Talesin,
Firstly, let me congratulate you on a well written post. It is a pleasure to debate someone who can express themselves coherently. So many liberals simply haven't thought out their position. Of course, many conservatives haven't either...
Debatable. It's my opinion that the USSR and communism never had a snowball's chance in hell of taking over the world. I'd like to agree to differ on that, it could be argued forever, and to what end?
Sorry. Can't let it go. Your argument is against military expenditures, indeed, any form of national consciousness or defense. I would like to nail you down on three points regarding the USSR and communism.
1.) It had, and indeed, still has, more than a "snowball's chance in hell" of taking over the world. Only twenty years ago there were millions of people under its grip. It technically still has China. I concur with your implied opinion that the system and idea is so inherently flawed as to be unworkable; but the dictatorship of the proletariat has killed more noncombatant citizens last century than any other cause of death.
2.) While true communism eluded them, the Communist nations were expanding, subverting, and taking over country after country. Afghanistan, Nicaragua, North Korea, Vietnam... so much so that the WT used to point to them as being evidence of the "Last Days." However, their system, both economic and political, was flawed, and the only way to defeat them was to implode them.
3.) Reagan spent billions on defense, trying to develop the technology to overwhelm the Soviet ability to defend itself. The so-called Star Wars programs was an anti-missile program, which valid or not, required a Soviet response in expenditures. They couldn't keep up, they had to introduce market reforms in order to keept heir economies from melting down, and from there, freedom began to taste veryvery good to millions of poeple used to working on collective farms.
These three facts about Communism require significant military expenditures today.
You do not have a 'free market'. I don't see America practicing what it preaches. Are you saying that your government does not operate by means of programs that hand out money in the form of incentives to large corporations or other lobbies?
Freer than any other. Incentives are usually couched in tax breaks, or making a market a little freer in order to encourage development. The difference is the government rewards individual accomplishment, taking on the role of a private entity contracting for a product or service; as opposed to the central planning model, which would require beauracratic oversight. In the first, the power is split almost evenly between the two parties. In the second, the government still wields all the power, and usually not well or efficiently, either, because when you can tax you don't need to save money or even turn a profit.
Um, well, I feel it has. Sociology is not my field, but it seems to me that the nature of humanity has changed enormously since, for example, 1066. We are constantly changing. Indeed, many westerners feel that our culture has evolved past that of other, more ancient cultures because of what we call their barbarism. We feel it is time for them to change as the basic nature of humanity has changed and we no longer accept their barbaric customs as either normal or natural. Does that argument sound familiar? From my viewpoint, it is time for us to change as well and evolve to the next level. Marshall McLuhan's vision of a 'global village' will happen, maybe not in my lifetime. The reality of that dream needs to be kept alive, by those who feel that humanity can rise above greed and lust for power.
While I wish you luck in your altruistic outlook, and I am sure that it is sincere, I can't agree that human nature has changed significantly since 1066. I assume you are referring to the Norman conquest of England. We still fight pitched battles. We still murder, rape, steal, and lie. We still betray for money. You would have to prove this idea VERY conclusively. Which "barbaric" customs are you referring to? Gladiatorial combat? Slavery? These still exist, indeed, in many ways, you claim that they exist within our borders. Did you know that the Communists, before World War 1, were convinced of a similar change in human nature? That the working class would never pick up arms against their fellow workers? That indeed, any attempt by the rulers to bring a war would result in a massive strike, industrial shutdown, and a Communist paradise? they were wrong then, and the dream of utopia is wrong now. It can't happen.
In 1066, there was no question of debating the morality pf civilian casualties. You were English, you lost, nobody cares. Now, we talk of "collateral damage" and shrug it off as acceptable.
Sorry, unless this Magic Kingdom of the WT ever gets together and does something, the world will continue like it always has. Some rich, some poor, some power hungry, and some hippys...
CZAR
