Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hegemonic Stability Theory

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:35:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
While hegemony does promote a placid appearance, there is often a lot of violence that goes on behind the scenes in order to maintain that hegemony. This violence mostly impacts impoverished and weak countries that are unable to assert their political will on the world stage. There's also the idea of long cycles: that hegemony operates on a distinct cyclical pattern, changing hands every so often in a period of violent turmoil. From this point of view there is no preventing war or promoting peace, as they"re both part of an inevitable cycle.

But more than anything, we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace because it's not something that we can decide upon. The thing about politics about at this level is that it is governed by principles which we have no control over. On the international stage states still exist as entities within the State of Nature and, at this level, Hobbes is right about the stark brutality of our condition. Hegemons will rise and expand, then collapse in a spread of bloody ruin, and we can only hold onto our seats and hope that we aren"t crushed by the massive machine within the confines of which we are forced to exist.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:34:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:35:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
While hegemony does promote a placid appearance, there is often a lot of violence that goes on behind the scenes in order to maintain that hegemony. This violence mostly impacts impoverished and weak countries that are unable to assert their political will on the world stage. There's also the idea of long cycles: that hegemony operates on a distinct cyclical pattern, changing hands every so often in a period of violent turmoil. From this point of view there is no preventing war or promoting peace, as they"re both part of an inevitable cycle.

But more than anything, we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace because it's not something that we can decide upon. The thing about politics about at this level is that it is governed by principles which we have no control over. On the international stage states still exist as entities within the State of Nature and, at this level, Hobbes is right about the stark brutality of our condition. Hegemons will rise and expand, then collapse in a spread of bloody ruin, and we can only hold onto our seats and hope that we aren"t crushed by the massive machine within the confines of which we are forced to exist.

I think whatever's on wikipedia on the subject is undeveloped and amalgamates conflicting schools of thought on the subject.

I looked up what it said about neoliberal interpretations of hegemony, and read up on regime theory. It looks very interesting. I think you could combine this neoliberal and the neorealist (Mearsheimer) approaches to create a model that makes more sense than either of them alone.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:35:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, it fits pretty well into Mearsheimer's theories...it even cites Mearsheimer as the leading realist proponent.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:52:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:35:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
While hegemony does promote a placid appearance, there is often a lot of violence that goes on behind the scenes in order to maintain that hegemony. This violence mostly impacts impoverished and weak countries that are unable to assert their political will on the world stage. There's also the idea of long cycles: that hegemony operates on a distinct cyclical pattern, changing hands every so often in a period of violent turmoil. From this point of view there is no preventing war or promoting peace, as they"re both part of an inevitable cycle.

But more than anything, we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace because it's not something that we can decide upon. The thing about politics about at this level is that it is governed by principles which we have no control over. On the international stage states still exist as entities within the State of Nature and, at this level, Hobbes is right about the stark brutality of our condition. Hegemons will rise and expand, then collapse in a spread of bloody ruin, and we can only hold onto our seats and hope that we aren"t crushed by the massive machine within the confines of which we are forced to exist.

I agree with the bolded but disagree that "we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace." I think hegemony would be the best tool available to us to do so. It may not preserve it, but it would preserve it better than if it was not there.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:06:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:52:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:35:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
While hegemony does promote a placid appearance, there is often a lot of violence that goes on behind the scenes in order to maintain that hegemony. This violence mostly impacts impoverished and weak countries that are unable to assert their political will on the world stage. There's also the idea of long cycles: that hegemony operates on a distinct cyclical pattern, changing hands every so often in a period of violent turmoil. From this point of view there is no preventing war or promoting peace, as they"re both part of an inevitable cycle.

But more than anything, we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace because it's not something that we can decide upon. The thing about politics about at this level is that it is governed by principles which we have no control over. On the international stage states still exist as entities within the State of Nature and, at this level, Hobbes is right about the stark brutality of our condition. Hegemons will rise and expand, then collapse in a spread of bloody ruin, and we can only hold onto our seats and hope that we aren"t crushed by the massive machine within the confines of which we are forced to exist.

