The Prince is not a manual for how to run a government. It is meant as satire, a warning perhaps, to the people, about how sociopaths run a government. If you want something closer to a manual, read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, a book about how to run a Republic rather than a Tyranny.
If we want to be the world police, we need to act with consistent morality. We turn a blind eye to abuses world wide. Only when our interests are at stake will we attack, and we don't need an excuse. We'll make one up later. So don't try to pretend we are some kind of good guys selflessly spreading democracy and freedom. Try selling that to the East Timorese, or anyone in Central or South America, or most of Africa, you'll either get laughed at or punched.
But I'm sure this will all simply pass unnoticed through your mind, as it contradicts your view of the US, and it is obvious you base your sense of self on the idea that you are a citizen of a 'good' country. If the US was not, in fact, good, then you would probably feel guilty, and might even feel like doing something about it. And that would be difficult, so you continue to believe what is easy and makes you feel good.
The difference is that WE ASKED THE FRENCH. Who in Afghanistan asked you for help in getting freedom? If they didn't ask, you aren't 'helping' them.
Funny, if those reasons were why we went into Iraq, why weren't we told? Why were we sold a completely different bill of goods? And why haven't we gone into other countries that have done at least as much wrong?
Look, my point is that those Afghans are damn tough, have nothing to lose, and were bred for generations for vicious, constant warfare. You think Stalin could have done better up there in those deserts and mountains? He would have gotten eaten alive, just like his predecessors did, and he would have had all the effectiveness we are having.
You just don't go after crazy hill people living in caves. They have nothing worth bombing, and they think of war as some kind of extreme sport. It's just not worth it.
For the record, I don't want you modded down. I'd like our debates to stand on their own. I'm confident that people don't need to see you modded down in order to know who the better debater is.
However, you were modded down for this phrase: "It probably makes it easier for you to avoid critical thinking when you can pigeonhole those who disagree with you."
That's an insult, and, as usual, you started it then whined when you got called on it. Poor, poor Shakrai. So sad how persecuted and mistreated you are.
But the overall survival rate is much lower in the US.
Tell you what, why don't you look up statistics for countries with only private health care, and contrast that with socialist health care. Here's a hint: you won't find ANY countries with private care on the top ten list for health care outcomes. If the free market were capable of providing good health care, it would have, someplace, at some time in history. It never has.
Your ideology blinds you. You start from the assumption that nothing can ever do better than the free market, and you work backwards to find support for your foregone conclusion, ignoring any evidence that contradicts what you know must be true. It's kind of sad to see someone's brain break like that.
I will be the first to admit that small scale, distributed, privately owned businesses are one of the most efficient and equitable ways of distributing resources, for some things. Public ownership and democratic control over the means of production are more effective for other things. Look at the privatization of water systems in South America: it was an abject failure. Think about public libraries: there is a reason we have them and not private libraries. Look at fire fighters, roads, sewers, water, electricity, any type of good or service where the marginal cost of entry into the market is high, i.e. natural monopolies. The free market, just like socialism, fails under certain conditions.
Intelligent people try to understand where one system works and where a different system would be better. You, on the other hand, are like a man with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail.
Afghanistan did not attack us. The Taliban did. Maybe we should invade the country that harbored and trained Tim McVeigh, if that is such a winning strategy.
At least we had some kind of a pretext for invading Afghanistan. Invading Iraq destroyed any chances we had of bringing those responsible to justice.
My response wasn't just about Iraq. We've invaded many, many other countries. Usually, not so openly. Here's a list of our interventions in Central and South America alone: http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
I will not 'get the fuck over' my country's war crimes. You 'get the fuck over' it, shut the fuck up, and let the adults bring the criminals to justice, okay? That's what adults do: we take responsibility for our actions, and for actions carried out in our names. Pansy ass children like yourself demand that everyone simply forget about their wrongdoing, all the while hypocritically whining about 'personal responsibility,' which evidently means 'everyone else should be responsible for their actions, but I won't be held responsible unless someone forces me to.'
I think he's talking about the United States of America.
No, that country was the home of notorious terrorist Timmothy McVeigh. After he bombed Oklahoma city, we invaded them, deposed their ruler, slaughtered their population, and generally showed them what harboring terrorists will get you.
Oh wait. That never happened. We treated it like the police matter it is, and because we did, everyone involved was brought to justice.
What reform? Health care? Yeah, uh, might want to look at the history books for that one, because every single argument against health care reform is already in them. Filed under 'false arguments against medicare.'
People are dying right now due to lack of health care coverage, and we are the only first world nation where that is true. Health care outcomes are far better under socialized medicine, for far less money. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet we are ranked 35th for health care outcomes.
Socialism just works better for some things, health care being provably one of them. You can whine about it all you like, but we will all be better off when we have a single payer system, just like every other first world country. It is a moral issue. Our health care system is an immoral failure. Hopefully, we will correct that.
But still, isn't your argument kind of a stupid red herring? What does on thing have to do with the other? Ah, I see. The one thing let's you ignore the other thing that you don't have any kind of a rebuttal to. Clever.
Oooh, sorry. "Hawkish Libertarian" then. Wouldn't want to insult you by calling you a conservative.
You seem pretty desperate and defensive for someone who didn't support the Iraq war. Maybe you are like the abused spouse who doesn't support getting the shit kicked out of her, but defends her husband when the cops come? Because you seem to take extreme umbrage at any criticism of our country's actions, even criticism you seem to agree is legitimate.
Read the AC comment I replied to: "Will will stop invading when they promise to stop trying things like hijacking planes and flying them into really tall buildings to kill a few thousand civilians."
We invaded Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan may have been their home base, but if we invade countries because they house terrorists, who should we have invaded because of Tim McVeigh?
To top it off, our invasion of Iraq totally screwed our operations in Afghanistan. So we did the absolute most ass backwards, ineffective thing we could have done, and now we are paying for it. Well, our young men and women are. Okay, not the sons and daughters of the people who sent us into Iraq, obviously, but, you know, our disposable young men and women are paying for it.
Oh, hey, since we're withdrawing from Iraq, we should all just forget about the whole thing. And we should stop complaining about it, because that's 'whining.'
Okay, you caught me. I just love rubbing your face in it because the ONLY thing you can do is complain about 'whining.' Bush lied, people died: it's not just a slogan, it's the TRUTH.
Ahh, I love the smell of desperate, defensive conservatives in the morning. It smells like... victory.
Oh, since Pinochet only murdered around 3000 people, that doesn't count as slaughter? And the fact that these murders went on for decades somehow doesn't count as generations?
Your tired of this thread because I've handed you your ass on a platter.
If you ever care to try your hand at debating me again, I have posts I can link back to to show what kind of a person you are. Mi the Murderer, that's what we'll call you.
If a country is attacked, they should fight back. I believe in Ghandi's principle of Ahimsa, or 'least violence.' Sometimes, the least violent solution is to kill your attacker as quickly as possible. I mean, if it's kill or be killed, it's a toss up whether letting yourself be killed is more violent than killing the other guy, but if you don't have a record of killing others and he does, it's simple. Killing him is likely to reduce violence.
All over? Really? Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Since you've developed a curious aversion to naming countries, let's make it crystal clear: Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
As others have said, the development of precision weapons has negated the need for carpet bombing, which was never used primarily as a weapon of terror, it was used to destroy wartime industries.
So, it isn't a matter of us not having the stomach for it, but rather, we don't have the need.
As another poster mentioned, we have not suddenly developed better ethics, we've developed better bombs. Carpet bombing is unnecessary now. We only ever carpet bombed cities with heavy war industries. Certainly, the effect on morale was part of the decision to target cities, but we did not use carpet bombing primarily as a terror tactic.
Will will stop invading when they promise to stop trying things like hijacking planes and flying them into really tall buildings to kill a few thousand civilians.
Really? We couldn't have won WW2 under the rules we use now? What new rules are those, exactly? Because, you know, the phrase "people no longer have the stomach to do what needs to be done" is pretty scary sounding. What exactly did we have the stomach for then that we don't now? Nuclear bombs?
Che Guevara is not my hero. Stalin is not my hero. Lenin is not my hero. They were murderers like the man you defend.
Pinochet does qualify. I set the qualifications, not you. I said it, and Pinochet fits what I said. I never said "more murderous than Castro/Guevara." And neither did you, until now, when you realized how badly you've lost and will try anything, no matter how transparent, to keep from having to admit you've lost.
In any case, there are dozens more examples. In terms of people killed, Indonesia's Suharto massacred hundreds of thousands of people, and of course, we helped him do it.
Face it. I've gotten you to admit you want to murder all socialists, without a trial. I've proven my point, the US installs and supports murderers. Even if Pinochet killed only several thousand, that makes him a mass murderer, and fits my original statement: "we will kill you and install a brutal military dictator who will slaughter your people for generations to come."
Pinochet was a brutal military dictator who slaughtered his people for generations. You simply can't argue against that without changing what I said.
You've lost. Again.
You can't win against me. I know more than you, I cite my sources, and I have the moral high ground.
Slashdot Mirror
The Prince is not a manual for how to run a government. It is meant as satire, a warning perhaps, to the people, about how sociopaths run a government. If you want something closer to a manual, read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy , a book about how to run a Republic rather than a Tyranny.
Computer implants will control brains by 2019.
If we want to be the world police, we need to act with consistent morality. We turn a blind eye to abuses world wide. Only when our interests are at stake will we attack, and we don't need an excuse. We'll make one up later. So don't try to pretend we are some kind of good guys selflessly spreading democracy and freedom. Try selling that to the East Timorese, or anyone in Central or South America, or most of Africa, you'll either get laughed at or punched.
But I'm sure this will all simply pass unnoticed through your mind, as it contradicts your view of the US, and it is obvious you base your sense of self on the idea that you are a citizen of a 'good' country. If the US was not, in fact, good, then you would probably feel guilty, and might even feel like doing something about it. And that would be difficult, so you continue to believe what is easy and makes you feel good.
The difference is that WE ASKED THE FRENCH. Who in Afghanistan asked you for help in getting freedom? If they didn't ask, you aren't 'helping' them.
Funny, if those reasons were why we went into Iraq, why weren't we told? Why were we sold a completely different bill of goods? And why haven't we gone into other countries that have done at least as much wrong?
Look, my point is that those Afghans are damn tough, have nothing to lose, and were bred for generations for vicious, constant warfare. You think Stalin could have done better up there in those deserts and mountains? He would have gotten eaten alive, just like his predecessors did, and he would have had all the effectiveness we are having.
You just don't go after crazy hill people living in caves. They have nothing worth bombing, and they think of war as some kind of extreme sport. It's just not worth it.
Don't worry. I'll be modded down later.
For the record, I don't want you modded down. I'd like our debates to stand on their own. I'm confident that people don't need to see you modded down in order to know who the better debater is.
However, you were modded down for this phrase: "It probably makes it easier for you to avoid critical thinking when you can pigeonhole those who disagree with you."
That's an insult, and, as usual, you started it then whined when you got called on it. Poor, poor Shakrai. So sad how persecuted and mistreated you are.
But the overall survival rate is much lower in the US.
Tell you what, why don't you look up statistics for countries with only private health care, and contrast that with socialist health care. Here's a hint: you won't find ANY countries with private care on the top ten list for health care outcomes. If the free market were capable of providing good health care, it would have, someplace, at some time in history. It never has.
Your ideology blinds you. You start from the assumption that nothing can ever do better than the free market, and you work backwards to find support for your foregone conclusion, ignoring any evidence that contradicts what you know must be true. It's kind of sad to see someone's brain break like that.
I will be the first to admit that small scale, distributed, privately owned businesses are one of the most efficient and equitable ways of distributing resources, for some things. Public ownership and democratic control over the means of production are more effective for other things. Look at the privatization of water systems in South America: it was an abject failure. Think about public libraries: there is a reason we have them and not private libraries. Look at fire fighters, roads, sewers, water, electricity, any type of good or service where the marginal cost of entry into the market is high, i.e. natural monopolies. The free market, just like socialism, fails under certain conditions.
Intelligent people try to understand where one system works and where a different system would be better. You, on the other hand, are like a man with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail.
Afghanistan did not attack us. The Taliban did. Maybe we should invade the country that harbored and trained Tim McVeigh, if that is such a winning strategy.
At least we had some kind of a pretext for invading Afghanistan. Invading Iraq destroyed any chances we had of bringing those responsible to justice.
My response wasn't just about Iraq. We've invaded many, many other countries. Usually, not so openly. Here's a list of our interventions in Central and South America alone: http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
I will not 'get the fuck over' my country's war crimes. You 'get the fuck over' it, shut the fuck up, and let the adults bring the criminals to justice, okay? That's what adults do: we take responsibility for our actions, and for actions carried out in our names. Pansy ass children like yourself demand that everyone simply forget about their wrongdoing, all the while hypocritically whining about 'personal responsibility,' which evidently means 'everyone else should be responsible for their actions, but I won't be held responsible unless someone forces me to.'
I think he's talking about the United States of America .
No, that country was the home of notorious terrorist Timmothy McVeigh. After he bombed Oklahoma city, we invaded them, deposed their ruler, slaughtered their population, and generally showed them what harboring terrorists will get you.
Oh wait. That never happened. We treated it like the police matter it is, and because we did, everyone involved was brought to justice.
What reform? Health care? Yeah, uh, might want to look at the history books for that one, because every single argument against health care reform is already in them. Filed under 'false arguments against medicare.'
People are dying right now due to lack of health care coverage, and we are the only first world nation where that is true. Health care outcomes are far better under socialized medicine, for far less money. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet we are ranked 35th for health care outcomes.
Socialism just works better for some things, health care being provably one of them. You can whine about it all you like, but we will all be better off when we have a single payer system, just like every other first world country. It is a moral issue. Our health care system is an immoral failure. Hopefully, we will correct that.
But still, isn't your argument kind of a stupid red herring? What does on thing have to do with the other? Ah, I see. The one thing let's you ignore the other thing that you don't have any kind of a rebuttal to. Clever.
Oooh, sorry. "Hawkish Libertarian" then. Wouldn't want to insult you by calling you a conservative.
You seem pretty desperate and defensive for someone who didn't support the Iraq war. Maybe you are like the abused spouse who doesn't support getting the shit kicked out of her, but defends her husband when the cops come? Because you seem to take extreme umbrage at any criticism of our country's actions, even criticism you seem to agree is legitimate.
What's up with that?
Read the AC comment I replied to: "Will will stop invading when they promise to stop trying things like hijacking planes and flying them into really tall buildings to kill a few thousand civilians."
We invaded Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan may have been their home base, but if we invade countries because they house terrorists, who should we have invaded because of Tim McVeigh?
To top it off, our invasion of Iraq totally screwed our operations in Afghanistan. So we did the absolute most ass backwards, ineffective thing we could have done, and now we are paying for it. Well, our young men and women are. Okay, not the sons and daughters of the people who sent us into Iraq, obviously, but, you know, our disposable young men and women are paying for it.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
Good question. Was it Iraq? No, it wasn't. Oops, our bad, sorry about your country there...
Oh, hey, since we're withdrawing from Iraq, we should all just forget about the whole thing. And we should stop complaining about it, because that's 'whining.'
Okay, you caught me. I just love rubbing your face in it because the ONLY thing you can do is complain about 'whining.' Bush lied, people died: it's not just a slogan, it's the TRUTH.
Ahh, I love the smell of desperate, defensive conservatives in the morning. It smells like... victory.
Oh, since Pinochet only murdered around 3000 people, that doesn't count as slaughter? And the fact that these murders went on for decades somehow doesn't count as generations?
Your tired of this thread because I've handed you your ass on a platter.
If you ever care to try your hand at debating me again, I have posts I can link back to to show what kind of a person you are. Mi the Murderer, that's what we'll call you.
What country sheltered those hijackers and allowed them to train on it's soil, again?
Fixed that for you.
Are you talking about Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan? Because we both know you aren't talking about Iraq.
O RLY?
If a country is attacked, they should fight back. I believe in Ghandi's principle of Ahimsa, or 'least violence.' Sometimes, the least violent solution is to kill your attacker as quickly as possible. I mean, if it's kill or be killed, it's a toss up whether letting yourself be killed is more violent than killing the other guy, but if you don't have a record of killing others and he does, it's simple. Killing him is likely to reduce violence.
All over? Really? Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Since you've developed a curious aversion to naming countries, let's make it crystal clear: Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
As others have said, the development of precision weapons has negated the need for carpet bombing, which was never used primarily as a weapon of terror, it was used to destroy wartime industries.
So, it isn't a matter of us not having the stomach for it, but rather, we don't have the need.
As another poster mentioned, we have not suddenly developed better ethics, we've developed better bombs. Carpet bombing is unnecessary now. We only ever carpet bombed cities with heavy war industries. Certainly, the effect on morale was part of the decision to target cities, but we did not use carpet bombing primarily as a terror tactic.
Will will stop invading when they promise to stop trying things like hijacking planes and flying them into really tall buildings to kill a few thousand civilians.
What country were those hijackers from, again?
Really? We couldn't have won WW2 under the rules we use now? What new rules are those, exactly? Because, you know, the phrase "people no longer have the stomach to do what needs to be done" is pretty scary sounding. What exactly did we have the stomach for then that we don't now? Nuclear bombs?
So when do our soldiers get to stop dying because of homemade street bombs?
When we stop invading other countries?
Che Guevara is not my hero. Stalin is not my hero. Lenin is not my hero. They were murderers like the man you defend.
Pinochet does qualify. I set the qualifications, not you. I said it, and Pinochet fits what I said. I never said "more murderous than Castro/Guevara." And neither did you, until now, when you realized how badly you've lost and will try anything, no matter how transparent, to keep from having to admit you've lost.
In any case, there are dozens more examples. In terms of people killed, Indonesia's Suharto massacred hundreds of thousands of people, and of course, we helped him do it.
Face it. I've gotten you to admit you want to murder all socialists, without a trial. I've proven my point, the US installs and supports murderers. Even if Pinochet killed only several thousand, that makes him a mass murderer, and fits my original statement: "we will kill you and install a brutal military dictator who will slaughter your people for generations to come."
Pinochet was a brutal military dictator who slaughtered his people for generations. You simply can't argue against that without changing what I said.
You've lost. Again.
You can't win against me. I know more than you, I cite my sources, and I have the moral high ground.
It's not even a contest.