11 ms·

That's not "American" sentiment as much as it is a "Top Player" sentiment... You're blaming a state for doing something you're own state would gladly do itself

That's not "American" sentiment as much as it is a "Top Player" sentiment... You're blaming a state for doing something you're own state would gladly do itself if it were able to (if it had the same platform). If America lost the war of independence, then that wiki article would be called "British exceptionalism". And in another history, "Russian exceptionalism", or "Chineese exceptionalism", etc. The country level game has always been about competition rather than sharing... Where the benefits are imported, and pain is exported. It all comes down to human nature.

muyuu 14y ago
The people don't need to buy into it though. I definitely don't and wouldn't. I expect fairness and don't abuse others in weaker positions than mine, not so hard on the individual scale. So basically "it's all right because they'd do the same" simply doesn't cut it.
- powertower 14y ago
  On an individual scale, you have to ask were your goodness is really coming from / what is it that allows it. Do you like the big house you live in, electricity 24h/day, the plethora of food you can buy, the nice cars you drive, the crime-free white areas you can live in (or move into), having access and freedom to discuss issues such as this? It all came out from competition, not personal niceness. Not only that, but your "fairness" attitude is a product of all this. Without which you're life, and ideas about who you are, would be drastically different. The rest of the world is a bad place (http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-full-length http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...), and everyone is in competition... Some people compete by being nice, others by accumulating wealth, some choose to impose their wills on others, etc. It's all the same, ego. If you're interested, you don't have to go far in Buddhism to discover that all action is egotistical. If you want to be truly fair, then drop out of this game called society; stop doing, and start being with silence and compassion.
  - muyuu 14y ago
    It doesn't matter. Means and ends are different things. Darwinism made us reach here as a species, it doesn't mean we have to consciously apply it. Thing is, we can afford to be fair. The argument that you have to make your ends and means coincide is simplistic.
    - powertower 14y ago
      If you love fairness, you should look into Marxist Communism. Though it never quite works out the way you want it to... Something about one bad (corrupt, not fair) apple spoiling the rest! It's just an example, but the point is, human nature seems to always mess it up in the end for the fairness crowds. They just don't seem to be the right product/market fit for humans and their societies. > Thing is, we can afford to be fair. Yes you can! All thanks to the competition system that allows you to do so. > It doesn't matter. You can't separate the lives and actions of an individual and the society he/she is part of... They are related and integrated (for the most part). For the well-adjusted individuals, to the contrarians, the corrupt, the fair, and even for the rejects.
      - muyuu 14y ago
        More nonsense and more taking things out of context. Ron Paul also supports lesser intervention abroad, and he's far from a marxist.

muyuu 14y ago

The people don't need to buy into it though. I definitely don't and wouldn't. I expect fairness and don't abuse others in weaker positions than mine, not so hard on the individual scale. So basically "it's all right because they'd do the same" simply doesn't cut it.

powertower 14y ago
On an individual scale, you have to ask were your goodness is really coming from / what is it that allows it. Do you like the big house you live in, electricity 24h/day, the plethora of food you can buy, the nice cars you drive, the crime-free white areas you can live in (or move into), having access and freedom to discuss issues such as this? It all came out from competition, not personal niceness. Not only that, but your "fairness" attitude is a product of all this. Without which you're life, and ideas about who you are, would be drastically different. The rest of the world is a bad place (http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-full-length http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...), and everyone is in competition... Some people compete by being nice, others by accumulating wealth, some choose to impose their wills on others, etc. It's all the same, ego. If you're interested, you don't have to go far in Buddhism to discover that all action is egotistical. If you want to be truly fair, then drop out of this game called society; stop doing, and start being with silence and compassion.
- muyuu 14y ago
  It doesn't matter. Means and ends are different things. Darwinism made us reach here as a species, it doesn't mean we have to consciously apply it. Thing is, we can afford to be fair. The argument that you have to make your ends and means coincide is simplistic.
  - powertower 14y ago
    If you love fairness, you should look into Marxist Communism. Though it never quite works out the way you want it to... Something about one bad (corrupt, not fair) apple spoiling the rest! It's just an example, but the point is, human nature seems to always mess it up in the end for the fairness crowds. They just don't seem to be the right product/market fit for humans and their societies. > Thing is, we can afford to be fair. Yes you can! All thanks to the competition system that allows you to do so. > It doesn't matter. You can't separate the lives and actions of an individual and the society he/she is part of... They are related and integrated (for the most part). For the well-adjusted individuals, to the contrarians, the corrupt, the fair, and even for the rejects.
    - muyuu 14y ago
      More nonsense and more taking things out of context. Ron Paul also supports lesser intervention abroad, and he's far from a marxist.