User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 93

Thread: Tariffs

  1. #71
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Plenty of countries rebelled against what they saw as foreign oppressors. I realize Japan was a special case, but there were plenty of communist movements in Japan during the immediate post-war era.



    So you don't think colonialism was theft in the first place? What gives a Western country any right to that oil?
    Those oil contracts were negotiated for with their gov't.

    You think we intervened in the Mexican Revolution just for the hell of it, or were we protecting our investments?

    We also shut them off Cuba-style for the decade after that (1938). You know, when we really could have used cheap(er) oil during that slight unpleasant situation.
    I don't have a problem with spending resources on going after someone who stiffed me.

    We overthrew their democratically-elected head of government and installed a murderous dictator in his stead. I'd say that would be the worst violation of international law imaginable. I'll cut them a break on that one.
    You don't attack another state's embassy. That is the foundation of international law. Embassy serves as a mouthpiece for negotiations, i.e. prevention of violence. Attacking it is the most hostile action a nation can do, aside from maybe nuking the enemy's capital

    Don't give me this shit about us meddling in their affairs. States have been meddling with the affairs of other states for as long as they existed. US had a communist party on its soil that was openly supported by USSR during cold war. Also this "democratically elected" schpiel doesn't impress me. There were a lot of blood thirsty tyrants throughout the history that had a strong populist support.


    Not to mention the US and UK telling the rest of the world to ostracize Iran, then starting a proxy war which came around to bite our ass.
    You are referring to Iran/Iraq war where we supplied Saddam Hussein? I'm not a fan of Saddam Hussein, but I think he was a lot less of a threat than Iran. It was a matter of supporting the lesser evil. I understand the reasoning behind it, whether it was most optimal option available is another discussion.

    Anyway, Iran isn't exactly a victim. They are supporting plenty of terrorists outside their borders. Like I said in a previous post, Iran is ostrasized for more reasons than just US and UK telling people to do so. The only countries that are giddy about dealing with Iran are other pariahs like North Korea and Chavez. Russia and China deal with Iran but don't trust it further than they can throw it.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  2. #72
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's not a "should be". That's a "this is how it was".
    But you told me to "read up on my history." I already knew the history of railroad subsidization in the United States, so you were either mistaken in your assertion, or what you wrote made no sense. Retract it.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #73
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Those oil contracts were negotiated for with their gov't.
    i.e. the sovereign power within those territories, who has the right to nullify any contracts written under its laws.

    I don't have a problem with spending resources on going after someone who stiffed me.
    Well, I have a big problem when capitalists who aren't working in my best interests harm everyone's best interests just to prove a point.

    You don't attack another state's embassy. That is the foundation of international law. Embassy serves as a mouthpiece for negotiations, i.e. prevention of violence. Attacking it is the most hostile action a nation can do, aside from maybe nuking the enemy's capital

    Don't give me this shit about us meddling in their affairs. States have been meddling with the affairs of other states for as long as they existed. US had a communist party on its soil that was openly supported by USSR during cold war. Also this "democratically elected" schpiel doesn't impress me. There were a lot of blood thirsty tyrants throughout the history that had a strong populist support.
    Spare me the symbolism - sneaking into a country and lopping of its elected head of government is the most blatant show of disrespect for that country's people imaginable. Rationalize it all you want, the fact is, we did the equivalent of invading and overthrowing their government through less blatant measures. We slapped up a tinpot dictator while espousing ourselves to be the shining city on a hill of democracy and freedom. That tinpot dictator and his SAVAK were as pervasive and abhorrent as Honecker and his Stasi.

    There's no justifying that, not even for filthy lucre.

    You are referring to Iran/Iraq war where we supplied Saddam Hussein? I'm not a fan of Saddam Hussein, but I think he was a lot less of a threat than Iran. It was a matter of supporting the lesser evil. I understand the reasoning behind it, whether it was most optimal option available is another discussion.
    Saddam wasn't an evil to the West at the time - Baathism, while uncomfortably socialist, kept the crazies down and the oil flowing. The only geopolitical benefit that war might have had was petty revenge. Instead, it further entrenched the Islamic Republic and ensured its legitimacy until the events of this past year. Meanwhile, Iraq is left with a debt it can't paid, and the next 20 years leading up to today's quagmire ensues - including the establishment of bases in Saudi Arabia which was the proximate inspiration for Bin Laden's hissy-fit.

