Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

General political discussion thread

1,180 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#91

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:06 AM

I find that "liberal interventionism" stuff utterly baffling. When has the West been interested in fighting to "improve lives abroad"? We've overthrown more democratically elected leaders than we've supported; we've supported more dictators than we've opposed. Look at Libya: the West supported Gaddafi for literally as long as it was possible, we only started talking about how we need to bring people freedom and get him out of power when it became clear that he was going to die.

  • Simone L likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#92

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:20 AM

 

 

 

 

How could you punish criminals with no government? No justice system, etc.? Could someone enlighten me?

 

 

 

 

[snip]

 

The issue with private police and courts is that they're generally only found in unindustrialised societies. Most of Europe relied on private police prior to the industrial revolution, but that only succeeded because all goods were artisan goods and couldn't be fenced. Industrialisation brought standardised (non-artisan) goods; stealing became so easy that organised crime was born and societal violence changed as well. Public police and courts mainly arose because of this.

 

 

 

I just recently watched a video regarding private police and private justice systems. While I don't agree with most of it, it had an idea which I believe could be useful: making those who are prosecuted foot the bill for their crimes and for the resources used to convict/prosecute/defend the offender/victim. I don't think it would be a good idea to have murderers, rapists, or those who commit assault/other violent crimes pay a bill and be released, but other minor offenses could be subject to this. 

 

Any thoughts?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#93

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:24 AM

 

I just recently watched a video regarding private police and private justice systems. While I don't agree with most of it, it had an idea which I believe could be useful: making those who are prosecuted foot the bill for their crimes and for the resources used to convict/prosecute/defend the offender/victim. I don't think it would be a good idea to have murderers, rapists, or those who commit assault/other violent crimes pay a bill and be released, but other minor offenses could be subject to this. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

You mean like... a fine? :dontgetit:


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#94

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:28 AM

 

 

I just recently watched a video regarding private police and private justice systems. While I don't agree with most of it, it had an idea which I believe could be useful: making those who are prosecuted foot the bill for their crimes and for the resources used to convict/prosecute/defend the offender/victim. I don't think it would be a good idea to have murderers, rapists, or those who commit assault/other violent crimes pay a bill and be released, but other minor offenses could be subject to this. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

You mean like... a fine? :dontgetit:

 

I don't believe fines cover the cost of the victim/alleged offender's defense/prosecution. 


Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#95

Posted 10 January 2014 - 08:04 AM Edited by Melchior, 10 January 2014 - 08:08 AM.

As for the question of anarchist law and order, there are a lot of ideas. These range from the Typhus-esque like exile to the more agreeable "juries and humane rehabilitation" that most rational people support. Not far off from the current system, but it lacks the injustice of having white, privileged law school graduates deciding the fate of poor people who turn to crime. No actual anarchist supports replacing the police with Blackwater. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#96

Posted 10 January 2014 - 08:19 AM

 

 

 

I just recently watched a video regarding private police and private justice systems. While I don't agree with most of it, it had an idea which I believe could be useful: making those who are prosecuted foot the bill for their crimes and for the resources used to convict/prosecute/defend the offender/victim. I don't think it would be a good idea to have murderers, rapists, or those who commit assault/other violent crimes pay a bill and be released, but other minor offenses could be subject to this. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

You mean like... a fine? :dontgetit:

 

 

I don't believe fines cover the cost of the victim/alleged offender's defense/prosecution. 

 

 

They don't, but I sense that Melc would probably have a moral objection on the basis that the majority of people who are convicted in criminal courts are poor and therefore such a policy would accentuate the downward spiral of poverty and offending.

  • Frank Brown likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#97

Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:48 AM

 

They don't, but I sense that Melc would probably have a moral objection on the basis that the majority of people who are convicted in criminal courts are poor and therefore such a policy would accentuate the downward spiral of poverty and offending.

 

That, and it sounds like a horribly  broken, classist system. So what if you can't pay the fine? If not jail, do you spend the rest of your life in massive debt to your victim? And further, it sounds just like the private medieval law and order in Europe where you could basically kill whoever you want as long as you can afford to buy his widow a farm and some livestock.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#98

Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:54 AM

 

 

They don't, but I sense that Melc would probably have a moral objection on the basis that the majority of people who are convicted in criminal courts are poor and therefore such a policy would accentuate the downward spiral of poverty and offending.

 

That, and it sounds like a horribly  broken, classist system. So what if you can't pay the fine? If not jail, do you spend the rest of your life in massive debt to your victim? And further, it sounds just like the private medieval law and order in Europe where you could basically kill whoever you want as long as you can afford to buy his widow a farm and some livestock.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just recently watched a video regarding private police and private justice systems. While I don't agree with most of it, it had an idea which I believe could be useful: making those who are prosecuted foot the bill for their crimes and for the resources used to convict/prosecute/defend the offender/victim. I don't think it would be a good idea to have murderers, rapists, or those who commit assault/other violent crimes pay a bill and be released, but other minor offenses could be subject to this. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

You mean like... a fine? :dontgetit:

 

 

I don't believe fines cover the cost of the victim/alleged offender's defense/prosecution. 

 

 

They don't, but I sense that Melc would probably have a moral objection on the basis that the majority of people who are convicted in criminal courts are poor and therefore such a policy would accentuate the downward spiral of poverty and offending.

 

 

It will probably be more sensible when the lawyers stop charging hundreds/thousands of dollars per hour.

 

See: Never.


El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#99

Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:24 PM Edited by El Zilcho, 11 January 2014 - 04:55 PM.

I find that "liberal interventionism" stuff utterly baffling. When has the West been interested in fighting to "improve lives abroad"? We've overthrown more democratically elected leaders than we've supported; we've supported more dictators than we've opposed. Look at Libya: the West supported Gaddafi for literally as long as it was possible, we only started talking about how we need to bring people freedom and get him out of power when it became clear that he was going to die.

Just because the West can be seen as hypocritical, supportive of appalling regimes, etc. doesn't mean that those are grounds for never intervening at all. I would ask you to note a country in history that has been morally pure in all its foreign policy actions, and if you cannot, I would ask you whether you think countries can still do good? If you see that the West has the power to stop human rights' abuses, as it certainly does, then noting the dark days of foreign policy is still no rationale to avoid helping in the present.

 

Likewise, although in the real world humanitarian causes are frequently sidelined, or only acted upon when strategic or economic ones run parallel to them, this does not mean the underlying principle of intervening to protect people's liberty and livelihood is false. Only its practice, or lack of practice, is.

  • Failure likes this

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#100

Posted 11 January 2014 - 05:33 PM

I think labels are bad. "Conservative" "Liberal" "Republican" "Democrat", they're all bad. They make it seem as though you HAVE to be one or the other, as if there is no middle ground. And, ofc, they lead to having two extremes controlling our government. Democrats and Republicans rarely agree on an issue, which is complete BS. If you want your candidate to win, you need to vote for one of the two extremes, and in doing so, you support not only that which you value, but a dozen of things you don't as well. I think either political parties need to be done away with altogether or there needs to be an intervention to allow other parties into the mix.

 

I'm as independent as you can get. I think both sides present a close-minded, moronic view of the world. I think republicans are cruel and selfish, and I think democrats are naive and self-righteous.

 

I support, above all:

  • A mixed economy. Capitalism with a few socialist policies to keep it humane.
  • Democracy. The people should tell the government what to do, not the other way around. We the people.
  • Freedom of speech, religion, etc. f*ck censorship.

When voting, though, I will vote based on the candidate's views on civil rights issues. I overlook pretty much everything else, as I believe those issues define the person's character. If the candidate is against either a comprehensive immigration reform or gay marriage, I'm not voting for them. Throughout a good deal of ballots I've participated in, I've often found myself agreeing more with one guy in most issues, but putting my support for the other guy based on his support of those type of issues.

 

However, I do think that sometimes, they go too far. For example, back in my old high school, they were trying to implement a rule that says that people who identified as a certain gender would be able to go into the bathrooms and locker rooms of that gender. So, if a guy said he identified as a female, he would be able to just walk into the girl's locker room and bathroom. Oh, AND you had to call them whatever name they wanted. I thought that was a load of sh*t. There was also an issue in California a year or two ago after the Affirmative Action to give work permits to DREAMERs rolled out: some of them were complaining to lawmakers that they couldn't pay the fees -- literally, $400, i.e., a week or week and a half of work. That's just pure and utter f*cking laziness. You have an opportunity, take it, don't f*cking ask for handouts.

 

Whelp, now I'm rambling. So how about that Scarlett Johansson, huh? Amirite guise? Yeeeaaahhhhhh

  • I<3GTAV likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#101

Posted 11 January 2014 - 06:48 PM

I support, above all:

  • A mixed economy. Capitalism with a few socialist policies to keep it humane.
  • Democracy. The people should tell the government what to do, not the other way around. We the people.
  • Freedom of speech, religion, etc. f*ck censorship.

 

Do you support direct democracy, our current republican form of government, or something else? And should hate speech be allowed? 


DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#102

Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:00 PM Edited by DeafMetal, 11 January 2014 - 08:03 PM.

 

I support, above all:

  • A mixed economy. Capitalism with a few socialist policies to keep it humane.
  • Democracy. The people should tell the government what to do, not the other way around. We the people.
  • Freedom of speech, religion, etc. f*ck censorship.

 

Do you support direct democracy, our current republican form of government, or something else? And should hate speech be allowed? 

 

I think our government's incompetent enough just keeping up with the republic we have right now, so I'd say we keep it this way. However, that's not to say that improvements can't be made. We could make the popular vote count towards more. We could make the people a lot more involved in the choosing of electors, and make it a lot more publicized.

 

And yes. However, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech entails that the government can't punish me for expressing my opinions. If someone calls the president a dipsh*t, Obama can't have him arrested. However, if that person goes up to a boxer and calls him a dipsh*t, the boxer has the right to call him a dipsh*t back or, hell, use him as a punching bag, though the latter is likely to get him into a conversation with the local sheriff.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#103

Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:05 PM

 

 

I support, above all:

  • A mixed economy. Capitalism with a few socialist policies to keep it humane.
  • Democracy. The people should tell the government what to do, not the other way around. We the people.
  • Freedom of speech, religion, etc. f*ck censorship.

 

Do you support direct democracy, our current republican form of government, or something else? And should hate speech be allowed? 

 

I think our government's incompetent enough just keeping up with the republic we have right now, so I'd say we keep it this way. However, that's not to say that improvements can't be made. We could make the popular vote count towards more. We could make the people a lot more involved in the choosing of electors, and make it a lot more publicized.

 

And yes. However, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech entails that the government can't punish me for expressing my opinions. If someone calls the president a dipsh*t, Obama can't have him arrested. However, if that person goes up to a boxer and calls him a dipsh*t, the boxer has the right to call him a dipsh*t back or, hell, use him as a punching bag, though the latter is likely to get him into a conversation with the local sheriff.

 

 

I don't know if I can agree with you about the boxer. I don't think insults are a valid excuse for violence. If it's a verbal threat, I could understand, but calling someone a dipsh*t just doesn't seem to warrant a violent reaction, in my opinion.


DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#104

Posted 11 January 2014 - 09:22 PM

Just an example.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#105

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:19 AM

 

I find that "liberal interventionism" stuff utterly baffling. When has the West been interested in fighting to "improve lives abroad"? We've overthrown more democratically elected leaders than we've supported; we've supported more dictators than we've opposed. Look at Libya: the West supported Gaddafi for literally as long as it was possible, we only started talking about how we need to bring people freedom and get him out of power when it became clear that he was going to die.

