The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Unity is Death!
sdrawkcaB emaN
regular
regular
So, I was watching The Daily Show, and Jon Stewart was lampooning the ineffeciency of Congress -- one of his most reliable shticks. Notmally, I'm laughing with Stewart, but this really put me off; people don't seem to understand these days that our system is designed to be slow moving and ineffecient, and that this is a great thing indeed. In fact, people are constantly trumping unity as such a tremendous virtue in the political process. I firmly disagree.
If you want, we can just take a short look at our very recent history to see the evidence of this -- unity and quick action generally lead to poor outcomes. Just after Sep. 11, everyone was united in Congress. So we passed the PATRIOT Act and went to war in two countries. Awesome. Hooray for unity.
But it can be seen thorought history -- when a political system is rife with (political) conflict and disagreement and compromise and ineffeciency, it's generally the most stable. It's when people are rushing to agree with each other that scary shit starts to happen.
Valuing conflict and dissent and ineffecieny comes from a pretty Machiavellian perspective -- just about everyone is (or will be, if given power) an asshole. Better to divide the assholes, and ensure that none of them gets their way entirely. And by this tenuous balancing act, stability is maintained (this is something you find more in Discourses on Livy than in The Prince). But history certainly reinforces that notion. Like me, Machiavelli was a big fan of the Roman Republic, and of course there we can observe a system that was, for nigh on 500 years, about as conflicted as you can get. And it continued to expand in power and territory despite the innumerable hardships that were thrown its way. Sure, Julius was a pretty sweet ruler, but ultimately the system he created was headed for ruin, because you simply can't go betting on brilliant, selfless autocrats. And it really didn't take long for the Empire to start showing the strains of a streamlined system.
I'm sure most people here probably agree with me, but I have been disheartened recently to see so many Democrats crying out for exactly the kind of streamlining and efficiency that Republicans have been cultivating for their own party up until now. It seems like people have entirely forgotten why we have a system like our own. Instead, it seems like everyone would like a dictator, they're just arguing over what views they wish their dictator had. It's depressing.
If you want, we can just take a short look at our very recent history to see the evidence of this -- unity and quick action generally lead to poor outcomes. Just after Sep. 11, everyone was united in Congress. So we passed the PATRIOT Act and went to war in two countries. Awesome. Hooray for unity.
But it can be seen thorought history -- when a political system is rife with (political) conflict and disagreement and compromise and ineffeciency, it's generally the most stable. It's when people are rushing to agree with each other that scary shit starts to happen.
Valuing conflict and dissent and ineffecieny comes from a pretty Machiavellian perspective -- just about everyone is (or will be, if given power) an asshole. Better to divide the assholes, and ensure that none of them gets their way entirely. And by this tenuous balancing act, stability is maintained (this is something you find more in Discourses on Livy than in The Prince). But history certainly reinforces that notion. Like me, Machiavelli was a big fan of the Roman Republic, and of course there we can observe a system that was, for nigh on 500 years, about as conflicted as you can get. And it continued to expand in power and territory despite the innumerable hardships that were thrown its way. Sure, Julius was a pretty sweet ruler, but ultimately the system he created was headed for ruin, because you simply can't go betting on brilliant, selfless autocrats. And it really didn't take long for the Empire to start showing the strains of a streamlined system.
I'm sure most people here probably agree with me, but I have been disheartened recently to see so many Democrats crying out for exactly the kind of streamlining and efficiency that Republicans have been cultivating for their own party up until now. It seems like people have entirely forgotten why we have a system like our own. Instead, it seems like everyone would like a dictator, they're just arguing over what views they wish their dictator had. It's depressing.
sdrawkcaB emaN on
0
Posts
But yeah, dissent usually makes for a good check against popular tyranny.
Agreed, but I do think there is an important (if small) distinction to make -- that was not unity built into the system. It was an overwhelming need that managed to override all the built-in stops. People today seem to be advocating that the system itself should be more efficient and streamlined. And certainly there was no overwhleming need to go into Iraq -- rather through shrewd manipulation of the media and public, representatives felt shoehorned into unified action, even if they knew better at the time. Although, alternatively, if they had had some freaking balls, that would have helped, too.
Basically what I'm saiyng is that one can view it as dissent's viability being purposefully undermined by those wishing for a streamlined process to rubber-stam their agenda, which is, I think, different from America going to WWII.
I'm not sure the above paragraph makes complete sense, though hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say.
I think the OP's point is that unity is precisely what allows someone to make such a huge shitbomb. Dissenting voices neccessitate detailed examination of policy by those proposing it, and thus prevent badly thought-out ideas getting a free ride on the back of popular approval.
He's right, you know.
Pearl Harbor, much like 9/11, was the government's attempt at forcing unity.
...Mind expounding on that a little more thoroughly?
@Fawkes -- That's exactly right.
...Shit. Fawkes agrees with me. I feel so...dirty.
Certainly. While I obviously have no concrete proof, I'm of the belief (and you can call it Left-Wing bullshit if you like) that the government either allowed or perpetrated firsthand both the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It's a conspiracy theory, sure, but the same could be said of the generally accepted accounts of both events--they just happen to be the most widely accepted theories. But that's no argument.
Basically my beef with the "true" accounts lies in the inconsistencies therein that conflict with reality. Pearl Harbor was allegedly a "surprise" attack, but U.S. officials had knowledge of the incoming Japanese aircraft from the time they passed over the opposite side of Oahu. The fact no ships were mobilized, indeed the fact that nothing was done to oppose the incoming fighters, just doesn't sit well with me.
9/11 is a whole different can of worms. There's the fact that almost no fueselage was recovered from the Pentagon (allegedly the metal body, as well as the jet engines of the aircraft were simply vaporized, though the temperature necessary for this was never reached), as well as the hole left in the Pentagon--much too small for a commercial jet. The collapse of both WTC towers in perfect freefall (again, the temperature necessary to weaken the steel supports of the building would not be reached by burning jet fuel), etc, etc. I could go on, but at this point it's just a matter of opinion.
The fact that both of these "attacks" preceded American military involvement overseas further extends the shadow of my doubt.
And there's the fact that putting a massive Naval base out on Hawaii was basically one step above going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" to Japan. However, this in fact further cements the reality of FDR being the greatest G to ever inhabit the White House. Sacrifices, people. Something had to motivate us to get involved in WWII, and with an isolationist public, Pearl Harbor was the perfect catalyst. Huzzah! Seriously, the dude was made from crystallized awesome.
Now, without a doubt, there was massive incompetance that led up to 9/11. Indeed, just about every last defense system that could have possibly stopped the attacks all failed. From some of the hijackers entering the country despite expired visas and/or being on terrorist watch lists (but hey! They were being backed financially by at least one of the 3,000+ members of the Saudi Royal Family, so who cares if we let the bastards in, right?), to FBI investigations being frozen from the top of the chain of command, to NORAD totally losing its shit. But, really, given how tremendously incompetant the Bush administration has been, I'd say it's a bit of a leap to include malicious intent.
I don't believe Bush harbors any ill will towards the American people--he just doesn't give a shit. Whether we'd like to believe it or not, we're in Iraq because of 9/11, and just because you don't believe Bush and his administration capable of such an orchestration, (in the words of Nice Guy Eddie) "don't make it fuckin' so."
Means to an end are just as bad, in my honest opinion.
I mean, shit, I don't like what Japan did, but they weren't exactly just "Oh hey, I know, let's piss America off, that'll be fun!"
I know we did shit before that (Great White Fleet, anyone?), but lets not pretend it was the match that lit the fire that was Pearl Harbor.