    Anyway, Iran isn't exactly a victim. They are supporting plenty of terrorists outside their borders. Like I said in a previous post, Iran is ostrasized for more reasons than just US and UK telling people to do so. The only countries that are giddy about dealing with Iran are other pariahs like North Korea and Chavez. Russia and China deal with Iran but don't trust it further than they can throw it.
    You know as well as I do that Russia doesn't trust any country further than it can throw it. That's just how they do IR. China deals with anyone who has money.

    Europe trades extensively with Iran - look back at the pictures of Tehran from the summer. Plenty of Western brand names being flashed everywhere.

    Finally, it's not like the US is exactly a stranger in the support of foreign terrorists. Contras, anyone? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  4. #74
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    i.e. the sovereign power within those territories, who has the right to nullify any contracts written under its laws.
    Are f-ing serious? Are you saying there is nothing wrong with the government defaulting on its promises and seizing private propery simply because its the government?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  5. #75
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Are f-ing serious? Are you saying there is nothing wrong with the government defaulting on its promises and seizing private propery simply because its the government?
    That's the definition of sovereignty. Whatever you say within your territory goes. Private property only exists because the sovereign deems it to exist. This is basic stuff, here.

    In Iran in those days, the sovereign power derived from the people according to the 1906 Constitution. If their elected officials decide to revoke foreign property rights through legislation, they are well within their ability as the representatives of the sovereign power as defined through the constitution.

  6. #76
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's the definition of sovereignty. Whatever you say within your territory goes. Private property only exists because the sovereign deems it to exist. This is basic stuff, here.

    In Iran in those days, the sovereign power derived from the people according to the 1906 Constitution. If their elected officials decide to revoke foreign property rights through legislation, they are well within their ability as the representatives of the sovereign power as defined through the constitution.
    The definition you pull from a book does not turn an unethical action into an ethical one.

    By your reasoning US can declare Iran its province and then exercise its sovereign right by doing whatever the fuck that it wants to do with Iran.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  7. #77
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    There are compelling arguments that private property exists even without the imprimatur of government. Even if there is no government at all.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #78
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    The definition you pull from a book does not turn an unethical action into an ethical one.

    By your reasoning US can declare Iran its province and then exercise its sovereign right by doing whatever the fuck that it wants to do with Iran.
    Umm, yeah. That's generally called "imperialism". If this weren't the case, countries wouldn't need armed forces. Ethics are entirely beside the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    There are compelling arguments that private property exists even without the imprimatur of government. Even if there is no government at all.
    What is one of these arguments, especially one that would not resort to interpersonal violence as enforcement of property rights? Since all that would do is ensure that the strongest and most powerful people have all the property, just like it was 1000 years ago.

  9. #79
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    What is one of these arguments, especially one that would not resort to interpersonal violence as enforcement of property rights? Since all that would do is ensure that the strongest and most powerful people have all the property, just like it was 1000 years ago.
    Ever read John Locke? He posited that land becomes property when one "mixes his labor" with it (i.e., settles upon it and begins to till and improve it). In a Lockean world, the government would arise when the various landholders decide it was necessary to cede law enforcement to a government that would protect their rights. This government would have a monopoly on the use of force, but it would NOT have arbitrary power. This is clearly NOT an argument that appeals to "interpersonal violence." The Lockean government would be ceded sovereignty to PREVENT property being taken by force.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #80
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Ever read John Locke? He posited that land becomes property when one "mixes his labor" with it (i.e., settles upon it and begins to till and improve it). In a Lockean world, the government would arise when the various landholders decide it was necessary to cede law enforcement to a government that would protect their rights. This government would have a monopoly on the use of force, but it would NOT have arbitrary power. This is clearly NOT an argument that appeals to "interpersonal violence." The Lockean government would be ceded sovereignty to PREVENT property being taken by force.
    That's a nice bit of theory, and certainly a reasonable way for a society to set up its property rights, but that doesn't take away from the fact that property rights only exist because society recognizes that they do. Not only that, but it's the combined force of society, entrusted to the government through the monopoly on the use of force, that maintains the existence of property rights in the first place.

    If a government declares, such as in a communist government, that there are no individual property rights, even if a person claims a piece of land as private property, the only way he can defend this claim is to keep others away from his property, which requires the use of force on his part. By contradicting society, he is effectively declaring sovereignty over that piece of territory, to the detraction of the state's claim of sovereignty over it. As you can see, the state is going to likely use force to protect its sovereignty claim, and the man is going to have to use force to defend his own claim.

    Property only exists under the umbrella of the society which uses force to defend it, or the personal preclusion of others from the use of land or chattel. Needless to say, this can be very difficult.

Similar Threads

  1. Tariffs
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-09-2011, 02:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO