Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
tame_deuces,
A bit off topic here but are you familiar with Noam Chomsky? If so, what do you think about his political commentary?
(more specifically in regards to US foreign policy)
Yes, I know him. I think he is both polite, extremely knowledgeable and very often demonized needlessly by people who disagree with him. His socialist libertarian principles strikes me as far more logical than equivalent capitalist libertarian principles. I find that he tends to overstate his case. For example in past comparisons between the US and the CCCP he often downplayed CCCP aggression to the extreme. Having grown up as a neighbour to the CCCP, the fact that it occupied half of Europe and routinely flew nuclear bombers on our borders was hard to loverlook, even for a child.
However, my I main contention with Chomsky is disagreement with his implied principle. I see no evidence to indicate that the world is a peaceful place ruined by political acts of aggression. Quite the contrary, all the evidence suggests to me that it is violent and warlike place where we sometimes are lucky enough to live in in small protected pockets of peace. And that limited peace has to fought for with both ideas and arms. For centuries armchair discussion have tried to pin the blame for war in what I can personally only describe as an intellectual parody of children whining about who threw the first punch. As grownups we know that throwing a punch is indeed problematic, but the main problem is that the capability for, rewards from and will to throw punches exist, and as long as it does children will throw them. It's the same for wars.
So essentially I'm a liberal in the sense that I recognize individual human rights, but one who believes that my liberal ideals (as of yet) must be partially attained and protected through violence and the threat of violence. This doesn't mean I excuse all such violence, far from it. Nor do I believe that it is somehow a perfect solution, it is not. It is an ugly, imperfect solution with harsh consequences and high costs. Some might then ask what separates me anyone else who defends war or violence. Which is an apt question, and the answer is of course obvious: Only what we fight for and how we do it. Anyone unwilling to compare such things, will of course never get it. Which is okay; I'm long past being an idealist, but I have no problems with those who are.
Last edited by tame_deuces; 01-29-2015 at 10:32 AM.