Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:14:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
569 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes
<snip>
> The fact that we have greater resources and greater technologies with which
> to manage those resources today means that an entangled alliance now is not
> the same as it was in Jefferson's time.
Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it
was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made
WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary
flexing muscle in the Balkans. So I think the notion of entanglement is not
about ability to project power, but rather the implication of what it means
to be *committed* to do so.
That said, I'm not sure where I'm going with that so may just try to let it
rest to focus on the sanctions part, below, which is much juicier...
> > None of those are what I would call a bad sort of dominance.
>
> That was poor message-stacking on my part. I was replying to Dan's
> statement without distinguishing it from yours.
And I was mostly just agreeing with you. I don't see anything wrong with one
nation (country, or person) having more influence, more wealth, etc. than
another if it was obtained fairly.
> Agreed--this is a murky area in which no answer is proof against "yeah,
> but." I would say that the the absolute hands-off attitude professed by
> some is reprehensible, but I don't have a clear-cut answer of when
> involvement is appropriate.
Me either. Not even "I know it when I see it."
> Let me rephrase: If Nation A, as one entity, imposes sanctions against
> Nation B, as another entity, such that those sanctions cause harm to
> innocent individuals in nation B, how is this different from the citizens of
> Nation A, as one body, imposing sanctions (in the form of purchase boycott)
> upon Corporation A, such that those sanctions cause harm to innocent
> employees of Corporation A? The degree of harm will vary, certainly, but
> are the two types of sanctioning different in kind? I'm not really
> interested in buy-cigars-and-go-to-jail issues, since these are subordinate
> to, and do not address, the larger issue of harm to innocents in the
> sanctioned nation.
Excuse me for being dense but I still don't see the question. Sanction
imposition by a government is not something I generally support, whether it
is against an individual company or an entire nation. So no, I suppose those
sorts of sanctioning are not different in kind. I thought we were talking
about national sanctions vs individually organized boycotts, which I think
ARE different in kind... (do you?)
Speaking of not exactly sanctions, I find it rather laughable that CalPers
(I think it was) just aced its retirees out of .5B dollars by divesting
Phillip Morris in a snit of moral indignation just in time to miss a nice
runup. If I was a retiree covered by CalPers I'd be miffed. Makes a strong
argument against any watery privatization of the SS trust fund that has
government stock pickers, hmm???
> > ++Lar
>
> As an aside, if I address or refer to you within a paragraph, should I
> call you Lar, ++Lar, or Larry?
The increment is an operator, a preface for the sig, not part of the
identifier/name. (it's really just an old gag on Todd signing his name
--Todd that stuck....) Should I be reciprocally leaving off the bang then too?
ADD 1 to LAR. (is that better?? :-) )
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) The meaning of alliance in 1914 was already different than that in the 1780s. The point in 1914 that caused the war was very simply and plainly--as several recent studies and unearthed documents have confirmed--that the German leadership (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes (...) As is the ability to keep tabs with one's home nation in microseconds rather than months. The reason I mention this, and the reason I basically reject the "entangled alliances" caution, is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