I agree with the bolded but disagree that "we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace." I think hegemony would be the best tool available to us to do so. It may not preserve it, but it would preserve it better than if it was not there.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't preserve the peace in certain respects, just that nobody can choose to be a hegemon, else everyone would be one. Hegemony is the largely child of circumstance. In our case, WWII crippled the old order and allowed us to fuel our economic engine in the process of rebuilding it. How hegemony ends is also usually beyond the control of said hegemon. Sometimes I think that attempting to cling to hegemony as it slips away can even become a sort of fatalistic Greek tragedy wherein the protagonist, in attempting to avoid destiny, fulfills it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:10:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:06:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:52:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:35:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
While hegemony does promote a placid appearance, there is often a lot of violence that goes on behind the scenes in order to maintain that hegemony. This violence mostly impacts impoverished and weak countries that are unable to assert their political will on the world stage. There's also the idea of long cycles: that hegemony operates on a distinct cyclical pattern, changing hands every so often in a period of violent turmoil. From this point of view there is no preventing war or promoting peace, as they"re both part of an inevitable cycle.

But more than anything, we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace because it's not something that we can decide upon. The thing about politics about at this level is that it is governed by principles which we have no control over. On the international stage states still exist as entities within the State of Nature and, at this level, Hobbes is right about the stark brutality of our condition. Hegemons will rise and expand, then collapse in a spread of bloody ruin, and we can only hold onto our seats and hope that we aren"t crushed by the massive machine within the confines of which we are forced to exist.

I agree with the bolded but disagree that "we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace." I think hegemony would be the best tool available to us to do so. It may not preserve it, but it would preserve it better than if it was not there.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't preserve the peace in certain respects, just that nobody can choose to be a hegemon, else everyone would be one. Hegemony is the largely child of circumstance. In our case, WWII crippled the old order and allowed us to fuel our economic engine in the process of rebuilding it. How hegemony ends is also usually beyond the control of said hegemon. Sometimes I think that attempting to cling to hegemony as it slips away can even become a sort of fatalistic Greek tragedy wherein the protagonist, in attempting to avoid destiny, fulfills it.

lol, do you believe in fate? :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:29:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:10:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:06:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/26/2013 9:52:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 8:35:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
While hegemony does promote a placid appearance, there is often a lot of violence that goes on behind the scenes in order to maintain that hegemony. This violence mostly impacts impoverished and weak countries that are unable to assert their political will on the world stage. There's also the idea of long cycles: that hegemony operates on a distinct cyclical pattern, changing hands every so often in a period of violent turmoil. From this point of view there is no preventing war or promoting peace, as they"re both part of an inevitable cycle.

But more than anything, we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace because it's not something that we can decide upon. The thing about politics about at this level is that it is governed by principles which we have no control over. On the international stage states still exist as entities within the State of Nature and, at this level, Hobbes is right about the stark brutality of our condition. Hegemons will rise and expand, then collapse in a spread of bloody ruin, and we can only hold onto our seats and hope that we aren"t crushed by the massive machine within the confines of which we are forced to exist.

I agree with the bolded but disagree that "we cannot think of hegemony as a way to preserve peace." I think hegemony would be the best tool available to us to do so. It may not preserve it, but it would preserve it better than if it was not there.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't preserve the peace in certain respects, just that nobody can choose to be a hegemon, else everyone would be one. Hegemony is the largely child of circumstance. In our case, WWII crippled the old order and allowed us to fuel our economic engine in the process of rebuilding it. How hegemony ends is also usually beyond the control of said hegemon. Sometimes I think that attempting to cling to hegemony as it slips away can even become a sort of fatalistic Greek tragedy wherein the protagonist, in attempting to avoid destiny, fulfills it.

lol, do you believe in fate? :D

I am somewhat of a fatalist. I believe that most men are like starfish. We live our lives within our own little spheres, existing as largely free, rational actors. But there's always a chance that we'll be swept up in some wave and tossed on a beach, after which our only recourse is to hopelessly wiggle this way or that, until either an auspicious wave delivers us back to our daily routine or we shrivel and die in the cruel rays of the sun. I think that the more often men act collectively the more often they are subjected to the blind laws of nature instead of their own volition. I also think that the more advanced we are in our technology and the freer our society is the more resistant we are to being swept away by conditions beyond our control.

