|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: War - good or bad Post by Padfoot on Feb 20th, 2007, 6:53pm Is war ever a good thing? Why or why not? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JiNbOtAk on Feb 20th, 2007, 9:30pm Depends on who you're asking. Family of fallen soldiers would most probably say its bad, unless they're idealists. Commander of armies would undoubtedly classify the wars they engage in to be 'good'. After all, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great and Napoleon would identify their wars as good, rite ? On the other hand, general sentiment today had been against war..I guess it's ironic that the more people seem to be against war, the more it breaks out around us.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Feb 21st, 2007, 1:22am War may sometimes be unavoidable. If someone else is looking to start a fight, it's not allways a good idea to just roll over. Warmongering regimes aren't typically nice ones. And fighting a war might be better than accepting oppression and genocide. Starting a war yourself is a more difficult question. Although like before, if a regime is commiting genocide, or other heinous crimes against humanity, a swift war to end it would seem apropriate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JiNbOtAk on Feb 21st, 2007, 6:48pm on 02/21/07 at 01:22:13, towr wrote:
How swift is a swift war ? :P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Icarus on Feb 22nd, 2007, 6:10am Wars between nations are just scaled-up versions of fights between individuals. Whenever they occur, it means someone is behaving badly. However, who and how is a subject of disagreement. We can often say that the nation which started the war is the aggressor and in the wrong. But sometimes the nation may feel that it has no other choice. Some resource vital to its existence or well-being is being withheld by its adversary, and all diplomatic means of resolving the issue have failed. The nation's only choices are to go to war, or to suffer extraordinary deprivation. In such a case, initiating a war may decrease overall suffering. But even then we have to look at the other side. The other nation may be withholding the resource because they see their own national survival dependent on doing so. They may feel there is not enough of the resource in their possession to share with other nations. Losing their own supply would also cause them to undergo extraordinary deprivation. Sound far-fetched? Not really - all wars are fought for economic reasons - though sometimes the economic reasons are jumped up for political reasons (for example, the Falklands/Malvinas war between Argentina and Great Britain or the "Short Victorious war" - as ironically described by one Russian before it started - between Russia and Japan). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Feb 22nd, 2007, 8:11am on 02/21/07 at 18:48:31, JiNbOtAk wrote:
And our 80 years war against spain in the 16th century was totally justified. Things just progressed slower then. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Feb 22nd, 2007, 9:38am on 02/22/07 at 06:10:52, Icarus wrote:
Not at all. It sounds like an accurate description of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. We Brits really messed up badly there. Politics is too important to be left to diplomats and politicians. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on May 23rd, 2007, 5:51pm War is nature. Everywhere someone is fighting for something whether it is a big promotion, to live, to succeed... it is a mixture of both good and bad an elemental part of nature that has shaped the history of the universe. Everytime we build a house we are fighting against nature in an effort to protect our existance. It is what determines natural selection and allows progress, because without some distruction you wouldn't have the materials to make something new. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on May 24th, 2007, 12:57am I wouldn't want to call every fight a war. War is nonetheless natural; chimps wage war on each other occasional and arguably so do ants, to name but two examples. However, being natural doesn't make something good, nor even necessary. Natural selction tolerates anything that's not so outrageously bad that it prevents you from passing on your genes. What matters is: can we get on without it and will the world be a better place if we do. While war does occasionally drive innovation, I don't think it has in itself much merit; not to mention it tends to get the (physically) fittest people in the population killed. The problem to me seems that we don't have the choice (at least not at the moment) to go without it. Because it's not something you can unilaterally decide. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Sameer on Jun 6th, 2007, 1:18pm Historically man has made lot of scientific progress in times of war.. under duress its a desparate attempt to outdo others that lead in new things being invented... or maybe even a work of recreation... as for e.g. violin, string instruments were invented during europe's dark era... we got communications,rockets during WW2 .. just few examples.. so is war the only thing that would inspire us to invent? If you think in a sort of way if we are luxurious... have no worries we probably wouldn't do anything and will be complacent.. necessity is indeed mother of invention.. so as long as "things" that happend that leads to necessity of getting something done we will see good things coming out of it... along with unavoidable bads.. the time when we evolve into beings when we don't need to pursue things to outdo others but to better ourselves all the time maybe we can end wars.. and yet somehow I feel we will find something to fight about then also... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 6th, 2007, 1:33pm Amen Sameer. You explained it much better than I did about the whole how it is a necessary evil that forces us to keep moving forward and evolving with nature. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Icarus on Jun 6th, 2007, 6:59pm I'm not sure I would call it "necessary". We could easily do without it. Unfortunately, "unavoidable" is a much more apt description. Deprivation and duress have always been the source of innovation. When times are easy, no one puts much effort into change. Why bother, if the "now" is good? But there are other sources of deprivation and duress than war. Business competition, a sort of controlled bloodless (mostly) war, serves as the primary impetus for invention these days. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Sameer on Jun 6th, 2007, 10:22pm on 06/06/07 at 18:59:12, Icarus wrote:
Agreed in this age of capitalism, unequality and globalization, poor countries feel these duress and deprivation. Their development hence is driven b the desire to achieve the "high level" .. this is evident from all the immigration to US... heck I came to US because of that... I don't know if you call that good or bad.. but things also go the other way... where people then are driven by religion, opressive influences, and their morals are brought up differently.. these results in a conflict of interest which if given an obstinate, stubborn person comes to power or becomes and influential force leads to war.. e.g. Hitler.. current socio-economic-political conditional are very fragile and uneven.. most ppl will live through these and find some means of bettering themselves... find ways to advance.. but once in a while someone comes around who is just inclined to destruction... call it an anamoly of nature.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 11th, 2007, 9:25pm Is anybody concerned that war is extremely destructive, for the victor as well as the vanquished? Therefore, war should be avoided unless the alternatives are all worse? As modern historians are pointing out, the American Civil war, WWI, WWII, the Korean war, the war on Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, were all tragiclly worse for the United States than prolonged, and failing, negotiations? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 12th, 2007, 1:01am on 12/11/07 at 21:25:45, ecoist wrote:
Just consider the recovery of Japan and Germany, they took off in a big way after WWII. A way that certainly wouldn't be expected from the state they were in immediately after the war. (True, they might have not accomplished the recovery on their own, without outside help, but they did get that) Quote:
I very much doubt the US would have the leading role in the world it does today if not for its civil war, WWI and WWII. While the short-term effects were devastating, the place it gave them in the world is invaluable to them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 12th, 2007, 6:00am on 02/22/07 at 06:10:52, Icarus wrote:
I beg to differ. There are 3 major reasons for war: power, greed, and beliefs. For example, look at the Crusades. Yes, they did fight to gain fame and power. Yes, they did fight to gain land and riches. But, most importantly, they went into the Middle East to try to retake the holy land, because they believed that the Muslims were corrupting the land where Jesus was born. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 12th, 2007, 6:41am on 12/12/07 at 06:31:00, Iceman wrote:
I don't think about this all day. However, we did have a big class discussion about this in history the other day. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 12th, 2007, 8:00am on 12/11/07 at 21:25:45, ecoist wrote:
Yes, war should be avoided if possible. However from an economic standpoint, war can be a terrific boost. WWII and the Great Depression as case in point. on 12/12/07 at 06:00:28, Ghost Sniper wrote:
You forget fear and self-preservation. It takes two sides to go to war. My theory is that Mr. Miyagi said it best... "If must fight, win." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 12th, 2007, 10:10am on 12/12/07 at 08:00:23, ima1trkpny wrote:
Well, generally, fear and self-preservation is usually caused by one country declaring war or blockading on another country, and that is usually caused by one of those 3 reasons. When someone goes to war for fear or self-preservation, it's usually a response to someone else attacking, not starting a war. Also notice that I said those are the 3 MAJOR reasons. There are many other reasons for going to war, such as revenge, helping out another country, or to prove that you are the strongest, but it always leads back, somehow, to those three reasons. For self-preservation, it's the belief that you still deserve to rule this country, combined with the fact that you still want power, that makes you go to war. Fear is pretty much the same thing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by rmsgrey on Dec 12th, 2007, 12:31pm on 12/12/07 at 10:10:50, Ghost Sniper wrote:
If you want to go down that road, all wars are fought because of belief - belief that war is better than the alternative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 2:28pm What you say, towr, saddens me. Quote:
As if so much death and destruction means little to you! And you seem to espouse an economic fallacy: destruction is an economic good because it stimulates economic growth. Quote:
This argument applies equally well to your view that war has good consequences. What would have happened to Japan had it not attacked Pearl Harbor? What did the US gain that justified the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed in the Civil War, which gain would not have occured without the Civil War? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 12th, 2007, 3:20pm on 12/12/07 at 14:28:04, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
While I'm all for complacency, it does little for advancement or economic growth. Destruction eliminates complacency like nobody's business. Quote:
Quote:
The world might be a much better place if we were all pacifist hunter-gatherers, but it's not exactly progress. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 4:09pm If destruction is an economic good, why not destroy things on purpose? A free market only "destroys things" by replacing them with better things. Dvds destroy video cassettes because dvds are so much better. If video cassettes had been destroyed in hopes of something better filling the gap, the destroyers would be jailed and consumers would have to retire their vcrs. Moreover, time, energy, and money that would be spent on family vacations, or reducing debt, would be redirected to replace the destroyed video cassettes. You needn't worry about "complacency", towr. The profit motive ensures that there will always be creative entrepreneurs searching for new ways to make a buck! What do you think inspired FedEx, Microsoft, the cell phone, and the iphone? Your worry is better placed railing against government interventions in the market, worse, government sucking the market dry to fund disastrous wars! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 12th, 2007, 8:11pm on 12/12/07 at 14:28:04, ecoist wrote:
The trick there is that the U.S. was an experiment in democracy, and in the interest of preserving it, Lincoln couldn't allow the south to separate. Quote:
They do. In an effort to keep supply and demand steady, surplus is either kept off the market or destroyed (such as farming products) to keep the prices steady for the goods. Quote:
Ah, but even here we have a sort of war. Let's say your entire collection of home movies, etc is all on video cassettes and you are perfectly content continuing on with that system because it is adequate to your needs. But with the way the producers set it up is to phase out compatable technology effectively forcing the consumer to spend money updating so as to be able to keep their recordings in a format that the consumer can use that they could otherwise employ if it weren't for the need to continually update built in to keep steady business for the companies. Quote:
You may complain all you want about it now when you don't need the government to protect you, but if ever you should find that you need some protecting I would bet my life your tune will change. The problem is that ideally, war would not exist. Humans would all be perfect and never lose their tempers or display anyone of the passions that are the driving force behind wars. However that is unrealistic and until we have perfect (but very boring) people, wars are inevitable. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 9:23pm I am shocked by your incredible lack of understanding! Though I feel ill-equiped to clear things up for you, I will make one last try. Quote:
One of the great ideas of the founders of America, trying to eliminate possible government tyranny, was to give the states the right of secession. The individual states could then be multiple laboratories in designing good government and a strong check on federal abuse of power! Lincoln destroyed that great idea! Quote:
"Keep supply and demand steady"? What the hell does that mean? Quote:
You seem to be saying that consumers are victims of businesses. Have you forgotten the consumer revolt over "new coke"? Unless government intervenes, the consumer is king! Quote:
You forget that our beloved nation began after a war of independence, fought successfully without a government! You also forget that wars are diminishing in frequency and severity as a means to settle disputes. So, also, are things improving on a smaller scale. Arbitration is increasingly replacing expensive law suits through our court system. War is not inevitable! Like other tools of the dark ages, war is being replaced by negotiation (no thanks to Bush!)! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 13th, 2007, 12:01am on 12/12/07 at 16:09:39, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
That's hardly the point though; the free market also reacts to other forces than itself. People steal, locks are invented; people break in, alarms are invented. There are booming markets depending on negative forces. If everyone was nice we could write of the entire part of the economy that depends on living with the fact they're not. And war is the ultimate 'people not being nice'. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 13th, 2007, 12:27am on 12/12/07 at 21:23:09, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 13th, 2007, 8:23am on 12/12/07 at 21:23:09, ecoist wrote:
When you have seen things from both sides, then you may attempt to clear things up for me. You are quite idealistic, and while that certainly isn't a bad thing, you must forgive me for dismissing some of the more impractical aspects of your commentary. Quote:
I never gave my opinion one way or the other on the ethics of what happened. Quote:
Methinks your economics teacher is rolling in their grave... Quote:
Yes, the consumer has some say in the market and their tastes and preferences greatly influence the continued growth of the market. However it is entirely possible (and happens quite frequently) that the business can hold the consumer hostage especially with products that are necessities. Quote:
It may not have had a recognized government, but it was most definitely not without leadership which is the essence of government. And as far as frequency goes, life is a cycle. You will for a time have calm peaceful periods, during which the events will be put into motion that will cause future outbursts. And I still adamently maintain that war is inevitable until you have a "perfect people" which in that case we will have lost some of the very characteristics which make us human. War is nothing more than an intensified competition on a grander scale. To remove the tendencies in people that cause war, you would remove the will to succeed, improve, and survive. If you dislike war so much, stop taking advantage of the freedoms it provides you. "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."-Winston Churchill |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 13th, 2007, 10:28am Wow, ima1trkpny and towr! I've never in my life heard such a sick view of human nature! Quote:
Quote:
Business can but it doesn't for the simple reason that it is not profitable. I used to believe that businesses built cars to malfunction after a short time so consumers would have to buy new cars. Makes sense until one realizes that any business that does this is vulnerable to other businesses that design their cars to last a bit longer, forcing the first business to drop its planned obsolescence rule or go belly up. Note that cars today are designed to go 100,000 miles without even a tune up! Quote:
Wrong on two levels! There are many kinds of conflict between war and pacifism! War, the most destructive, leads man to seek less expensive means of settling disputes, which developed societies are increasingly using as a more practical alternative to war. On a second level, you are very wrong to suggest that "the will to succeed, improve, and survive" requires war. They require only means, motive, and opportunity, which a free society provides in abundance. Quote:
Sick! Tell that to Cindy Sheehan; especially her son! And what freedoms have you gained when you go through airport inspections? Quote:
Seems based on the false assumption that, without government, there is chaos. What about international trade, indeed, the internet? Masterful order unmanaged, and largely unmanageable, by all governments! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 13th, 2007, 10:31am on 12/13/07 at 10:28:48, ecoist wrote:
Civility, please. Attack the argument if you must, but not the poster. Thanks. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 13th, 2007, 10:44am I agree with you wholeheartedly, SMQ! However, I called the view "sick", not the poster. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 13th, 2007, 11:02am [meta]Yes, but there's a rather substantial emotional gulf between "I vehemently disagree," and "I've never in my life heard such a sick view." They both say something roughly equivalent about the argument, but the latter additionally strongly implies something about the presenter of the argument -- that he or she is somehow damaged for espousing it. I would prefer to see language more like the former, and, when possible, I like to speak up before things get "out of hand." Carry on.[/meta] --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 13th, 2007, 11:27am on 12/13/07 at 10:28:48, ecoist wrote:
There isn't a cosmic law that reality has to be pleasant; unfortunately. Quote:
It is profitable if they can get away with it. Whether they can depends on things like the presence of competition, consumer watchgroups/lobbies, and government control. In this day and age we do fairly well in those departments (at least around here). Yet, still, every now and then you'll hear about businesses making price deals, or stifling competition in other ways. And they lobby for legislation detrimental to consumer interest; and unfortunately they are occasionally successful in their efforts. Quote:
Quote:
The American revolution did not occur without leadership, without government. If that had been the case, the English would have had no trouble putting the rebellion down. A revolution does not keep itself going. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Grimbal on Dec 13th, 2007, 11:38am On that subject, I always think of Tibet. They have a culture against violence and against war. Well, they could do nothing against being invaded. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by rmsgrey on Dec 13th, 2007, 12:20pm War has been (somewhat cynically) described as "the continuation of diplomacy by other means". As long as at least one side believes they can get more than they'll lose by going to war, and the other side believes they can better afford to resist than to lose what the aggressors would take from them, there will be wars. A simple example of when war would normally be inevitable: when a limited, essential resource is insufficient to support the combined population of two or more groups both dependent on the same limited supply. Either both reduce their population, or one group dominates the other, or both face disaster. Even with an agreement in place, there are strong incentives to each group (and to the individuals in each group) to break the agreement. And it may be a depressing view of life to acknowledge that serial killers and rapists and other monsters exist, it's a lot more accurate than one that insists that everyone is fundamentally good and decent and wants to be friends. It's also a lot more accurate than a view that assumes that everyone is a serial killer or rapist barely kept in check by fear of consequences - the truth is that the vast majority are decent ordinary people, who are willing to pay what they consider to be a fair price to get something legitimately, but who will also cheerfully download pirated music/software if they consider the asking price unreasonable. There are some saints, and there are some monsters, and sometimes the monsters are drawn to positions of power... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 13th, 2007, 1:44pm on 12/13/07 at 10:28:48, ecoist wrote:
I never said it requires war, but that these characteristics will lead to war. As long as someone thinks they have something to gain, they will go to whatever limits to get their way. Quote:
Don't even bring up Cindy Sheehan with me... she is a devastated mother, but her son would be appalled at her actions. Know this, that those people who enter the service are dedicated to the cause they believe in and are willing to risk their lives to save yours, and the ungrateful attitude with which they are often rewarded is just plain dispicable from all the people who reap the benefits of their actions. What first hand experience do you have with losing people in war? Any family or is this all just your idea of how those who really have been effected feel? Quote:
Ever been to a country in which there is censorship? You'll find that it is entirely possible to control things with the right leverage. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by mikedagr8 on Dec 14th, 2007, 12:47am War is never a good thing in my opinion. The fighting is not necessary. Sure quarrels, disagreeements and rowdy discussions are fines, but fighting, to an extreme, is not necessary. I'm not a pacifist, no, but I try at all costs to prevent fights. The only time I believe that fights should occur, are in self defence, but this should never happen if words are used instead of fists or guns. There are times when war has benefited societies, but the prices paid, they are not ever worth it. Life is the most valuable thing, and one can not put a dollar amount on it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 14th, 2007, 1:17am on 12/14/07 at 00:47:12, mikedagr8 wrote:
Personally, I'm rather glad they faced up to that particular evil where the rest of us were unable to. Perhaps if you extend "self-defense" to the defense of others as well. Not that "self-defense" isn't already a slippery slope in itself (consider Iraq, which the Bush administration considered a sort of preemptive self-defense) Quote:
Quote:
*) which I ate for breakfast |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Grimbal on Dec 14th, 2007, 5:45am on 12/14/07 at 01:17:20, towr wrote:
Once you have asked "to whom", the answer becomes obvious. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 14th, 2007, 6:04am A couple of things: Which of these situations would you be willing to go to war for? 1. What if you are purely defending yourself from foreign invaders? 2. What if another country has placed a ban on your products and closed their ports to you, but you desperately need their goods and the trade? 3. What if the country turned hostile towards you not by attacking you directly, but capturing, detaining, and/or torturing citizens of your country that lives in the other country, including the ambassadors? 4. What if a VERY close ally of yours is on the verge of losing a war with another country, and they lose, you know you will go down soon too? Also, would you attack a foreign country without being provoked? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 14th, 2007, 8:06am on 12/14/07 at 06:04:26, Ghost Sniper wrote:
Well depends what you mean by invaders... :P People peacefully coming into country I'm ok with. If they try and take over violently and force their ideas on everyone else, yes I would support going to war (of course I'd see if there was a peaceable way to work it out first, but if not... ) Quote:
There are some economic war tactics you could use first to make it rather unprofitable for them to close their ports to you... you won't gain a whole lot in that case by forcing them to let you in... the best solution is to appeal to their pocket book. Quote:
Most definitely yes. Those actions declare war on the citizens and one of the primary duties of the government is to protect it's citizens. Quote:
At the minimum, you would come to the aid of your ally. Depending on the circumstances, a suitable response would vary from supporting them with supplies to launching a full-scale assault yourself. The specifics of the situation would be very important to consider, but to leave an ally hanging is a very poor idea. Quote:
No. But you have to take into consideration that there are many different opinions as to what is "provocation". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 14th, 2007, 9:59am http::/www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory152.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 14th, 2007, 10:13am OK. One more question: What is your opinion on combining church with state? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 14th, 2007, 10:42am on 12/14/07 at 10:13:25, Ghost Sniper wrote:
Combining, say, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with the state, would probably do little harm, though. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 14th, 2007, 12:55pm on 12/14/07 at 09:59:36, ecoist wrote:
Thank you. However I still disagree. Economics is a theory and even the experts can't predict with certainty what will happen as a result of an incident or change in the economy. I'm quite familiar with history, and from my perspective, there have been many occasions in which (while not something we strive for) war has been extremely profitable. on 12/14/07 at 10:13:25, Ghost Sniper wrote:
I agree with Towr. Though I'm not sure I want to be ruled by the spaghetti monster :P even if I do enjoy pasta. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by mikedagr8 on Dec 14th, 2007, 7:06pm on 12/14/07 at 12:55:25, ima1trkpny wrote:
Blame the pirates then. :P In hindsight towr, it was beneficial. In the long term a war maybe beneficial, short term no. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 15th, 2007, 1:14pm on 12/14/07 at 19:06:59, mikedagr8 wrote:
And also consider that the Spanish gained quite a bit from their war on the Aztecs and Inca's. A few hundred men overthrew empires. Quite beneficial for Spain, considering the amounts of gold they hauled away. Of course, it's not a feat you could replicate in this time. Perhaps if we find a way to reach other worlds. (Not, mind you, that I'd be in favour of subjugating them, even if we easily, and without much risk, could. It might be profitable, but it's still a rotten thing to do.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 17th, 2007, 10:11am on 12/16/07 at 06:12:45, Iceman wrote:
I'm not sure if that is the case anymore. Don't forget that the former Soviet Union and the U.S. agreed to end the arms race, drastically decreasing the number of nuclear weapons in each country. Also, after the U.S.S.R was dissolved, Russian military might has drastically decreased. I'm sure that combined, U.S. and U.S.S.R can do some major damage, but I'm not so sure if they can destroy the world anymore, especially with the emergence of Chinese military might. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 17th, 2007, 10:55am Even without nukes involved, the US is already doing a pretty good job destroying the environment ;) (Obviously they're not solely responsible, but they do account for some 25% of it with just 5% of the earth's population). Speaking of nukes: nuclear winter + global warming = temperate climate? :P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 17th, 2007, 5:05pm To your data, towr, add the fact that man's total contribution to the current climate change is around 2 percent. Natural phenomena, uncontrolled by man, account for the rest. So, even if we nuke ourselves, the billions of rotting bodies will not significantly increase green house gases. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 18th, 2007, 12:44am Even if we were only contributing 2% to the problem, consider that if you have a ball of plutonium 1% under critical mass then adding 2% to it poses a rather significant problem for people standing nearby. :P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 18th, 2007, 5:52am on 12/17/07 at 17:05:03, ecoist wrote:
And you call yourself Ecoist? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 18th, 2007, 8:27am Exactly, Ghost Sniper! I respect natural law. An integral part of that law is human ecology, guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand, a much more positive, and accurate, view of human nature than some of you realize. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 18th, 2007, 8:42am on 12/18/07 at 08:27:32, ecoist wrote:
