On 2002-03-06 21:11, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
On 2002-03-06 14:43, voltronx wrote:
On 2002-02-21 23:46, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.
Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.
If Germany or Japan stepped up to first place instead, would the whole place be so weak that a dictator took over? It just doesn't follow.
It wouldn't necessarily happen immediately, but it would happen, unless the civilized powers were sufficiently well armed (and also self-disciplined, to refrain from throwing the power around as bullies themsleves) to prevent it.
Further, in order to step up to #1, those powers would have to do many of the things America has done. America's status is not an accident.
Back at the turn of the century when London was at the top of the world, did a dictator immediately pop up because the U.S. wasn't ahead of the U.K.?
Of course not. I didn't say that only the U.S. could prevent dictatorship. I said that dictatorship is only prevented by civilized people being more powerful than would be dictators.
London, today, can not occupy the role it did 100 years ago. No single European country can. They aren't wealthy and populous enough, by themselves, though in combination that could change.
Today, the only civilized nation powerful enough to act directly on a global scale is America. Europe collectively could do so in theory, but they are not yet ready to turn theory into practice.
Did a dictator take over in the eighteenth century when France was at the height of the world?
Though he was far from the worst ever, Napoloen Bonoparte was indeed a relatively civilized prototype of the modern post-Enlightenment style dictator.
At that time, technology levels were such that no autocrat or dictatorial government could threaten the entire world at once, anyway. That situation is now changed.
And how about the Renaissance, when America had barely been discovered? Would Italy fall immediately because it was second to a nation that Westerners hadn't even colonized? Once you start thinking about that, the argument becomes utterly nonsensical.
True, because that's not my argument.
Most other developed countries are, in fact, more developed and enlightened than we are, in every conceivable way (because, of course, they don't have a red zone).
Eric, there are times when you show signs of living in a fantasy world so deep it's scary.
I'd like you to show me some. Obviously, you couldn't have been referring to this last quote of his, because this ain't one of them. Eric says these other countries are more enlightened and developed than America because they ARE more enlightened and developed than America!
America is
ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same.
This is baloney. European countries have none of the crap believed in in the U.S. that declares sexuality a sin.
Right-wing churches find themselves unable to buy the countries' legislatures.
No, instead left-wing environmentalist groups buy the legislatures, to the degree they are bought. In neither America nor Europe is the legislative power entirely bought and paid for.
None of them are allowed to prosecute homosexuality and in fact the EU forced the U.K. to rid itself of laws on homosexuality that were discriminatory a few years ago. You go to a European beach and no women are getting arrested for not including a top on their bathing suit. You listen to someone talking about their stay in Europe and they're always, "Ahh, they're more tolerant", "Aaah, it's so much more open-minded than America", "The people are freer". All but two of the EU countries have higher life expectancies than America, they're ahead of the U.S. in life expectancy. The literacy rates even get higher; America does not top the world in the ability of its adults to read, folks. The figures would make it look third-world in education if placed next to Switzerland or Norway. Did Europe start a Vietnam?
As a matter of fact, Europe
did start Vietnam. The Vietnam mess was created in lage part by French mismanagement of their colonial empire, followed by a desperate effort to hang on to the remnants after that empire had begun to disintegrate.
As for the rest, you're basically asserting that being left-wing makes you more enlightened. This has not been established by objective evidence.
If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and
only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternative possibilities.
Wrongo-bongo. When in its entire postwar development of "the more enlightened society" has Europe been beaten up on?
The primary reason for their peaceful status is the United States of America. NATO was in large part an alliance based on the protection of Europe through the threat of American retaliation. America's military power purchased Europe the peace and quiet to build their social model.
Or, as one French military officer put, in a possibly apocryphal attribution: "NATO exists to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Soviets out."
Also, I didn't see any suggestion of Eric's that America "be removed from the picture". Only that America didn't have to be the Hamburger Head Honcho, round-'em-up USA-hooray Numero Uno. Is Germany out of the picture? No.
If America stops being top dog, then a power struggle automatically ensues for the new top dog. The question of who would win is interesting, but unclear.
All too true!
If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way.
Then how about not having the Red Zone compromise ase at all? That's always an option.
The Red Zone has compromised extensively steadily for decades, and of late has basically said "no more". Blue must yield something before Red will voluntarily give any more ground than they already have.
There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.
Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules
This is absolutely true. No one here is pushing for a society without rules against murder, without rules against rape, etc. But the rules America has (and even other nations to a lesser degree -- or greater, for certain undeveloped nations) are based on a sexual puritanism, punish people for choices about what drugs to put into their own body, punish the unconventional in general or get people arrested for things that are barely even recognized as crimes on bases like "disturbing the peace", etc. ... or discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, complexion or sexual orientation. What's objctively morally wrong is the holding down of these rules against actions that are not objectively morally wrong.
How do you know they're not morally wrong, with resort to an act of faith?
Eric, the world you dream of is
impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.
I don't see any law of physics or mathematics that would make it impossible. No Malthusian or economical or biological principles that would do it either.
It isn't a law of physics, but the near-constants of human nature that stand in the way. Maybe human nature
should be more flexible and malleable than it is, but 4500 years of recorded history says it isn't.
It took a big push to get most people out of their racism... but they've done it, in many parts of the world. With a little push and people forcing them to change, much of the intolerant stubbornness in people's attitudes would go away in the not-so-distant future.
No, it wasn't a 'little push' that got rid of racism, it was exposure to other races, on a daily basis, day after day after day. The effort to overcome racism didn't start in the sixties, it started before the Revolutionary War in spots, and continues today.
So much of what's preventing a utopia is learned. And if we unlearn and prevent certain unenlightened attitudes from being passed on to future generations, we will be able to get rid of them.
Who has the authority to decide what constitutes an 'unenlightened attitude'?
Further, what means are permissible to 'prevent' these attitudes from being passed on?
That is the very
crux of the objections of the Red Zone to your grand plans!
Utopia remains impossible in this world. Historically, attempts to achieve it have almost invariably ended either in a rapid and rather pathetic break-up, or massive bloodshed. I know of no exceptions to this rule.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-06 21:20 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-06 21:25 ]</font>
At this conference, I've heard speakers from the Union, Congressional Representatives, Senators, and Administration spokespeople. What everyone has done is use the 911 attacks to support their position.