Give me a break. This quote dates from 1920, two years after widespread use of the gas in WWI. These weapons were considered fair game at the time. They were later outlawed. Had he desired to use them, he had the power in WWII to do so. He did not.
Applying modern values to century old thoughts in order to express outrage at those long since dead is unpersuasive.
Applying modern values to century old thoughts in order to express outrage at those long since dead is unpersuasive.
But Art, he’s not expressing outrage at anyone, at least not that I can see.
He’s just pointing out that holding up Churchill as a font of wisdom is not without its problems…or are you saying that anything said more than a century (84) years ago isn’t subject to our (admittedly) modern review?
Anyway, how are you coming on that question I asked last Friday, about the last Arab country to hold a free election, the result of that election and how those results inform your view of “democracy” in Iraq?
Surely you just overlooked it…it wouldn’t be like you to duck a question that is easily answered by anyone with even cursory knowledge of the region and its (very) recent history.
But it’s also OK to say something like “you have flat worn me out,” if you don’t know such a basic fact and can’t be bothered to do the research.
Just remember…the quality of your dialogue speaks for itself.
Applying modern values to century old thoughts in order to express outrage at those long since dead is unpersuasive.
One of the key points that people miss:
We are trying to apply our modern values to people who live in a different way and in a different timeframe. We need to understand that until they have food, shelter and security, formal democracy is an afterthought. Look at Europe - democracy has only been around a few hundred years, and in the UK women (over 30) were not given the vote until 1918, yet the disenfranchisement of women elsewhere is apparently unthinkable and barbaric today.
People in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq will act as “we” acted a few hundred years ago until their standard of living and security matches ours. The Western outrage at the lynchings in Fallujah are a product of our sensitive society - London Bridge used to be decorated with the heads of “enemies of the people”, even when living and societal conditions were comparatively better than they are in Iraq right now.
The religious outrages of the past are certainly populated by their fair share of Christian fundamentalists from a time when the Church and state were one and were the law. We can’t suddenly expect people with no access to outside views and opinions to suddenly be in synch with usjust because we have theroretically moved on to a higher level of undersatnding. (theoretically being the key word here)
Formailsed democracy is not a driving force if you might be dead in the morning. You can’t impose “freedom” and then hope everything else sorts itself out - you need to get the conditions for democracy first.
At the moment, people in the Middle East do not see the chance for freedom, they see killings, instability and a foreign occupier. They will naturally look to strong leaders and groups who offer the chance to fight back against these perceived injustices - just as we would, and just as we do.
democracy doesn’t have to be a vote in a ballot box - the different groups in Iraq are voting with their feet for wartime leaders. This is no different from voters wanting Churchill or Roosevelt.
Bush is running as a war president. So is Moqtada Sadr. He is getting “votes” on the ground as he is a strong, charismatic leader with an inspiring line in oratory who is fighting back against the perceived threat from outsiders.
Even if the rule of the gun is misguided, there are currently too many contradictions in the democracy on offer to the Middle East which let it prosper. Why are some dictators our allies, even when the people suffer? Why do we attack iraq yet ignore Saudi involvement in Al Q; why is the democratically elected Arafat ignored? Rumsfeld and others have said that there will not be an Islamic Republic in Iraq, no matter what the people want - that is not democracy. All these things play into the hands of the extremists who are expert at stirring up discontent.
Closer to home and the flawed understanding of democracy is shown by the reaction to the Spanish election;the argument that the people of Spain somehow rolled over to terrorism by voting out Aznar. That in itself shows how false the current notion of democracy is.
The people in Madrid were not cowed by the bombs - they took to the trains in their millions the next day to hold vigils. They voted Aznar out for two reasons - firstly they thought the War in Iraq was both illegal and a distraction from the real “War on Terror”, and secondly he tried to sell a lie long enough to be re-elected (hey - reminds me of June handover in Iraq…)
He took Spain into Iraq against the people’s wishes (undemocratically) and along with the other partners took their eyes off the Al Q ball. In addition to this, he attempted to blame ETA immediately, as he knew that suited his re-election prospects. The people of Madrid were faced with a leader who in their opinion compromised the war on terror, and then lied about it to save his skin. They voted him out. That is an example of the democracy we are supposed to be fighting for, not a surrender to terrorism as hinted at by many who should (and probably do) know better.
Democracy is only real if it’s unconditional - if people want to live in a secular state or a religious one, they have to be given the choice, whether we agree or not.
Imposing a set way of thinking without first having in place the necessary conditions will never, and has never worked. Anything else is false. We are finding that out in Iraq, and Afghanistan as we speak.
Nicely put.
I remember last year you had a lot people talking about “security first, democracy later”. Looks like it’s been a little harder to actually implment that…
“People in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq will act as “we” acted a few hundred years ago until their standard of living and security matches ours.”
“Formailsed democracy is not a driving force if you might be dead in the morning.”
“We are trying to apply our modern values to people who live in a different way and in a different timeframe. We need to understand that until they have food, shelter and security, formal democracy is an afterthought.”
If all you said above were true, the longest-lived democracy existing in the world today would not exist. In fact, you have it all backwards. Without formal democracy, adequate food, shelter and security do not exist. Name one dictatorship, totalitarian or communist regime with higher standards of living than western democracies. Democratic government is absolutely necessary for the conditions which cause capital formation, property rights, and investment to exist. Read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” It is the only economics text that anyone other than an Econ major needs to read. Sort of like the liberal claptrap that poverty causes crime when in actual fact, crime causes poverty. In case you didn’t know, UBL is from the second wealthiest family in Saudi Arabia. Do you think he is fighting for food and shelter?
I can see it in my mind–
Benjamin Franklin “Let’s have a free country with a constitution that guarantees it!”
Thomas Jefferson “Can’t do that yet. A b’ar might eat us tomorrow!”
Define “standards of living,” please.
The assertion that having adequate food, shelter, and security requires formal democracy us patently ludicrous. How did the human race manage to survive so long without it?
great post, shw10!
i’d say more…but i am currently trying figure out exactly how, according to tri_bri2, crime causes poverty
it may take me a while, so in the meantime, huzzah for shw10!
“The assertion that having adequate food, shelter, and security requires formal democracy us patently ludicrous. How did the human race manage to survive so long without it?”
Because what was considered adequate, say 400 years ago, is no longer considered so. Some might argue that human existence was very tenuous at best until the last couple of centuries. If you look at survival rates, life expectancies, birth rates, etc., you would probably see the connection. The main reason that the US has become the richest country in the history of the planet is our democratic institutions. There are others tha have as many, if not more, natural resources than we do. Again–read “Wealth of Nations.” It is a very small book compared to most econ texts. It explains how economic and political freedom are inextricably linked. You can’t have one without the other. Formation of wealth and capital markets do not happen in countries without them, and countries without either or both have significantly lower standards of living.
Name me some countries that do not have democratic institutions that have living standards comparable to those that do. Those that have tried to do it, and come close (USSR) have failed.
It’s easy Larry.
Countries, or for that matter, even neighborhoods, with high crime rates drive out investment. Why is that? Because of risk. If I can get a 10 percent return on my investment and I know my store won’t be burned down or robbed daily, I will stay there. If I can’t be sure of that, I will either leave, or raise my expectation of return to account for risk. In other words, I will charge more for my product. So, my choices (leave or charge more) both cause poverty. One because jobs go away when I leave and two because people have less disposable income after buying needed goods. If you don’t believe me, go into a high crime area and check the prices in grocery stores (if you can even find one) versus grocery stores in a low-crime suburban area. Read some stuff by Walter Williams, a brilliant economist at George Mason University. He has covered this topic very well.
ahhh, so since the United States has the highest crime rates among Western Democracies, we must have the lowest standard of living.
QED!
thanks, tri_bri!
So, my choices (leave or charge more) both cause poverty. One because jobs go away when I leave and two because people have less disposable income after buying needed goods. If you don’t believe me, go into a high crime area and check the prices in grocery stores (if you can even find one) versus grocery stores in a low-crime suburban area.
this is brilliant stuff Tri-bri2 you’re on the verge of converting me. Forgive me if I’m interpreting this wrong. So all the people in this neighbourhood are poor and there’s a high crime rate, so the shopkeeper doesn’t make enough money, so he leaves. and because he leaves, that means that all the people in the neighbourhood are STILL poor, but it’s the fact that the shop keeper left that made them poor and nothing to do with their circumstances in the first place?!?!
Does this make any sense to anyone?
Because what was considered adequate, say 400 years ago, is no longer considered so.
By us, at least. If the Iraqis think it’s adequate, who are we to argue?
Here’s my point about the standard of living: We tend to look at it from a solely materialist point of view. We have more stuff, and more wealth, therefore we have a higher standard of living. What I’m saying is that not everyone sees it that way, and those who don’t have a compelling case. There is more to life than economics, and whether the Dow dropped 90 points today, and how much disposable income the average person has. Is the average American life so really so idyllic because of our wealth? Are we, in the main, living complete, fulfilling lives? I’m not so sure.
We’re rich, but are we happy?
ps- Yeah, yeah, Art- I’m working on finding that book!
