From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 09:09:07 MDT
> dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> > I read the article Samantha recommended. I found the following
> > particularly interesting as I had never heard the term neo-con except on
this
> > list and by those of so-called liberal persuasion.
Michael Wilk responds
> The term 'neocon' shows up in lewrockwell.com articles almost every
> single day, and has for months. So, I gather you have not read any of
> their articles opposed to the war. BTW lewrockwell is a libertarian
> site. Neocons have been portrayed as basically communists, specifically
> trotskyists, with their penchant for reshaping the world through war.
>
> I find it difficult to believe that anyone interested in learning about
> why the U.S. is going to war has only heard this term from liberals. It
> seems more reasonable to think you are uninterested. I read all sorts of
> viewpoints about this war and come across this term several times a day.
Like Michael I'm surprised that haven't come accross this term before, and
not just in connection with the war. "Neo Conservative" has been in wide
usage for about twenty years now to describe a small but very influential
group of US intellectuals who were originally on the political left but
moved to the right during the late 70s/early 80s. (Most of them were
previously "Scoop" Jackson Democrats). It's foreign policy issues that have
moved them to the right, on domestic affairs they are "big government
conservatives". Some of them do use the term themselves e.g. Irving Kristol
who entitled one of his books "Confessions of a Neo-Conservative". The
"Weekly Standard" is their main mouthpiece. Lots of books about them, just
do a keyword search in Amazon.
>
> Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > b) transhumanist technologies can only be safely developed if the
> > nations of the world are all peaceful and democratic nations of free
> > peoples. In a world of nanotech, AI, etc., low trust societies cannot
> > be permitted to exist. All human beings must grow up and learn to
> > rationally evaluate their own rational long term self interest. This
> > can only occur in free, high-trust societies.
>
> I totally agree with this. I do at times agree with Mike. It's just
> unfortunate that the only way the current administration can see how to
> accomplish this is through aggresive war. It may work, but it seems an
> extremely risky strategy.
That's my view exactly. Like Mike I think it's now very dangerous to have
low trust societies with access to modern tech both for them and us
(actually I think the real problem is societies that have high trust for
relatives, low trust for everyone else). However agreeing on the end leaves
lots of room for argument about means and I think relying on force as your
principal strategy is very risky and possibly self-defeating.
>
> -Mike
> --
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 09:16:25 MDT