In short, people have a tendency towards collective action and mass movements which, once they gather steam, are capable of obliterating every semblance of freewill in their fellow man.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think many will deny that global hegemony lends itself to a certain degree of stability in the world, however we might have to question the ethics of asserting such hegemony.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:15:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:29:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I am somewhat of a fatalist. I believe that most men are like starfish. We live our lives within our own little spheres, existing as largely free, rational actors. But there's always a chance that we'll be swept up in some wave and tossed on a beach, after which our only recourse is to hopelessly wiggle this way or that, until either an auspicious wave delivers us back to our daily routine or we shrivel and die in the cruel rays of the sun. I think that the more often men act collectively the more often they are subjected to the blind laws of nature instead of their own volition. I also think that the more advanced we are in our technology and the freer our society is the more resistant we are to being swept away by conditions beyond our control.

In short, people have a tendency towards collective action and mass movements which, once they gather steam, are capable of obliterating every semblance of freewill in their fellow man.

Interesting personal statement. You seem to be making separate points - 1) that man-as-starfish isn't very capable of manipulating the environment, and 2) that a collectivized group of men, while being more capable of manipulating the environment, loses free will to the collectivized entity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:15:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:57:40 PM, Polaris wrote:
I don't think many will deny that global hegemony lends itself to a certain degree of stability in the world, however we might have to question the ethics of asserting such hegemony.

I am beginning to formulate a thesis that would answer such questions. Beginning is the key word, lol...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:06:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 3:15:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I am somewhat of a fatalist. I believe that most men are like starfish. We live our lives within our own little spheres, existing as largely free, rational actors. But there's always a chance that we'll be swept up in some wave and tossed on a beach, after which our only recourse is to hopelessly wiggle this way or that, until either an auspicious wave delivers us back to our daily routine or we shrivel and die in the cruel rays of the sun. I think that the more often men act collectively the more often they are subjected to the blind laws of nature instead of their own volition. I also think that the more advanced we are in our technology and the freer our society is the more resistant we are to being swept away by conditions beyond our control.

In short, people have a tendency towards collective action and mass movements which, once they gather steam, are capable of obliterating every semblance of freewill in their fellow man.

Interesting personal statement. You seem to be making separate points - 1) that man-as-starfish isn't very capable of manipulating the environment, and 2) that a collectivized group of men, while being more capable of manipulating the environment, loses free will to the collectivized entity.

A third point is that the collectivized group of men acts as a force of nature in itself at a certain point, engaging in competition and natural selection on a macro scale which transcends, and at time endangers, the individual. I would say that individual men do have the capacity to manipulate nature, and that men who have such power over nature have more to fear from their fellow men than they do from the natural world. This is because collectivized groups seek power over nature through power over the people capable of commanding such forces. A lot of this comes out of reading Eric Hoffer; have you ever heard of him?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.

Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:21:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 3:15:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:57:40 PM, Polaris wrote:
I don't think many will deny that global hegemony lends itself to a certain degree of stability in the world, however we might have to question the ethics of asserting such hegemony.

I am beginning to formulate a thesis that would answer such questions. Beginning is the key word, lol...

Well, I am genuinely interested in whatever thesis you arrive at that would answer this question. I would start by looking at generative conditions in which power over others is justified and how global hegemony would either be consonant or contrary with those conditions. We must be cautious to not start with our conclusion.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:33:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.

Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.

Oh, so Rome's failing was that it was insufficiently hegemonic! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:58:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:33:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.

Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.

Oh, so Rome's failing was that it was insufficiently hegemonic! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Your assumptions are humorous, and bordering on the line of insanity, and lead me to believe you are mentally handicapped. They technically were insufficiently hegemonic, but not your mentally warped idea of insufficiently hegemonic. They weren't hegemonic enough because they were using direct force and violence to get their way (violently displacing vikings, crusades, etc.). You really either forget history when it is convenient for you, or are you just THAT ignorant?

