From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 19:12:02 MST
Damien S. writes
> Points I'd make: the influence of the US is larger than the actions of its
> government. I'd say the major part of any American influence toward democracy
> is simply from existing, and from saturating the world with our popular
> culture, and being so big that everyone has to pay attention to us. When you
> have arrested people in other countries screeching for their Miranda rights
> you know we've done something good.
Yes, that's a good point.
> When you look at government action it's much less rosy. Sure, we're better
> than the Soviet Union. That doesn't take much. (And for the record, the
> Soviet bloc seemed to have better education than we do.) We've also
> overthrown elected governments, propped up dictators, trained death squads,
> and turned a blind eye to abuses by our allies.
The point needs to be made over and over that the pre-1989
world was a LOT DIFFERENT than now. The West was fighting
for its life against the Soviet play for world domination.
They devoted 14% of their GNP to military uses, but would
have devoted much more than that if they'd been capable of it.
The choice, as Max Plumm has eloquently explained, was never
between "democracy" and "tyranny" in a developing country,
but between "pro-U.S. authoritarianism" and "pro-Soviet
totalitarianism" in those places. It's still an open
question even today whether democracy is at all possible
in Iraq.
> > The freedoms that each and every human enjoys on this
> > planet (those fortunate enough to enjoy some) can all
> > be attributed to some degree to the United States.
>
> They can also be attributed to some degree to Great Britain which spawned us,
> and to France which spread Revolutionary values throughout Europe.
This is also true, and does need to be acknowledged. But
speaking of the last century alone, as uncomfortable as it
may be for some to acknowledge, the aforementioned role of
the U.S. was exceedingly beneficial.
> "power corrupts" in the usual formulation.
Let's suppose that the neo-cons get their way in the next
few U.S. elections, and that after Iraq, other anti-Western
tyrannical regimes are also subjugated. Moreover, along
with the worst fears of many, let's suppose that American
hegemony in the world continues to grow. What is the
probability in this case that the corruption of which you
speak will develop?
Will it be different from 1945? It is not thought that
the U.S., in most areas of the world the single superpower,
really got out of control then. Frankly, unless there is a
big change in the nature of the American people, I can't see
how the United States will become aggressive or imperial any
time soon.
> > Democracy and freedom are quite extropic, and thus the United States has
> > done more to spread EXTROPIAN ideals than any other nation in the world.
> > This is not nationalism or blind patriotism, it is a statement of fact,
> > an observation based in reality. To assert otherwise is intellectually
> > dishonest.
>
> You know, if we were sufficiently bigger than anyone else, we could have done
> more to spread extropian ideals and more to inhibit them than anyone else,
> with a net effect of spreading but a real inhibitory effect as well.
Okay, then it remains to be spelled out by anyone up to the
challenge: in what ways has U.S. economic and military
hegemony during the last *fifteen* years resulted in anti-
extropian tendencies?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 19:12:54 MST