Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Novus America]

Based on empiricism we still know what works, and what does not though.

Sure, you could argue that a united Earth government or communism would fail for other reasons but do note that the default and singular nature of mankind (if such a thing exists) is an awful justification for your premise.

But we have is empiricism to work from.
We have no reason to believe a unified government would work, and more importantly every reason to believe it will not.

And we do know competition and struggle brought us closest to the stars.

So it better to use what we know works, than try something we know is harmful.

[Valrifell]

Your mistake is assuming it is a problem in the first place.
Creation requires destruction.

We cannot reach the stars if we stagnate. Only with two separate competing groups trying to colonize the more star systems than the other will we do so.

And if if we had a single civilization it would tear itself apart with internal conflicts.

Again conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. It can in fact be a good thing (managed properly).

But why do you assume that conflict is the only reason why one desires to reach the stars? Why do you assume that a single civilization would tear itself apart? Would we all not be as brothers and sisters striving ever onward towards excellence, towards the eternities of the heavens, but most importantly towards the Good? Why do you assume that brotherhood would lead to stagnation? Humanity could achieve wonders if we are united under a singular, glorious vision, if we are united in pursuit of the noble truths of what is Good.

An internal curiosity has inarguably driven human pursuits in the sciences for generations. If you removed the nationstate only funding "practical" projects and capitalists only funding "profitable" projects we'd have a lot of nice things.

[Valrifell]

Sure, you could argue that a united Earth government or communism would fail for other reasons but do note that the default and singular nature of mankind (if such a thing exists) is an awful justification for your premise.

But we have is empiricism to work from.
We have no reason to believe a unified government would work, and more importantly every reason to believe it will not.

And we do know competition and struggle brought us closest to the stars.

So it better to use what we know works, than try something we know is harmful.

Yes, and I'm saying it's valid to argue your premise from those standpoints.

It is not valid, however, to argue your premise through "human nature". Particularly if you're going to act as if it's a) singular and b) not a very contestable thing in most philosophical circles.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Sure, you could argue that a united Earth government or communism would fail for other reasons but do note that the default and singular nature of mankind (if such a thing exists) is an awful justification for your premise.

But we have is empiricism to work from.
We have no reason to believe a unified government would work, and more importantly every reason to believe it will not.

And we do know competition and struggle brought us closest to the stars.

So it better to use what we know works, than try something we know is harmful.

Yet you haven't provided a sufficient reason to believe that we can't achieve unity. And we don't know that said unity would be harmful; we would be treading unexplored new ground, perhaps the beginning of a new chapter in the story of humanity.

[Novus America]

But why do you assume that conflict is the only reason why one desires to reach the stars? Why do you assume that a single civilization would tear itself apart? Would we all not be as brothers and sisters striving ever onward towards excellence, towards the eternities of the heavens, but most importantly towards the Good? Why do you assume that brotherhood would lead to stagnation? Humanity could achieve wonders if we are united under a singular, glorious vision, if we are united in pursuit of the noble truths of what is Good.

An internal curiosity has inarguably driven human pursuits in the sciences for generations. If you removed the nationstate only funding "practical" projects and capitalists only funding "profitable" projects we'd have a lot of nice things.

Why do you think so? It is always a matter of distribution of finite resources.
And what alternative is there?

We know during the 50s and 60s we said “fuck practicality” in favor of “beat the Soviets no matter the cost”, and it worked to get us to the moon.

[Novus America]

Your mistake is assuming it is a problem in the first place.
Creation requires destruction.

We cannot reach the stars if we stagnate. Only with two separate competing groups trying to colonize the more star systems than the other will we do so.

And if if we had a single civilization it would tear itself apart with internal conflicts.

Again conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. It can in fact be a good thing (managed properly).

But why do you assume that conflict is the only reason why one desires to reach the stars? Why do you assume that a single civilization would tear itself apart? Would we all not be as brothers and sisters striving ever onward towards excellence, towards the eternities of the heavens, but most importantly towards the Good? Why do you assume that brotherhood would lead to stagnation? Humanity could achieve wonders if we are united under a singular, glorious vision, if we are united in pursuit of the noble truths of what is Good.

Because we came closest during a time of conflict and competition. We advanced most during a time of competition and conflict.

Because lack of conflict and competition has always lead to stagnation in the past.

Why do you assume conflict and competition (properly managed) are bad?

The best way to unite behind one vision is against a threat.

[Valrifell]

An internal curiosity has inarguably driven human pursuits in the sciences for generations. If you removed the nationstate only funding "practical" projects and capitalists only funding "profitable" projects we'd have a lot of nice things.

Why do you think so? It is always a matter of distribution of finite resources.
And what alternative is there?

A lot of cool things get discovered through the development of "pure" scientific research. NASA's completely non-utilitarian goals of the past years has offered breakthroughs in stuff like optics and mass communication, while the private sector and profit motive is also a good means to spread technology and "nice things" I am by no means convinced it is the only option available to us.

In fact, industrial and "private market" science is relatively new, even in a capitalistic framework, and only coming into being with Edison's labs in the early 20th century. Nowadays, due to an obsession with a return on investment, I think we're missing a lot of cool ideas that could be gathered from the peripherals of less "useful" research.

I mean, fighting over grant money is so bad that I've heard researchers spend more time writing proposals than actually doing the science.

Alternatives are iffy and I don't have a concrete solution since a lot of research apparatuses are resource-intensive, though I do think that question will be easier to answer if we ever get off this rock.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

But why do you assume that conflict is the only reason why one desires to reach the stars? Why do you assume that a single civilization would tear itself apart? Would we all not be as brothers and sisters striving ever onward towards excellence, towards the eternities of the heavens, but most importantly towards the Good? Why do you assume that brotherhood would lead to stagnation? Humanity could achieve wonders if we are united under a singular, glorious vision, if we are united in pursuit of the noble truths of what is Good.

Because we came closest during a time of conflict and competition. We advanced most during a time of competition and conflict.

Because lack of conflict and competition has always lead to stagnation in the past.

Why do you assume conflict and competition (properly managed) are bad?

The best way to unite behind one vision is against a threat.

Why do you assume that conflict and competition would be "properly managed"? As you even said, the mentality is "beat the [ENEMY GROUP] no matter the cost" (emphasis mine). People will do truly horrid and wicked things to the "out-group".

[Valrifell]

We know during the 50s and 60s we said “fuck practicality” in favor of “beat the Soviets no matter the cost”, and it worked to get us to the moon.

In a goodly world, we'd be saying "fuck practicality" in any given situation.

[Novus America]

But we have is empiricism to work from.
We have no reason to believe a unified government would work, and more importantly every reason to believe it will not.

And we do know competition and struggle brought us closest to the stars.

So it better to use what we know works, than try something we know is harmful.

Yet you haven't provided a sufficient reason to believe that we can't achieve unity. And we don't know that said unity would be harmful; we would be treading unexplored new ground, perhaps the beginning of a new chapter in the story of humanity.

Unless you can actually provide reason to believe we can achieve unity and it will not lead to stagnation, why should we believe it can or should work?

Over what we already know can work?

And it is not entirely new ground, we do know how the post Cold War end of history thing worked.
Or more accurately what a bad idea it was.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Yet you haven't provided a sufficient reason to believe that we can't achieve unity. And we don't know that said unity would be harmful; we would be treading unexplored new ground, perhaps the beginning of a new chapter in the story of humanity.

Unless you can actually provide reason to believe we can achieve unity and it will not lead to stagnation, why should we believe it can or should work?

Over what we already know can work?

And it is not entirely new ground, we do know how the post Cold War end of history thing worked.
Or more accurately what a bad idea it was.

The post-Cold War world wasn't unified. Sure there was one global hyperpower (U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!), but humanity was (and is) still fractured among 200-ish bickering, squabbling nation-states.

[Novus America]

Unless you can actually provide reason to believe we can achieve unity and it will not lead to stagnation, why should we believe it can or should work?

Over what we already know can work?

And it is not entirely new ground, we do know how the post Cold War end of history thing worked.
Or more accurately what a bad idea it was.

The post-Cold War world wasn't unified. Sure there was one global hyperpower (U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!), but humanity was (and is) still fractured among 200-ish bickering, squabbling nation-states.

Well it was based on the false premise that could and would unify around neoliberal globalism and liberal democracy. It was based on the premise of unity.

Sure it shows that even when we think we can unify we do not actually do so.

And how would we achieve unity?

And if we did achieve political unity many people would react against it, claim things were better before or better without.

Problem is your proposal involves us achieving real unity (something we have never done).

My proposal does not.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

The post-Cold War world wasn't unified. Sure there was one global hyperpower (U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!), but humanity was (and is) still fractured among 200-ish bickering, squabbling nation-states.

Well it was based on the false premise that could and would unify around neoliberal globalism and liberal democracy. It was based on the premise of unity.

Sure it shows that even when we think we can unify we do not actually do so.

And how would we achieve unity?

And if we did achieve political unity many people would react against it, claim things were better before or better without.

Problem is your proposal involves us achieving real unity (something we have never done).

My proposal does not.

And in your proposal, you keep us all divided among in-groups and out-groups, commanding us to "hate thy neighbor", at least in my view. It's as if you seek to perpetuate a system which is deeply broken. A system that's... alien to me, I guess. I don't wish to be impolite, but I just... cannot fathom your perspective.

EDIT: I posted this earlier, and I genuinely want to know your answer: why do you assume that conflict and competition would be "properly managed"? As you even said, the mentality is "beat the [ENEMY GROUP] no matter the cost" (emphasis mine). People will do truly horrid and wicked things to the "out-group", y'know?

