(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.)
(b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth:
—“We just can’t allow our Don Basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was an unfortunate necessity for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”—
(c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:
“This can’t happen again. So:
1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.
2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.
3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.
There is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.
The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars” of european countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it.
And so the USA became what it despised.
Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
RUSSIA AND AMERICA (a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a
RUSSIA AND AMERICA
(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.)
(b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth:
—“We just can’t allow our Don Basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was an unfortunate necessity for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”—
(c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:
“This can’t happen again. So:
1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.
2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.
3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.
There is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.
The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars” of european countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it.
And so the USA became what it despised.
Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 11:37:00 UTC
-
Russia And America
(a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.) (b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth: —“We just can’t allow our Don Basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was an unfortunate necessity for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”— (c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively: “This can’t happen again. So: 1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade. 2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars. 3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state. There is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume. The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars” of european countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion). -
Libertarian Pretense Of Paying The High Cost Of Order
—“libertarians aren’t against violence…”— Empty words, because they are untestable words. Which is why libertarian words are, like religion, a comforting deception. 1. The question is not whether one is against aggression, but which cases of aggression. 2. The question is not whether one is against violence buth which cases of violence. 3. The question is not whether one will use violence, but under what cases they will use violence. Libertarians have not and cannot answer these questions because if they do the answer becomes obvious: “I want other people to pay the cost of the commons I benefit from.” Libertarianism is simply marxism for the commons instead of marxism for private property. There is only one method by which we create the class conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, and that is the continuous organized application of violence to deny one and all the alternatives, by the universal militia of able men, and the costly production of the normative, economic, judicial, political, military and traditional commons necessary for preservation of their power to do so against all opposition. That is what libertarian means. Rothbardians did not favor liberty (ownership) but separatist anarchy (parasitism upon others commons). Period. End of Argument. I ended libertarianism forever like others ended marxism before it, and we ware currently in the process of ending neo-conservatism. When that is done, and we return to rule of law, the pseudoscientific century will have ended. -
LIBERTARIAN PRETENSE OF PAYING THE HIGH COST OF ORDER —“libertarians aren’t ag
LIBERTARIAN PRETENSE OF PAYING THE HIGH COST OF ORDER
—“libertarians aren’t against violence…”—
Empty words, because they are untestable words. Which is why libertarian words are, like religion, a comforting deception.
1. The question is not whether one is against aggression, but which cases of aggression.
2. The question is not whether one is against violence buth which cases of violence.
3. The question is not whether one will use violence, but under what cases they will use violence.
Libertarians have not and cannot answer these questions because if they do the answer becomes obvious: “I want other people to pay the cost of the commons I benefit from.”
Libertarianism is simply marxism for the commons instead of marxism for private property.
There is only one method by which we create the class conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, and that is the continuous organized application of violence to deny one and all the alternatives, by the universal militia of able men, and the costly production of the normative, economic, judicial, political, military and traditional commons necessary for preservation of their power to do so against all opposition.
That is what libertarian means. Rothbardians did not favor liberty (ownership) but separatist anarchy (parasitism upon others commons).
Period. End of Argument.
I ended libertarianism forever like others ended marxism before it, and we ware currently in the process of ending neo-conservatism. When that is done, and we return to rule of law, the pseudoscientific century will have ended.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 08:26:00 UTC
-
Libertarian Pretense Of Paying The High Cost Of Order
—“libertarians aren’t against violence…”— Empty words, because they are untestable words. Which is why libertarian words are, like religion, a comforting deception. 1. The question is not whether one is against aggression, but which cases of aggression. 2. The question is not whether one is against violence buth which cases of violence. 3. The question is not whether one will use violence, but under what cases they will use violence. Libertarians have not and cannot answer these questions because if they do the answer becomes obvious: “I want other people to pay the cost of the commons I benefit from.” Libertarianism is simply marxism for the commons instead of marxism for private property. There is only one method by which we create the class conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, and that is the continuous organized application of violence to deny one and all the alternatives, by the universal militia of able men, and the costly production of the normative, economic, judicial, political, military and traditional commons necessary for preservation of their power to do so against all opposition. That is what libertarian means. Rothbardians did not favor liberty (ownership) but separatist anarchy (parasitism upon others commons). Period. End of Argument. I ended libertarianism forever like others ended marxism before it, and we ware currently in the process of ending neo-conservatism. When that is done, and we return to rule of law, the pseudoscientific century will have ended. -
Part Four (Closing) : why aren’t we all conducting the natural evolutionary rese
Part Four (Closing) : why aren’t we all conducting the natural evolutionary research program and therefore why isn’t this specialization in wants rather than monopoly desirable? Isn’t the answer to return to the reason for european rapid advancement: specialization?
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 01:08:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975539545390317568
Reply addressees: @JonHaidt
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212
-
Question Part Three: Why does a monopoly continental government provide better t
Question Part Three: Why does a monopoly continental government provide better technological, economic, political, and normative results than multiple regional or local governments that specialize to produce commons preferential to members and undesirable by other peoples?
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 00:54:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975535993246834688
Reply addressees: @JonHaidt
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212
-
Which U.s. Allies Would Back Up Their “support” With Actual Troops If America Was Attacked?
There are people with more understanding of field capacity than I have, but as far as I know the only people (a) reading and willing, (b) able to contribute whatsoever, are the British. Unfortunately the british vision of training is going home for dinner at 5:00pm (which our soldiers complain about endlessly.)
The French undermine Americans (they undermine Europe as a whole) at every opportunity. They will never participate in our defense. They are as likely to side with the enemy as help us. The aussies can fight but they’re far away, and small in numbers.
We learned a great deal from Libya. Europe can handle a bit of civil unrest but is otherwise entirely defenseless. The military is little more than a social service program to reduce unemployment.
The British and French are nuclear powers.
Germany is down there with Indonesia and Canada – a military in pretense only
Worse, European Armies don’t train and can’t fight.
https://www.quora.com/Which-U-S-allies-would-back-up-their-support-with-actual-troops-if-America-was-attacked
-
Which U.s. Allies Would Back Up Their “support” With Actual Troops If America Was Attacked?
There are people with more understanding of field capacity than I have, but as far as I know the only people (a) reading and willing, (b) able to contribute whatsoever, are the British. Unfortunately the british vision of training is going home for dinner at 5:00pm (which our soldiers complain about endlessly.)
The French undermine Americans (they undermine Europe as a whole) at every opportunity. They will never participate in our defense. They are as likely to side with the enemy as help us. The aussies can fight but they’re far away, and small in numbers.
We learned a great deal from Libya. Europe can handle a bit of civil unrest but is otherwise entirely defenseless. The military is little more than a social service program to reduce unemployment.
The British and French are nuclear powers.
Germany is down there with Indonesia and Canada – a military in pretense only
Worse, European Armies don’t train and can’t fight.
https://www.quora.com/Which-U-S-allies-would-back-up-their-support-with-actual-troops-if-America-was-attacked