I mean, bombing Pearl Harbor was a great move, and certainly could've hampered (if not outright ruined) the US's ability to fight a war in the Pacific. Only problem was they didn't get out carriers.
They probably should've asked for a Do Over.
best mid argument quote ever. it's my favorite from the movie.
carry on.
Yer, Cat and I agreed twice in as many days last week, someone is definitely messing with TimeSpace.
Goddamnit, the end does justify the means, so long as the end is stability of the state. But of course, in reality, I would generally want to avoid that sort of manipulation. We just got lucky because the guy doing it was a font of awesome. Of course, then there's the whole problem of democracy kind of naturally being inclined to produce a great deal of adverse effects on a nation. Over all I prefer a nice oligarchy with plenty of dissent, competition, and a cutthroat atmosphere among the ruling class.
Right, but see, the burden of proof kind of falls upon the conspiracy theorist. Honestly, much as I hate to admit it, I'm very slightly open to the idea that maybe the Bush administration could have purposefully dropped the ball re: stopping the Sep. 11th attacks, but it's really only marginally worse than allowing them to happen through sheer incompetance, so it's a bit of a moot point, really.
I'm 100% positive that they absolutely did not orchestrate the attack. At least with allowing it to happen, that's the sort of thing that could have potentially been pulled off by a very small group of people at the top. To orchestrate the Sep. 11th attacks would simply require too many people, too much planning, too many trails and mouths to take care of. If Nixon couldn't get away with fucking Watergate, there's no way Bush got away with planning 9/11. Sorry.
You're joking, right? Because this isn't true at all. On the contrary, it's those systems that tend to implode and lead to general nastiness (civil war, coup d'etat, etc).
It feels like you're arguing the man more than the issue. Stability? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm ultimately glad that America got involved in WWII. But to say that the stability of the country hinged upon Pearl Harbor is a bit much.
Uhhhh, I believe the burden of proof falls on the State, actually. And yes, I'd agree it's more likely they let it happen, but, come on. You can't tell me it's not fun to demonize Bush.
Saying its okay to demonize Bush is saying its okay for the Republicans to demonize Clinton. This staged 9/11 bullshit comes from the same thought process as the "Clinton was a murderer" stories, just on the other side of the aisle.
The Japanese planes did oame along the other side of Oahu but a bomber wing of about that number of planes was supposed to show up that day leading to enough confusion to destroy the American defenses.
Screw the carriers, the biggest target that the Japanese didn't hit was the oil reserve, which would have crippled America to the point that the turning point would have been Pearl Harbor, if there was one at all.
Also, the planes destroyed some of the eight steel supports when they flew in, so it was just a matter of time. This is also the reason that the second one fell first, as the pilot flew in sideways, hitting five, while the pilot who hit first went in from the side, hitting three.
I think we need to start another crazy conspiracy theory thread again.
Unlike religion threads, they're actually fun.
and why care about it? it didn't burn anyone who mattered. no one gives a fuck.
They're pretty much the same damn thing.
Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff?
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
This is a relevant point, and I forgot to clarify something earlier -- any group with military power that is united in purpose will rarely result in anything good for anyone.
So, not only should citizens of a nation-state be concerned with how much political conflict and dissent is present in their national discourse, but also with discouraging the rise of things like proxy armies, private military contractors (mercenaries), and so forth.
It's a reason why violent revolutions tend to not turn out so hot. Sure, there are exceptions (of course someone will bring up the American revolution), but really it's pretty dependant on who's leading said revolution, and you really just can't count on getting lucky in that department.
So, while you might view a state undergoing civil war as a single system with more political conflict than can be desired, I'd instead view it as two seperate systems, individually lacking dissent. You'll note that frequently this kind of scenario results from a single system that lacked avenues for dissent in the first place, necessitating for some the creation of an alternate system entirely to service their needs. I think it all kind of reinforces my main point.
UNITY
ITT: Ap0 attempts to destabilize the PA boards and foment bloody insurrection.