Step one: Do you make pointless juxtapositions?
Oh yes, democracy and violence. Didn't the 20th Century provide enough of that awful elixir?When democracies commit violence to stop communists and Nazis, most people don't consider it "awful". To the best of my recollection, democracies didn't fight against each other much in the 20th century. Or ever.
Step two: Do you fail to make obvious distinctions and argue using false syllogisms?
And he finishes his masterpiece post with this statement: "Basically, the only terrorists are Islamic fascists." I guess the truth is in the definition, huh? I can do one better: the only terrorists are druggies and drug runners!Yes, some terrorists sell drugs to finance their terror operations, but not all drug runners are terrorists. Drug runners commit targeted violence against their competitors and fight over territory and money. Terrorists fight for political/religious ideologies and only care about killing as many people as possible, often including themselves. The significant motivational differences serve to distinguish the two groups, and dictate different policies for dealing with each.
Step three: Do you deride people for making slightly inaccurate statements and correct them with totally false ones?
From a Catallarchy post:In 1997, foreigners held 38% of US Treasury securities, so it's ridiculous to assert that the national debt is owed only "to ourselves". However, in the late 1990s anyway, Japan was the only major Asian creditor of the United States, second in the world to the United Kingdom. Further, national debt isn't like a future tax increase, because as long as the economy keeps growing the cost of existing debt will continually shrink relative to government revenue. Further, debt incurred that actually has the effect of spurring the economy (such as Reagan's deficits in the 1980s) can be said to be the equivalent of a tax cut.The U.S. government has a very large deficit. That means it's spending more than it's collecting. That means it has to borrow from investors - both foreign and domestic. At some point this money will have to be repaid. That's the key fact. It means that any "tax cut" is really just Uncle Sam borrowing from Asia, to pay-off the electorate. Sooner or later he'll have to tax the electorate to repay those loans. It's like a delayed tax, with a much nicer name.NEWSFLASH: We owe the debt to ourselves. It's no big deal. Get over it.
Step four: Use the Civil War as an example of how "war is never the answer".
Thanks to this federal holiday as a reminder, we will never forget the loss of nearly a million fellow Americans to death and injury, including innocent non-combatants, in a war waged by Mr. Lincoln. War is never the answer.Never ever ever? Even to free an entire people from the shackles of slavery? Even to prevent millions from being gassed and turned into soap? What if the evil Americans come barging in to steal your oil or take away your slaves? Should you fight then?
Anyway, there's plenty more, but I'm losing interest.
Update:
I lied.
Step five: Did you fail Reading Comprehension 101?
More on this lovely little subject: Francis Fukuyama (a Japanese Neoconservative?) writes: ". . . the chief threats to us and to world order come today from weak, collapsed, or failed states." Actually, "strong" states caused millions of deaths in the 20th Century. I'm not sure how that fact escapes Fukuyama's attention.Hence Mr. Fukuyama's use of the word "today". His entire point is that the international paradigm is changing.
Step six: Are you completely ignorant of history?
Can someone email me (or counterblog) an example of a successful "nation-building" effort? I'd like to review the empirical evidence. Thanks.Japan, Germany, and France after World War 2. You're welcome.
As far as democracies fighting one another, I had a (liberal) college professor state flat-out that two liberal democracies have never gone to war against one another. The anti-West class tried to rebut him talking about how all these wars were "started" by democracies... but the professor's original point remained beyond reproach. Not even a class full of motivated Guevaraheads could find a counterexample.
So do you just have to commit one of these steps to be an idiot or is there a certain number that certifies a person as one? ;)
Oh wait -- I can already see your next update. Step seven: Asking how many steps it takes to be an idiot.
Ha, ha, ha. Have a fun weekend.
Petra: Aw shoot, you undermined my clever retort by saying it yourself.
Even to free an entire people from the shackles of slavery?
Emancipation was a result of, not a cause of, the War of Northern Agression.
Northern aggression?
Hey, if you want to leave the country that's fine... you just aren't allowed to take the land with you when you go.
you just aren't allowed to take the land with you when you go.
Haven't you ever heard of states rights ?
The "War of Northern Aggression" would be a less silly-sounding term if it weren't for the fact that the Confederates fired first, at Fort Sumter.
Good post, Michael.
By the way, America created the nation of Panama.
It also built the nation of Liberia.
It helped build The Phillipines into a nation.
If Puerto Rico were ever to attain independence--which is mostly up to the Puerto Ricans--it would be another example of a successful nation-building effort.
Here's an interesting question: can anyone point to a failed nation-building effort by the U.S.? I'm tempted to point to Haiti, inasmuch as we've helped set up governments there more than once, and the place has never managed to be anything but a chamber of horrors, no matter what we or anyone else does.
Dean,
I would point out that in all the nation-building exercises in Haiti they have failed because whomever has gone a-nation building there has simply latched on to one of several groups of thugs and backed them - never once has anyone gone in there, shot and/or arrested all of the thugs, and then let the non-thugs sort it all out...this, by the way, is what we're doing in Iraq so we'll soon have some empiracle evidence if thug-shooting is a necessary pre-requisite to nation building.
Michael,
Excellent post - to be sure, people with an axe to grind (idiots, that is) tend to simply ignore what doesn't fit into the worldview...trying to argue them out of their position is akin to trying to argue someone out of believing Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy...
France may not be the best example of "Successful" nation building. :)
Other than that you're right on.
I sometimes wish the North had succesfully revolted against the South for trying to impose slavery on the North. States should be able to peacefully secede from the Union. Counties should be able to peacefully split from their state and cities from their counties. Slavery is, was and will be wrong, and I'm glad my side (I'm from Kansas) won, but you can't say the South was wrong to revolt unless you say the colonies were wrong to revolt. This is a dilemma upon whose horns I hang.
Yours,
Wince
Another Idiotic Move:
Comparing anyone who didn't specifically and strategically plan and execute a program to murder an entire ethnic group of innocent people, with Adolph Hitler
Removing the one key trait that defines Hitler, specifically, removes the validity of any analogy using him as a comparison.
Argumentum Ad Hitlerum
Thanks for the comments, everyone!
W&N: I don't agree with you at all. Should I be able to take my house and create my own nation with my 5000 square feet at will? Nice theory, but it wouldn't work in practice. The majority needs to have some justified power to coerce the minority.
Micheal,
I didn't say individuals could secede. But there should be well recognized Constitutional procedures for political units to both split apart and join.
If a super majority (say 75%, 66% or 60%) of the citizens of New Hampshire vote to leave the US, for example, I say, let 'em go. To me, we can only argue about the percentages. Certainly, if 100% of the citizens of New Hampshire want to leave we should let them, don't you think?
Would you rather make war on New Hampshire?
As a different example I live in a metropolitan area (Kansas City) divided almost exactly in half by a state line. Suppose the overwhelming consensus here was that we would be better off with Kansas City as the capital of our own state. Shouldn't there be a process by which we could acheive that end? And why should people in Hutchinson (Kansas), Branson (Missouri) or even Chicago have anything to say about it?
BTW, these questions are not completely rhetorical. Answers are greatly appreciated.
Yours,
Wince
W&N: You said counties, cities, and so forth. Why not individuals? Do cities and counties and states have more deterministic power than individuals do?
As for the rest, there is an established Constitutional process, it's called an "amendment". If you want to change states around that's even easier, since Article IV of the Constitution allows for state legislatures and Congress to work together to change state boundaries.
If a state wants to leave the Union, even if 100% of the state is in agreement, then I would certainly go to war to stop them, yes. Individuals are free to leave, but the people in a given state don't have sole control of the land they're living on, it belongs to the United States. If your son or daughter wanted to leave your family, would you let them take their bedroom along? Of course not, even if you let them carry off all the stuff you'd bought them.
States gave up their complete soverignty when they ratified the Constitution, along with all the restrictions therein.
Michael,
When the political situation becomes intolerable you want New Hampshire to use bullets, not ballots, and even a 100% vote would not do it? Sounds like statism, not liberty. I am completely stunned by your response, and find your reasons wholly inadequate to your position. I maintain that people should have liberty, and that includes the liberty to 'bring along' the land they love. How do you justify the American Revolution? I've read estimates that only 33% of the populace supported it.
Yours,
Wince
W&N: As with torture, use the tool of revolution at your own peril. If you win, you may bring about a better tomorrow, but that doesn't entitle you to win and it doesn't mean others should be prevented from punishing you if you fail.
A scenario in which New Hampshire were so disaffected with the rest of the country that they wanted to leave it would presuppose symmetrical feelings by the rest of us, naturally leading to bloodshed rather than debate.
It's pointless to debate the morality of revolution because the point of revolution is to overthrow the existing system.
Tenth amendment... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Just as we have the right to peaceably assemble, we also reserve the right to peacebly disassemble.
Michael- Where in the constitution did the states lose the right to secede if they determinined it to be in the best interests of its citizens? Where is this clause of irrevocability? This right was reserved to the states until it was forcibly removed at the hands of the northern states.
gaw: Again, look at Article IV, Section 3. "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."
I agree there's room for interpretation, but the precedent was set in 1864.
Michael,
Naturally leading to bloodshed? Odd that the Czechs and the Slovaks can peacefully split up without bloodshed. Odd that Quebec has been holding referendums to leave Canada, which the Canadian government gives every appearance of being willing to accept.
Let me change my approach. Consider a bill before Congress, citing Article IV, Section 3, which allowed states to leave the union if they passed a popular referendum with a 66% supermajority. I would support such a bill as a proper expression of my belief in liberty. Would you? Why or why not?
Yours,
Wince
quite obviously in regards to your original statement (the 20th century and it's wars)
Power was/is given to the wrong people who can only think about pain and cruelty and the big one MONEY
not minds, people and lives......
I know this is obvious and redundant but most humans with a shred of intellect or evolved set of morals UNDERSTANDS and for "some reason" is left out of the real decision making process as it stands today. (Mostly the younger people 20-35) seem to have a good idea about what it is all about here......? but what do I know.
Stu: If power is "given" (that is, delegated) to the wrong people, it's the fault of the voters, who thus get the government they deserve. Young people don't vote very much, and tend to not have any idea about how the real world works.