4 ms·

"If there's change, it could be worse." That is a terrible reason to support evil. And we actually did worse. We overthrew democratically elected governments

"If there's change, it could be worse." That is a terrible reason to support evil. And we actually did worse. We overthrew democratically elected governments to install police states because it was too "lefty" for our tastes. Iran, for example.

dmix 10y ago
Agreed but the best route isn't a matter of choosing the right leader in other countries but staying out of other countries elective processes IMO. You can have voluntary diplomatic relationships of varying degrees, but this idea of influencing foriegn power players doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather their power came from local sources and therefore is incentivized to benefit the local population and local economic interests. It's not just the US either, so much of the middle easts problems is the willingness for half or more of the countries to be proxies for the bigger states wishing for hegemony. Both sides end up losing more often then not. Just like Yemen and Syria. A bit off topic but I often wonder what Iran or Iraq would be like today if they didn't engage in their awful war in the 1980s. They'd be much nicer places to live and most likely in far better economic shape and without the baggage of war (growing up with dead relatives/fathers and stories of violence as examples of greatness). But they would also have much larger militaries and I'm curious if their proxy wars would have just been even more prevelent then it is now.
- Kalium 10y ago
  > You can have voluntary diplomatic relationships of varying degrees, but this idea of influencing foriegn power players doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather their power came from local sources and therefore is incentivized to benefit the local population and local economic interests. Think it through from the other side. You're in a small, relatively minor country without the ability to sway the whole world. Your economic interests depend heavily on a handful of more powerful neighbors. Are you going to sit on your hands as the local power coming from local sources trying to look after the local economic interests of your neighbors' local populations makes decisions that will impoverish your local populations through their local economic interests? You might say "Yes! Yes I would, because to do otherwise is unethical!". However, I'd lay good odds that your local populations and local economic interests would prefer leadership interested in actively defending those local economic interests, even through foreign power players. I'd further hazard a guess that these preferences might find expressed in electoral processes.
  - dmix 10y ago
    There might be benefits and protection from some neighbours but the small countries are rarely left with much sway in the conversation. There will always be a compromise and I get the impression the vast majority of countries are too quick to take that compromise under the oversold promises of globalism. I hope the pendulum swings back and countries still engage in global trade but put their own priorities first instead of making themselves vulnerable to the real power players. We're speaking abstractly but I think this is the gist of recent developments in globalism, what people are starting to grasp after the full destruction of mercantilism in the last half century.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      Having little influence and choosing not to use it is not generally preferable to using whatever little influence you have to most local populations acting as local sources of power in pursuit of their own local economic interests. Concretely, I think you're advocating for a series of deeply sub-optimal locally protectionist local regimes. I'm having a hard time grasping how this is supposed to be better for everyone.

dmix 10y ago

Agreed but the best route isn't a matter of choosing the right leader in other countries but staying out of other countries elective processes IMO. You can have voluntary diplomatic relationships of varying degrees, but this idea of influencing foriegn power players doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather their power came from local sources and therefore is incentivized to benefit the local population and local economic interests. It's not just the US either, so much of the middle easts problems is the willingness for half or more of the countries to be proxies for the bigger states wishing for hegemony. Both sides end up losing more often then not. Just like Yemen and Syria. A bit off topic but I often wonder what Iran or Iraq would be like today if they didn't engage in their awful war in the 1980s. They'd be much nicer places to live and most likely in far better economic shape and without the baggage of war (growing up with dead relatives/fathers and stories of violence as examples of greatness). But they would also have much larger militaries and I'm curious if their proxy wars would have just been even more prevelent then it is now.

Kalium 10y ago
> You can have voluntary diplomatic relationships of varying degrees, but this idea of influencing foriegn power players doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather their power came from local sources and therefore is incentivized to benefit the local population and local economic interests. Think it through from the other side. You're in a small, relatively minor country without the ability to sway the whole world. Your economic interests depend heavily on a handful of more powerful neighbors. Are you going to sit on your hands as the local power coming from local sources trying to look after the local economic interests of your neighbors' local populations makes decisions that will impoverish your local populations through their local economic interests? You might say "Yes! Yes I would, because to do otherwise is unethical!". However, I'd lay good odds that your local populations and local economic interests would prefer leadership interested in actively defending those local economic interests, even through foreign power players. I'd further hazard a guess that these preferences might find expressed in electoral processes.
- dmix 10y ago
  There might be benefits and protection from some neighbours but the small countries are rarely left with much sway in the conversation. There will always be a compromise and I get the impression the vast majority of countries are too quick to take that compromise under the oversold promises of globalism. I hope the pendulum swings back and countries still engage in global trade but put their own priorities first instead of making themselves vulnerable to the real power players. We're speaking abstractly but I think this is the gist of recent developments in globalism, what people are starting to grasp after the full destruction of mercantilism in the last half century.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Having little influence and choosing not to use it is not generally preferable to using whatever little influence you have to most local populations acting as local sources of power in pursuit of their own local economic interests. Concretely, I think you're advocating for a series of deeply sub-optimal locally protectionist local regimes. I'm having a hard time grasping how this is supposed to be better for everyone.