Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
kingkongone

Triumph is going to destroy the USA :(

Recommended Posts

Popular vote is not equivalent to mob rule, they define fundamentally different political concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so?

 

Unless you live in a completely stateless society, somebody has to rule, and in a democracy it's the Citizens that are ultimately responsible. The citizens behave exactly like a mob of people do. Thee mob is fickle, ignorant,  and normally just votes for compelling presentations. Politicians bend to the mob soothing their sense of confirmation bias regarding topics they'd never be qualified to make a decision on in any other setting.

Edited by Mercer
Removed a fucking comma
  • Truth 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking mob rule and tyranny of the majority are in fact, pretty much the same, but I suppose the two terms exist and you in fact point to a definition that explains the nuance between them. 

 

That at being said, that’s my bad for the mistake, however subtle, but doesn’t change the point I was making. 

 

“Rule of the majority” was the concern of the founding fathers that led to implementing an electoral college. And this remains as valid a concern today as it did then, if not more so. Problem is that the Federal government has vastly outgrown its charter with exponentially more power in governance being consolidated under it. So now we find ourselves in ever increasing conflict that grows along side it. 

 

Had we kept government in check, most governance would exist at the state level, so there’s at least an option to move to another state should you find yourself disagreeing with the ideology your being governed by. 

 

Seeing the realities of life between NYC and NW Montana first hand, I can tell you for fact that they exist worlds apart from each other. I’m not implying in any way that one is better than the other, only that the concerns / priorities / (and often) the values are vastly different. Just because NYC has significantly more people should not allow them to exert their will on those in Montana (and vice versa). If government was kept in check, most the concerns would be moot. Instead, we’re debating the merit of the electoral college because we now live in an era where the outcome has profound implications in our day to day lives. 

 

Anyhow, there’s definitely a lot of problems but the electoral college itself really isn’t one of them. The focus should be on why a bunch of asshats in Washington DC are dictating nearly every facet of day to day life for 320 million people spread across the entire country. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from a violent revolution, there's no proven method  in place to slow, or stop democratic expansion of a constitutional government. This is the plight of the minarchists, when writing a constitution that can adapted through democratic process for future needs.

 

Give the government a narrow set of responsibilities, and within a generation or two, the original libertarian/minarchist values of freedom are diluted away. Next thing you know, we're asking the government to tell us when it's safe to cross a road, define things like genders for us, or enforce which bathroom we're allowed to use, what we can smoke, poke, and etc.

 

It's so bad these days. The fucking TSA has a shot of my wife's Vag from her last flight screening. I don't even have one to rub one out to. Everything I do is recorded, and traced. Every voter has a freedom or two they're not using themselves. They're usually more than willing to force everyone to give those unused freedoms up if it can serve some other purpose. Every problem we face, even the ones created by the government, warrant more government intervention.

 

The controls for an almost autonomously functioning republic are handed down, with the best intentions. Step by step more controls, and expansions are then put into place. This is the natural process for the state's power to corrupts it's way towards becoming more absolute, and you know what they say about absolute power.

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MercerI agree with much of what you’re saying (except for the violent revolution but), but there’s a lot of complexity in there as well. All new regulation isn’t always an imposition on a liberty once held. New technology creates new challenges, increased concentrations require new rationalizations, etc. 

 

secondly, many people willingly give away some liberties for social rationalism, it’s their preferred choice and a values based call that no one can says is wrong. 

 

Anyway, this all moves into an area of philosophy that sees me well out of my depth. I work in a regulatory space and I just know that some - many areas I deal with are completely novel with brand new challenges, not part of a whole creep within a zero sum game of liberty v. Regulation = security 

Edited by Hua Guofang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, my only point was that the currents of government intervention tend to flow toward expansion, and away from liberty. It takes a lot of serious rowing just to stay in place and not get swept into the current. Unfortunately, the general public isn't that interested in rowing.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mercer said:

Understood, my only point was that the currents of government intervention tend to flow toward expansion, and away from liberty. It takes a lot of serious rowing just to stay in place and not get swept into the current. Unfortunately, the general public isn't that interested in rowing.

 

 

 

Yeah, no argument from me on that point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been saying this for a while... Government power comes at the expense of individual  liberty. One grows at the expense of the other in a dynamic system that never reaches equilibrium. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should check out Man Economy, and Sate by Rothbard. Audible has the scholars edition (57 hours, 48 minutes, and 16 seconds.) which is complete, and essentially identical to this free copy:

 

Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market.pdf

 

It was the culmination of work from 3 generations of study by Austrian School Economists, and Rothbard's Magnum Opis. It breaks down how destructive government is from a study of human action, or praxiology. Probably the most influential work regarding economics I've ever read, and very eye opening in regards to cryptocurrency, and understanding marginal values of capitol.

Edited by Mercer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President making major strategic decisions about mil deployments based on politics and without consultation,, SecDef resigning in public protest. 

 

 

So much winning. 

Edited by Hua Guofang
  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the troop pullout itself, it's a good move in the big picture. Granted, I do feel bad for the Kurds for the third time now,  but fixing things for them is not our job to begin with.

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having troops anywhere sucks, but once they are there you have to play it right otherwise things only get worse. 

 

Making decisions about deployments based  on domestic politics is about as bad as it gets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same mistake Obama made pulling out of Iraq early. 

 

Shouldn't be there in the first place, but

once you’re there, do it right. 

Edited by Hua Guofang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you see a feasible end to active military intervention in the region, or do you assume it's absolutely necessary indefinitely? I mean, personally I consider trump a xenophobic, sociopathic moron. That doesn't mean I disapprove of every move he makes by default. If the only route to stability in Iraq, or Syria is U.S. involvement, fuck em. All the more incentive for them to get their shit together.

 

I'd prefer we offer our local allies support, and go in and out as needed to respond to (direct) threads to our security, as opposed to long term deployments. That's just me, I'll always choose to keep our troops out of harms way unless there's a direct threat to our national security.

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mercer said:

Do you see a feasible end to active military intervention in the region, or do you assume it's absolutely necessary indefinitely? I mean, personally I consider trump a xenophobic, sociopathic moron. That doesn't mean I disapprove of every move he makes by default. If the only route to stability in Iraq, or Syria is U.S. involvement, fuck em. All the more incentive for them to get their shit together.

 

I'd prefer we offer our local allies support, and go in and out as needed to respond to (direct) threads to our security, as opposed to long term deployments. That's just me, I'll always choose to keep our troops out of harms way unless there's a direct threat to our national security.

Well, considering how hard the US fucked those regions to begin with, I don't see a time where we can be completely removed while simultaneously protecting our interests. Stability in that region would most likely result from a dictator like Ghaddafi; however, that would not be a "democratic" region anymore, which would not allow the US to continue to rape the land of fossil fuels.

 

 

  • LOL! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted the power vacuums created by the loss of Saddam was devastating, but the only people capable of actually fixing the problem we've created unfortunately aren't Americans, or other foreign coalition members.

 

This concept applies to anyone who's ever been wronged by another, it's your responsibility to either recover and thrive, or not. Because of it's temporary nature, our presence in that region is destabilizing in the big picture, only delaying a more permanent, stable, and and sustainable hierarchy, and political organization from forming.

 

It's not our right to choose what that organization looks like, or if it's in line with our interests. Our only responsibility is, and always has been to defend ourselves should a direct threat arise. The fact that we fucked up and defended ourselves from a non-threat, that in retrospect actually favored our interests is irrelevant to what's required to improve the regional stability in the aftermath.

Edited by Mercer
  • Truth 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 1:56 AM, Mercer said:

Do you see a feasible end to active military intervention in the region, or do you assume it's absolutely necessary indefinitely? I mean, personally I consider trump a xenophobic, sociopathic moron. That doesn't mean I disapprove of every move he makes by default. If the only route to stability in Iraq, or Syria is U.S. involvement, fuck em. All the more incentive for them to get their shit together.

 

I'd prefer we offer our local allies support, and go in and out as needed to respond to (direct) threads to our security, as opposed to long term deployments. That's just me, I'll always choose to keep our troops out of harms way unless there's a direct threat to our national security.

There's an obvious difference between intervention and supporting local allies but both often mean having US deployed to other regions, based on the virtue of America's power alone. Keep in mind that there are only about 2000 US troops deployed specifically for the Syria gig, but there are a lot more contractors and govt employees (State, DoJ, CIA, Defence, etc) that rely on the troops being there. If and when the troops go, they will all have to go, so that means a lot of work that assists in stabilising the region, providing humanitarian relief for civilians, etc. etc. will all also come to an end.

 

There has to be a clear eyed approach to what the US troops are doing there as well. There's not only the combat and security roles they are participating in but they are also a trip wire and a backbone. The trip wire is where you have a small amount of troops deployed somewhere to deter other major actors from making strategic moves. The 2000 troops wouldn't be able to stop Iran from rolling over the country or Russian airborne divisions taking over large swathes of territory. But should either of those, or any other major actor, kill/capture those troops, the might of the US military would ramp up and charge a very high cost. That's the trip wire.

 

The backbone is what other countries like the UK, France, Australia, Canada, etc grow when they know the US is committed. Without the knowledge that the national might of the US is involved, there would be no way those other powers could remain in place, provide the logistics required for such a significant action or promise an overwhelming response should another major actor attempt to take the initiative.

 

So with that as the context, it's difficult to lend support to local and regional allies without committing skin to the game. Unless you throw in as well, it's too easy for you to pull away and no one will be able to commit without trusting you're in it for the long haul. Hence, why so many people were so pissed that Trump made the call out of nowhere (actually, he made the call in consultation with a foreign leader, not even his own people, FFS!). The US had committed and pressured its friends an allies (such as Australia, the UK, etc.) to put in, which they did. Then Trump just pulls stumps without any consultation at all. With that kind of behaviour, you won't HAVE any allies!

 

Lastly, if you wait until there is a direct threat to your national security before you get involved, you're already in the shit. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean you have to get involved in everyone's shitfights (or start your own like Iraq 2003). But simply manning the walls and putting all of your bets on passive defensive is a one shot strategy. Much better to shape the world to your liking (and you don't have to be an arsehole in the way you do it, a la Dick Chenney, Nixon, LBJ, Stalin, Xi Jinping, etc. the US has done an unmeasurable amount of good in the world since WWII, most people just aren't aware of it), and be in a position to act should action be called for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 4:14 AM, Brink said:

Well, considering how hard the US fucked those regions to begin with, I don't see a time where we can be completely removed while simultaneously protecting our interests. Stability in that region would most likely result from a dictator like Ghaddafi; however, that would not be a "democratic" region anymore, which would not allow the US to continue to rape the land of fossil fuels.

 

 

 

On 12/23/2018 at 7:18 AM, Mercer said:

Granted the power vacuums created by the loss of Saddam was devastating, but the only people capable of actually fixing the problem we've created unfortunately aren't Americans, or other foreign coalition members.

 

This concept applies to anyone who's ever been wronged by another, it's your responsibility to either recover and thrive, or not. Because of it's temporary nature, our presence in that region is destabilizing in the big picture, only delaying a more permanent, stable, and and sustainable hierarchy, and political organization from forming.

 

It's not our right to choose what that organization looks like, or if it's in line with our interests. Our only responsibility is, and always has been to defend ourselves should a direct threat arise. The fact that we fucked up and defended ourselves from a non-threat, that in retrospect actually favored our interests is irrelevant to what's required to improve the regional stability in the aftermath.

Don't mean to come across as patronising but there are huge problems with the above posts.

 

1 - The US is not the architect of the instability of the M/E. Sure, it's done a lot that hasn't helped, but look at history, the place was a crucible of cultures and conflict thousands of years before white man ever even stepped foot in North America!! We all know the story of Lawrence of Arabia, Sykes Picot, the Balfour agreement, etc. etc. The Europeans have been in there being pricks well before the US was able to. And lastly, try not to be too patronising towards the locals as well. You think they're innocent parties in their situation? As I said, the place was a shitfight already when the Hittites were running the show. Things were made worse in 2003, without a doubt. But it's not like it was all kebabs and cardamon tea before that.

 

2 - Yes, the energy in the region has been a major reason for foreign presence there previously. However, the significance of energy to the US has been reducing a shitload over the recent decades. The US is one of the largest energy producers in the world and has only grown in significance with the new extraction tech and renewable tech that's come on line over the last 20+ years. Energy is only an element of what makes the M/E important. I would suggest that security issues are more important to the US these days than energy (not that it doesn't play a part, just a part that is shrinking in comparison to other reasons).

 

3 - "recover and thrive or not" - And this gets to the security element I was mentioning above. If the place goes to shit, it's not as if it all ends there. The most current lesson is Afghanistan; the place went to shit, the US didn't care and then some arseholes were able to use it as a base to damage US interests (then you've also got the lover-level stuff, such as drug production, arms/people smuggling, organised crime and the shit that inevitably happens in the badlands). Given how interconnected the world is today, when you have a failed state, the instability radiates around the world - think of Somalia and pirates, Honduras and gangs/refugees, etc).

 

4 - The US presence in the region is not troops deployed in Syria, Iraq, Libya, wherever. It's the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain. This deployment, along with the 7th fleet in Japan, etc. etc. contribute MASSIVELY to regional stability. In East Asia, there are only 3 countries that want the US out: China, Russia and DPRK. Every other country in the region wants the US to stay. The same with the 5th Fleet, It's really only Iran that wants them out of there. The rest of the countries would end up ripped up by war between Iran, KSA, Turkey and Egypt (with Russia, China, France, the UK, Sudan, Italy, etc. also having to get involved due to interests and proximity) if the US was to walk out. That's not to say that stability wouldn't eventually emerge, but think of the decades of war, insurgencies, instability and bullshit the world would have to deal with in the meantime.

  • Like 1
  • Props 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

Don't mean to come across as patronising but there are huge problems with the above posts.

Not at all, I'd prefer to debate and learn here. 