I try to be civil when arguing with you, but when you can not return the favor, I will be honest in what I think about you. I HONESTLY think you are a condescending ignoramus who's idea of intellect is to go on inane rants for hours about "wage slavery" and the like, listening to your drivel is almost like torture in itself.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 6:06:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:15:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Interesting personal statement. You seem to be making separate points - 1) that man-as-starfish isn't very capable of manipulating the environment, and 2) that a collectivized group of men, while being more capable of manipulating the environment, loses free will to the collectivized entity.

A third point is that the collectivized group of men acts as a force of nature in itself at a certain point, engaging in competition and natural selection on a macro scale which transcends, and at time endangers, the individual. I would say that individual men do have the capacity to manipulate nature, and that men who have such power over nature have more to fear from their fellow men than they do from the natural world. This is because collectivized groups seek power over nature through power over the people capable of commanding such forces. A lot of this comes out of reading Eric Hoffer; have you ever heard of him?

Can't say I've heard of him. I haven't read much philosophy at all, even though a lot of people say I have a strong philosophical streak. I've learned one thing by studying...the more I study, the more I discover how little I know. :o

He sounds like he's describing the the people involved in the Manhatten Project, just off the top of my head.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:52:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:33:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.

Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.

Oh, so Rome's failing was that it was insufficiently hegemonic! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this goes to skep's point about natural factors affecting hegemony. Rome wasn't able to seal its border...in fact, the more it pressed eastward, the larger its border grew. Other natural hegemonies, especially the US, have geographical aspects that allow for ease of power projection. England, Japan, and China are more examples of geography favoring hegemony.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:58:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They weren't hegemonic enough because they were using direct force and violence to get their way (violently displacing vikings, crusades, etc.). You really either forget history when it is convenient for you, or are you just THAT ignorant?

Are you suggesting that Vikings and The Crusades existed during the reign of the Roman Empire?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:56:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:56:04 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:58:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They weren't hegemonic enough because they were using direct force and violence to get their way (violently displacing vikings, crusades, etc.). You really either forget history when it is convenient for you, or are you just THAT ignorant?

Are you suggesting that Vikings and The Crusades existed during the reign of the Roman Empire?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 11:09:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:35:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:06:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/27/2013 3:15:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Interesting personal statement. You seem to be making separate points - 1) that man-as-starfish isn't very capable of manipulating the environment, and 2) that a collectivized group of men, while being more capable of manipulating the environment, loses free will to the collectivized entity.

A third point is that the collectivized group of men acts as a force of nature in itself at a certain point, engaging in competition and natural selection on a macro scale which transcends, and at time endangers, the individual. I would say that individual men do have the capacity to manipulate nature, and that men who have such power over nature have more to fear from their fellow men than they do from the natural world. This is because collectivized groups seek power over nature through power over the people capable of commanding such forces. A lot of this comes out of reading Eric Hoffer; have you ever heard of him?

Can't say I've heard of him. I haven't read much philosophy at all, even though a lot of people say I have a strong philosophical streak. I've learned one thing by studying...the more I study, the more I discover how little I know. :o

He sounds like he's describing the the people involved in the Manhatten Project, just off the top of my head.

They're an excellent example, but I'm referring to his work on mass movements in a more general sense.

Some good excerpts:

"Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil."

"For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities."

"When people are free to do as we please, they usually imitate each other. "

"The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. They want to turn the world into a sickroom. And once they get humanity strapped to the operating table, they operate on it with an ax."

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

And my personal favorite: "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:58:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:33:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.

Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.

Oh, so Rome's failing was that it was insufficiently hegemonic! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Your assumptions are humorous, and bordering on the line of insanity, and lead me to believe you are mentally handicapped. They technically were insufficiently hegemonic, but not your mentally warped idea of insufficiently hegemonic. They weren't hegemonic enough because they were using direct force and violence to get their way (violently displacing vikings, crusades, etc.). You really either forget history when it is convenient for you, or are you just THAT ignorant?

