6 ms·

I think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable for their actions. I don't think Nadella's argument is particularly persuasive, but

I think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable for their actions. I don't think Nadella's argument is particularly persuasive, but we should all understand our way of life is worth fighting for, and in those justified circumstances our government should have the required tools to carry that job out, no matter how unfortunate war is.

NaOH 8y ago
> I think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable for their actions. The unwritten corollary to this is that we elect better officials. And in that regard, this week's episode of the EconTalk podcast on cronyism had an interesting line I've since been pondering. Paraphrased, "It's not that we should get better people, we need to incentivize bad people to do good things rather than incentivize good people to do bad things." http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism
marton78 8y ago
> our way of life is worth fighting for With our way of life being using up the planet's resources in an unprecedented speed, exploiting third world countries and waging war around the globe?
- turndown 8y ago
  This is the most boring type of strawman not worth responding against, but I will say that when I mean our way of life, I mean the rights and guarantees as codified in our constitution, our representative democracy, and the many, many freedoms we take for granted in our country without ever thinking about the cost it takes to enjoy them.
fauigerzigerk 8y ago
So if India and Pakistan, both democracies, go to war over Kashmir, whose way of life is worth fighting for?
- Fnoord 8y ago
  That's great for investors on both side of the war. If you can invest in both countries, you get double the profit from the war.
- pritishc 8y ago
  Pakistan is a faux-democracy at best. Their army controls the government[1], and I would rather not talk about their proxy war against India and terrorist funding, given my strong bias towards my country. Perhaps a neutral party can elaborate. India, on the other hand, is a melting pot of multiple cultures, ethnicities, and religions that have managed to co-exist harmoniously, despite the odd riot or skirmish. Based on this alone, I would support India's "way of life" to be worth fighting for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan
  - fauigerzigerk 8y ago
    My point is that democracies (including flawed ones) can go to war against each other over things that have very little to do with either party's way of life. Not every war is about protecting democracy or anyone's fundamental freedoms against undemocratic enemies. Nationalism, disputed territories, conflicts involving minorities, these things cause wars, and democracy doesn't necessarily fix it. Sometimes the world is a bit more complex than a Hollywood movie.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    I tend to agree with you, I love India and even if it has many flaws (I think corruption is the worst), it is fascinating and very diverse place which is considered biggest democracy in the world. Can't comment on Pakistan since I was never there, but I would expect more homogeneous place. And I guess everybody heard about ISI supporting terrorist groups and fueling problems in Kashmir. I don't think though it makes sense to try to paint every single conflict as good-vs-bad, democracy-vs-dictatorship, since you can easily have full democracies fighting each other for any possible reason (imagine potentially UK-France, Yugoslavia breakup or anything else)
raxxorrax 8y ago
If you undermine these values while "defending" yourself, your argument falls apart. It is just a strategical approach to defend your way of life. This has nothing to do with defending democracy. On the contrary and not only for the soldiers you send into war. Microsoft is losing relevance heavily right now so they take more compromises than before.
- turndown 8y ago
  Hence my qualification of 'justified'. There have been dozens of times since WW2 where the US has incorrectly justified violence for economic benefit, and these instances are deeply wrong, and I wish they had not happened. But in certain situations where are freedoms are in jeoprody, it is ignorant to say that force could not be justified. Does this happen often? No. But when it does, it must be done well, and hopefully with as little bloodshed as war necessitates.

NaOH 8y ago

> I think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable for their actions. The unwritten corollary to this is that we elect better officials. And in that regard, this week's episode of the EconTalk podcast on cronyism had an interesting line I've since been pondering. Paraphrased, "It's not that we should get better people, we need to incentivize bad people to do good things rather than incentivize good people to do bad things." http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-crony-capitalism

marton78 8y ago

> our way of life is worth fighting for With our way of life being using up the planet's resources in an unprecedented speed, exploiting third world countries and waging war around the globe?

turndown 8y ago
This is the most boring type of strawman not worth responding against, but I will say that when I mean our way of life, I mean the rights and guarantees as codified in our constitution, our representative democracy, and the many, many freedoms we take for granted in our country without ever thinking about the cost it takes to enjoy them.

fauigerzigerk 8y ago

So if India and Pakistan, both democracies, go to war over Kashmir, whose way of life is worth fighting for?

Fnoord 8y ago
That's great for investors on both side of the war. If you can invest in both countries, you get double the profit from the war.
pritishc 8y ago
Pakistan is a faux-democracy at best. Their army controls the government[1], and I would rather not talk about their proxy war against India and terrorist funding, given my strong bias towards my country. Perhaps a neutral party can elaborate. India, on the other hand, is a melting pot of multiple cultures, ethnicities, and religions that have managed to co-exist harmoniously, despite the odd riot or skirmish. Based on this alone, I would support India's "way of life" to be worth fighting for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  My point is that democracies (including flawed ones) can go to war against each other over things that have very little to do with either party's way of life. Not every war is about protecting democracy or anyone's fundamental freedoms against undemocratic enemies. Nationalism, disputed territories, conflicts involving minorities, these things cause wars, and democracy doesn't necessarily fix it. Sometimes the world is a bit more complex than a Hollywood movie.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  I tend to agree with you, I love India and even if it has many flaws (I think corruption is the worst), it is fascinating and very diverse place which is considered biggest democracy in the world. Can't comment on Pakistan since I was never there, but I would expect more homogeneous place. And I guess everybody heard about ISI supporting terrorist groups and fueling problems in Kashmir. I don't think though it makes sense to try to paint every single conflict as good-vs-bad, democracy-vs-dictatorship, since you can easily have full democracies fighting each other for any possible reason (imagine potentially UK-France, Yugoslavia breakup or anything else)

raxxorrax 8y ago

If you undermine these values while "defending" yourself, your argument falls apart. It is just a strategical approach to defend your way of life. This has nothing to do with defending democracy. On the contrary and not only for the soldiers you send into war. Microsoft is losing relevance heavily right now so they take more compromises than before.

turndown 8y ago
Hence my qualification of 'justified'. There have been dozens of times since WW2 where the US has incorrectly justified violence for economic benefit, and these instances are deeply wrong, and I wish they had not happened. But in certain situations where are freedoms are in jeoprody, it is ignorant to say that force could not be justified. Does this happen often? No. But when it does, it must be done well, and hopefully with as little bloodshed as war necessitates.