3 ms·

Why dont they want to sell it? And how does that scenario compare to the invasion of the United States in the 1500s? It wasnt invaded to save the population o

Why dont they want to sell it? And how does that scenario compare to the invasion of the United States in the 1500s? It wasnt invaded to save the population of Europe.

bokonist 17y ago
Americans have no goods that are as valuable to them as oil.
- arcadeparade 17y ago
  Ok, well let's compare that with a real life situation. Right now there are thousands of people dying from easily preventable diseases every day in Africa, which could be cured for a few cents each. American pharmaceutical companies have this medicine, and they are operating in one of the most profitable industries that have ever existed. Africans have no goods that are as valuable to them as medicine. Should African countries invade America to get this medicine?
  - bokonist 17y ago
    No, because the invasion would fail. A good leader does not lead his troops on suicidal missions. But the oil example actually did happen in real life. You're the ruler of Japan in 1941. The U.S. has just cut off your oil supply. You have months left before your population faces severe hunger and deprivation. Do you invade Indonesia to take their oil? I think if I was ruler I would. How about you?
    - arcadeparade 17y ago
      I dont know, but I think we should apply the same moral standards to ourselves that we appply to others. These questions echo the age-old maxim of Thucydides that "The strong do as they can, while the weak suffer what they must" but that doesnt mean that the actions on either side are just. There are fundamental questions to be answered here about the legitimacy of the nation-state, and what right one group has to natural resources over another simply because of their location on Earth, when the results of this unfairness are the strengthing of one group and the weakening of another.
bokonist 17y ago
Probably about a third of the population of England at the time faced constant poverty and hunger due to there simply not being enough land to support the population. To the west is this wide open, un-farmed continent, with enough land to support everyone. Do you allow your subjects to settle this land? The point of these questions is that it is always easy to moralize when you don't have to make personal tradeoffs. And in real life, there are often hard tradeoffs to make. So I'm trying to figure out under what conditions, if any, you would make the choice to invade. So far, you've moralized, but you've still evaded the hard questions. What would you do in any of these scenarios?

Why dont they want to sell it? And how does that scenario compare to the invasion of the United States in the 1500s? It wasnt invaded to save the population of Europe.

bokonist 17y ago

Americans have no goods that are as valuable to them as oil.

arcadeparade 17y ago
Ok, well let's compare that with a real life situation. Right now there are thousands of people dying from easily preventable diseases every day in Africa, which could be cured for a few cents each. American pharmaceutical companies have this medicine, and they are operating in one of the most profitable industries that have ever existed. Africans have no goods that are as valuable to them as medicine. Should African countries invade America to get this medicine?
- bokonist 17y ago
  No, because the invasion would fail. A good leader does not lead his troops on suicidal missions. But the oil example actually did happen in real life. You're the ruler of Japan in 1941. The U.S. has just cut off your oil supply. You have months left before your population faces severe hunger and deprivation. Do you invade Indonesia to take their oil? I think if I was ruler I would. How about you?
  - arcadeparade 17y ago
    I dont know, but I think we should apply the same moral standards to ourselves that we appply to others. These questions echo the age-old maxim of Thucydides that "The strong do as they can, while the weak suffer what they must" but that doesnt mean that the actions on either side are just. There are fundamental questions to be answered here about the legitimacy of the nation-state, and what right one group has to natural resources over another simply because of their location on Earth, when the results of this unfairness are the strengthing of one group and the weakening of another.

bokonist 17y ago

Probably about a third of the population of England at the time faced constant poverty and hunger due to there simply not being enough land to support the population. To the west is this wide open, un-farmed continent, with enough land to support everyone. Do you allow your subjects to settle this land? The point of these questions is that it is always easy to moralize when you don't have to make personal tradeoffs. And in real life, there are often hard tradeoffs to make. So I'm trying to figure out under what conditions, if any, you would make the choice to invade. So far, you've moralized, but you've still evaded the hard questions. What would you do in any of these scenarios?