MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK
Curt Doolittle
It’s hard to believe but truth is enough.
There is certainly room for a new fundamentalism.
Natural Law fundamentalism.
A violent expansionist fundamentalism more aggressive than islam.
John Dow
—“I dont see imperialist war as economically viable or morally just.
The argument that we should protect what we have I agree with, and I think we can find mutual respect with other nations if we respect their autonomy…..”—
Curt Doolittle
Expansion has been, throughout history, the only means of limiting the imposition of costs permanently.
In other words, it is the only means of cheaply solving a cost that will only increase.
John Dow
—“Our governments and corporations have economic and political hegemony. Why use the military when you can use trade agreements and the CIA? Surely that is more cost effective?
The rest of the world needs access to our consumers, technology and capital. We are in a very strong bargaining position.”—
Curt Doolittle
Why are you afraid of TRUTH?
Violence is TRUE.
Wars of conquest are PROFITABLE.
Complete defeat ends a threat rather than constantly paying to keep it at bay
Forcibly converting a group from a low trust to higher trust polity is moral.
So it is more moral, cheaper, more permanent, and more honest to conquer, subject to rule of law, to defend yourself through conquest whenever you can.
Chinese history in a nutshell.
(The world does not need access to our consumers, it needs access to our technology and rule of law)
John Dow
—“Your argument is logical and rather compelling.
I agree the world needs access to our technology and our system has benefitted many nations we (anglo-saxons) have defeated considerably.. Japan, Korea (partially), India and the Phillipines are the best examples of the top of my head.
I’m not sure if all out wars of conquest is exclusively required however. We have nukes and clandestine prowess, surely we can infiltrate other nations and bend them to our will without requiring all out war (the US has done this all over the world since WW2, unfortunately they have cared only about corporate profit and have abandoned the white man’s burden)
Also, how do you suppose we conquer India, Pakistan or China (or potentially Iran and North Korea) on account of their nuclear capabilities?
Surely it is impossible?”—
Curt Doolittle
Now, just a form of self-testing, what can you reduce the general criticism —“logical but not compelling”—?
Because AFAIK, what that reduces to is “true but not preferable”. Where ‘preferable’ refers to ‘personal’. By which you mean ‘to you’. So it’s true but you don’t like it.
Secondly, black or what fallacy. just because you Can conquer a hostile islam, does not mean we need to conquer a divergent but not hostile china.
You are engaging in the (religious) form of argument we call ‘general rules’ by applying them (illogically) to specific instances. Rather than applying logical and scientific analysis to provide decidability in specific cases.
That’s analogous to interpersonal racism and political universalism: confusing the properties of a class with those of an individual, or those of an individual with those of the class.
In other words, you’re speaking illogically in an attempt to justify a prior not discover the truth.
So, rather than rely upon a general rule, lets just measure the COSTS, and PRICE THE RISK, of acting and not acting.
The question isn’t one of general rules, but of pricing of cost and risk.
Which is what I”m advocating.
MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK