Is Bush Delusional?

[Al_U_Card]

Hatred and fear. Motivators and instigators of much of the world's current woes. Why do people hate and fear the US? Why does anyone hate and fear? They fear the unknown and they hate what they think the unknown represents.....

 

Get to know your neighbour and see that he is just you, living in a different house.

[pbleighton]

"It may be idealistic but at least there is some basis for foundation - as opposed to nothing at all!"

 

A nation which doesn't go out of its way to create enemies for itself (which is what the U.S. has done) - I don't think this is "nothing at all". I think of it as realism.

 

As for your fantasy about a 20 year occupation with a happy ending, this ignores:

1. The corrosive effect of the occupation on Iraqi society, and

2. The reaction of the broader Muslim world, and

3. The evidence so far.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

What is and was even then clearly wrong to me was the absence of a viable plan for Iraq following the initial military victory: a disaprate tribal country with no history of democracy was always going to take a generation of "occupation" if there was to be any hope for the installation of western democratic practice on a lasting basis.

 

So what you are saying is that American imperialism should have a goal larger than supporting Haliburton, Lockheed, and Boeing? Or are you simply suggesting colonialism? What right does the U.S. have to impose western democracy on anyone?

 

Victories do little to discourage those groups, but the cost of a "draw" much less victory for the coalition is looking high

 

Is this a re-write of the domino theory? Gee, if we pull out of Iraq, next thing you know Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will all become Islamic nations - wait a minute...something's wrong with this picture.....where's McNamara....he can explain this.....

 

As I said the "crime" was to go in with a bizarre belief in a short-term goal.

 

The crime was lying in order to justify invasion.

[mike777]

"What right does the U.S. have to impose western democracy on anyone?"

 

What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?

[pbleighton]

"What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?"

 

The degree of justification depends on the action proposed to be taken and the circumstances.

 

Peter

[mike777]

What?

 

I do not understand this logic, the action justifies itself and provides rights to itself?

[luke warm]

it's a funny thing, mike... there seems to be little or no consistency of thought from some people posting... one minute you'll see negative references to the book 1984, the next you'll see an attack on the principles opposed to those in that book, all by the same people

 

while i've already stated that i don't agree 100% with the philosophy of objectivism, i do think that the basic tenets contain much truth... and that philosophy is not only meant for the individual, rand's thoughts on it also encompassed nations... so the highest goal (in rand's view) to which a nation (or person) can aspire is to work in its own self interest - to work to ensure its own survival...

 

in america we've seemingly reached the point where many citizens (i don't know how many, but imo it's too many) have embraced a collective mindset, one that sees as the greatest good that which works for the good of all... an uderstanding of objectivism, an understanding that when one works in one's own self interest then it betters those around him, might help stem that tide... but i doubt it

 

here's howard roark's summation from the fountainhead ... i'd be interested to know how many people actually understand what he's saying, let alone agree with him.. to refresh memories, 'courtland' was a low income housing project roark designed... the collective mindset says that such a project should have been done for the good it did for those who would live there... roark says that those destined to live there have no bearing on the issue - he created it for himself, for no other reason than that he is a creator

 

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.

 

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.

 

No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered.

 

His truth was his only motive.

 

His work was his only goal.

 

His work -- not those who used it.

 

His creation -- not the benefits others derived from it -- the creation which gave form to his truth.

 

He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.

 

The creator stands on his own judgment; the parasite follows the opinions of others.

 

The creator thinks; the parasite copies.

 

The creator produces; the parasite loots.

 

The creator's concern is the conquest of nature; the parasite's concern is the conquest of men.

 

The creator requires independence. He neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice.

 

The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others -- that he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.

 

Look at history: Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots -- without personal rights, without person ambition, without will, hope, or dignity.

 

It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: "The individual against the collective."

 

Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man's "inalienable rights." It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.

 

Look at the results. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy, as much of the earth has been destroyed.

 

I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me.

 

It was believed that my work belonged to others, to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent -- that it was my duty to serve them without choice or reward.

 

Now you know why I dynamited Courtland. I designed Courtland. I made it possible. I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of it seeing built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return.

 

I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life, nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine -- no matter who makes the claim!

 

It had to be said: The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard in the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others.

 

My terms are: A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake.

[pbleighton]

"What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?"

 

"The degree of justification depends on the action proposed to be taken and the circumstances."

 

"What?

 

I do not understand this logic, the action justifies itself and provides rights to itself?"

 

You left out "and the circumstances" :ph34r:

 

Let me give you four examples:

 

1. Nazi Germany invaded countries and murdered many millions of people in order to conquer the world, enrich themselves, and fulfill the wish of God that Aryan Christians rule the world.

 

2. In WWII, the Allies murdered many millions of people in response to the aggression and mass murder of Germany and Japan.

 

3. The U.S. gives economic aid selectively to foreign countries, in order to promote its interests.

 

4. The U.S. has invaded and occupied foreign countries, and caused the deaths of millions of people (2 million in Vietnam alone) in order to promote its interests.

 

I believe 2 and 3 to be justified, and 1 and 4 to be not justified.

 

Is this clearer?

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

although i don't accept the philosophy of objectivism totally, a lot of what rand wrote rings both true and effective... impact has pretty much summed it up - when a person, group, city, state, country works in their/its own best interest, the best interest of the majority is served... of course this assumes that one is able to logically deduce what is in one's best interest...

Nice little assertion that you are making there. Pity that this isn't the way the world actually works.

 

There is a very well known branch of economics known as "Public Economics". Public Economics focuses on the intersection of the public sector (aka the government) and the economy. Public economics is full of well known and well accepted examples of market failure where an efficiently operating market leads to a sub-optimal equilibirum. Historically, the classic examples of market failure have been

 

1. Positive and negative externalities (pollution, schooling, infrastructure such as highways)

 

2. Public goods: Street lights, police protection, national defense. Some would go so far as to argue that "art" should be considered as a public good

 

3. Resource extraction problems: Fisheries, oil wells, etc

 

4. Natural monopoly: The electric company and the waterworks

 

For what its worth, I'd add another example of market failure. Large companies like Ford, IBM, Microsoft, General Electric and the like rarely use markets inside the company. These titans of capitalism are almost identical to the old fashioned centrally planned economies in Eastern Europe. (I used to work in Symantec's strategic planning organization. Even the vocabulary is the same - "the 5 year plan"). For what its worth, I often think that these companies would work better if they had less planning and more internal market. In particular, I think that cross subsidies between different Profit and Loss centers dramatically erode a companies competitive edge. However, the real issue that needs to be asked is why do all these companies make use of planning and (gasp) collectivism... It certainly suggests that self organizing systems are vulnerable to invasion.

 

A large portion of my undergrad and graduate studies was in the field of economics. I like markets. I think that they're great when they work. But its incredibly naive to believe that markets and enlightened self interest are sufficient in all cases.

[luke warm]

Nice little assertion that you are making there

well i wasn't asserting a fact... i wrote, "a lot of what rand wrote rings both true and effective" ... the term 'rings true' means "seem genuine" and implies opinion

 

my reply to the rest might be off the wall, because i'm not sure exactly what you're saying... are you saying that these

 

1. Positive and negative externalities (pollution, schooling, infrastructure such as highways)

 

2. Public goods: Street lights, police protection, national defense. Some would go so far as to argue that "art" should be considered as a public good

 

3. Resource extraction problems: Fisheries, oil wells, etc

 

4. Natural monopoly: The electric company and the waterworks

 

are examples of efficiently operating markets that led to a a sub-optimal equilibirum, and thus to market failure? if so, i'd argue that none are shining examples of efficiency (though i admit i'm not quite sure what #s 3 and 4 mean, exactly)

 

it seems to me that it is in america's best interests to reduce pollution to the minimum possible while not adversely affecting other, equally important, things... it's in america's best interests to have a strong infrastructure, strong nat'l defense, excellent schools, etc etc... the fact that we don't have those things isn't proof that we shouldn't, it just shows how difficult it is for countries (and people) to either know what their best interests are or to work toward them... in my opinion

 

These titans of capitalism are almost identical to the old fashioned centrally planned economies in Eastern Europe.

is it in their best interests to be so?

 

But its incredibly naive to believe that markets and enlightened self interest are sufficient in all cases.

it might be incredibly naive to think enlightened self interest is possible, but it doesn't follow that it's incredibly naive to think it's sufficient - if in fact it is possible

[hrothgar]

Nice little assertion that you are making there

well i wasn't asserting a fact... i wrote, "a lot of what rand wrote rings both true and effective" ... the term 'rings true' means "seem genuine" and implies opinion

 

my reply to the rest might be off the wall, because i'm not sure exactly what you're saying...

Jimmy you stated the following:

 

"when a person, group, city, state, country works in their/its own best interest, the best interest of the majority is served"

 

I presented a series of counter examples that share a common unifying theme: In each of these example, a rational self-interested individual acting in his own best interest will not serve the interest of the majority.

 

Pollution is probably the easiest case to consider. Suppose I won a factory that produces widgets. Each time I produce a widget, I release pollution into the air that makes people sick. Furthermore, I - the owner of the plant - don't bear the entire cost of the pollution. As the owner of the plant, I chose what quantity of widgets to produce with the goal of maximizing my profits.

 

I claim that the presence of the externality (pollution) means that the profit maximizing solution for the individual involves producing more widgets (and more pollution) than the profit maximizing solution for society as a whole.

 

I'd be happy to provide a detailed mathematical example for any or all of the cases that I specified in the my original posting. I'm also happy to relate these theoretical examples back to the "real" world. it should be quite easy to see the linkage between the pollution example and many of the real world debates going on right now.

[mike777]

Profit maxing can be tricky to do. It may be that creating pollution or "too much" pollution does not maximize profits. On the other hand it may if it create another business opportunity for us.

 

Look at all the issues WalMart has to deal with. One the one hand many hate the company for paying low wages and benefits. On the other hand more than 85% of American families shop there and 30,000 applicants apply for 300 jobs in Chicago.

 

Walmart stops promoting lowest prices all the time and sales slacken overall but they try going up scale in some areas and sales seem to increase.

 

In any event as China shows once aqain as the Middle class grows demand for "other" things such as clean air grows and the political class follows suit. I still think market/profit driven improvements to pollution will improve all our lives. Call it faith in the buck and some innovative/poor/genius driven kid trying to get rich?

[hrothgar]

Profit maxing can be tricky to do.  It may be that creating pollution or "too much" pollution does not maximize profits. On the other hand it may if it create another business opportunity for us.

Thats a great idea...

 

We'll go out and sell cigarette's to children, get them all addicted, and give them cancer.

Then when they're hacking up pieces of their lungs we have a business opportunity selling them expensive patented drugs.

 

As I understand matters, we were discussing whether there is an appropriate role for collective action. Personally, I think that these types of market imperfections justify the existence of a government. I want to be appeal to appeal to the judiciary and legislature to deal with issues like pollution.

 

There is some truth to what you are saying. Formally, a clean environment is an example of what economists call a "luxury". [Luxuries are prodcuts/services where the percent of income spent on the good increases as income increases. For example, lets assume that people who make 100,000 a year spend 5% of their income on travel. If we increase their income to 150,000 and they now spend 7% of their income on travel, then travel is designed as a luxury good]. As the income of a country grows, they tend to spend much more money on environment abatement and protection. However, this spending is rarely sufficient to compensate for the dramatic increases in consumption of raw materials and energy and associated production of pollution and garbage.

[luke warm]

I presented a series of counter examples that share a common unifying theme: In each of these example, a rational self-interested individual acting in his own best interest will not serve the interest of the majority.

yes you did... i was just questioning whether or not your examples were meant to show efficiently operating markets... this medium lends itself to easy misunderstandings, but it's the one we're using so we do the best we can

 

as for the widget example, all i can say is that the consumers who buy your product are not working in their own self interest by doing so... but objectivism does make the assumption that rationally functioning minds are determining this self interest, and it's a pretty large assumption... take mike's walmart example... he's right, people bitch all the time about walmart causing businesses to fold, limiting competition, etc... but it's always packed... so consumers are a little schizo imo, and often not very rational (me included)

[hrothgar]

What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?

I think that there is a clear analogy between the the behaviour of indivudals within a state and the behaviour of nations on the international scene.

 

I don't think that anyone here would argue that I have the right to steal from my neighbors. Nor would anyone argue that I should be allowed to kill at a whim. None of these arguments involve concepts like self-interest. Rather, they are framed in terms of my violating the rights of others. This type of behaviour is considered inappropriate within a civilized society.

 

If we move to the internation scene, things aren't quite so clear. The US is a hegemon. Accordingly, we have enough muscle that we can (temporarily) push the rest of the world arround. We can go out an overthrown foreign governments at our whim because there is no one big enough to stop us. However, I would argue that we have the ability to do, but not the right.

 

I'd also argue that doing so is a major mistake. Right now, the US is probably in the strongest position its ever been, however, I don't believe that this position is sustainable for long. Right now, the responsible thing for the US to do is to act and build/strengthen international organizations that will be able to protect us as our relative strength declines.

[mike777]

Hong Kong just ended it's policy of 50 years of "positive noninterventionism". The new current leader announced he wants government to only intervene "when there are obvious imperfections in the operation of the market mechanism"

 

Milton Friedman says the policy over 50 years "provides a lasting model of good economic policy for others who wish to bring similar prosperity to their people." He hopes simple inertia will likely keep Hong Kong prosperous for many years to come.

[hrothgar]

as for the widget example, all i can say is that the consumers who buy your product are not working in their own self interest by doing so... but objectivism does make the assumption that rationally functioning minds are determining this self interest, and it's a pretty large assumption...

The standard formulations that economics use do not require irrational behaviour on the part of consumers. (Indeed, most economic models assume that folks are rational and engage in profit maximizing behavior)

 

The problem with pollution is that the benefits and costs are distributed asymmetrically. The individual who generates the pollution enjoys an enormous benefit. The individuals who suffer from the pollution incur a very small cost. Unfortunately, this cost is distributed across hundreds of thousands, if not millions of individuals and the cumulative total adds up...

 

There is too much friction in the system for folks to be willing to change their behaviour.

[helene_t]

I think that there is a clear analogy between the the behaviour of indivudals within a state and the behaviour of nations on the international scene.

While this may work out ok in the particular case we are discussing here, I'm not fond of this analogy in general.

 

As Todd said, people do stupid self-destructive things (such as drug abuse) and it is nobodies business to prevent that. The integrity of the individual is a primary moral imperative.

 

The integrity of a country, while often a practical principle, is not a primary moral imperative. It is certainly somebodies business to prevent the governement of Sudan from killing its own people. (Of course, it is not always easy to say whose business it is and how far the mandate goes.)

[Winstonm]

I think that there is a clear analogy between the the behaviour of indivudals within a state and the behaviour of nations on the international scene. 

 

 

While this may work out ok in the particular case we are discussing here, I'm not fond of this analogy in general.

 

As Todd said, people do stupid self-destructive things (such as drug abuse) and it is nobodies business to prevent that. The integrity of the individual is a primary moral imperative

 

Countries also do stupid self-destructive things. The U.S.S.R. tried to keep pace with the U.S. in an arms race with an economy that could not sustain it. The U.S.A. suffered in Vietnam and now again in Iraq. Your example of the drug user is not unlike these government actions, as drug abuse doesn't cause instant death (unless an overdose) but instead causes a steady decline in health that shortens natural life.

[Winstonm]

The detainee bill. Now Bush and Co. have provided a self-pardon for violations of the Geneva Convention:

 

The bill shields U.S. officials from prosecution under the War Crimes Act retroactively to 1997, when the original law was passed criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune