3 ms·

In other words, you do believe might makes right, or at least there's no point in doing right if you can't do it for very long. I am not so cynical. But neithe

In other words, you do believe might makes right, or at least there's no point in doing right if you can't do it for very long. I am not so cynical. But neither am I naive. I believe (as possibly you may also) right is right, and it is not defined by winning (but you feel right is pointless unless without wining). Right is not defined as the ultimate outcome of geopolitical darwinism. But I also believe in self-fullfining prophesies. The world ultimately reflects us. We get the world we deserve. Imagine if the United States unwaveringly played by the same rules internationally as it must domestically, per our Constitution. Rather than gaining power by leveraging the corruption and self-interest of foreign politicians, we'd gain influence by winning hearts and minds, and push the world by example rather than at the end of a bayonet. Idealistic? Perhaps. But it is a fallacy that idealism contradicts realism.

rayiner 13y ago
The literal definition of "cynicism" is "the belief that people are generally selfish and dishonest." I do not believe myself to be a cynic, nor do I think my viewpoint requires any cynicism. I would instead say it's empiricist. You can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so. Your point about "playing by rules" suffers from a basic conceptual problem. The very concept of "rules" is meaningless without someone to enforce them. Otherwise, it totally rational to break the rules. In such circumstances, the party that doesn't break the rules usually doesn't win, so the system rapidly degenerates into nobody following the rules.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  > You can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so. You also can't look at the facts and conclude that there isn't - you can only conclude that there hasn't yet been such an equilibrium. We have been running more or less democratic systems of governments more or less successfully for some number of years now, but there was a point in time before that where you could have said "you can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that democratic systems of governments can be successful". Making conclusions about the future based on the past doesn't work, all you can do is hypothesize. I suppose you probably meant that the odds of a stable peaceful equilibrium seem very low based on historical evidence, and I'm just being pedantic.
eevilspock 13y ago
> it [is] totally rational to break the rules. Not in an absolute sense. Whether it is rational depends entirely on what you value. It may be rational for some people to resort to cannibalism to survive if stranded and starving to death, and absolutely not for others. > conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so. > The literal definition of "cynicism" is the belief that people are generally selfish and dishonest. Yes, I'm pretty sure you are cynical. :)

rayiner 13y ago

The literal definition of "cynicism" is "the belief that people are generally selfish and dishonest." I do not believe myself to be a cynic, nor do I think my viewpoint requires any cynicism. I would instead say it's empiricist. You can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so. Your point about "playing by rules" suffers from a basic conceptual problem. The very concept of "rules" is meaningless without someone to enforce them. Otherwise, it totally rational to break the rules. In such circumstances, the party that doesn't break the rules usually doesn't win, so the system rapidly degenerates into nobody following the rules.

sanderjd 13y ago
> You can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so. You also can't look at the facts and conclude that there isn't - you can only conclude that there hasn't yet been such an equilibrium. We have been running more or less democratic systems of governments more or less successfully for some number of years now, but there was a point in time before that where you could have said "you can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that democratic systems of governments can be successful". Making conclusions about the future based on the past doesn't work, all you can do is hypothesize. I suppose you probably meant that the odds of a stable peaceful equilibrium seem very low based on historical evidence, and I'm just being pedantic.

eevilspock 13y ago

> it [is] totally rational to break the rules. Not in an absolute sense. Whether it is rational depends entirely on what you value. It may be rational for some people to resort to cannibalism to survive if stranded and starving to death, and absolutely not for others. > conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so. > The literal definition of "cynicism" is the belief that people are generally selfish and dishonest. Yes, I'm pretty sure you are cynical. :)