I try to be civil when arguing with you, but when you can not return the favor, I will be honest in what I think about you. I HONESTLY think you are a condescending ignoramus who's idea of intellect is to go on inane rants for hours about "wage slavery" and the like, listening to your drivel is almost like torture in itself.

This from someone who has two threads going in which he essentially tries to defend and legitimize the concept of hegemony. Well, suffice it to say that to be viewed as "a condescending ignoramus" by a proponent of some cloud-cuckoo-landish notion of hegemony is rather flattering. Oh well, perhaps if you one day develop a moral sense of justice you'll realize just how abject and appalling your current efforts at pseudointellectually rationalizing hegemony in fact are.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:15:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:14:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:58:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:33:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.

Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.

Oh, so Rome's failing was that it was insufficiently hegemonic! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Your assumptions are humorous, and bordering on the line of insanity, and lead me to believe you are mentally handicapped. They technically were insufficiently hegemonic, but not your mentally warped idea of insufficiently hegemonic. They weren't hegemonic enough because they were using direct force and violence to get their way (violently displacing vikings, crusades, etc.). You really either forget history when it is convenient for you, or are you just THAT ignorant?

I try to be civil when arguing with you, but when you can not return the favor, I will be honest in what I think about you. I HONESTLY think you are a condescending ignoramus who's idea of intellect is to go on inane rants for hours about "wage slavery" and the like, listening to your drivel is almost like torture in itself.

This from someone who has two threads going in which he essentially tries to defend and legitimize the concept of hegemony. Well, suffice it to say that to be viewed as "a condescending ignoramus" by a proponent of some cloud-cuckoo-landish notion of hegemony is rather flattering. Oh well, perhaps if you one day develop a moral sense of justice you'll realize just how abject and appalling your current efforts at pseudointellectually rationalizing hegemony in fact are.

Charles, this is where you virtually automatically lose the argument. Apparently you don't realize by my other threads and posts that I disagree with morals to start. Morals are only what the majority perceive to be "good, or "bad", unless you believe in a god (I am agnostic, I do not), then you should not believe in some sort of 'moral code'. I do not like you or your ideology, because it basically equates to robinhood-ism, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. If you want to talk about "morals" and some false sense of pride and self appreciation, look at yourself before you begin to look at anyone else.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:29:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:15:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Charles, this is where you virtually automatically lose the argument. Apparently you don't realize by my other threads and posts that I disagree with morals to start. Morals are only what the majority perceive to be "good, or "bad", unless you believe in a god (I am agnostic, I do not), then you should not believe in some sort of 'moral code'. I do not like you or your ideology, because it basically equates to robinhood-ism, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. If you want to talk about "morals" and some false sense of pride and self appreciation, look at yourself before you begin to look at anyone else.

Do you suppose that only meta-ethical/normative moral relativism or moral nihilism are possible sans deity?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 1:42:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:15:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:14:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:58:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:33:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

Hmm, hegemony as the means to actualizing the dream of planetary peace and solidarty! Reminds me of an exchange in an episode of the original Star Trek series. The strongman Khan Noonien Singh attempts to defend his form of hegemony, i.e. tyranny, as a benevolent and heroic attempt to unify humanity. To which the Mr. Spock character sharply retorts: "Unify, sir? Like a team of animals under one whip?" Well, this is of course precisely the sort of "peace" that supervenes upon hegemony. That of human beings politically subdued and dominated like animals under a superpower's military whip, as it were. If you seriously think otherwise, merely consult the historical record of the Pax Romana.

Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.

Oh, so Rome's failing was that it was insufficiently hegemonic! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Your assumptions are humorous, and bordering on the line of insanity, and lead me to believe you are mentally handicapped. They technically were insufficiently hegemonic, but not your mentally warped idea of insufficiently hegemonic. They weren't hegemonic enough because they were using direct force and violence to get their way (violently displacing vikings, crusades, etc.). You really either forget history when it is convenient for you, or are you just THAT ignorant?

I try to be civil when arguing with you, but when you can not return the favor, I will be honest in what I think about you. I HONESTLY think you are a condescending ignoramus who's idea of intellect is to go on inane rants for hours about "wage slavery" and the like, listening to your drivel is almost like torture in itself.