Just because the West can be seen as hypocritical, supportive of appalling regimes, etc. doesn't mean that those are grounds for never intervening at all. I would ask you to note a country in history that has been morally pure in all its foreign policy actions, and if you cannot, I would ask you whether you think countries can still do good? If you see that the West has the power to stop human rights' abuses, as it certainly does, then noting the dark days of foreign policy is still no rationale to avoid helping in the present.

 

Likewise, although in the real world humanitarian causes are frequently sidelined, or only acted upon when strategic or economic ones run parallel to them, this does not mean the underlying principle of intervening to protect people's liberty and livelihood is false. Only its practice, or lack of practice, is.

 

Oh sorry, you mean your ideal society intervenes to spread democracy and liberalism. I thought you were defending the current system as one that spreads those ideals. I was thrown off by the fact that, when discussing their ideal society, people don't normally include consistent use of violence as a foreign policy.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#106

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:38 AM

 

 

I find that "liberal interventionism" stuff utterly baffling. When has the West been interested in fighting to "improve lives abroad"? We've overthrown more democratically elected leaders than we've supported; we've supported more dictators than we've opposed. Look at Libya: the West supported Gaddafi for literally as long as it was possible, we only started talking about how we need to bring people freedom and get him out of power when it became clear that he was going to die.

Just because the West can be seen as hypocritical, supportive of appalling regimes, etc. doesn't mean that those are grounds for never intervening at all. I would ask you to note a country in history that has been morally pure in all its foreign policy actions, and if you cannot, I would ask you whether you think countries can still do good? If you see that the West has the power to stop human rights' abuses, as it certainly does, then noting the dark days of foreign policy is still no rationale to avoid helping in the present.

 

Likewise, although in the real world humanitarian causes are frequently sidelined, or only acted upon when strategic or economic ones run parallel to them, this does not mean the underlying principle of intervening to protect people's liberty and livelihood is false. Only its practice, or lack of practice, is.

 

Oh sorry, you mean your ideal society intervenes to spread democracy and liberalism. I thought you were defending the current system as one that spreads those ideals. I was thrown off by the fact that, when discussing their ideal society, people don't normally include consistent use of violence as a foreign policy.

 

 

Well, to be fair, I think he's trying to be more realistic with his ideas, rather than say that the world should just turn into a place of peace, love, and cooperation.


Xboxless
  • Xboxless

    Gangsta

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007
  • United-States

#107

Posted 12 January 2014 - 02:22 PM

I do not prescribe to a certain ideologue. I find the main problem in today's politics is that the politicians are too ideological.

 

I simply wish they would take into account sociological evidence rather than bicker about how their way is the right way, because.

 

That said, I think people have the freedom to do what they want, as long as they do not harm others. Which, of course, is actually a lot of things. Just using a plastic bottle is harming this Earth, and thus somebody generations from now.

 

This is why I always use one specific bottle.


Mr WN
  • Mr WN

    Filth Slayer

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014
  • None

#108

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:18 PM

Totalitarian, anti-communist and anti-capitalist.


El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#109

Posted 12 January 2014 - 09:02 PM Edited by El Zilcho, 12 January 2014 - 09:05 PM.

 

 

 

I find that "liberal interventionism" stuff utterly baffling. When has the West been interested in fighting to "improve lives abroad"? We've overthrown more democratically elected leaders than we've supported; we've supported more dictators than we've opposed. Look at Libya: the West supported Gaddafi for literally as long as it was possible, we only started talking about how we need to bring people freedom and get him out of power when it became clear that he was going to die.

Just because the West can be seen as hypocritical, supportive of appalling regimes, etc. doesn't mean that those are grounds for never intervening at all. I would ask you to note a country in history that has been morally pure in all its foreign policy actions, and if you cannot, I would ask you whether you think countries can still do good? If you see that the West has the power to stop human rights' abuses, as it certainly does, then noting the dark days of foreign policy is still no rationale to avoid helping in the present.

 

Likewise, although in the real world humanitarian causes are frequently sidelined, or only acted upon when strategic or economic ones run parallel to them, this does not mean the underlying principle of intervening to protect people's liberty and livelihood is false. Only its practice, or lack of practice, is.

 

Oh sorry, you mean your ideal society intervenes to spread democracy and liberalism. I thought you were defending the current system as one that spreads those ideals. I was thrown off by the fact that, when discussing their ideal society, people don't normally include consistent use of violence as a foreign policy.

 

 

Well, to be fair, I think he's trying to be more realistic with his ideas, rather than say that the world should just turn into a place of peace, love, and cooperation.

 

That is what I'm doing. The world is and continues to be a horribly complex mess. Trying to ensure that that mess doesn't fester in the darker corners of the world is a moral parameter I think we should pursue in foreign policy. Violence, used to topple those who propagate violence far more often than the West as a tool of state control, is justifiable - even necessary. If we don't remove them when the time is right, who will?

 

And the idea would be that force shouldn't be used consistently. But it shouldn't be consistently avoided for fear of getting your hands dirty either.

  • Frank Brown likes this

Mr. Crowley
  • Mr. Crowley

    CREEP3R

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2013
  • United-States

#110

Posted 13 January 2014 - 01:02 AM

I claim independent because I don’t hardline for any party. My views are Constitutional Libertarian.
  • Frank Brown likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#111

Posted 13 January 2014 - 01:50 PM

That is what I'm doing. The world is and continues to be a horribly complex mess. Trying to ensure that that mess doesn't fester in the darker corners of the world is a moral parameter I think we should pursue in foreign policy. Violence, used to topple those who propagate violence far more often than the West as a tool of state control, is justifiable - even necessary. If we don't remove them when the time is right, who will?

 


 

Well, to be fair, I think he's trying to be more realistic with his ideas, rather than say that the world should just turn into a place of peace, love, and cooperation.

 

 

And the idea would be that force shouldn't be used consistently. But it shouldn't be consistently avoided for fear of getting your hands dirty either.

 

I don't really understand your point I'm afraid. Do you mean you think we should intervene in a humanitarian capacity? Well we already do that, and people don't typically think we should stop doing that, but when someone identifies as an "interventionist" they generally mean they support the West's foreign policy: going to war to justify arms contracts, killing democratically elected leaders, invading other countries... Israel, that sort of thing.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#112

Posted 15 January 2014 - 10:51 AM

I've got a very specific question for those of a left-leaning persuasion, particularly those with experience of British politics of the 1980s and 1990s.

I'm sure that some of you will have heard that evidence has been made public of the fact Arthur Skargill attempted to purchase a flat in the Barbican using the right-to-buy scheme. What I was wondering if someone could explain, as I simply cannot fathom, is why the left and the union movement so aggressively opposed right-to-buy as a policy? I mean in terms of benefits for individuals I cannot fathom it as bring anything other than a positive policy, yet to this day organisations like the NUM continue to decry it. Why? Surely the economic mobility created by allowing people to become homeowners is the kind of thing you'd imagine the left would be encouraging?

jln22
  • jln22

    Call me Julian

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013

#113

Posted 15 January 2014 - 11:33 AM

Fascist.


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#114

Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:50 PM

I've got a very specific question for those of a left-leaning persuasion, particularly those with experience of British politics of the 1980s and 1990s.

I'm sure that some of you will have heard that evidence has been made public of the fact Arthur Skargill attempted to purchase a flat in the Barbican using the right-to-buy scheme. What I was wondering if someone could explain, as I simply cannot fathom, is why the left and the union movement so aggressively opposed right-to-buy as a policy? I mean in terms of benefits for individuals I cannot fathom it as bring anything other than a positive policy, yet to this day organisations like the NUM continue to decry it. Why? Surely the economic mobility created by allowing people to become homeowners is the kind of thing you'd imagine the left would be encouraging?

I was thinking about this today when I came across the story. I found it ridiculous that Mr. Scargill is being so roundly lambasted by the current Union leaders for simply owning his own home.

 

I think in all honesty it is simply a reaction to the scheme's attachment toThatcher. He was Punch to her Judy (or perhaps vice versa?) in the 1980's and I think they feel he is a hypocrite for privately exploiting her Right To Buy policy whilst publicly opposing her treatment of the Unions. Which is sort of missing the point of politics in my opinion as their judgement of individual policy is overwritten by their hatred of the enacting politician.

 

Another reason is that as the Leader of the SLP, Scargill is supposed to represent more idealistically socialist values. The 'problem' with right to buy was that it supposedly created divisions in working class communities between those who could afford to own their own property and those who still laboured under the yoke of the local council. It bought the lingering stench of capitalism into social housing and those more extreme, Left-leaning Union leaders/political commentators may feel Mr. Scargill is not practicing what he preaches.  

  • El Zilcho likes this

El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#115

Posted 15 January 2014 - 09:20 PM Edited by El Zilcho, 15 January 2014 - 09:21 PM.

 

That is what I'm doing. The world is and continues to be a horribly complex mess. Trying to ensure that that mess doesn't fester in the darker corners of the world is a moral parameter I think we should pursue in foreign policy. Violence, used to topple those who propagate violence far more often than the West as a tool of state control, is justifiable - even necessary. If we don't remove them when the time is right, who will?

 


 

Well, to be fair, I think he's trying to be more realistic with his ideas, rather than say that the world should just turn into a place of peace, love, and cooperation.

 

 

And the idea would be that force shouldn't be used consistently. But it shouldn't be consistently avoided for fear of getting your hands dirty either.

 

I don't really understand your point I'm afraid. Do you mean you think we should intervene in a humanitarian capacity? Well we already do that, and people don't typically think we should stop doing that, but when someone identifies as an "interventionist" they generally mean they support the West's foreign policy: going to war to justify arms contracts, killing democratically elected leaders, invading other countries... Israel, that sort of thing.

 

I've never advocated war for the nefarious reasons you cited, nor do I know of any who attest to being in support of intervention for those reasons either. What I am defending, however, is the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, that is incessantly degraded by people conflating it with what you mentioned above e.g. people deriding operations in Iraq entirely without qualifying what good was done, or opposing Syrian intervention due to the 'ghosts', if you will, of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

There is a massive and manifestly obvious difference between imperialism (largely extinct) and intervention. While the latter may not always be conducted for purely humanitarian ends, it very rarely occurs with no humanitarian rationale at all. And the former, as I said, is absent from the modern world.

  • D- Ice likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    ♥ Ⓐ

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#116

Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:44 PM

As far as the right-to-buy scheme goes, it's generally opposed because it's part of a broader set of policies instituted during the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s, which sought to increase home ownership and deregulate and privatise the housing market. Essentially, public housing can't be used as capital and the state has to be prepared to operate them at a loss. I read an interesting article a while back that should- if nothing else- help you better understand the left's position on the issue.

 

http://newint.org/fe...houses-keynote/

 

El Zilcho: I'll respond later.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#117

Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:01 PM

Socially liberal and economically conservative for the most part. I guess ik closer to the libertarian party than anything.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#118

Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:22 PM

Socially liberal and economically conservative

it's funny because this perfectly describes most people in the US.

the average person is friendly, accepting, and financially responsible.

 

but for some mind-numbing reason, our politicians insist on being the exact opposite; socially conservative and economically liberal (with money that doesn't belong to them). it's no wonder how the US is rapidly becoming the new Rome.


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#119

Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:36 PM Edited by D- Ice, 16 January 2014 - 08:49 PM.

 

 

That is what I'm doing. The world is and continues to be a horribly complex mess. Trying to ensure that that mess doesn't fester in the darker corners of the world is a moral parameter I think we should pursue in foreign policy. Violence, used to topple those who propagate violence far more often than the West as a tool of state control, is justifiable - even necessary. If we don't remove them when the time is right, who will?

 


 

Well, to be fair, I think he's trying to be more realistic with his ideas, rather than say that the world should just turn into a place of peace, love, and cooperation.

 

 

And the idea would be that force shouldn't be used consistently. But it shouldn't be consistently avoided for fear of getting your hands dirty either.

 

I don't really understand your point I'm afraid. Do you mean you think we should intervene in a humanitarian capacity? Well we already do that, and people don't typically think we should stop doing that, but when someone identifies as an "interventionist" they generally mean they support the West's foreign policy: going to war to justify arms contracts, killing democratically elected leaders, invading other countries... Israel, that sort of thing.

 

I've never advocated war for the nefarious reasons you cited, nor do I know of any who attest to being in support of intervention for those reasons either. What I am defending, however, is the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, that is incessantly degraded by people conflating it with what you mentioned above e.g. people deriding operations in Iraq entirely without qualifying what good was done, or opposing Syrian intervention due to the 'ghosts', if you will, of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

There is a massive and manifestly obvious difference between imperialism (largely extinct) and intervention. While the latter may not always be conducted for purely humanitarian ends, it very rarely occurs with no humanitarian rationale at all. And the former, as I said, is absent from the modern world.

 

I do agree with you that the terrible failures of Iraq (I haven't been following the situation in Afghanistan that well) in no way constitute enough reason not to intervene in Syria. There are a near-infinite number of factors Iraq is the way it is - it is not just because of Western intervention in an Arab country - and most of these reasons will not be identical to Syria.

 

Regarding Imerialism, I would disagree with you. For the vast majority of the history of imperial enterprises, the imperialists ensured the subjected people and nations were under the impression of continued autonomous rule and were merely allies of the imperialist. The British East India company used local Indian Princes to rule via Subsidiary Alliances, and the Byzantines (and Late Roman Empire) used Ghassanid Shiekhs to rule the Bedouins in the Syrian Desert.

These seem far more blatant and obvious than anything happening today thanks to hindsight and increased political awareness, the latter necessitating more indirect and complex methods of imperialism (e.g. Iranian influence in Lebanon via Hizbollah).

Another issue is that alliances - political or otherwise - form a spectrum from mutual beneficence to outright exploitation or imperialism. Imperialism and alliance are not completely different concepts - and the line defining each is highly subjective.

 

I'd also like to add a point about humanitarianism. I believe that humanitarian intervention is only justified if it is requested by (the majority of) the people being helped or being affected.

Historically, there have been many examples of expansionism being justified by notions of paternalistic humanitarianism - that is, forcing a culture, religion, political system etc... onto a people "for their own good."

Great humanitarian acts IMO would be to stop forcing women in Saudi to cover up, give them equal rights, and allow them to drive. But what if the majority of the populace categorically believe it will rain fire and brimstone if they allow these to happen? Would an intervention be justified? (In reality, most Saudis actually do want more liberal laws).

  • El Zilcho likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#120

Posted 16 January 2014 - 08:48 PM

I'd also like to add a point about humanitarianism. I believe that humanitarian intervention is only justified if it is requested by (the majority of) the people being helped or being affected.

Historically, there have been many examples of expansionism being justified by notions of paternalistic humanitarianism - that is, forcing a culture, religion, political system etc... onto a people "for their own good."

Great humanitarian acts IMO would be to stop forcing women in Saudi to cover up, give them equal rights, and allow them to drive. But what if the majority of the populace categorically believe it will rain fire and brimstone if they allow these to happen? Would an intervention be justified? (In reality, most Saudis actually do want more liberal laws).

 

 

What if it was a dictator targeting a small sector of the population and eliminating them, but the majority of that country's populace supports the elimination of those people? 

  • El Zilcho likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users