Subject:
|
'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 May 2005 02:12:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
848 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
<snip>
| |
Its a tricky thing.
There’s no doubt that the world is more stable with less nuclear weapons.
And there is a good argument that (Western) countries with much to lose are
less likely to use these weapons. Its only places or people with not much
to lose or the real prospect of losing everything that find these weapons
attractive.
|
|
Richard is right as far as he goes, where he falls down is in his
prescription for how to change countries to be free...
|
Mmmmm. A truly American assumption that my ‘prescription’ was designed to
change these countries to be free, but not what I was driving at. I have read
it again, and I can’t see that in what I said.
Besides, I think its been discussed even here at length that trying to ‘change a
country to be free’ from the outside is fraught, and historically has a low rate
of enduring success. That said, even if I was looking to make countries free,
folks need to seize their freedom. By far most of the enduring democracies did.
If one looks at the factors that gave rise to a people siezing their freedom, it
is often around things that depend on wealth and living standards - these are
indeed part of what I am driving at. These are the things that enable people to
look up, and strive. These are also the things that make governments more long
term in their thinking and more accountable for their activities, even if the
countries are not free in the American sense.
Regardless, its not democracy that makes countries sensible in their use of
nuclear weapons (if we can assume for the moment, against the evidence, that we
can treat the US, UK, France, USSR and China say, as sensible users of nuclear
weapons), its their wealth and power, their opportunity to achieve at least
reasonable outcomes in line with their aspirations by non-nuclear means.
Leaving countries poor, isolated, powerless, at the mercy of other countries
national interest, and with a real risk of invasion hanging over their heads is
what leads to actions that the wealthy think of as irresponsible.
This is what we ought to be addressing, and my humble list is only a short
incomplete summary of what can be done, if only we want to.
But I do appreciate that its much more heroic and makes for much better coverage
on Fox news to be sallying forth with force of arms and economic sanctions to
rescue the poor oppressed many from the brutal wealthy few, and deliver them
Freedom.
Never mind that western living standards are built on the broken backs of these
same poor oppressed many, or that there are plenty of poor oppressed many held
down by a wealthy few even in our own home countries, or even that there is
little or no reason to suspect that these heroic efforts will do any good at all
(beyond supporting the aforesaid western living standards).
And while we’re watching the glorious coverage of the heroic efforts, we can
skip the stories about how we are gobbling up the very resources that our
children and the poor oppressed many we’re going to save will need tomorrow (if
we ever succeed in saving them).
Its very neat, and hangs to gether wonderfully if you don’t think too hard.
In the meantime, I understand that its Driving season in the US (something we
just don’t seem to have here), so there’ll be plenty of cheap gasoline,
amusement park rides and supersized meals to be consumed to while away the
hours.
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
29 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
|
|
|
|
