but it's easier to see the rewards that come from cheating. Problem is, there is no punishment for those who do cheat, so it corrupts the whole system.
Here's a post I wrote in winter 2006:
Liberals believe people are generally good. People want to work to better their lives, and by trying to achieve their own perfection, bring the state closer to perfection. Not all people are good, and authoritative governments, ie. dictatorships, representing the beliefs of one individual and likely to only benefit that individual, are unacceptable. Democracies are considered to be the form of government that best represents the beliefs of the people, and as such, are the preferred governments to achieve harmonious coexistence between states. Non-interventionist liberals believe time will sort out any differences between states. Interventionist liberals believe actions must take place to move things along. So, the invasion of a state, the removal of a hostile government, and the creation of a democracy is a just, noble event.
Of course, bullshit begets more bullshit.
I recently did a paper for my political science class on the fourth chapter of Kenneth Waltz's Man the State and War. My right-wing republican military instructor assigned the chapter to us, and surprise! the author explains liberalism and why he feels it's a flawed concept. Actually, the underlying belief that man is generally pretty good, and that states can peacefully coexist is even by my standards unlikely to ever occur. Let's face it. Most people are out to get what's best for them and rarely consider what is best for the group. Consider the plundering of America by the Asshole in Charge and you see how pitiful it is that Joe Sixpack in BFE thinks that the POTUS gives a shit about him. I did find it interesting that taking action to "spread democracy" is listed by the author as a characteristic of "interventionist liberals", so the next time some bushbot gives you shit about being liberal, throw that back at 'em. I must admit, the * regime's decision to decision to launch a preemptive strike to eliminate a hostile government and set up a democracy by which (the state) could become closer to achieving infinite perfectibility and, as a result, coexist in harmony is, on its face, a good thing. Unfortunately, the reality is the "noble deed" is a poorly executed fraud that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives so some motherfuckers can become even more rich and powerful. Anyway, here's what I wrote:
In chapter four of Kenneth Waltz’s Man the State and War, Waltz examines the internal and external actions of a state, and how these actions may lead to the occurrence of war. The liberal ideology of domestic and international affairs, Waltz argues, is impractical and flawed. This paper will describe liberal ideologies and give reasons why they are faulty.
Liberals believe man is generally good, and in domestic affairs, can be trusted to equitably dispense the profits of labor back into production and distribution. Hard work benefits the individual and in turn, benefits society. “Free-market regulators” would provide the necessary control and government oversight would not be needed. Unfortunately, some people are greedy, and will take advantage of the system to meet their own ends. Hence the need for government control, Waltz argues.
With international relations, the liberal view is that states should provide only a minimum of duties, and that war is only necessary to correct a miscarriage of justice. They believe in a harmony between the states, and that states should seek only that which benefits all. This idyllic view loses focus when interpreting the views of individual policy makers in dictatorships who have their own personal agenda. Democracies then are the preferred form of government to achieve this goal of international harmony.
The error in this reasoning is the assumption that other states will strive to become “infinitely perfectible” and that their actions are representative of the majority of their population, not the minority. By accepting the motivations of others as “good”, one could be left open to an unforeseen attack. Including geography and past history in estimating a state’s proclivity for war is also a dangerous assumption.
Noninterventionist liberals believe that time will correct any imbalances in international affairs. Interventionist liberals feel that action against “bad” governments must take place to achieve peace. This is dangerous in that “just causes” for war are determined by the state making the declaration, and may also be used by the opposing state.
In lieu of war, liberals believe in an international body to arbitrate any conflicts, using international mores and public opinion to maintain peace. This is not unlike today’s United Nations. However, the effectiveness of such a body is called into question when it lacks any army or police to enforce its decisions.
In conclusion, the liberal’s view that man and states will coexist in harmony through the process of attaining “infinite perfectibility” is overly optimistic and utopian. Not all countries are democracies, and not all people are good. Thankfully, the neoconservatives in the current administration have instituted government regulations to curb corporate greed (Enron, big oil), ensured that state’s actions represent and benefit the majority (Dick Cheney, Halliburton), and declared that “just causes” for war do not serve any hidden agendas (oil, revenge). Otherwise, things might be really bad.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
