Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Complicated Stuff below the fold

Strategytalk podcast discusses the world in the future, but James Dunnigan downplays the Asian problem with China, and notes American weakiness means there will be no war here: the Chinese will probably win.
and the webpage says what I pointed out below: Algeria preferred a couple dead foreigners than letting the bad guys get millions of dollars in ransom so they could hire more guns.

Yeah. Which is why the Abus here kidnap rich locals, Italian priests and European tourists instead of Yanks. Here, the yanks (and the Philippines) pay for ratting out the bad buys a la "Ransom".

Belmont Club points out that Algeria ignored humanitarian roadblocks that stop countries from winning over the bad guys and points to a different way that works better with fewer deaths in the long run. Think Goths vs Rome and you see the long term problem: they might not play nice.
Whatever the long term efficacy of the “go to hell” model might be, these countries have shown one thing the administration and the West seem unwilling to do: fight their own corner. The Sri Lankans, Russians, Syrians, Algerians and Libyans — not to mention the Iranians — to name only a few, are the emerging members of the non-Julia world. They unabashedly want to win and if al-Qaeda hires axe-wielding dwarves they’ll hire some of their own.  The new barbarians have no respect for the Roman Senate. As for dead Europeans and Americans, what of them?
They constitute the world that is right outside Europe and America’s PC gates.

French gas is stinking up England.


Attenboro says humans are a plague, and the UKTelegraph blogger gets snotty. My take? He has to use the "Ethiopian famine" to show us how we have too many people, yet overlooks that I am old enough to remember famines in China, India, and other Asian countries that now feed a larger population with few problems.

No one in the NRA seems to be noticing that part of the way that civilization thrives is to let the government, not the individual, have the monopoly on the use of force.

 From Wikipedia.
A monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (sometimes referred to as the state's monopoly on violence) is the conception of the state expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919).
According to Weber, the state is that entity which "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order."[1] Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on force has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.

similarly, Hobbes in Leviathan argues  a strong government is needed to stop anarchy...and that man must give up some rights to the government to do this. The problem? What if the government is a kingdom of darkness?

and Hobbes posits that government can tell the churches what to do (see previous post on Scalia's hat).

OpenYale has a course in political philosophy that discusses such things.

On the other hand, as Canadian David Warren laments:

Reading the pundits, on the second Obama Inauguration — that imitation Coronation, performed out of church at fixed intervals — one might think that half of America was attracted, & half repulsed. That impression would be wrong.… But America was discussing his wife’s new hairdo. (Thumbs down.) Some were remarking on how his daughters had grown, since his last Coronation. (True.) There were various opinions on BeyoncĂ©’s rendition of the national anthem. (Mostly positive.) A few asked who James Taylor was. (An outpatient from the late ‘sixties.) And everybody loves a parade. (Well, almost everybody.)
Uh, bread and circuses?

No comments: