[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:50:39 -0700
Irene,
Once again, again, again, again etc, etc, etc you don't read my notes.
Fukuyama broke with the Neocons because they proposed a war to further
Liberal Democracy. FUKUYAMA OPPOSES WAR TO FURTHER LIBERAL DEMOCRACY!!!!!!.
That is what his book America at the Crossroads is about, his break with the
Neocons primarily over that issue. You would have to jump through a lot of
hoops (reason for a given war) before Fukuyama would approve of it.
You don't know what you are talking about in this note. You are doing what
I said you and Andreas do, and I said it in the note you quote below WHICH
YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T READ. I have to tell you I am thoroughly disgusted
with the both of you. You waste my time by not reading my notes and
claiming that I said absurd things you make up. If you are going to respond
to one of my notes, kindly respond to something I say and not something you
make up. If you are unable to read my notes then don't respond to them.
Don't think you can read a title or a sentence and think you know what I'm
saying. I tend to think and write in essay-type segments rather than
sentences.
D
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:25 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
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 <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Thats not true. I wrote on the prospect of world peace as a
challenge to the pacifists. Youre at a disadvantage here because you dont
read my notes. You are guilty of the same thing Irene is. She doesnt 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 hasnt 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, shouldnt they give up their pacifism and
embrace this app roach. 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? Dont 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 Pentagons
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 isnt 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 theyll
get richer and freer. As soo n as any state cracks down too much then
someone megalomaniacs 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:
