3 ms·

Why does HN have to be about braggadocio? Thought it's about curiosity. If you make a point with certainty people trust it more than if you make it modally. But

Why does HN have to be about braggadocio? Thought it's about curiosity. If you make a point with certainty people trust it more than if you make it modally. But that's not about the facts or history. You haven't convinced me of your thesis, but I get you don't believe mine. That's OK. The world is a big place with lots of different opinions, especially on history, right? I think my view was similar to yours, and vaguer, before I read these books. They helped me understand a lot. Don't you think you should read the book (or books) before you dismiss it? Maybe you're smarter than me and all those other people and the guy that wrote the book? Maybe you're not? But how are you going to know until you read it? Maybe I am an idiot and I was duped by a really bad book (or books)? But maybe you are for dismissing it out of hand before it had a chance to work on you and you had a chance to look at the argument presented really well? I don't care what you believe. But I get that history matters, and it's an important topic. For me, that countries go to war because they didn't tax effectively is what the book convinced me of, and it fits my world view that there are basically simply forces underlying human behavior. Conflict is about resource competition. If you have enough (or more than enough), you're unlikely to risk or want conflict. Taxes are the main way states fund themselves (so it is OK to say it as the main or anywhere near the top reason, it's not foolish at all. But I think it is foolish to pretend there's complexity when there's not. That's how you get sucked into propaganda and narrative, and get manipulated by it. Don't you think?). Anyway, it makes a lot of sense. And all the racial/national/group hate is then manufactured in service to an economic motive. But I get your (or others') logic may clash with this, but maybe your logic is not expanded (or experienced with enough of the world / history) to know that? Maybe I haven't read enough books and so got duped by the ones that pretended to offer new insights and a simplistic perspective? But the book lays it out really clearly, and I loved that book. The arguments are also quite subtle, and complex, and backed by a lot of data I think, even if they're maybe contrarian in some cases. I think it has new insights. That's how I took it anyway, and I'm still very comfortable with that, and I think the book is a great resource, despite what you say and how confidently you (and others') say it. Because what do you really know? I'm going to trust this book, that lays it all out for me, more than you. Who are you anyway? What do you know about history? I don't know you or what you know. I get you don't want to take my word for it, and I respect that. I don't want to take your word for it either. I think you need to read the books to rebut the points made in the books. They can make it better than me right now and they have all the data and examples. A side note, it may have been Japan before invasion of China. But same point. Anyway, I hope you learn something!

sofixa 4y ago
> Conflict is about resource competition So i understand how you got into believing that thesis. Your fundamental departing point is, sorry to say it so bluntly, wrong. Not "different opinions on subjective stuff", but objectively wrong. Wars aren't only about resources. In fact it's probably rarer that they're for resources and not something else. You're prescribing a simplistic logical rational basis on something that is complex and simply doesn't have it and is more often than not irrational. For instance - do you think that Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia was about resources? Or about more complex goals like preserving their sphere of influence on the Balkans, dominating Serbia, vengeance, etc. The Franco-Prussian war - was it for resources? Or was it von Bismarck needing a common cause to push through German unification? Same goes for the Prussian-Austrian Brothers war and the Italian wars of independence btw. We can go even further back - Thirty Years war was fought over religion and political power, not resources. Or further forward, the Saudi and Emirates intervention in Yemen. Some others, like the Silesian wars, were mostly for resources. Some others, like Germany invading the Soviet Union, are for complex reasons, including resources, but also ideological (to destroy "Judeo-Bolshevism"). So you start from a simplistic and wrong position, and go backwards from there - war is inherently for resources, and taxes are resources, so optimised taxes mean no war. No amount of tax optimisation would have made von Bismarck not need and want a war with France, or Austria before that. As i mentioned, I'm interested in reading that book because, on face value, the thesis is wrong. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, or misunderstanding your interpretation of the book's thesis, hence my desire to read it. Edit: i keep coming up with examples, the vast majority of wars during the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic era (the Haitian expedition is a nice counterexample), the Iran-Iraq war, etc.
- graderjs 4y ago
  > So i understand how you got into believing that thesis. Your fundamental departing point is, sorry to say it so bluntly, wrong. Not "different opinions on subjective stuff", but objectively wrong. Wars aren't only about resources But you don't know how I got into that because you don't know me, and you also don't know that is "objectively wrong" or not. You can't know that, because you don't get to decide if that's an objectively wrong statement. You just have your own belief about it. That's it. But does sound kind of dumb to say that "war is about resource competition" is "objectively wrong". Because it makes sense, and it is a major basis for conflict. You even seem to accept this ("there are probably some countries that ended up doing that"). How can it be "objectively wrong" if it's true? Mostly you're arguing against what you imagined I said, not what I actually said (are you doing deliberately to define yourself against something, or just took what I said wrong?) Anyway, I never said all wars caused by states going toward bankruptcy. And I never said, "good taxes means no war". Both those are your inventions. It's a common "reverse the venn diagram" type situation that happens a lot online, but not what I said. One region our beliefs do differ I think is you seem to think that "ideology" is a "real causative factor" for war. But I think that's mostly made up. Every age gets the ideas it needs (also from the Book), I'll extend that here now, with, "Every war gets the propaganda that justifies it, and unifies, and compels its combatants (or funders/taxpayers) to take part". I see it as: People (the mass population who will be the soldiers) need to be manipulated to go to war, and there will always be those required to craft the narratives that manufacture that motivation, pretext and consent for war. Recent tragic and sad examples: media drumbeat before Iraq war, fake narratives used by Islamic State, media hyperdrive demonization of certain countries over the last 12 months, one of which now has a war going on :( > You're prescribing a simplistic logical rational basis ... > So you start from a simplistic and wrong position, and go backwards from there - war is inherently for resources, and taxes are resources, so optimised taxes mean no war. Actually, son, you're the one doing the logical gymnastics here: inventing a logical chain that doesn't exist in my words (good tax -> no war), simplifying the argument to fight against it (therefore all war caused by bad tax), being duped that ideology is a causative factor for war, rather than a necessary psyop for combatants. I'm not sure why you want to believe that wars are not about (and primarily about) resources? It makes it seem like you want to believed in a "justified" war. A war that is about something more. I don't mean to attack your personal history and I understand you may have a deep vein of that in your background. My life doesn't have experience of that stuff. But even if my thesis is true, that war is caused by economics, it doesn't take away from the meaning that people derived through the narratives they adopted to fight it, does it? What did the war mean for you? Ultimately that's a personal thing, right, because ultimately everybody fights for their own reason, under their own choice. Whether the narratives were manipulated, people chose to make it mean something to them. And even if the big picture causative factors were economic, as I'm saying, or a symptom of government mismanagement and insufficient taxation, it doesn't negate the significance of historical grievances or prides, and it doesn't (and it can't, I think) take away from the meaning that people make for themselves about what a war means for them. Just because some country's government fuffed things up, then had to go to war, that does not have to denigrate the pride of that country's people I think. The people can still be proud of who they are. So for me, the personal and big picture are a separate thing, and I'm not trying to get in your way about that. I understand if what I said could be hurtful to your background, for me, I wasn't speaking to that (which to me is a separate side of it). I'm trying to understand the big picture, geopolitical stuff behind conflict. That's it, I think for me. I'm actually not that interested in talking about it more. I hope you can respect that, too! :) ;p xx ;p Let's not make a war out of this between us XD :) xx ;p

sofixa 4y ago

> Conflict is about resource competition So i understand how you got into believing that thesis. Your fundamental departing point is, sorry to say it so bluntly, wrong. Not "different opinions on subjective stuff", but objectively wrong. Wars aren't only about resources. In fact it's probably rarer that they're for resources and not something else. You're prescribing a simplistic logical rational basis on something that is complex and simply doesn't have it and is more often than not irrational. For instance - do you think that Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia was about resources? Or about more complex goals like preserving their sphere of influence on the Balkans, dominating Serbia, vengeance, etc. The Franco-Prussian war - was it for resources? Or was it von Bismarck needing a common cause to push through German unification? Same goes for the Prussian-Austrian Brothers war and the Italian wars of independence btw. We can go even further back - Thirty Years war was fought over religion and political power, not resources. Or further forward, the Saudi and Emirates intervention in Yemen. Some others, like the Silesian wars, were mostly for resources. Some others, like Germany invading the Soviet Union, are for complex reasons, including resources, but also ideological (to destroy "Judeo-Bolshevism"). So you start from a simplistic and wrong position, and go backwards from there - war is inherently for resources, and taxes are resources, so optimised taxes mean no war. No amount of tax optimisation would have made von Bismarck not need and want a war with France, or Austria before that. As i mentioned, I'm interested in reading that book because, on face value, the thesis is wrong. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, or misunderstanding your interpretation of the book's thesis, hence my desire to read it. Edit: i keep coming up with examples, the vast majority of wars during the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic era (the Haitian expedition is a nice counterexample), the Iran-Iraq war, etc.

graderjs 4y ago
> So i understand how you got into believing that thesis. Your fundamental departing point is, sorry to say it so bluntly, wrong. Not "different opinions on subjective stuff", but objectively wrong. Wars aren't only about resources But you don't know how I got into that because you don't know me, and you also don't know that is "objectively wrong" or not. You can't know that, because you don't get to decide if that's an objectively wrong statement. You just have your own belief about it. That's it. But does sound kind of dumb to say that "war is about resource competition" is "objectively wrong". Because it makes sense, and it is a major basis for conflict. You even seem to accept this ("there are probably some countries that ended up doing that"). How can it be "objectively wrong" if it's true? Mostly you're arguing against what you imagined I said, not what I actually said (are you doing deliberately to define yourself against something, or just took what I said wrong?) Anyway, I never said all wars caused by states going toward bankruptcy. And I never said, "good taxes means no war". Both those are your inventions. It's a common "reverse the venn diagram" type situation that happens a lot online, but not what I said. One region our beliefs do differ I think is you seem to think that "ideology" is a "real causative factor" for war. But I think that's mostly made up. Every age gets the ideas it needs (also from the Book), I'll extend that here now, with, "Every war gets the propaganda that justifies it, and unifies, and compels its combatants (or funders/taxpayers) to take part". I see it as: People (the mass population who will be the soldiers) need to be manipulated to go to war, and there will always be those required to craft the narratives that manufacture that motivation, pretext and consent for war. Recent tragic and sad examples: media drumbeat before Iraq war, fake narratives used by Islamic State, media hyperdrive demonization of certain countries over the last 12 months, one of which now has a war going on :( > You're prescribing a simplistic logical rational basis ... > So you start from a simplistic and wrong position, and go backwards from there - war is inherently for resources, and taxes are resources, so optimised taxes mean no war. Actually, son, you're the one doing the logical gymnastics here: inventing a logical chain that doesn't exist in my words (good tax -> no war), simplifying the argument to fight against it (therefore all war caused by bad tax), being duped that ideology is a causative factor for war, rather than a necessary psyop for combatants. I'm not sure why you want to believe that wars are not about (and primarily about) resources? It makes it seem like you want to believed in a "justified" war. A war that is about something more. I don't mean to attack your personal history and I understand you may have a deep vein of that in your background. My life doesn't have experience of that stuff. But even if my thesis is true, that war is caused by economics, it doesn't take away from the meaning that people derived through the narratives they adopted to fight it, does it? What did the war mean for you? Ultimately that's a personal thing, right, because ultimately everybody fights for their own reason, under their own choice. Whether the narratives were manipulated, people chose to make it mean something to them. And even if the big picture causative factors were economic, as I'm saying, or a symptom of government mismanagement and insufficient taxation, it doesn't negate the significance of historical grievances or prides, and it doesn't (and it can't, I think) take away from the meaning that people make for themselves about what a war means for them. Just because some country's government fuffed things up, then had to go to war, that does not have to denigrate the pride of that country's people I think. The people can still be proud of who they are. So for me, the personal and big picture are a separate thing, and I'm not trying to get in your way about that. I understand if what I said could be hurtful to your background, for me, I wasn't speaking to that (which to me is a separate side of it). I'm trying to understand the big picture, geopolitical stuff behind conflict. That's it, I think for me. I'm actually not that interested in talking about it more. I hope you can respect that, too! :) ;p xx ;p Let's not make a war out of this between us XD :) xx ;p