You nailed the big point of the book. We are wealthier, but not happier. He really nails why.
That doesn’t apply to me. I learned those lessons long ago. I am wealthy and very happy. I even have time to do infantile things, like Ironman triathlons for example.
Have the courage to face the grim fact that our life is wonderful.
It makes perfect sense to me. His economics is dead on. Read the book.
Well, it doesn’t apply to me either. But I don’t equate happiness with wealth, or the lack thereof. That, imo, is the fundamental problem.
I’m quite interested to learn why Easterbrook thinks we’re not happy. I’m going to predict that he is terribly, terribly wrong. I’ll report back in after reading it, though. Give me a week or so.
He nails it. Skip the movie; read the book.
Wow! “The oil is there but can’t be touched”…? Since when did the comic section of the newspaper become a statement of economic-political fact.
While a lot of oil is present in those areas… However, oil (or any resouces for that matter) being in the ground is not the same thing as being an economically accessable resource. You confuse the difference between having resources and accessing resources. When it comes to oil, the fact is this. Currently, it is more expensive to access resources in the US than in other countries. When you put that into the economic equation, then it seems your economic genitic advantage is limited by autism.
There are regulations that prevent the drilling for oil and gas in certain environmentally sensitive areas. We could access those resources at the expense of the environment but you would need to pay the actual (and, total) cost of reclaiming the environmental impact.
Unfortunately, the fact is simply this… most consumers don’t want to pay for actual and complete environmental impact costs as a result of resource explotation. This is one reason why you have environmental laws. I have no issue with accessing the resources you mentioned in your post… but, you would have to pay a significantly higher cost for those resources. Instead, it seems you only want to exploit the resources and blame (and whine) about enviromental protection laws because it doesn’t allow for “cheaper” gasoline prices and fuel bills. And, (oh yea)… you make it sound like an economic solution. Wrong! It’s only a transfer of costs to another time and place.
Want to access those resources? Fine… but, it should be noted that we must pay the entire cost and we shouldn’t leave your trash and abuse of the resources for someone else to pay for… I’m with you - piss on environmental left wing politics… but, you need to write the big check first. If not, then go piss in your own yard.
FWIW Joe Moya
It would cost $40-50 billion to develop an oil field capable of producing 1.7-2 million barrels of oil a day. What are the estimates of a 5-10 year occupation in Irag? $100 billion $200 billion…? or more? So where is the money better spent? Here at home free of bloodshed, or over there with the increasing body count and no guarantees of successful gonvernance?
In oil and gas exploration there is an associated environmental cost. However the ‘footprint’ left behind is not as noticable due to new technology and the laws you mention. The problem is new exploration is forbidden. The typical lib rant that “future generations” will be left with the bill is bullshit. The economy is a machine that needs to be continously fed. More people=more needs=more resources must be tapped. This country has overwhelming unfunded liabilities due to the welfare state the government has created. How do you think we’re going to pay for those liabilities? More taxes, more regulations? Tightening the noose around the neck of the commodity that drives our economy only creates problems. It is about the oil and quiet simply it is all about “cheaper gas”. No amount of fancy left wing doomsday rhetoric is going to change that.
Like it or not, the average American does not care about how future generations are going to deal with the environment so long as they can afford to provide for their families today. It can be done; exploration coexisting with a sensible environmental policy…but you need to give it a chance.
Actually Larry, there is a lot of truth to your statement there. We are not number one in standards of living among western democracies anymore and a lot of it has to do with crime. Glad we could finally agree on something!
Vitus–
You make a lot of good points. Actually, I just read an article about the same thing. The researcher found that street prostitutes in Calcutta were almost as happy as American college students. Why? Because of rising expectations. If you awake every day thinking you are not going to have food, and then you find a scrap of food in a dumpster, you are happy. If you awake every day thinking you are going to win the Lotto and retire, and then you don’t, you are unhappy. In the US, most people do not worry daily about the basics of survival. Therefore, we look to more trivial things (triathlon, boats, Jaguars) to make us happy. The more we get, the more we want.
However, in most of the third world, people do not even have the basics. They work from sunup to sundown to scratch a living out of the ground or scrounge it from garbage dumps. About half of their children do not see their first birthday. The children who live are not educated because they have to work. They die in large numbers from entirely preventable disease (900,000 a year in Africa due to malaria). We send tons and tons of food aid and the World bank and IMF send them billions and billions in loans which they can never repay. Their dictators sell the food and use the money to buy palaces and weapons. As long as their political situation is as it is, things will never improve.
Should we impose or export a democratic political and free enterprise system to them? I would argue that to do any less would be immoral because that is exactly what they need to live even marginally better lives.