Interesting... you seem to be under the impression that I feel most people are war-mongering type, etc and that I've got a negative view of human nature. But I feel that isn't true, most people are reasonable and can be detered from war-like actions if there is sufficient motivation not to. However there are people out there who would kill you and not think anything about it and to pretend otherwise is folly. If you have no problem with letting them kill you... well that is your own perogative... but personally I'm not just going to roll over and die because someone feels it is their god-given right to kill anyone who disagrees with them. People are for the most part good, and will do the right thing unless they feel it is in their better interests not to. You can't avoid the fact though that people will act in their own best interest instinctively, so as long as you can keep your aims in-line with theirs, you'll have no problem, but human nature is something that cannot be discounted. This rather reminds me of the Bagel Man episode... (Freakonomics if you haven't read it... good read) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 18th, 2007, 9:20am Glad to hear that you recognize that man is not inherently evil, ima1trkphy! However, it is Adam Smith's invisible hand that minimizes the harm caused by the evil ones among us, by reducing the incentive for violence and magnifying good people's ability to defend against such violence! I also believe that, by studying the handiwork of this invisible hand, man can learn to solve problems without leaping all too quickly to the war solution. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 18th, 2007, 9:45am I can't quite see what Adam Smith has to do with anything. His theories are as outdated and unfalsifiable as Freud's psychoanalysis or Marxist theories. You can get whatever you want out of it using smoke and mirrors. A bunch of invisible handwaving the lot of them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 18th, 2007, 6:14pm on 12/18/07 at 09:45:44, towr wrote:
Amen. I'm sorry Ecoist... but I personally don't see Adam Smith as being God's little right hand man waving away evil in the world. Human nature was human nature long before Adam Smith was ever born and will continue to be until long after he is forgotten. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 18th, 2007, 9:00pm towr and ima1trkpny, perhaps your comments more properly belong in "creationism vs evolution", what with you, towr, calling Adam Smith's theories "invisible hand waving" and you, ima1trkpny, suggesting that I regard Adam Smith as "God's little right hand waving away evil in the world"! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JiNbOtAk on Dec 18th, 2007, 9:54pm Can't comment much about Adam Smith, since what little I know about him is what I've read from the net. If we're talking about Adam Sandler, however.. :P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 19th, 2007, 7:20am The problem I have with Smith's capitalism is the same one I have with Marx's socialism: they both require that the average person understand and consider the social ramifications of their decisions. Capitalist economists call it "enlightened self-interest", socialist economists call it "the greater good", but it boils down to the same thing -- average people have to have the wellbeing of the society as one of their values. In my experience, unfortunately, this simply doesn't happen on a scale larger than the "community", and even then only rarely. The average Wal*Mart shopper has never even considered the retail giant's effect -- for good or ill -- on the supply chain, locally-owned business, or domestic manufacturing; they just know Wal*Mart has the lowest prices on the things they want to buy. Real people simply don't practice the "enlightened" part of Simth's enlightened self interest to the degree necessary for laissez-faire capitalism to work on a national or global scale. I don't think we should let the invisible hand of the free market exclusively dictate social good any more than we should let the leader of the Communist party -- or the will of the majority -- exclusively dictate social good. All forms of power are open to abuse. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 19th, 2007, 7:52am on 12/19/07 at 07:20:05, SMQ wrote:
Precisely ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 19th, 2007, 9:53am What I was afraid of seems to be true! Some of you don't understand "the invisible hand" idea at all! SMQ, and perhaps the rest of you, are well aware that the individual acts in his own self-interest, largely ignorant of the full consequences of his actions for good or ill, even for himself! The beauty of Adam Smith's idea is that despite this fact, man's self-serving actions often result in overall good for society, "as if they were led by an invisible hand"! SMQ's WalMart example is a good case on this point. Depending on one's point of view, both good and bad things result from consumers choosing Walmart over locally-owned businesses. Consumers get products more cheaply and some local businesses go belly up because they cannot compete with Walmart. However, looking at the whole picture, consumer's standard of living rises, businesses that don't compete with Walmart gain customers who now have more money to purchase their wares, and, for the most part, those locally-owned businesses should go belly up if they cannot satisfy consumers as well as another business. Those locally-owned businesses that continue to thrive, do so by offering the personal attention and knowledge that Walmart cannot supply. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 19th, 2007, 10:26am Thank you, but I think I understand reasonably well: see, for example, the section in Wikipedia's article on Adam Smith entitled The "Adam Smith-Problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#The_.22Adam_Smith-Problem.22). While the collective effect of even uninformed consumerism may provide some societal benefit, that benefit may not reflect the values of the members of the society. That, to me, is a problem. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 19th, 2007, 10:47am on 12/19/07 at 09:53:22, ecoist wrote:
It is not people's nature to be solely self-interested; we're social animals. People do not only frequently display bouts of altruism, they actually get themselves killed on other's behalf. And if you're not around to reap the benefits, you can't justify it as self-interest. Now, of course, there are some "wonderful" theories to explain how altruism in fact follows from self-interest (and we can throw some overcommitting in the mix to explain "death by self-interest"), but that's as loony as supposing the opposite (after all, how can you serve other people's interest if you neglect your own; you need to make sure you'll be around, and in a good position, to help people later on. I could help a lot more people a lot better if I made a lot more money. [Well, except I would have much time, but then I could employ other people to actually help people, so it'll all work out; altruism for the win]). I'd also dispute that people in general even know what their best interest are (and for that matter that they know others' or vice versa; just to avoid accusations of paternalism). At best we might have an idea about the local optimum interest, but not the global optimum interest. Many people won't even consider the issue much. Or worse, they know what would be in their best interest, but go against it anyway; as is often the case with addicts. Every smoker knows it's in their best interest to stop smoking; yet they generally don't (And so tobacco companies make a killing; in more ways than one; yay capitalism; thank you mr. Smith). People are an irrational bunch; whether we are worse or better of for it is a matter of debate. Quote:
And note that most wars are based solely on someone's own best interest; while, mind you, the soldiers typically seem entirely clueless about their best interests (i.e. run away fast). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 19th, 2007, 11:26am You are my kind of debator, SMQ! I wish I could back up my remarks as well as you do! Quote:
Yes, indeed! But the problem lies more with "the values of the members of the society" than with Adam Smith's economic theory. The laws of nature, and its application to human ecology are without value (well, at least to secular humanists). I find the values of genital mutilation, honor killings, and such abhorrent. I also find restrictions on immigration morally despicable. What pleases me about the forces of the free market is that the more extreme values tend to die out and the more universally accepted values tend to thrive (evolution)! Even organized crime is learning that whacking the opposition is not as economically efficient as less bloody alternatives! Thankfully, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre is history! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 19th, 2007, 12:12pm on 12/19/07 at 11:26:59, ecoist wrote:
But it's not just the "more extreme" values that fail to thrive! The only "value" (and I'm half switching meanings here, and half not) recognized by the free market is economic value; Smith equates "benefit to a society's economy" with "benefit to a society". I disagree. Two anecdotes to illustrate my position: 1) Since at least the early 70s it has been widely recognized -- not just by economists but by average citizens -- that one of the weaknesses of the United States is our dependence on foreign crude oil production. Yet in the last 30+ years the situation has changed only a little. Partly because the average consumer isn't willing to inconvenience themselves to cut back on their own gasoline/fuel oil usage, but primarily because the market provides no pressure to change. Alternative energy sources are more costly, and those who can most easily afford to change are exactly those who can afford not to despite the rising cost of oil. As a society there can be little doubt that we value energy independence, but that value is not supported by the market, and won't be until the situation is much more dire than it is now. 2) My great-great aunt purchased a small tract of land along a river bayou back when it was in the "middle of nowhere." Other than a modest house she left it primarily undeveloped, preferring to preserve some measure of the natural tranquility of the setting. As my mother grew up she spent quite a bit of time out there, just watching, thinking, being in that place. Over time, half of the lot came to her parents -- my grandparents -- who promised it would in turn be left to her. Over time the suburbs grew to encompass what was once the middle of nowhere, and circumstances became such that my grandparents wanted to build on the property. My mother vehemently opposed the idea, writing them a long letter in which she tried to explain the sense of peace, of place she received from her visits there, and how that would be destroyed by developing the lot. My grandparents wrote back that she should be grateful to them, since with a house on the lot it would be worth twice as much when she inherited it. They were actually unable to grasp the concept that the land had value to my mother outside of its economic value. It seems to me the invisible hand of Smith's economics is equally blind. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 19th, 2007, 2:52pm Sorry, don't know what you mean by "economic value", SMQ. Seems meaningless to me - unless you mean prices of goods and services. Also, since economic law is valueless, "benefit to a society's economy" is also meaningless. As for 1), I don't know what economists you refer to, but I know of no economist who regards dependence on foreign oil as a weakness. If this were so, the United States is weaker now than ever! We depend on the labor of illegal immigrants! We depend on outsourcing for much of our manufactured goods! And Japan, a major economic power, has virtually no resources of its own! You say "the market provides no pressure to change". Of course not, because the price structure generated by market forces shows that there is no need to change! It is man's variable notions of "value" that changes! And you are right, the situation will not change until "the situation is much more dire than it is now". In which case, the market will get us on track whether we worry about oil or not. 2) reinforces the fact that economic law is valueless. Some of us rejoice in our fast cars and cell phones. Others, like the Amish, decry the encroachment of modernity. Like your mother, we must all recognize that nature is not our personal servant. As Brutus said to Caesar, "the fault, dear Caesar, is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings!" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 20th, 2007, 7:27am Alright, let me start with a definition of terms as I'm using them: Economy: the exchange of goods and services. Often, but not necessarily, mediated by a monetary transaction. Economic Value: The value of something in an economy -- what someone else is willing to give for it. Again often, but not necessarily, associated with monetary value. Economic Benefit: Something which increases the net economic value of all goods and services being considered. What you call meaningless, then, is exactly the point I'm trying to make: I do not think/feel/believe/accept that the greatness/success/benefit/health/measure of a society can be defined entirely in economic terms. Adam Smith explicitly held exactly that: that the sole measure of a society was its economy -- that anything which benefited the economy benefited the society and anything which harmed the economy harmed the society. I disagree. With the first anecdote I was attempting to illustrate two facets of my viewpoint. First, that it was not just the extreme/marginal values of a society which are "ignored" by market forces, but sometimes the core ones. Far and away the vast majority of citizens of the United States hold self-determination/independence -- both personal and national -- as a virtue, but, as I attempted to illustrate, that societal value is not "supported" by the market, and, in fact, may be eroded. Second, I hoped to show that the market is reactive rather than proactive. You say the market shows there's no need to change now, but power plants have a long lead time -- on the order of a decade -- and power technologies even longer: 30 to 50 years by most estimates. I hold that by the time the market reacts to rising oil prices it may well be too late to avoid a temporary but severe energy shortage. The "valueless" law of supply and demand says that the rising prices will drive increased production -- and I don't doubt it -- but because of the technologies involved, that "correction" could well take anywhere from several years to several decades! With the second anecdote I hoped to illustrate what I meant by non-economic value. The value my mother found in that land added nothing to the economy. It perhaps raised the price that she, personally, would be willing to pay for it, but since it was well beyond her means in any case there was no economic impact. From an economic standpoint my grandparents were right -- they wanted to add clear and lasting economic value to the land, and what they wanted to take away was immeasurable, ephemeral, valueless. And yet I think most everyone can understand that something would be lost in building that house. Not all value is economic. So, returning to the topic of the thread, when you argue that the measure of the "goodness" or "badness" of war is its impact on the economy, I argue that there are other factors in play as well. Taking the measure of a war solely in economic terms, by the valueless laws of economics, seems to me to make just about as much sense as taking the measure of a person solely in physical terms, by the valueless laws of physics. Just as your impact on society can't be described by your stature alone, I don't think a war's impact on society can be described by its cost alone. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by rmsgrey on Dec 20th, 2007, 9:25am It strikes me that individual contentment, while good for the individual, is terrible for the economy - if someone is content with what they have, they reduce consumption (or, at least, cease increasing consumption). Someone overworking in order to afford a playstation 3 (or whatever) is good for the economy (at least in the short term) - more money gets passed around - but bad for them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 20th, 2007, 10:14am I commend your clarity and thoroughness, SMQ! Your comments deserve a careful response. Allow me to post my response in parts. Interjections between the parts welcome. Quote:
