[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:25:24 -0400
Lawrence, you keep mentioning my name as if I cared about Fukuyama. I think
he's a distraction and nothing more. A long time ago in one of these
discussions it jumped off the screen at me that Fukuyama is basically a
Japanese warrior. Plus it's like he's in the Ann Coulter school of saying
outrageous things to get noticed; in her case it's to say outrageous things to
get noticed and make money. He's probably not that bad, just a little
disturbed. Fukuyama thinks life is boring if there's no war and there are no
real men without war? How is he better than a terrorist? At least terrorists
have some sort of goal. Fukuyama is just a barbarian, someone questioning his
own manhood and advocating barbarism to prove himself a man and to have some
fun, and people are actually taking him seriously. Count me out.
As far as how to achieve world peace, step one is, don't wage offensive wars.
Not only will that be contributing to world peace, had we not waged an
offensive war it would have enhanced our position of power, our prestige, not
have created untold numbers of jihadists; in short, made us significantly safer
not to mention saved a lot of money. Once the jihadist-creation machine (war)
has a monkey wrench thrown into it, start engaging and negotiating. The two of
us are diametrically opposed. You like Fukuyama and war. I don't. Are we
done?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/6/2006 1:33:44 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
No, no, no. That?s not true. I wrote ?on the prospect of world peace? as a
challenge to the pacifists. You?re at a disadvantage here because you don?t
read my notes. You are guilty of the same thing Irene is. She doesn?t read my
notes either. She imagines something and assumes her imagining to be true and
then criticizes me on the basis of it, usually in abusive terms. But she
hasn?t imagined correctly and neither have you. I asserted that pacifists had
no plan for the achieving of world peace. All they had, I asserted, was
wishful thinking. Whereas, I argued, the Fukuyama/Barnett approach will (if
they are correct) lead to World Peace. I asked them if it were assumed that
the Fukuyama/Barnett approach were accurate, that is that it would lead to
world peace, shouldn?t they give up their pacifism and embrace this approach.
There might be the occasional megalomaniacal dictator that would have to be
fought but in the long run world peace would be achieved. Whereas
their griping, harping, whining approach is only likely to make things worse
-- and I gave examples.
Your ?bomb the heathen until they either submit or get wiped out? is
preposterously silly. No one has ever proposed that. No one proposes it now.
Read Barnett who is more of an activist that Fukuyama. He proposes economic
inducements, raising the standard of living, wooing them into the integrated
core.
The actual process? Don?t forget that Fukuyama is an Hegelian. He thinks the
process deterministically inevitable. Barnett on the other hand has described
steps that can be taken. Assuming I found any converts, pacifists who wanted
to convert from pacifism to the Fukuyama/Barnett process, I was going to
recommend that they read his book which is entitled The Pentagon?s New Map, War
and Peace in the Twenty-first Century. 2004.
As to your worry, ?Lawrence, you don't want a world without injustice. In that
future of your world peace, will there be gay marriage? Will there be
socialized medicine? Will there be a redistribution of wealth? A globalized
multiracial society? Is this really what you want?? The functioning core is
composed of Liberal Democracies. ?Liberal? implies freedom. The nations will
be free to vote anything into law they want and their constitutions allow.
That isn?t going to change. The key words are Liberal and Democracy. The idea
is that economies are so free that entrepreneurs create new wealth, jobs, etc.
Standards of living are therefore on the rise. Freedom is maximized so
everyone can have most of what he wants. Take the present day Liberal
Democracies in the West, Japan, etc and assume they?ll get richer and freer.
As soon as any state cracks down too much then someone megalomaniac?s
megalothymos will be inhibited and he will revolt and start history all over
again
. Freedom, as much freedom as possible, needs to be available to such people
to make them want to function within their Liberal Democratic nations.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:38 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
The problem isn't me or my logic. You're the one on trial here; you're the one
whose
thoughts are being inspected. The problem is that you use lofty goals as your
justification
without stating how you will achieve those goals.
In your previous email, you expect that world peace will come about as "core
nations" (we
can guess the racial and religious nature of those core nations) adopt liberal
democracy,
and thus world peace will come about. Until then, we have to bomb the heathen
until they
either submit or get wiped out. This is how you will create "peace". You use
the goal of
peace only as a justification for more war.
Okay, so you finally destroy everyone and declare peace. But will you be happy
in that new
Eden? No more injustice?
Lawrence, you don't want a world without injustice. In that future of your
world peace, will
there be gay marriage? Will there be socialized medicine? Will there be a
redistribution of
wealth? A globalized multiracial society? Is this really what you want?
It would help if you stated clearly:
1) How you will establish world peace. And once established, how will it be
maintained/enforced?
2) What that peaceful society will look like.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