This from someone who has two threads going in which he essentially tries to defend and legitimize the concept of hegemony. Well, suffice it to say that to be viewed as "a condescending ignoramus" by a proponent of some cloud-cuckoo-landish notion of hegemony is rather flattering. Oh well, perhaps if you one day develop a moral sense of justice you'll realize just how abject and appalling your current efforts at pseudointellectually rationalizing hegemony in fact are.

Charles, this is where you virtually automatically lose the argument. Apparently you don't realize by my other threads and posts that I disagree with morals to start.

Hmm, you really think that declaring your viewpoint to be an utterly amoral one is dealing with my opposition to hegemony from a position of strength?

Morals are only what the majority perceive to be "good, or "bad", unless you believe in a god (I am agnostic, I do not),

Rubbish. You're merely a moral anti-realist with delusions of enjoying an intellectually and, dare I say, an ethically superior (because supposedly more intellectually honest) position in your arguments with those of us who entertain the notion of having morals and applying them politically.

then you should not believe in some sort of 'moral code'. I do not like you or your ideology, because it basically equates to robinhood-ism, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. If you want to talk about "morals" and some false sense of pride and self appreciation, look at yourself before you begin to look at anyone else.

Well, apparently your thinking isn't altogether wertfreiheit, apparently you believe in a moral code, as it were, after all. A pro-capitalist one that recognizes a moral right (your preferred semantics aside, you're still thinking in terms of rights and of right and wrong, and that means you're thinking in moral terms) to private property. And perhaps a social-Darwinian morality which recognizes the right of alpha capitalists to exercise social hegemony over their fellow citizens and over other economically and militarily weaker peoples. In other words, your statement here expresses your own brand of "libertarian" moralism. Which is to say that you're hardly practicing the true and perfect amoralism that you profess. Mm-hmm, a real-deal amoralist, and one who doesn't adhere to a "libertarian" ideology, would, I suspect, be a good deal more apathetic about what you consider to be the outrage of subjecting the rich to socialist "robinhoodism". Indeed, a genuine and consistent amoralist would hardly ever find reason for outrage. Perhaps you need to look at yourself in a rather self-critical fashion and confront the possibility that your amoralist persona is merely that, a quite false persona; one that you conveniently take refuge behind because your pro-hegemony, pro-capitalist point of view can't very well be defended on ethical and humanistic grounds.

Now then, back to the question of hegemony. I know, you think that you've hit upon a brilliantly and elegantly pragmatic idea, benevolent hegemony. Actualizing and enforcing world peace and the solidarity of nations by means of an allegedly benevolent superpower, such as the United States, overriding the sovereignty of and imposing its dominance on other societies. But hegemony isn't exactly a prescription for a just global peace and a happily ever after ending. Rather, history teaches that the way it quite invariably works out is that peace merely becomes a pretext for hegemony, which is exercised to the benefit of the hegemonic power and the grievous dissatisfaction of its subjects. And, moreover, the political peace that supervenes upon the establishment of a superpower's hegemony lacks the tranquillity of authentic peace because, to paraphrase von Clausewitz, it's of course merely war by other means. It's an ongoing aggression against the political will, the interests, the rights, self-determination, and dignity of those on the receiving end of hegemony. A cold war to maintain mastery of peoples yearning to be free. And of course establishing and maintaining mastery also occasionally entails actual violence, of a mass-murderous sort. Take the establishment of American dominance over the Philippines, it involved a war that cost the lives of perhaps a million innocent human beings whose only crime was the desire to not be subject to this country's imperialism. And yes, let's not hide behind euphemisms, what you're really talking is imperialism. I don't blame you for shying away from the word, imperialism is indeed a quite ugly term, and an even more ugly reality. And yet you wonder why I can't appreciate the beauty of your vision of humankind unified under an imperialistic American world order! Quite simply, I oppose imperialism and therefore I oppose your vision. If this makes me an "ignoramus", so be it, but better my sort of ignoramus than the variety of ignoramus who finds the idea of imperialism acceptable.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:18:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 1:42:49 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:15:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:14:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:58:34 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:33:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:44:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:37:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.



Rome did not necessarily consistently practice hegemony. Most of the time hegemony does not need direct coercion of force, simply economic influence and power will do the trick, or the threat of military defeat. Military force is only used in direct rebellions, and the states are still independent, and technically sovereign, they are just kept in line when it comes to foreign affairs by one significant power.

Oh, so Rome's failing was that it was insufficiently hegemonic! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!







Charles, this is where you virtually automatically lose the argument. Apparently you don't realize by my other threads and posts that I disagree with morals to start.

Hmm, you really think that declaring your viewpoint to be an utterly amoral one is dealing with my opposition to hegemony from a position of strength?


Rubbish. You're merely a moral anti-realist with delusions of enjoying an intellectually and, dare I say, an ethically superior (because supposedly more intellectually honest) position in your arguments with those of us who entertain the notion of having morals and applying them politically.

I agree with applying morals politically, but the government in itself should not include their personal morals, the morals of the majority should be the most relevant, and elected officials should represent the morals of those that elected them, not their own personal morals. This fits my definition of how morals are nonexistent and only are what the majority perceive to be good or bad, because isn't that what a constitutional republic is best befitted to be? A nation where the vast majority impose their morality on others via the gov't? I do not agree with it, it's just how the world works buddy.



Well, apparently your thinking isn't altogether wertfreiheit, apparently you believe in a moral code, as it were, after all. A pro-capitalist one that recognizes a moral right (your preferred semantics aside, you're still thinking in terms of rights and of right and wrong, and that means you're thinking in moral terms) to private property. And perhaps a social-Darwinian morality which recognizes the right of alpha capitalists to exercise social hegemony over their fellow citizens and over other economically and militarily weaker peoples. In other words, your statement here expresses your own brand of "libertarian" moralism. Which is to say that you're hardly practicing the true and perfect amoralism that you profess. Mm-hmm, a real-deal amoralist, and one who doesn't adhere to a "libertarian" ideology, would, I suspect, be a good deal more apathetic about what you consider to be the outrage of subjecting the rich to socialist "robinhoodism". Indeed, a genuine and consistent amoralist would hardly ever find reason for outrage. Perhaps you need to look at yourself in a rather self-critical fashion and confront the possibility that your amoralist persona is merely that, a quite false persona; one that you conveniently take refuge behind because your pro-hegemony, pro-capitalist point of view can't very well be defended on ethical and humanistic grounds.

This is all very humorous and entertaining, but I would beg to differ that your communistic morality does a more efficient job of projecting morality than my laissez-faire view of how economics should work. After all, communism and socialism are both the redistribution of wealth, and whether you can argue that it is 'moral' to do this or not poses no relevance to the argument, it is still projecting your version of morality on others, is it not? Capitalism can easily be defended on moralistic grounds, it was when you got your (censored) handed to you in this debate,

http://debate.org...

I advocate maximum individual freedom, because the more freedom one has, the less opportunity the government has to project their morals on others. Democracy/Republicanism is a necessary evil, but should be minimized, morals should only be projected upon others when they have to, your sense of morals may be different then mine, and since morals (opinions) can not be superior to one another, your morals are no less valid than mine, so the minimization of morals is the best way to go.


: Now then, back to the question of hegemony. I know, you think that you've hit upon a brilliantly and elegantly pragmatic idea, benevolent hegemony. Actualizing and enforcing world peace and the solidarity of nations by means of an allegedly benevolent superpower, such as the United States, overriding the sovereignty of and imposing its dominance on other societies. But hegemony isn't exactly a prescription for a just global peace and a happily ever after ending. Rather, history teaches that the way it quite invariably works out is that peace merely becomes a pretext for hegemony, which is exercised to the benefit of the hegemonic power and the grievous dissatisfaction of its subjects. And, moreover, the political peace that supervenes upon the establishment of a superpower's hegemony lacks the tranquillity of authentic peace because, to paraphrase von Clausewitz, it's of course merely war by other means. It's an ongoing aggression against the political will, the interests, the rights, self-determination, and dignity of those on the receiving end of hegemony. A cold war to maintain mastery of peoples yearning to be free. And of course establishing and maintaining mastery also occasionally entails actual violence, of a mass-murderous sort. Take the establishment of American dominance over the Philippines, it involved a war that cost the lives of perhaps a million innocent human beings whose only crime was the desire to not be subject to this country's imperialism. And yes, let's not hide behind euphemisms, what you're really talking is imperialism. I don't blame you for shying away from the word, imperialism is indeed a quite ugly term, and an even more ugly reality. And yet you wonder why I can't appreciate the beauty of your vision of humankind unified under an imperialistic American world order! Quite simply, I oppose imperialism and therefore I oppose your vision. If this makes me an "ignoramus", so be it, but better my sort of ignoramus than the variety of ignoramus who finds the idea of imperialism acceptable.

I enjoy this argument and do not actually think you are trying to manipulate people, I just think that despite your vast knowledge and intellectualism on certain subjects that best befit your ideology, you do not pay attention to the opposing view, or anything that might discredit your Utopian view of how the world should work. You do realize that if there was a hegemonic era to take place, it would work best now then it ever would have during the barbaric era, the roman era, or the Greek era. With the invention of drones, and nuclear weapons that create nuclear deterrence, we could very easily maintain a successful hegemony. I do not agree with legislating morality in government and therefore your petty sense of humanitarianism and morality is irrelevant and would actually be extremely detrimental if the US government used morality, especially your sense of it
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:15:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree. If history teaches us anything it's that the more diverse a population is, the more decentralized the government should be, and when a government is too centralized either the state or society collapses.

The Roman Empire was split between east and west due to a cultural divide, and the western empire collapsed due to its diversity.

The greek hegemonies often led to civil war.

The Macedonian empire fragmented when Alexander the Great died, because the centralization caused political instability.

The best way to secure peace is through a global confederation, with no central state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:12:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:15:08 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:58:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Found the theory that Wrich seems to advocate. I actually think it makes great sense and is a realistic way to achieve peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree. If history teaches us anything it's that the more diverse a population is, the more decentralized the government should be, and when a government is too centralized either the state or society collapses.

The Roman Empire was split between east and west due to a cultural divide, and the western empire collapsed due to its diversity.

The greek hegemonies often led to civil war.

The Macedonian empire fragmented when Alexander the Great died, because the centralization caused political instability.

The best way to secure peace is through a global confederation, with no central state.

In the case of Rome, the lasting peace was far more effective than non-hegemonic rule in the area.

The Greeks would have warred against each other regardless of Athens or Sparta's quest for dominance in Greece proper.

Alexander was not the best model for hegemony. He was not considered a capable administrator, and did not effectively consolidate his gains.

Persia, Egypt, Babylon, Rome, India China...these were all hegemonies.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:38:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) Let's see, dear ConservativAmerican, first you sweepingly state that you don't at all believe in what you term "morals", then you concede that we should democratically decide society's morals and proceed to enforce them. Well, this would make you a moral relativist, not someone who fundamentally "disagrees with morals" as you previously described yourself. Instead of making yourself out to be a nihilist you should have more clearly described your position.

2) I'm gratified that I've at least succeeded in entertaining you. As for little ole moi being guilty of "projecting my version of morality on others", well, I'm not the one who "disagrees with morals", nor am I a relativist who doesn't recognize any morals as worthy of being practiced by society.

3) I also advocate maximum individual freedom, and that entails liberation; i.e., liberating individuals from the dominance of capitalist bosses and elites, and from having their humanity restricted and reduced by being reified (commidified). In other words, and not to toot my own "commie" horn, but I simply have a larger and more social-psychological concept of human freedom.

4) I'm glad that you don't think that I'm trying to "manipulate people", as I'm most certainly not interested in doing anything of the kind. I'm merely interested in sharing my point of view. As for the beauty of drones and nuclear weapons of mass destruction functioning to make hegemony possible, well, I'll allow that statement of yours to speak for and indict itself.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.