I tentatively accept your definition of "economy". I have a quibble with "Economic value". The prices one pays, or that which he gives in barter, for things reflects the person's time-sensitive estimate of its value to him. Other persons have different estimates at the same time. Note that we willingly pay higher prices at local stores for the same item which is cheaper at a mall farther away. All depends on whether it is worth it to spend more time (and gas) to obtain the cheaper price, a personal choice. So, what does economic value mean when, according to you, it derives from the value of goods and services, which values are different in different places? Your definition of "Economic Benefit" seems, at first blush, to be a definition of "inflation"! Quote:
I agree completely! Sorry that my clumsy exposition may have led you to think I believe otherwise. Let me briefly put it this way. I believe that it is wrong for anyone to force his values on me. That includes the wrongness of me forcing my values on anyone else. Where valueless economic law comes in, in my view, is that this law makes it expensive for anyone, or group, to aggress against another person or group. Hence, economic law tends to minimize aggression (an instance of the physicist's notion of entropy?). Nature doesn't care about this, but I appreciate it! Will continue after more thought. Thanks again, SMQ. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 20th, 2007, 11:04am The hermit can be good for the economy, rmsgrey! If he has any money, his actions reduce the money supply, thus making everything ultimately slightly cheaper. Also, his lack of consumption makes the goods and services he abandons slightly less scarce for others. And recall that there are those who rail against over-population and global warming. The hermit takes one small step to ease these problems. Don't you think it is a bit arrogant on your part to regard one addicted to PlayStation 3 as hurting himself? Why not be a little less judgemental and rejoice that his addiction contributes to other's standard of living? If there were no Playstation 3's, there would be more discretionary income for other things, which things would, therefore, cost more! Besides, I'd bet that there are some things you do that some others would regard as harmful to you! He who is without vice, let him cast the first iphone! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 20th, 2007, 12:52pm on 12/20/07 at 11:04:41, ecoist wrote:
Ecoist, I think you misinterpretted his comment. I don't believe he was commenting on how good or bad playing video games is. He was merely commenting that in many ways a person who is completely content doesn't really serve to forward the economy. Because they aren't consuming, yes the money supply will go down, but at the same time because he isn't spending, the income for businesses go down. That is money with which they could employ more workers, so if they have to lay those workers off, you now have more people without any money to spend or ways in which to earn money. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 20th, 2007, 3:10pm Quote:
You are completely right here. Since market forces support no particular value system, they often are hostile to any set of values. Quote:
What you say could indeed happen, but the solution lies with we humans, exploiting market forces as best we can. The market, whether reactive or proactive, doesn't care one way or the other ("The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on"). There are, at this moment, many entrepreneurs, who see things as you do, who are actively positioning themselves with alternative sources of fuel, and products that use less energy, to capitalize on future events. If your vision materializes, these enterprising individuals will minimize its impact (provided government doesn't intervene with stupid regulations that are sure to worsen the crisis, as it did with the Great Depression). Quote:
Right! In fact, no value is economic! We humans determine value, and the wiser among us use economics to maintain and enhance our values. Getting back to this thread, that's why I claim war is bad. War destroys people and treasure, thus inhibiting our ability to exploit nature for our quality of life! Unless an aggressor threatens these three basic values, war should be avoided. Quote:
Of course not! Cost-benefit analysis is required! War is justified only if its benefit outweighs its horrendous cost. Historically, the benefits of war have rarely exceeded its cost! Of course, there are those who will cherry-pick nice events following a war to claim that those nice events justified the war. For example, some claim that the American Civil War was justified because it preserved the union and abolished slavery. No mention of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died fighting that war. No mention that slavery was dying before the war began. No mention that one of the greatest ideas of our founding fathers was the right of states to secede from the union. That great right has been lost forever. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ThudanBlunder on Dec 20th, 2007, 11:41pm on 12/20/07 at 11:04:41, ecoist wrote:
How about overworking (which is obviously what he meant)? ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 21st, 2007, 1:09am on 12/20/07 at 15:10:31, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 21st, 2007, 5:21am on 12/20/07 at 15:10:31, ecoist wrote:
While I, too, have been enjoying this conversation, that statement is just so ... presumptuous ... that I don't know how to continue. Setting aside for a moment my experience that very few people who lay claim to wisdom actually have it; setting aside as well your seeming to claim some sort of power over Smith's invisible hand; even setting aside the fact that by equating the use of economics with wisdom you're imbuing it with value while still vehemently claiming it and its laws are valueless; the implication that those of us who lack the power/creativity/desire to manipulate the invisible hand somehow deserve to have our values eroded staggers me. I have nowhere to go from there that looks the least bit fruitful. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 21st, 2007, 10:27am Quote:
Would have given the same answer, ThudanBlunder. Quote:
Contemptible zinger, towr, but it has some merit. My comment is most likely wrong (at least for the current population level). As Julian Simon has so powerfully shown, people are the greatest economic resource! Quote:
It is wise to use what helps, but not necessarily unwise to use other things. Nothing to do with "equating the use of economics with wisdom". Quote:
The law of gravity has no inherent value or purpose; it just is. When we exploit it by shaking the apple tree, we get apples. When we try to fly without wings, we fall on our faces. Humans alone determine value. Quote:
Such an absurd view staggers me too! Even more stunned by what I could have said that equates to such nonsense! SMQ, since you seem sincere in your belief that I have said such clearly ridiculous things, I must agree, reluctantly, that further discussion between us is fruitless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Dec 21st, 2007, 10:43am I did/do indeed have that strong impression (of your having implied something you apparently didn't mean to), but I'll be the first to admit that my impressions can (and often are) mistaken -- especially where such a slippery medium as an internet message board is concerned. I hope to find the time to go back and sort out where my impression is coming from, but realistically I probably won't be able to for a week or so... In the mean time please accept my apology for having misconstrued your intentions. I still think we have a fundamental disagreement over the proper role of economics in society, but perhaps the discussion (which probably belongs in another thread) can continue to be fruitful. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 21st, 2007, 3:02pm SMQ, you not only have integrity, you are also unafraid of humility! No need to apologize, though. I see several places where misunderstanding can occur. I disputed your definition of "economic value". I shouldn't have! I suspect that your meaning is akin to what Adam Smith meant by "wealth of nations". The terms "weak economy" and "strong economy" are meaningful, but difficult to pin down precisely, especially in just a few words. And confusion could have easily developed in the use of "value" applied to economic law. When I implied that knowledge of economics is valuable, I meant that such knowledge can help man make good decisions where economics plays a role. But one could easily interpret this comment as economics can teach us proper values. I mean no such thing (however, there are those who take a utilitarian view of morality: if it works, it is moral)! Perhaps we can continue this discussion here by limiting the discussion of "the role of economics in society" to the role of economics in war. Historically, many wars were fought to obtain wealth. I believe that economic theory has shown that war is one of the worst ways to obtain wealth; the best being through voluntary exchange via division of labor and comparative advantage. Nowadays, many believe that wars stimulate the economy and so are beneficial, at least in this respect. I, along with many economists, totally reject this assessment. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 23rd, 2007, 9:53am on 12/21/07 at 10:27:10, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
Nevertheless, if they can be replaced by machines, they typically are. So in many individual cases machines prove a greater economic resource than the people, as far as the employer is concerned. on 12/21/07 at 15:02:23, ecoist wrote:
States as a whole on the other; well, it depends a lot on how well matched the two sides are. We in the west did well enough by imperialism/colonialism; our opponents were no match. Fighting with our peers on the other hand was a much more hazardous undertaking. And of course there are far better ways to profit by war than fighting it. E.g. selling weapons to either, or both, sides. Obviously being neutral has great advantages in that respect. Fun fact, during the 80-year war, the dutch provinces sold weapons to Spain to fund their war with Spain. (And the war led us, coincidentally or not, into our golden age; but to be fair that age ended with war too). Quote:
I'm rather skeptical economic theory can say about war. What model of war do they have to work with? Certainly you'd first have to recognize there are many different types of war, different goals, different (types of) parties. A blanket judgment is unlikely, and suspect at the very least. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 23rd, 2007, 10:50am Quote:
I apologize! I am taking this topic perhaps too seriously. I assumed that some of your remarks were more designed to needle than to inform. Quote:
So, how do you explain the fact that employers are hiring illegal immigrants, and outsourcing jobs overseas? Quote:
Works both ways, towr. What about your "blanket judgement" about the economic superiority of machines over people? And, since you seem to know so little about economics, it is only natural and proper that you are skeptical of what economic theory can say about war. I'm no expert on economics either, but I do receive a monthly education on the subject from Reason Magazine and The Freeman (published by the Foundation for Economic Education). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 23rd, 2007, 3:38pm on 12/23/07 at 10:50:55, ecoist wrote:
Because the employer's focus is on making profits. Most of the time machines are cheaper than people in the long run, but if you have a whole supply of illegal immigrants or can outsource to a country that will tolerate wages so low they are even cheaper than running machines, why would the employer purchase machines? (And going to machines isn't exactly a bad thing... people have to make the machines in the first place so that creates some jobs) Quote:
How much classical schooling Towr and everyone else has had I can't speak for, but his comments ring true in practical experience. And that is far often more reliable than the "classical theory" of what could/should/would happen. The theories for the most part deal with what would ideally happen, so they are a useful tool, but by no means rock solid when you add in the variables of life. And if you want to make yourself more educated on the topic of economics, pay particular attention to Allen Greenspan. He's not always right, but I can't think of anyone who understands macroeconomics better. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 23rd, 2007, 7:45pm Quote:
You make it sound like "making profits" is a bad thing! How else would you get the goodies you enjoy, charity or theft? Would you rather pay higher prices for your goodies than let the world's poor obtain the wherewithal to enjoy some of those goodies? Quote:
When you learned scientific theories, did those theories leave out what actually happens? When you learned basic economic theory, did this theory omit "the facts on the ground"? Or, are you confusing the physical and natural sciences with arts and philosophy, where ideals are not restrained by reality? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ima1trkpny on Dec 23rd, 2007, 10:56pm on 12/23/07 at 19:45:56, ecoist wrote:
I never said making profits was a bad thing, I answered you question as to why if humans were not the greatest resource, companies outsourced or paid illegal immigrants. Labor is a pivotal resource for an economy, but as SMQ pointed out, the business doesn't care who does the labor so long as it gets done (via machine or human) and as cheaply as possible. So in some instances machines are the more profitable alternative, and in others, outsourcing or hiring illegals. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 24th, 2007, 4:30am on 12/23/07 at 10:50:55, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
Once we don't need people to run the machines anymore, perhaps humanity can keep themselves busy with more worthwhile things, well, more entertaining things at least. Quote:
Frankly, I'd hope there's a better justification for not killing people than that it's not in one's economic interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 24th, 2007, 4:49am on 12/23/07 at 19:45:56, ecoist wrote:
Typically it's not as clear cut and there are both good and bad effects which need to be weighed against each other. Quote:
Of course, these days, as you undoubtedly know, there are businesses that have such a fair trade business model. They make less of a profit, and consumers pay more; but, with the luxury to do so, enough consumers like to buy some peace of mind along with their coffee. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 24th, 2007, 5:51am on 12/24/07 at 04:49:51, towr wrote:
Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the world to help alleviate the situations of every single poor man. Even if there was, no one would be willing to give up more than half of their money helping the poor. For example, look at Bill Gates. Yes, he does have a very large-scale charity running. However, a lot of the money in it is not his, and he only gives about 1/10 - 1/5 of his money, not assets, to the cause. Also, consider China. Currently, the population is well above 1.3 billion people. Yes, the rich is much, much, richer than the poor, and yes, the government could do anything they wanted to, but you must consider 2 things: 1. If the government tries to intervene with China's capitalism, total chaos would ensue. 2. There is not enough money in China to distribute to everyone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 24th, 2007, 9:27am on 12/24/07 at 05:51:33, Ghost Sniper wrote:
Certainly there isn't currently enough of earth to go around for everyone to live on the western level of consumption (but you can be not-poor on a much lower level then that). I don't think it's really an issue of money in the first place. Not having money is the symptom, not the cause, of being poor. It's also a matter of education, infrastructure and organization. The whole "teaching a man to fish"-shtick. Quote:
If memory serves me right, there was a guy in Texas(?) that won the lottery and gave it all away to charity, and then years later he won it again, and gave it away again. Quote:
Quote:
Are you suggesting the government of China does not in fact interfere with the Chinese economy? Everything is still very much government regulated there. There would be chaos if they tried to reverse their capitalist policies entirely, but there are plenty of ways to intervene besides reversing course. Quote:
But, in any case, the US debt to China alone is already over a trillion dollars, so at the very least every family could get a thousand dollars (or that plasma screen mentioned earlier). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 24th, 2007, 10:31am Sorry, guys, that my clumsy discourse fails to convince you! The profit motive is "intrinsically" good for the economy is a well-established fact! So, too, is the primacy of human beings as the greatest natural resource! Sure, some people's profit motive, and other actions, lead them to do things detrimental to the economy. However, the net effect of profit-seeking and human beings doing their thing is overwhelmingly good for the economy! Sort of like you guys, overall correct with your comments, just wrong in this rare instance. (And let me clear up another thing. The economy is distinct from love and hate, peace and war, spirituality and hedonism. However, they are all parts of the human condition which greatly influence each other. In particular, the economy improves not only prosperity, it contributes to peace and harmony. That's why marxism, socialism, and fascism are no match against the power of freedom.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 24th, 2007, 4:22pm on 12/24/07 at 09:27:56, towr wrote:
Notice that he gave his money in his WILL, not when he is alive. EVERYBODY is greedy to some extent, and obviously he lived as at least a middle-upper class citizen. Personally, my favorite example of giving to the poor but being poor yourself is Jesus. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Dec 24th, 2007, 4:27pm on 12/24/07 at 10:31:26, ecoist wrote:
The profit motive is intrinsically good for the currently prescribed economic model. This is true. But there are many assumptions made in this model that are not true in practice. Some of these assumptions entail treating all humans in the way a machine is treated. Im sure you view your fellow humans as more than a source of labor. Yet you state to the other members that profit is intrinsically good and that maximizing one entitys profit moves us closer towards maximizing the potential of the society. Before applying any theory to an entire worldview, shouldnt we examine it fully before declaring its motives intrinsically good? If you really question whether economics alone can be used to describe the health goodness of the global situation I believe you will see that it fails at the very foundations. It does not take into account the overall good. Just as there is no free lunch there is also no free goodness, if that makes any sense at all. In order for one thing to become better, some other thing will become worse. I realize you are quoting sound economic theory. It is a useful tool but like all theories it is not a singular basis for analyzing how good any one thing is. Those disagreeing with you, especially towr, seem to be consistent in this stand. on 12/24/07 at 04:30:14, towr wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 24th, 2007, 9:24pm Since you are a new voice in this debate, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, I'll do something I've avoided until now, point out certain errors several posters make. Quote:
Talk about an issue assumed to have been raised but no one actually raised. We are talking about the actual economy, not some model. Quote:
Absolutely! That's what Adam Smith did, and all those economists who tested and refined his theory. Also, you repeat the above error: no one has suggested "applying any theory to an entire worldview"! That is what some posters assumed other posters were saying! Quote:
Of course economics "does not take into account the overall good! You seem compelled to say this because you, yet again, commit the error of assuming someone said the equivalent of "economics alone can be used to describe the health "goodness" of the global situtation". Quote:
Here you make the gross error that economics is a zero-sum game! Nothing can be further from the truth! Yes, there are winners and losers in this game, but, more typically, when you buy your latte from Starbucks, both you and Starbucks win! Quote:
Again with the same error! No one said economics is "a singular basis for analysing how good any one thing is". Bottom line: human ecology is an intricate complex of nature, social interaction, and market forces. To maximize peace, harmony, and prosperity, it is very useful to understand all components of the human condition. We ignore the effect of market forces to our peril. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 25th, 2007, 2:33am on 12/24/07 at 10:31:26, ecoist wrote:
Profit is "good" by virtue of promoting the economy (which for the moment we'll assume is good, because otherwise it can't support profit's status as "good"); but not in it's own right. Quote:
Unless you're proposing there isn't always a course of action available that's not detrimental to the economy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 25th, 2007, 3:09am on 12/24/07 at 21:24:37, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
If economic theory can't say whether war is good or bad, other than that it's (usually) not beneficial to economy (of warring nations) itself, why have we spend so much time on it? Throughout the thread there has been the very strong sense of you suggesting economic theory is the end all and say all of morality. Quote:
Quote:
on 12/19/07 at 09:53:22, ecoist wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 25th, 2007, 11:40am Glad that you illustrate your point with actual data, towr! You write Quote:
Did you miss where I said "often result in overall good for society"? How can you compare this with what what WTF said? Quote:
There seems to be a tendency to translate my saying "generally true" into "universally true" and to convert "look at things this way" to "this is the 'singular' way to look at things". Adam Smith wrote that market forces tend to serve the good of society. Moreover, economics is not the only factor influencing the good or ill of society. War and big government are major factors contributing to society's ills. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 26th, 2007, 4:58am on 12/25/07 at 11:40:27, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
A few other examples on 12/18/07 at 09:20:51, ecoist wrote:
on 12/20/07 at 15:10:31, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
Of course it's inherently unfair to present someone's points like this, because they're out of context and open to interpretation. Perhaps I haven't read things as well as I should have, or missed the interpretation that was intended. But this is pretty much how it struck me; and I daresay many others. So I hope you can understand how I may have come to think you were promoting economic theory as the answer to all of society's ills. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 26th, 2007, 5:04pm I commend the quality of your analysis, towr, although I disagree with it. It just dawned on me today that my quibbling about what I said and what some of you think I said is just silly! This thread is about war - good or bad! You are expressing your opinion about issues, and that's good, whoever you think is the source of the issue! I shouldn't care that it was not an issue that I raised! I should simply express my opinion on war, or whatever else comes up, and not let miss-interpretations bother me. However, one last quibble, since it can be thought to apply to Adam Smith's theory rather than to me. Quote:
The word "overall" in "resulting in the overall good" implies that the result of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is more good than bad, not all good without exceptions. And yes, the phrase does imply "sufficiency, ignoring other factors". Sufficiency for the good it creates, not all good. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Dec 27th, 2007, 3:14am on 12/26/07 at 17:04:52, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
Naturally, anything is sufficient for the good it creates solely by itself. But a lot of good only comes out of the combination of factors (and a lot of bad as well, for that matter). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Dec 27th, 2007, 9:37am Quote:
You are absolutely right, towr, that economics by itself isn't sufficient to achieve good! Who cares that someone may, or may not, have said otherwise? Quote:
Again, correct! As I have done before, and repeat now, I confirm the validity of some of the views you all have expressed. The view of Adam Smith, and most modern economists, is that market forces, remarkably, are responsible for what is called "spontaneous order". I am perhaps too excited about how economics helps (but not exclusively) make sense of the world. Mark Skousen, and economist and born-again christian, says "economics is the theory of everything!". An obvious exaggeration, but it shows his fascination with his profession. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Jan 11th, 2008, 8:58pm I just returned today to see this ganglion of economic activity completely dormant. While it seems to have culminated benignly I should also say that I viewed the recurrent disagreement more as result of word choice than ideology, as towr said. The response I supplied was also poorly worded and tactless. For that I apologize. It was a late night, under-composed shard of a thought and I should have retained it until the following morning. Happy New Year. (Late, I know. But better late...) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 11th, 2008, 9:54pm Perhaps there is more than word choice at work here. After thinking about everyone's posts, I got the impression that, underlying everything, Adam Smith's invisible hand (aka spontaneous order) is regarded as ridiculous nonsense! Indeed, Andrew P. Napolitano's book, "A Nation of Sheep" details how ignorant most people are of how things work politically and economically. So, I ask again, if corporate greed is so pervasive, why is it that the makers of Coca Cola failed to convince consumers to choose their new recipe for coca cola over their (now) classic (battery acid) coke? If planned obsolescence is so profitable for car companies, why can cars go for 100,000 miles without even a tuneup? If the FDA is so important for food safety, why does Kellogg have stricter restrictions on rat turds and roach parts in their corn flakes than the FDA requires? And, as John Stossell showed, why is the Hudson river cleaner despite government claims to the contrary? And back to war, European's regard of Bush's foreign policy is in the single digits! They regard the US as the main danger to peace in the world! I'm an American and couldn't agree more! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 12th, 2008, 6:55am on 01/11/08 at 21:54:18, ecoist wrote:
I'm all for spontaneous order, but Adam Smith's approach to it is nonsense. People would have to be a lot more rational and more capable of overseeing the consequences of their action for it to be true. The fact you can always recast events in terms of greed/self-interest, especially if they suddenly turn out to have been different, does not particularly speak for it, at all. It puts it, imo, on the lines as pseudo-scientific theories such as Marxism and Freudian psychology. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. Quote:
Politicians are, overall, no longer (overtly) in the pocket of companies. And consumers and workers have fought for their right to have a say; sometimes at the peril of their lives when it would have been all too easy to take the money and live a 'good' life. Nevertheless, companies still get things like DMCA pushed through, chisel away at net neutrality and try to push DRM through our throats; to name but a few things. Where they can, companies happily go against our interests. Just as long until we find a stick to hit them with, and most likely it has to be a slightly irrational stick at that. Quote:
Suffice it to say, if the US dropped off the face of the earth, I doubt it would be an immediate improvement. A lot of people might take it as an opportunity to finally fight it out. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 12th, 2008, 10:05am Quote:
Just as I suspected! You missed the significance of "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's theory! People need not be "rational" or "capable of overseeing the consequences of their actions"! Without any thought or concern for society's benefit, people often contribute to the betterment of society. For example, foreigners enter the US illegally to feed themselves and their families. Unwittingly, they are a net benefit to the American economy! Quote:
Not sure I understand all of this, but I get the distinct impression that you believe that companies would steal from consumers if they could get away with it. Certainly, there are such companies, but the vast majority are more concerned, for practical reasons, with profit, and realize that, to achieve such profit, they must provide a better product at a cheaper price than the competition. This effort obviously benefits the consumer. Quote:
Granted, the US can be a force for good as well as ill. But that's no excuse for tolerating bad behavior! You suggest "if the US dropped off the face of the earth, I doubt it would be an immediate improvement". Of course not! But who says the US should cease to exist? No one! The US should simply end its bad behavior and live by the noble principles that brought it into existence! As one of our founders, Thomas Jefferson, said, "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none"! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 12th, 2008, 12:07pm on 01/12/08 at 10:05:02, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
I disagree that that is the motive. I don't disagree that the accumulate behaviour of humanity moves it ahead in some sense of the word; evolution sees to that. But individual motives are not such that they fit Adam Smith's theory. Our "selfish genes" (as Dawkins puts it) have made us such that we regularly act against our individual self interest, because it 'benefits' our genes; even though at the same time most of us (as people) don't care in the least what our genes 'want'. Quote:
It's basic game theory. The only reason they would not, is if they either aren't motivated solely by profit or don't act rationally. Quote:
As long as the consumers don't know or don't care, businesses happily have us pay those costs. Rainforests still get destroyed for cheap palm oil; child labour is still used to make all sorts of good, possibly child slaves are used to produce cocoa beans that makes up most of our chocolate, etc. And there isn't enough of a ruckus from the public to force companies to change from these ways yet; except for a few that are ideologically motivated rather than profit-motivated. And if there were protest, it wouldn't in general be because of self-interest from the public, but due to moral ourage on behalf of the victims. Because that's the kind of being evolution made of us. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 12th, 2008, 3:21pm towr, you are rejecting a well-established theory with what appears to be virtually no knowledge of what the theory claims. And you compound this baseless rejection with a highly negative opinion of human nature: Quote:
I presented examples of benefits to society resulting from actions of people who had no such intentions. You've ignored or dismissed them. You presented examples of bad behavior by companies, suggesting the obvious falsehood that these aggregious behaviors are typical, when, in fact, they are rare when compared with the vast majority of profit-oriented companies that provide good service. To see this, you need look no further than the hundreds of companies you deal with on a daily basis. How many of them rip you off compared to those that serve you well, or at least adequately? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by rmsgrey on Jan 13th, 2008, 8:16am on 01/12/08 at 15:21:12, ecoist wrote:
And how many of them are acting "rationally" when they provide good service - at least in the short term, they'd make significantly more profit through less friendly practices. Or consider the various small speciality shops that barely make enough money to stay open - their owners would make more money by either switching to a more mainstream product, or by selling up and changing careers entirely. If I acted primarily in my financial best interest, I'd currently be working in the City somewhere with plenty of money coming in, but barely any time to spend it. Beyond a certain point, money ceases to be a primary motivator for me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 13th, 2008, 10:12am Quote:
Yet another example of what appears to be a strong belief that the profit motive is inherently evil. While trying to fashion an appropriate resoponse, I ran across some commentary by a renowned economist. Here is an excerpt: Greed, need and money By Walter Williams http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Demagoguery about greedy rich people or greedy corporate executives being paid 100 or 200 times their workers' salaries is a key weapon in the politics of envy. Let's talk about greed, starting off with Merriam-Webster's definition: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed." That definition is a bit worrisome because how does one know what a person really needs? It's something my economics students and I spend a bit of time on in the first lecture. For example, does a family really need one, two, three or four telephones? What about a dishwasher or a microwave oven? Are these excessive desires? If you say these goods are really needed, then I ask, how in the world did your great-grandmother and possibly your grandmother, not to mention most of today's world population, make it without telephones, dishwashers and microwave ovens? "Need" is a nice emotional term, but analytically, it is vacuous. "Selfish" is a bit more useful term, and it's the human motivation that gets wonderful things done. For example, I think it's wonderful that Alaskan king crab fishermen take the time and effort, often risking their lives in the cold Bering Sea, to catch king crabs that I enjoy. Do you think they make that sacrifice because they care about me? I'm betting they don't give a hoot about me. They make it possible for me to enjoy king crab legs because they want more money for themselves. How much king crab would I, and millions of others, enjoy if it all depended on human love and kindness? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 14th, 2008, 9:59am on 01/12/08 at 15:21:12, ecoist wrote:
Because we're never going to get anywhere continuing like this. Let's start simple: What is this theory you speak of? What does it say? What domain does it apply to? What do you apply it here, specifically? What do you hope to accomplish with applying it such? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 14th, 2008, 11:51am You are absolutely correct, towr; I have no knowledge of your background on these issues. I apologize for the insensitiviy of my comments. I based my comments on what you wrote here. You wrote that good for society cannot occur without the rational self-interested behavior of its members. Adam Smith's theory says the opposite: that good for society can, and does, occur whether or not the actions of its members have that purpose. Now to your questions. What does it say? Adam Smith's theory says that a free market is a net benefit to society whether or not the local concerns of its members embrace the general welfare. What domain does it apply to? The economic sphere. It is not concerned with morality or justice, although, remarkably, it has net beneficial effects on both. What do you apply it to here? Not sure. Perhaps it came up in response to issues raised tangential to war. However, in my opinion, market forces explain why wars are less and less frequent, and less severe, over time because war is economically inefficient. Also, something a long-dead famous American, Benjamin Franklin, said: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little security, deserve neither!". What do you hope to accomplish with applying it such? I hope to spread the word (hoplessly optimistic, eh?), the benefits of the free market to peace, harmony, and prosperity. The key word here is "freedom"! Freedom for others as well as ourselves. By studying the effects of market forces, we can learn how to best achieve what we all want. Forced charity, aka government welfare, is inferior to voluntary charity. Public education is inferior to private education. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry harms the social fabric, not defends it. The war against drugs does more harm to society than the drug addicts do. Denying aliens entry into a country to find work denies the economy of that country the benefit of a valuable economic resource. All these things deny freedom, to the detriment of us all (well, except for the small-minded who want us all to behave in ways they deem is "for our own good"). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 14th, 2008, 2:24pm [It seems I wrote so much it's a two-parter; the first section here is the more relevant, (fairly) non-opinionated, part to the line of thought I'm interested in exploring] on 01/14/08 at 11:51:22, ecoist wrote:
But let's leave this aside for a while (we can always return to it later). Quote:
I mean, you can't describe the theory of evolution with "it says that new species occasionally come into existence". From http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072875577/student_view0/chapter4/origin_of_the_idea.html "According to Adam Smith, specialization and economic growth are motivated by self-interest. At the same time, pursuit of self-interest by individuals promotes the well being of the rest of the community." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_nations#The_invisible_hand "There are two important features of Smith's concept of the "invisible hand". Firstly, Smith was not advocating a social policy (that people should act in their own self interest), but rather was describing an observed economic reality (that people do act in their own interest)." So it seems to me it's a descriptive theory of how self-interestedness leads/can lead to overall benefits. But feel free to elaborate/correct me on this point, because at the moment what I think isn't really the point here. Quote:
From above I take it's about "pursuit of self-interest by individuals", or at least that's the starting point. Now in an exchange between equals, to both get what they want to any extent, they need to compromise and both would be better off on average, granted. But take a company and a consumer (or worker), then they're not equal, so in how far does the theory apply here? For example. Quote:
I think there are two important reasons wars become less frequent; one is because the weapons used by modern nations are too expensive, as are the people trained to use them (which also partly explains why most wars now are fought in third world countries that fight with much cheaper armament; but of course the fact they fight more wars also has it's effect on keeping them poor). The second major influence is that soldiers are valued much more as people these days; it is not acceptable any more when thousands of them die. This also has to do with the influence of the media; they make us painfully aware of the deathtoll, and the effect it has on the families that stay behind. War is costly emotionally, to a nation, in a greater extent than it used to. (Probably the greater value placed on individuality also plays a role; the group, nation, isn't as important relative to the individual as it used to). Quote:
And in opposition, on humanist principles everyone deserves both, even despite themselves. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 14th, 2008, 2:28pm [part two] Quote:
Laissez-faire capitalism pitted a very free employer/producer market against a very unfree worker market. That hasn't changed merely due to economic forces, but also due to political intervention; like getting rights to unionize and protection against unfair firing (well, in some countries). There has to be an equal standing between parties for a fair and free exchange to occur. But on the other hand, the way to get there, and the way to stay there (or move ahead) needn't be the same. If a free market was problematic then, it may not be now. But I don't think it is unconditionally better. Quote:
Quote:
Can we replace government welfare with a system of private, or at least voluntary, charity in such a way that it would work out better for all involved? And if people prefer a government that provides welfare over one that doesn't, shouldn't they have that choice? And couldn't we even say that up to a point they do? It might be a lot of hassle, but it's possible to emigrate. (Not to mention we get a vote.) You could also look at it as forced insurance. We're forced to have all sorts of insurances here, e.g. you need car insurance if you have a car, and everyone need healthcare insurance. Of course you could argue that's wrong too, and it should be optional; but without that insurance people would become a burden to society in the situations where they apply. If I had a car, but no car insurance, and ran into another car; well, how would I pay for the damage to the car I hit? If I fell ill but had no healthcare insurance; they can't just let me die, but who'll pay? If I lost my job, and there was no charity or welfare to help me out, what then? I'd have to live on the street and would be unlikely to get a new job unless I got one before I deteriorated to a state no sane person would think of employing me. It's not to say there aren't possibly solutions, but it's not like there aren't problems to solve either. Quote:
In any case, I think/hope you will agree it is preferable that everyone is provided with adequate education. I'm interesting to hear what sort of suggestions you'd have in this area. Quote:
What is the proper role of a government? Quote:
The end balance could go either way overall. Quote:
Related to some of the earlier points (e.g. welfare), on http://www.lostlegacy.co.uk/ we find that Adam Smith "did not consider it appropriate for society to be run by or for merchants and manufacturers, and nor did he accept that the rich and powerful, including kings, had the right to oppress with punitive laws. He did not encourage laissez faire (two words he never used) because he was aware of the limitations of markets and of the usefulness and limitations of the State, and nor did he support leaving the poor without realistic opportunities of sharing in their countrys wealth." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 14th, 2008, 3:28pm Wow, towr, impressive! You are not afraid to get to the heart of the matter. I'll try to be as careful in my responses. I have to log off for an hour or so, but let me say this. Your quotes show that I am giving Adam Smith more credit than he deserves! His theory survives, but without some of his questionable views you detail. The more modern "spontaneous order" may have some flaws as well that I am unaware of. Back in awhile. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 14th, 2008, 6:17pm Darn it! My response was deleted because it was too long! I have to start all over again! Sorry, this must wait until tomorrow. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 14th, 2008, 9:23pm Maybe the deletion of all my hard work was for the best! I think my responses are better now. In particular, I will post shorter responses to allow more time to think. Quote:
First, let's clear the air on self-interest. It matters not what motivates one's actions in Smith's theory. If Smith thought motivation mattered, he is wrong. Yes, Smith's theory is descriptive of a reality. His explanation for that reality may be flawed. So, too, can an explanation of its modern metamorphosis, spontaneous order, be flawed. Quote:
What do you mean by "exchange between equals"? Is an employer more equal than a worker when there are many workers applying for few jobs? Is a worker more equal when employers are desperate to find workers? Are doctors more equal when there is a waiting list for those seeking healthcare? Is the consumer more equal when Walmart shows up to compete with local merchants who must charge higher prices because they cannot take advantage of volume sales? Quote:
You are right! My comment is irrelevant to the central issues here. Sorry about that. Quote:
"Each freedom limits another". Right! I can't be free unless you let me be free. What's wrong with that? What would be wrong is aggressing against others. I should be free to do as I please as long as I do not deny others to do the same. How is an employer/producer very free and a worker very unfree? An employer/producer is helpless without workers. A worker is vulnerable without an employer, unless he goes into business for himself. Unions are a disaster! Unions protect those who have jobs, not those seeking jobs (I know from painful experience)! They siphon off a substantial portion of the wages they negotiate as union dues. Unions have no concern for, or understanding of, the problems of their employers (witness the autoworker's union). Bottom line, the decline of union workers in the US is precipitous! Market forces show that unions suck! Especially when given unjust powers by government regulations! More to follow when I get some sleep. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Jan 15th, 2008, 5:44am on 01/14/08 at 14:28:28, towr wrote:
While people may disagree; on this issue, at least, the founders of the U.S. spelled out their opinion explicitly: "We the people of the United States, in order to
--SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 15th, 2008, 5:49am on 01/14/08 at 21:23:29, ecoist wrote:
What is "Adam Smith's invisible hand"? What notion of "spontaneous order" are we speaking off, and how does it come about according to the theory? Is there more to it than "people act, and things tend to get better because of it"? Is it something like evolution applied to the economic field (although Adam Smith precedes Darwin)? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The consumer has the upper hand here; although there might be considerations to nonetheless support local merchant. The question is to what degree those consideration impinge on the consumer. (If it would make him an outcast in the community, his position would be much weaker). [/edit] Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In third world countries, in factories owned by, or run on behalf of, western companies, there are still people being fired just for bringing up the poor conditions they are forced to work under. Quote:
Quote:
Unions here don't siphon off wages, you pay them if you're part of the union and you don't if you aren't. They negotiate labour conditions on behalf of all workers, not just their union members; and don't work to exclude new (non-union) workers from jobs . They also cooperate with employers if this is needed, in some cases agreeing to not compensate pay for inflation for several years, or even go to pay-cuts. (Obviously if the employer goes out of business that's bad for everyone involved.) I will take your word for it that unions aren't working out in the US as they should (and certainly the stories I've heard of their history with mob-involvement doesn't do them any good). But I do think, to get them on an equal level, workers should be in some way organized; as should consumers. Because they're not just dealing with the butcher on the street, but multi-national conglomerates. While an individual person is easily ignored, an interest group as a whole has more influence. But you've shown it matters very much how that group is organized and function in the system as a whole and how it relates to it's own members. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 15th, 2008, 6:22am on 01/15/08 at 05:44:33, SMQ wrote:
The fifth one is rather interesting. You could take it as an endorsement for socialist practices, or at the very least a cue to provide some means by which people don't have to live on the street and/or starve. I think a lot of western countries do well enough on all those points, in their own varied ways. It doesn't really pin down government involvement in the economy for instance, or on social policies. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by SMQ on Jan 15th, 2008, 6:42am No, you're right, I guess it's more a statement of the proper purpose of government than the proper role of government. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 15th, 2008, 11:05am Quote:
Yes, it is something like evolution applied to the economic field! There are many aspects of society, under no central control, that are surprisingly orderly. "How does it come about" is under intensive study by anthropologists and economists. Why is the quality of our food supply so high when it goes through thousands of hands before it reaches us? Government regulations do not adequately explain this phenomenon because that quality is higher than the government demands and the government has too few inspectors to insure quality control. The most prevalent explanation for this "spontaneous order" (aka order without detectable control mechanisms, e.g., the "invisible hand") are the principles of freedom and property rights. Quote:
There is no perfect solution that serves all in need. I'm claiming only that voluntary charity does a better job of helping those in need than forced charity does. Why? Because forced charity breeds recentment among those who must give up a portion of the fruits of their hard labor to others. Because forced charity breeds an army of leeches, those who can fend for themselves but see an opportunity for a free lunch. Because, even those who properly receive government largesse, lose self-respect and initiative and become permanent wards of the state, along with their children. On the other hand, fewer of the needy become permanently needy because voluntary charity is not guaranteed; it can be withdrawn at a moment's notice. Fewer leeches for the same reason. And a lot less resentment, so more voluntary charity, from the affluent. The proof of the pudding is in the historical record. Examine American society before welfare was introduced. Examine American society during the movement west, which occured faster than government could follow (source: the books of Bruce Benson). You ask if citizens want government welfare, shouldn't they be allowed that choice? Of course! No one has the right to impose their will on others just because it is "for their own good"! Emphatic rejection of forced insurance follows. Must log off again. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 15th, 2008, 1:52pm on 01/15/08 at 11:05:03, ecoist wrote:
Quote:
I think the focus it provides plays an important role. By deeming a given aspect of quality important enough to warrant a standard, consumers will expect it to be met and desire it to be exceeded (even when it may be ludicrous, like vitamin pills with several dozens or hundred times the recommended daily amount of vitamin C, an excess which absolutely useless). And of course it causes quite a stir when it's discovered standards aren't met, which does happen occasionally. Better to err on the side of caution. Quote:
Quote:
And resentment of the taxpayer doesn't really relate to how well the people in need are helped, only how willingly they're helped. Quote:
Quote:
Welfare shouldn't be a matter of throwing money at people and leaving it at that; that's rarely ever the solution to anything except getting rid of excess money. Encouraging, and enabling, people to get schooling and jobs would have to be an essential part of it. Quote:
I mean, it would be better if people helped each other locally, helped each other get jobs etc. But would it happen to a sufficient extend (if to any real extent in this individualized world where many people no longer seem to care, or even know, their neighbours). We'd need a certain type of society, I think; one which I fear we don't have. Quote:
I would suspect, for example, that the pioneers of the west were a lot more community oriented than people are now (to tie in with the "type of society"-idea). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 15th, 2008, 2:56pm Since no system is perfect, one can criticize any system by listing its shortcomings. So, such listings really prove nothing. My criticism of forced charity is based on a fundamental principle, rejection of the use of force, except in self-defense. Although I prefer criticism based on principles, this kind of criticism proves little as well. The acid test is, which of the many ways of providing for the needy does the better job? Only the facts derived from current events and history provide an objective, compelling, answer. Unfortunately, I cannot give you short, convincing, examples that are readily available to you. Some nations (Denmark?) have high taxes and an extensive welfare system and are among the happiest people on earth. Other nations (Netherlands?) have the first two but are among the most unhappy with their system. Even so, I prefer my kind of criticism because how we deal with the needy affects many other aspects of society besides the concerns of the needy. I believe that specific policies based on consistent principles mesh better with the overall common good. You say that I have "a bleak perspective" of the effect of government largesse on the needy. Sorry, this is reality, not perspective. In the US the percentage of people on welfare has increased, not diminished. When reporters chronicle the trials and tribulations of those on welfare, several sad facts emerge. Government regulations discourage maintaining the family unit: women with children cannot receive welfare unless their husbands are absent. The welfare check often exceeds the after-tax income from obtaining a job. The needy often have such low skills, trying to find a job, or learning a skill to get a job, becomes more stressful than accepting permanent welfare. We too often applaud good intentions and ignore their bad results. Quote:
Good point! Maybe an unintended consequence of forced charity is a loss of community spirit! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JiNbOtAk on Jan 15th, 2008, 4:15pm on 01/15/08 at 14:56:18, ecoist wrote:
How exactly do we measure happiness ? Is it the absence of sadness ? How does being happy differs from being satisfied, sated, exultant, joyful, and countless other level of "happiness" ? ( That also raises the question, does being unhappy means being sad, or just merely dissatisfied ? ) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 15th, 2008, 9:29pm You are so right, towr! My arguments against forced charity were weak! Except for what forced charity, and voluntary charity as well, do to the self-esteem and moral character of its recipients. So, I looked for what really bothers me. What right does a starving person have to the food possessed by someone else? When someone is ill, by what right can he command the free services of a physician? When someone is the victim of a car accident, by what right can he demand that all drivers be capable of paying for his injuries? In general, why is "I am my brother's keeper" a moral imperative? How is theft moral? "I am my brother's keeper" is a noble sentiment, but how noble is it if the "keeping" is forced? I understand the sentiment that people, especially the rich, couldn't care less about the needy, so it is reasonable to want something to be done to insure that those incapable of caring for themselves get the care they need. But that sentiment is spectacularly wrong! Voluntary charity is robust! And most governments, responding to their citizens, have procedures in place to provide assistance to those in need, all contradicting the assumption that most people have no concern for the less fortunate! In the US, government provisions for the needy cost at least twice as much as the cost of private charities. These government provisions do not reach the homeless, who are helped by private soup kitchens and their own street panhandling. Yes, they also receive free emergency care, if they choose it or unwittingly receive it, paid for by the inflated charges foisted on paying patients. So, my positions is, no one has a right to live well at the expense of another. Therefore, the most moral, and practical, way to serve the needy, indeed, to serve the common good in general, is to eschew force and rely on the free and voluntary actions of individuals (including the hated, and wrongly characterized, greedy capitalists!)! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 16th, 2008, 4:40am on 01/15/08 at 14:56:18, ecoist wrote:
Systems aren't important in themselves but in what they do. So preferably you first choose the goals, then a specific implementation that best approaches it. Quote:
Quote:
But in any case, it seems to be a matter what works best for the people/nation in question, not a matter of general principle. Quote:
Our principles seem to work for us; I certainly wouldn't trade them in for all the money in the world. (Although, I suppose any 'us' would typically say that', it's hardly an objective valuation). Quote:
Not everything that is a problem in one place will be a problem in general. Perhaps the few examples I know is colouring my view of the welfare state too rosy, but I feel it may be doing the exact opposite in your case. Quote:
Quote:
For example, welfare could in principle work in such a way that if you supplement it/replace it with a job, you always end up (after taxes) with more than when without the job. It is, unquestionably, a big fault of a welfare system when that isn't the case, but not every system of welfare inherently needs to have this fault. And learning skills and applying to jobs can, should, be a precondition to getting welfare; unless there is absolutely no hope for the person to ever get a job (it's rare for someone to be utterly unemployable, but it happens). Even subsidizing employers to hire the prolonged uneployed may help. (Although I'm sure subsidizing is evil in and of itself). Quote:
In any case I'm fairly sure we lost our sense of community before welfare became an issue. I think it's in a large part a result of the mass urbanization due to the industrial revolution. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 16th, 2008, 4:46am on 01/15/08 at 16:15:42, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Quote:
Most people can give some relevant response with regards to their level of happiness though. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 16th, 2008, 5:46am on 01/15/08 at 21:29:49, ecoist wrote:
Actually, there's two issues at stake here; the obligation to give food/help to the needy; and the right of the needy to take it (without being given). I think you wouldn't have much problem with the moral obligation of the first, since it is in principle voluntary, and not fulfilling your obligation simply makes you a bad person, no other force is involved. Whether the needy have the right to take (or have someone else take for them) what they need is more problematic. Also because typically the case isn't a straightforward case of "saving one's own life". It can be justifiable though, and therefore morally right. Of course, there are many kinds of (moral) justification, and not all lines of justification are acceptable to everyone. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, when can taking something without consent be moral? It isn't usually, after all. In other situations, e.g. where it involves saving a life, it almost certainly is. What we really need is the border case where perhaps there is a need, but fulfilling it in this way is still wrong. For example taking where you could have asked. One might imagine if you ask someone for help when you really need it, and let's assume we agree the person is obliged to help you, then if he doesn't it's at least less wrong to take what you need than before/without asking (even without committing to it being right). Typically philosophers need an entire book to properly discuss moral issues (and even then it's not typically convincing unless you agreed at the start); so I can't do more than give a few suggestions and points to think on. Quote:
Some schools of thought, like Hobbes' contractarianism, explicitly rely on authority to make morality normative. We make social contracts, and the authority enforces them. And thanks to that we're better of than in the natural state (where, supposedly, we all just fight and frustrate each other) In some cases it's hard to dispute moral sentiments should be made law; "do not kill", "do not steal". It shouldn't need to be forced, but if it wasn't too many people wouldn't obey the moral code. So it's a question of in what cases can we safely do without authority. Quote:
Here's a thought. If welfare were incrementally decreased, would voluntary charity rise to fail the gap; or should welfare be eliminated entirely first? Because in the first case it would be a fairly safe way to try it out. Quote:
Quote:
Although I bet that would entail a lot of unemployed bureaucrats ;) Quote:
No exploitation is a good principle; and should be lived up to more often. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 16th, 2008, 10:54am Quote:
Then what's the point of this discussion if not to find the best solution to a problem? "Identifying what factors are important" is only the beginning. You counter my arguments by pointing out shortcomings, which, of course all positions have, without any argument to show how serious these shortcomings are. As if any shortcoming is sufficient to undermine a position. You also counter my arguments with those of your own, but they are too often based on assertions you don't back up, as if they are self-evident, like, companies will always behave badly given the chance. I refute this false assertion with specific examples and you ignore them. You make make many such, presumably self-evident, assertions like the current quotes below. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Further, you say that I left out important issues that may undermine the veracity of my claims, which is true. But don't provide evidence against my claims. Quote:
See what I mean? You feel that I may be wrong! One could apply the same approach to your position and you would, properly, reject it as unhelpful. Quote:
Sorry, this is the easy way out. Politely disagree with the suggestion that the opposition hasn't given the subject enough thought or research. You believe that your welfare system works well. Can you provide some evidence in support of this claim? What percentage of your fellow citizens receive welfare? Is that percentage increasing or decreasing? How many, if any, need help but don't get it? How much of the federal budget is spent on welfare? How do your high taxes effect your economy? I know that there is a natural bias here in favor of welfare and in favor of your country, but facts are facts, whatever the motivations of the person who presents them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by rmsgrey on Jan 16th, 2008, 12:34pm Ecoist seems to be arguing: "this holds (locally) so it must apply everywhere" Towr seems to be arguing: "my experience is a counter-example so it doesn't apply everywhere" In general, the person arguing for something to apply universally has the harder task because it only takes one counter-example to prove them wrong, while the person arguing that things are more complex only needs to provide one example that doesn't fit to prove his case... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jan 16th, 2008, 2:27pm on 01/16/08 at 10:54:05, ecoist wrote:
I don't think we will find "the answer"; I'm not sure there even is one; and besides which neither of us is in a position to do something with it. The only point for me is to understand your point of view and examine my own, and to sharpen your point of view so I can understand it better. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A few example were companies presumedly act 'nice' hardly means that all companies always act nice; no more than a few of them acting bad proofs all of them act badly. Suffice it to say they're still cutting down the rainforest and exploiting third world and using child labour. That's not going away because not all companies are right out bastards. Frankly, I thought we'd left that god-awful discourse behind us by taking a different turn. But we seem to be heading straight for the abyss again. Quote:
we're better of than in the natural state (where, supposedly, we all just fight and frustrate each other) It's paraphrased from Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" (a quite influential book on moral philosophy). It is not a view I subscribe to, as I'm not a contractarian; but it is one of the many ethical systems around; and so a relevant perspective. If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I already feel like I'm writing far too much, and it's certainly eating up a lot of my time as well. "do not kill", "do not steal". It shouldn't need to be forced, but if it wasn't too many people wouldn't obey the moral code. I'm not sure what your problem with this is. Are there no laws against murder and theft? Are those laws not there to prevent people from committing them, and punish them if they do? Would it not be better if people didn't want to do those things in the first place? And if nobody would do those things, could we not dispense with the laws? All things would be better arranged voluntarily, and not by force; but humans aren't such that it works in all cases, and in those cases we need law. Let's be corny, and say the human ties that bind us together. We are obliged to each other by virtue of being human; by virtue of being social animals; by virtue of being sympathic animals.Christine Korsgaard says something that comes close enough, do you want the whole 166 pages of her argument for it? Then I'd suggest a copy of "The sources of normativity". I don't really endorse her particular approach, but there is a lot to learn from it. Quote:
Heck, that's even the case when I am against it. Quote:
Whether that comes from the examples you have experienced having coloured your view; well it seems likely, but I'm not your psychologist. I don't know your history and can't read you mind. But I doubt you have much experience living in Europe. Quote:
Quote:
If anything, it's suggestive that I can't spend more time on it and provide a fuller perspective on it myself. I would love to give you proper summaries of all the ethical positions I know of and how they are relevant in each situation; but I have enough papers on philosophy to write as it is. So dropping a few names and concepts and hoping you can do something with it is the best I can do, meager as it is. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And our unemployment rate is the lowest in Europe, according to a recent report (in the news 7th of januari). However, I don't think it's insignificant either that our population massively endorses it and the overall levels of satisfaction are very high. (On december 5th 2006 it was reported we were the happiest people in Europe, I haven't found more recent data) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jan 16th, 2008, 2:37pm Quote:
What's with this continual miss-characterization of what people say? Most of us have mathematical experience and know only too well that the above is an absurd argument! In this context, showing something holds locally is done for purposes of illustration or for building a preponderance of evidence. Quote:
Towr can speak for himself but his arguments have more substance than this. And, towr, I am going to have to concede defeat in our argument! I checked out Wikipedia on the Netherlands and found a UNICEF report on child poverty in 21 countries. The Netherlands came out on top, while the US and Britain came in last! This fact, together with the Netherlands' legendary tolerance for drug use, prostitution, abortion, and euthanasia, and its robust economy, I have yet to find an argument, or facts, against forced charity that is more compelling than what I found on Wikipedia! The welfare issue is far from settled, but you, towr, are way ahead on points! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by ecoist on Jul 14th, 2008, 9:19pm towr, the subject of "happiness" came up again here on one of our tv news magazines. It was suggested that the Netherlands is one of the happiest nations because its citizens have low expectations! That Americans are low on the happiness scale because we have high expectations. One your fellow citizens interviewed put it this way: if you set your dreams too high, you are likely to be disappointed (paraphrased). How right he is (I am watching the tv show "America's Got Talent" and am exhilerated by the few who succeed and I cry with the many who fail)! However, I am energized by the dream that, even at age 76, I may still discover the secret to good golf. But getting back to the theme of this thread, what have you to say about the US's wars? We attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and we threaten to attack Iran. From your perspective, are these two wars, and the threat of a third, good or bad? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by DavidMuic on Jan 12th, 2012, 4:28am To an economy as a whole, it is never good. To some companies, it could be good profitable. To regular people its devastating |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by kailys on Feb 10th, 2012, 7:40am War is never a good thing no matter how you look at it. Politics aside, someone always pays the price whenever a nation goes to war. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Feb 10th, 2012, 8:30am on 02/10/12 at 07:40:20, kailys wrote:
If everyone would rather surrender than wage war then I could conquer the world by tomorrow simply by declaring war on everyone. Honestly, someone's going to. That definitely doesn't make war a good thing, but you have to be prepared to fight them because the alternative (if it's someone other than me trying to invade your country) is worse; especially long-term. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by alien2 on Feb 13th, 2012, 10:51am Odin: A wise king never seeks out war. But he must always be ready for it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by iatkrox on Jul 2nd, 2012, 1:12am Oh sh*t! Is that war is good thing for you ??? :o OMG you are crazy!! I hate war because in word most of deaths reporting from war's and dieing goody goody peoples form war.So i hate war's !!!! :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by paulstrahann on Jan 24th, 2013, 11:21pm I don't think that war is good thing because if you have any kind of problems. So, you can solve them by some discussion. War is not the thing we should do because, sometime wars makes in deep trouble. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by sanaya on Sep 2nd, 2013, 6:59am War can never be good if looked from point of view of humanity but is still important to defend and protect sometimes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Sep 21st, 2013, 1:20pm Nature doesn't intend anything. Though there is an ingrained drive to survive (because anything that hadn't, didn't). So if we want to follow through on that, we should spread out into the universe while we can. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by webtasarim on Oct 6th, 2013, 11:03am war is sh*t . peace forever |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by jordan on Feb 2nd, 2014, 1:04pm War is bad because in all wars there are no winners |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by alien2 on Feb 2nd, 2014, 3:21pm Hunter: In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by pandani on Feb 9th, 2014, 2:40pm Any example of good wars since 19th century? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Feb 9th, 2014, 10:57pm on 02/09/14 at 14:40:08, pandani wrote:
It's not so much that wars are good, as that the alternative can be worse. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by alien2 on Feb 10th, 2014, 5:54am on 02/09/14 at 22:57:08, towr wrote:
Philip K. Dick, eh? Nazis colonize Venus in his science fiction alternate history novel The Man in the High Castle. I didn't read the book, so I am curious how they did it, since Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. In the above novel Nazis also colonize Mars. I demand an appology! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JiNbOtAk on Feb 12th, 2014, 5:06pm on 02/09/14 at 14:40:08, pandani wrote:
I'm curious, does this mean the wars prior to the 19th century are good? (Relative to the more recent ones?) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by goprel on Apr 11th, 2014, 4:17am A thing which kills people coud not be treated as good |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by alien2 on Apr 11th, 2014, 5:25am Howard Payne: "A bomb is made to explode. That's its meaning. Its purpose. Your life is empty because you spend it trying to stop the bomb from becoming. And for who? For what? You know what a bomb is, Jack, that doesn't explode? It's a cheap gold watch, buddy." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Apr 11th, 2014, 5:27am on 04/11/14 at 04:17:47, goprel wrote:
It's even debatable that it never should be. Not to mention there are things that kill people but also save (other) people. Like medical procedures and medicines (accidents happen). War, too, might prevent something worse. Or a worse war. It's simplistic to just say it's not good just because people die. How many people would die without it? What things are worth dying for? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by goprel on Apr 11th, 2014, 6:05am I think that there is always another way to solution and we can live without war. People become angry and not happy because of the stress they get in everyday life. I believe that even in the worst person's heart there is a little bit love. I know it sounds blah blah blah but it is truth. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Apr 12th, 2014, 4:03am on 04/11/14 at 06:05:22, goprel wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately he despised Jews, gypsies, gays, Slavs, and others he considered "untermenschen". So how exactly would that little bit of love have helped anyone to stop him trying to take over Europe and exterminating millions of people? Appeasing him certainly didn't help, because after Austria and Czechoslovakia he still wasn't satisfied. Should all of Europe just have surrendered? What kind of solution do you have in mind to stop a dictator that cares not for the freedom and lives of people. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by goprel on Apr 13th, 2014, 3:14am Talking about Hitler the problem appeard not in 1939 but more than 10 years ago when nationalism becaome popular in Europe. If people would do some steps in order to stop nationalism than nobody would know ho Hitler is. I understood your point. Of course in this case Europe should react when Poland and Finland were occupied. But as I said the reaction should be not in 1939 but more than 10 years ago. And in that case there would be no need of weapons |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by alien2 on Apr 13th, 2014, 4:34am Some people don't respond well to love letters. Hitler was one of them. After reading a love letter from Stalin, he declared war to Soviet Union. You can send me a love letter goprel. I don't mind. If you're a female, a love letter from you might turn me into a caring gentleman and gallant chevalier. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Apr 13th, 2014, 10:32am on 04/13/14 at 03:14:06, goprel wrote:
Still, it's a lot easier to say that something might have been done than to suggest what could have been done (and which might have actually had a chance to work). What steps should have been taken to stop nationalism? Heck, there's plenty of neo-nazis around now, how do you propose we dissuade them from their hateful, violent path? Now's as good a time to prevent future wars and conflict as any. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by goprel on Apr 18th, 2014, 9:21am on 04/13/14 at 10:32:44, towr wrote:
There are some wombs saying that the 3rd World war already started. I mean Ukraine and Russia. EU and USA are doing nothing. John McCain once said that if he would be a President there would be no suchsituation in Eastern Europe. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Apr 24th, 2014, 11:20pm http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229651.200-contemplating-the-power-of-war-to-end-all-wars.html Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by EdwardSmith on Jul 17th, 2014, 2:28pm Are wars slowing down?. Are there more or less wars in the world today?. I would like to think that there is some hope for people. That everyone would just forget what all the fighting is about and do something a bit more constructive instead. I think that the real problem with the world today is that there are just too many people. Sorry for writing such utter carp, but I like to have a beer this time in the evening. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 24th, 2014, 1:50am on 07/17/14 at 14:28:04, EdwardSmith wrote:
If that is our real problem, then war must be a good thing, eh? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by towr on Jul 24th, 2014, 9:01am on 07/24/14 at 01:50:49, JiNbOtAk wrote:
A good pandemic would make a bigger dent. Or maybe an asteroid impact (with an object over 10km in diameter) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 24th, 2014, 8:57pm on 07/24/14 at 09:01:03, towr wrote:
I vote world-wide pandemic. That way, the population is decimated across the board. War and asteroid impact is (relatively) localized. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JaneBD on Aug 5th, 2014, 2:44am Depends from a purely financial point of view - it's great. Otherwise it's terrible. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by JaneBD on Aug 5th, 2014, 2:45am Although without it a lot of countries and states would never have formed the way they have now. What would the world be like without it. And since good and bad are meta-physical, do they really matter - since it's all just point of view. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by wakiza33 on Sep 23rd, 2014, 11:18am Yes, I think there are cases where war serves overall 'good' if assigned logical principles. 3,000 casualties + 500 civilian deaths + 6 million in property damage + 1 million in infrastructure and future emotional damage = 7,000,000 saved lives. It's a pertinent question today, that clearly is not being given the proper consideration. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by alien2 on Oct 8th, 2014, 9:13am WWII was a catalyst for scientific breakthroughs. Without the war and the V-2 rocket, perhaps Americans wouldn't land on the Moon. Unfortunately, atomic bomb was also invented. And this is why I, alien2 and bipartisan, have concluded, that war is good and bad at the same time. Thank you very much. Roddy Piper: "I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubble gum." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: War - good or bad Post by anglia on Aug 20th, 2015, 10:11pm I think it depends. If war happens for won something which is for respect then it is good. If it happens to destruct the life of people then it is bad. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4! Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board |