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

1 - The US is not the architect of the instability of the M/E. Sure, it's done a lot that hasn't helped, but look at history, the place was a crucible of cultures and conflict thousands of years before white man ever even stepped foot in North America!! We all know the story of Lawrence of Arabia, Sykes Picot, the Balfour agreement, etc. etc. The Europeans have been in there being pricks well before the US was able to. And lastly, try not to be too patronising towards the locals as well. You think they're innocent parties in their situation? As I said, the place was a shitfight already when the Hittites were running the show. Things were made worse in 2003, without a doubt. But it's not like it was all kebabs and cardamon tea before that.

The US is responsible for at least a small potion of the current instability in Syria & Iraq, this isn't a black/white with no gray area type of situation.  Agreed, there's always been tension in the region since the fall of the Ottomans. But to say that the recent removal of Saddam, the guy who killed terrorists, the guy who had no ISIS problem, to think that didn't have a destabilizing effect. Really?

 

With that said, my point here was that we should not fix it for them with our indefinite presence, regardless of our own interests in that region.  Furthermore, it's not only a waste of resources, but it's just immoral to impose our will in that area through coercive means. That's not to say I'm a passivist, and wouldn't destroy actual threats. I just think national defense means just that, national DEFENSE. Establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq, or Syria may actually work to stabilize that region, but that isn't the point. My point is we have neither the right to, nor the resources of human lives, and limbs to waste on this cause, however noble it may seem in the short term.

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

2 - Yes, the energy in the region has been a major reason for foreign presence there previously. However, the significance of energy to the US has been reducing a shitload over the recent decades. The US is one of the largest energy producers in the world and has only grown in significance with the new extraction tech and renewable tech that's come on line over the last 20+ years. Energy is only an element of what makes the M/E important. I would suggest that security issues are more important to the US these days than energy (not that it doesn't play a part, just a part that is shrinking in comparison to other reasons).

I never assumed the energy interests in that region truly reflected the  interests of American taxpayers at all. It benefits only a small portion of politically connected in the position to profit like oil companies etc, but as a whole it's not making gas any cheaper at the pumps for the vast majority of the people funding this disaster.

 

You're right, with the recent boom in shale/fracking etc. we've become much less dependent on their energy resources. With that said, the only other major interest in that region are the continued establishment of a Jewish ethnostate, again, not helpful to most of the American taxpayers either. As for the remaining legitimate business interests we do have in that region, or any other region for that matter, shouldn't require use of force as a pre-emptive measure period. If the risk is too high for our businesses, they don't need the taxpayers to subsidize their security costs needed to operate there.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

3 - "recover and thrive or not" - And this gets to the security element I was mentioning above. If the place goes to shit, it's not as if it all ends there. The most current lesson is Afghanistan; the place went to shit, the US didn't care and then some arseholes were able to use it as a base to damage US interests (then you've also got the lover-level stuff, such as drug production, arms/people smuggling, organised crime and the shit that inevitably happens in the badlands). Given how interconnected the world is today, when you have a failed state, the instability radiates around the world - think of Somalia and pirates, Honduras and gangs/refugees, etc).

So if we're attacked, or have intelligence showing we will be attacked we deal with it. It's almost as if you're suggesting we should have occupied right after the Soviets left Afganistan as a mess? I look at it like this,  I can't continually punch someone in the face forever, after they punched me once, or just threatened to once, that would be wrong and destructive.

 

Use of force shouldn't be based whim, and needs to follow some sort of logical consistency. There's nothing separating this situation, from thinking we should occupy any and all other potential threats. The fact that we've been getting away with it isn't good enough for me. If we're following some sort of rule of law, and not following a "might makes right" or "eye for an eye till we're all blind" philosophy we need to be measured, and respond directly to direct threats, and respond indirectly to indirect threats. It's a waste of resources, and lives to occupy regions that may be potential threats in a never ending series of war crimes, and violations of national sovereignty. 

 

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

4 - The US presence in the region is not troops deployed in Syria, Iraq, Libya, wherever. It's the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain. This deployment, along with the 7th fleet in Japan, etc. etc. contribute MASSIVELY to regional stability. In East Asia, there are only 3 countries that want the US out: China, Russia and DPRK. Every other country in the region wants the US to stay. The same with the 5th Fleet, It's really only Iran that wants them out of there. The rest of the countries would end up ripped up by war between Iran, KSA, Turkey and Egypt (with Russia, China, France, the UK, Sudan, Italy, etc. also having to get involved due to interests and proximity) if the US was to walk out. That's not to say that stability wouldn't eventually emerge, but think of the decades of war, insurgencies, instability and bullshit the world would have to deal with in the meantime.

Yes, this is a different subject entirely, and if I get more time later I'll respond in depth. My basic stance on this is "bang for the buck", if we're generating more tax dollars than it costs, by way of international trade with Japan, Korea etc. it's an excellent investment to have a presence. In the case of the South China sea, there's no doubt it's worth it. When it comes to troops on the ground in Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, I have very serious doubts financially, and no method of calculating the blood lost into the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×