constituencies (beginning with Teddy Roosevelt). TR was also a leader in pushing for civil rights and women’s suffrage. You are way oversimplifying.
If conservatism ‘by definition” means deference to existing institutions, it certainly puts the Tea Party in an odd position within your political constellation, doesn’t it? The Tea Party is very much in favor of rolling back or dismantling many of our existing institutions.
“The key is that fundamental values can’t be argued.”
Exactly, Zacky. So why are you here?
Danny Lemieux: For example, much of the environmental (conservation) movement came from conservative and Republican quarters, such as hunting and fishing constituencies (beginning with Teddy Roosevelt). TR was also a leader in pushing for civil rights and women’s suffrage.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, and believed the federal government had a role to play in regulating private property, such as limiting the power of trusts, and a graduated income tax on big fortunes.
Danny Lemieux: If conservatism ‘by definition” means deference to existing institutions, it certainly puts the Tea Party in an odd position within your political constellation, doesn’t it?
In the U.S., the term conservative is often used to refer to those on the right who want to undo corrupt modern institutions and restore the world to the good ol’ days of mom and apple pie. See here for a more complete explanation:
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
Zachriel: The key is that fundamental values can’t be argued.
Charles Martel: So why are you here?
To add points of relevance to the discussion for the benefit of the blog’s readers.
In the U.S., the term conservative is often used to refer to those on the right who want to undo corrupt modern institutions and restore the world to the good ol’ days of mom and apple pie. See here for a more complete explanation:
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html <—–!!!!!!!!!
He did it again!
ROFLMAO
Hey Danny, when was this age of apple pie and ol moms? I seem to have misplaced it, not having been in the US since…
I guess we expect too much from the Zach cohort and their Howard Zinn view of history. Expecting Zach to tell us the meaning of “conservative” is a bit like expecting a Muslim to explain the meaning of Christianity to a Christian or Judaism to a Jew.
Here is an excellent link to an article that talks about how the meanings of labels such as “Progressive”, “Liberal” and “Left” change with time.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-todays-liberals-betray-yesterdays/
The meaning of the word “conservative” among Left-challenged peoples appears to remain very constant over time, however – it means “cooties”.
Charles Martel: He did it again!
Danny Lemieux: The meaning of the word “conservative” among Left-challenged peoples appears to remain very constant over time, however – it means “cooties”.
Actually, no.
It’s can’t be that difficult to follow a link. We reprint it here for the link-impaired.
Definition of “Conservatism”: a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
Zacky, it’s not difficult to follow a link, true, but it’s a hoot to follow yours. Why refer us to your own link where all of your stuff is boilerplate that you’ve cadged from other sources?
You’re like the art forger who keeps pestering museum docents to visit his online gallery so they can see “the real thing.”
I’d like a large popcorn with a conservative amount of butter, please.
This is why I stick with the OU or K labels, I am assured that I am not buying a ‘pig in the poke’
Charles Martel: Why refer us to your own link where all of your stuff is boilerplate that you’ve cadged from other sources?
Because it is not necessary to repeat the entire text when it is available as a link. Did you have something to say about the caricature of “progressives”?
>>To add points of relevance to the discussion for the benefit of the blog’s readers.>>
a) Not your job.
b) coals to Newcastle.
And here is the Merriam-Webster definition of “liberalism”
lib·er·al·ism noun \ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\
1
: the quality or state of being liberal
2
a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
And for “liberal”,
a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
OK…bwahahaha! Like I said, the issue we were discussing is the corruption of language by the Left over distance and over time. A “Progressive” or “Liberal” in the 19th Century is nothing like a “Progressive” today. A “Conservative” in Europe is nothing like a Conservative in America.
An American Liberal or progressive today is to traditional meanings of liberalism and progressivism as “Democratic Peoples Republic” is to North Korea.
When in doubt, Yiddish offers flexibility.
Schmuck, a Yiddish word, has a range of meaning depending on context. In its most innocuous use, a schmuck is a person who does a stupid thing, in which case “dumb schmuck” is the appropriate expression.
A schmuck’s behavior ranges from pesky and inconsiderate, to obnoxious and manipulative. A schmuck’s personality type ranges from jerk to bastard.
Schmucky behavior also falls within a range of intentionality. Some schmucks carefully plan their bad behavior, some only a little, and some not at all. For example, the bastard may spend considerable time planning his bad deeds. In contrast, the dumb schmuck and the pesky behave badly without any forethought.
You still don’t get it Z.
Because it is not necessary to repeat the entire text when it is available as a link. Did you have something to say about the caricature of “progressives”?
Unresponsive.
(SADIE hands Martel his ermine cape and sceptre of power, which he wrested from Zackling in some obscure ideo game basement dwellers play.)
I hearby Dukakisize you and declare you anathema. I’m also giving you a D- for lack of social skills and terrible writing.
You are dismissed.
I think Sadie’s trying to tell me there is a schmuck around but not being Jewish, I cannot presume to know.
Follow the bouncing ball and all together now for Charles Martel….
Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
As I-I walk through this world
Nothing can stop The Duke of Earl
Ymar
Would it be possible to say that the Schmuck of Earl “walks through his schmuckdom?”
I remember a Smuckers commercial. Never ate much of it, I just remember that their commercials kept coming on when I was watching tv.
Ymarsakar: LOL!
Danny Lemieux: And here is the Merriam-Webster definition of “liberalism”
You left this out for some reason: specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).
That’s because recent history has shown that guaranteeing individual freedoms requires government intervention, such as federal civil rights laws, and because industrialization reduced individual freedom through economic shackles. Abuses, such as child labor and pollution of the commons, found solutions through law, not the workings of the market. The flip-side of this is that even the best thought out reforms can have unintended consequences, and when change occurs too quickly, the results can be disastrous. Hence, conservatives counsel a cautious approach. Conservatives may lament some recents changes, and want to roll back the clock. There’s no strict dividing line, and individuals may be conservative on some issues, liberal on others, or change their views, depending on the circumstances.
Here’s a statement of conservative principle in the midst of a revolutionary document: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
We’d be happy to discuss this in more detail, but you have to abandon the caricatures you’ve invested in. The rest of the commenters apparently have nothing to add concerning the topic.
Danny, it appears that you have been served with an ultimatum.
I, King of the Franks and Nightmare of the Mooslims, will rush elebenty zillion crack troops to your side if you decide to resist the evil Zack Zod.
Frankly … (badda bing!)
I suspect the carcass has passed the point of bloat and has reached the point of serious decomposition…
Charles and suek..
Badda bing, badda boom … tell z-kids to leave the room.
Refreshments will be served to the troops loyal to the cause. Others will be force fed copious amounts of *prozack.
*Warning: side effects include: yawning, nausea, loss of the sex drive.
Danny has our moral support. That’s all he needs.
Z is demanding that Danny restrict himself to only Z’s assumptions about life. That’s not exactly how free debates are structured.
Wish I could…however, I am on the road on business pretty much through this weekend and will only be able to post sporadically. No armchair philosophizing for me.
<<Z is demanding that Danny restrict himself to only Z’s assumptions about life.>>
That’s Zach’s SOP.
>>That’s not exactly how free debates are structured.>>
Pesky details…!
I wish that I could zzzz answer thsi dap thread of zzzachs one more time but getting sooooososlslleeeeepppy zzoifasodfasf !
Danny
Side effect of Prozack possibly
What are you saying, Sadie???
Too many zzzzzz ?
This is a pretty funny nostalgic look at all the Z type jokes we used to tell.