Is war 'total'?

Ted, government skims off the top here in the USA too, but at some point as the wealth level rises that becomes unsustainable. It is a process. For example, in China the fact that their court systems were corrupt is no longer acceptable because it means loss of business income, so people and even officials I would gather have been working to reform it. Why? Because when trade becomes more and more beneficial, the old systems will increasingly be seen for what they are - a vast waste of money and resources. I think Objectivists are guilty of taking exceptionally complex systems and, well in China's case, billions of individuals, and assuming they all want the same - they are individuals interacting on a vast arena. The greater the level of exchange between Nations, the greater need there is for what makes business function, which is transparency, rule of law, and security. So I believe strongly in trade under as many circumstances as are possible. I believe that "sanctions" are for the most part counter-productive, in that they create an ever-tighter hold on the populace, rather than ever-loosening which is inevitable with greater interaction with the outside world.

Post 21

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 6:03pm

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent"?

1) Not those incompetent in using it...especially strategy-wise...nm the 'threat' of using such, 'diplomatically'-wise.

2) All our military and SWAT teams are directed by 'incompetent' decision-makers?

Presumably, 'INITIATION-of-violence' was meant. Even then, such a bromide raises questions about one's initiating violence against others who've initiated it against their own citizens, such as, oh, invading Nazi-Germany before they even looked at Austria/Poland/Hungary whilst they 'pogromed' some of their 'citizens.'

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/18, 6:11pm)

Post 22

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 6:08pm

Please delete this post.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/18, 6:10pm)

Post 23

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 6:41pm

Kurt,

I've left this unmarked for a while. I think that by saying that America skims off the top too you are failing to draw an essential distinction between real tyrranies and semi-free states. Rand said three things distinguish between the two, censorship, political imprisonment, and closed borders as opposed to a free press, objective law, and free emmigration. Cuba, China and North Korea fail the test, while however poorly, America passes it.

Trading with dictatorships is partnering with active evil, paying one's taxes is a mixed bag of tricks.

It is sure that embargoes and trade sanctions have rarely been shown 100% effective, as in causing the replacement of a real dictatorship with a free state. I can't really even think of a case, except to some extent South Africa, where such policies have been somewhat "successful." But even if one simply slows down the Soviet Union, it is the Soviet Union that one is slowing down. We trade plenty with Russia now, is that making Russia more and more a nice place to live? Nyet po moyemu! (Not in my opinion!)

Even though I'll argue that my assumptions above are right, I can still submit to the arbitration of empirical evidence. I'd just like to know one actual totalitarian state whose people was freed by trade.

Ted

Post 24

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 7:16pm

Ted,

"I'd just like to know one actual totalitarian state whose people was freed by trade."

I get from reading articles like this one:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3206

...that China's increasing participation in world trade will result in the increasing liberalization of their society. I don't remember who, but someone from CATO (I think) said China will be free in ten years. Sorry my memory is so poor.

Mike Erickson

Post 25

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 8:12pm

Mike,

God, I hope so. I think they are lurching around an unstable authoritarian pivot, and may evolve peacefully to freedom. I haven't read the J Curve, or the Comin China Wars. They certainly are much more free than they were under Mao, but I don't see how this came about due to trade. But I'm scared to death in the meantime. In any case it is not external trade, but internal pragmatism and popular sentiment that I would say is the driving force there. I don't think they count as a counterexample yet.

Oh, and little harm in rewarding real liberalization with more normalization, so far as I can see.

And blackmarket trade not done through "warlords" would also seem to be a good thing. I.e., trade that bypasses government controls as far as possible, and doesn't enrich despots or the mechanism of the state.

Perhaps Hong has some insights.

Ted

Post 26

Thursday, February 1, 2007 - 6:09am

There is a HUGE difference between China and North Korea and Iran, respectively.

China - One state system, authoritarian but liberalized economy
Iran - Authoritarian
North Korea - Totalitarian - arguably the very worst place on the face of the earth now.

Post 27

Thursday, February 1, 2007 - 1:44pm