Subject:
|
Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:35:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
460 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > >
> > > > So by what rationality would *you* use for saying that some countries are
> > > > superior to other countries?
> > >
> > > Quality of life that they delliver to their citizens, and, more importantly,
> > > that they're likely to deliver to their citizens in future.
> > >
> > > It's not about size, it's not about population, it's not about military
> > > might, it's not about resources, it's about the system of government and the
> > > morals of the people.
> > >
> > > I have no qualms at all saying that we are superior to (for example) DPRK,
> > > our people are more free and are able to keep more of what their labor earns
> > > them.
> >
> > So you couldn't find fault with, then, the idea that Canada is superior to
> > America, because, as polls show, we have a better quality of life than
> > America--we were number 1, and are now number 3, after all...
>
> I'm not here (in this thread) to assert that we're the very best. It's just
> clear to me that some countries *are* better than others. I gave an example
> of a country that's clearly toward the bottom so that there could be no
> quibbling about the truth of the assertion that some are better than others,
> not because I think we're *just barely* better than the country I cited.
>
> Do you agree that the US is superior to DPRK? I'd like a simple yes or no to
> that question, please.
>
> I don't care to debate whether US or CA is currently better unless you're
> a) prepared to concede that some countries are better than others, in
> contravention to your statement that there is no such possible ranking; and
Again, I would say that a *country* is on an even playfield with any other
country where international relations is concerned. One country imposing
itself on another sovereign country because they feel they're 'better' is
unjust. What goes on inside a country is a different matter
alltogether--I'd rather live in, well, Canada than in North Korea. So
there's where I would differentiate--internationally, all countries have, or
should have, equal voice. Internally is a completely different matter. But
we're talking *international* politics, and the might of one country forcing
its "morality" amd will on another country, now aren't we?
> b) ready to use my metric, or have another one you would use instead that
> you can get me to agree is valid; and
> c) prepared to discuss how likely it is that " more importantly, that
> they're likely to deliver to their citizens in future." is true (the second
> part of my metric) about Canada. It's not enough to be ahead at the moment.
I think, in the grand scheme of history, and even today, we (Canada) have
proven ourselves "morally superior" to the USA. Where did the black people
flee to a la 'underground railroad'? Who didn't have to fire a shot or kill
anyone to get independance? What about health care? But that's just me
going on about how great it is to be Canadian. And by the way, we ain't
perfect up here, either ;)
> But the relative merits of US and Canada are not that important to me,
> they're both certainly in the top quarter, if not the top 10% or even the
> top 5 countries...
And what I wanted you to realize is that it really does come down to how you
define "Better", doesn't it? By *our* standards of morality and ideals, we
*could* say that we are superior to North Korea, but as you're so fond of
pointing out in debates of a religious kind, morality is a *personal* trait.
We talked about this when you were of the opinion that if your wife found a
better lover elsewhere, she should go, no qualms or moral issues (that is,
iirc the debate a long time ago).
So what happens when your country's "moral" values conflict with mine? I
like how JC finally adhered to something he said, "We won't be fighting in
this war unless it's UN sanctioned" and he still gets lambasted for it. I
like how folks point to France, Germany and Russia and shout "ulterior
motives" and question their "morality" when they don't want this war, yet
other countries, such as, well, mine, said the same thing--but that goes
ignored because our "morals" in this particualr case aren't questionable.
It's apparent that there are Iraqis who are fighting to keep their regime,
in the face of solid opposition. I sit here and say what they're fighting
for is reprehensible, but nonetheless, they are fighting for it. Should we
continue the fight? Absolutely (now that it's started).
But it's these shades of gray, and the ways in which we deal with them. If
we ignore a "worse" country because it supplies our needs and wants, but
attack a "not so worse" country because it doesn't supply our needs and
wants, I think that's moral wishy washyness at it's best (or worse).
I also believe that, now that all these counties exist, that one country
going up to another one and say, "We don't like how you're managing your
affairs--change or we'll invade" is arrogant presumption. What if the
'commies' had prevailed? What if Germany had at least maintained their hold
and beaten off the allies? Then they could say that their way is better to
such and such country and "change or else!".
This is why I have such a problem with John's stance--"We're in this because
we're better than they are".
Well, that's not why you should be fighting a war. If this was a "moral" or
"just" war, the only reason for the war is that the Iraqi people said "We've
had enuf of this tinpot dictator and we need help overthrowing him".
But they didn't ask, and the US, or the 'coalition of the willing',
arbitrarily decided to impose their value system on Iraq.
Every reason given for the war--
defend America--false
WoMD--no need for war
Stop Terrorism--read the articles coming out of the Arab nations furious
about this war and tell me that terrorism isn't going to increase
UN Res. 1441--then this should be a UN led war.
Liberate Iraq--they didn't ask, and the history of US "liberation" of other
counties leaves very much to be desired.
Seriously, by what right do you presume to violate borders? Because you're
morally 'superior' to them? That's no justification for a war. That's also
no justificatino to tell a country they have to stop something that you
don't like. That would be like these 'Bible Thumpers" yelling at folks not
to have abortions and shooting abortion doctors.
The ideals that you hold so dear--democracy, is based on the idea that we
all have the same voice, the same status--and yet, outside your borders, how
you treat other countries lets them know, in no uncertain terms, (again as
John and you continue to point out) that America is superior.
So we're back to throwing away our ideals when it get's a little difficult
to live within them. John should realize, as a Christian, that these ideals
that we try to live in shouldn't be ignored when it's inconvenient. You
should realise that you're self imposed libertarian morality also says we're
all pretty much equal and should all be accuntable to the same rules,
whether within the borders of the US or outside those borders.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Break Out the Cristal
|
| (...) Indeed. But there is enough Scottish blood in Canada to make it almost perfect. ;) (...) ...and how much of your "top quarter" supported a 2nd resolution? How much supports the current illegal conflict in Iraq? (...) Indeed, and it was those (...) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
79 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