[Northern Davincia]

What difference does that make? That alone doesn't justify a single aspect of the Indian Wars.

Despite downturns in the market, the American economic plan was stable. No economy is safe from calamity. Even so, the US was relentless in pushing natives further and further west. These atrocities can not be morally dismissed because of an economic model.

Wasn't trying to justify it, I actually think I misunderstood what you're position was.
My apologies, I thought you were comparing the Indian Wars to the genocides the Nazis committed as an attempt to defend their economics.

If that wasn't what you were doing then I again apologize.

No need to apologize. My point was that no atrocity can be defended economically.

[Joohan]

The French revolution was a mistake

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

The French revolution was a mistake

I figured that you thought as such, given that you literally have "Down With the Enlightenment!" in your sig.

I don't wish to be impolite, but I have to disagree with you on this one, tbh.

[Northern Davincia]

The French revolution was a mistake

I figured that you thought as such, given that you literally have "Down With the Enlightenment!" in your sig.

I don't wish to be impolite, but I have to disagree with you on this one, tbh.

It certainly could have ended better. Napoleon shouldn't have been exiled.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I figured that you thought as such, given that you literally have "Down With the Enlightenment!" in your sig.

I don't wish to be impolite, but I have to disagree with you on this one, tbh.

It certainly could have ended better. Napoleon shouldn't have been exiled.

I mean, it could have ended better, but I find that it was still good that it happened at all.

[Valrifell]

I figured that you thought as such, given that you literally have "Down With the Enlightenment!" in your sig.

I don't wish to be impolite, but I have to disagree with you on this one, tbh.

It certainly could have ended better. Napoleon shouldn't have been exiled.

The best way for it to have ended would be Napoleon being declared Emperor of All Europe in Moscow.

[Northern Davincia]

It certainly could have ended better. Napoleon shouldn't have been exiled.

The best way for it to have ended would be Napoleon being declared Emperor of All Europe in Moscow.

^^^
This but unironically.

[Valrifell]

The best way for it to have ended would be Napoleon being declared Emperor of All Europe in Moscow.

^^^
This but unironically.

Who said I was being ironic?

[Northern Davincia]

^^^
This but unironically.

Who said I was being ironic?

Ce n'est jamais trop tard.

[Novus America]

Well it was based on the false premise that could and would unify around neoliberal globalism and liberal democracy. It was based on the premise of unity.

Sure it shows that even when we think we can unify we do not actually do so.

And how would we achieve unity?

And if we did achieve political unity many people would react against it, claim things were better before or better without.

Problem is your proposal involves us achieving real unity (something we have never done).

My proposal does not.

And in your proposal, you keep us all divided among in-groups and out-groups, commanding us to "hate thy neighbor", at least in my view. It's as if you seek to perpetuate a system which is deeply broken. A system that's... alien to me, I guess. I don't wish to be impolite, but I just... cannot fathom your perspective.

EDIT: I posted this earlier, and I genuinely want to know your answer: why do you assume that conflict and competition would be "properly managed"? As you even said, the mentality is "beat the [ENEMY GROUP] no matter the cost" (emphasis mine). People will do truly horrid and wicked things to the "out-group", y'know?

We never went to war with the Soviets. Nuclear weapons and other deterrents are ultimately the great manager. I meant no matter what the financial cost (space exploration is expensive).
It should not be a strict ends justify the means competition.

And no, competition and conflict does not necessarily mean hate.
I realize China is our enemy, but I do not hate the people of China at all.

Also I am all good with condensing into fewer countries, as long as we have at least two.
Ideally three as that keeps a better balance.

Which is probably going to happen, the US, India and China being the dominant ones.

[Novus America]

It certainly could have ended better. Napoleon shouldn't have been exiled.

The best way for it to have ended would be Napoleon being declared Emperor of All Europe in Moscow.

Maybe but that was not going to happen. The best (realistic) option would be Napoleon took a break after the Treaties of Tilsit and focused on consolidating his gains for a decade or so before trying an further conquests.

He tried to do to much too fast.
And lost it all.

Problem with all of nothing is you often get nothing.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

And in your proposal, you keep us all divided among in-groups and out-groups, commanding us to "hate thy neighbor", at least in my view. It's as if you seek to perpetuate a system which is deeply broken. A system that's... alien to me, I guess. I don't wish to be impolite, but I just... cannot fathom your perspective.

EDIT: I posted this earlier, and I genuinely want to know your answer: why do you assume that conflict and competition would be "properly managed"? As you even said, the mentality is "beat the [ENEMY GROUP] no matter the cost" (emphasis mine). People will do truly horrid and wicked things to the "out-group", y'know?

We never went to war with the Soviets. Nuclear weapons and other deterrents are ultimately the great manager. I meant no matter what the financial cost (space exploration is expensive).
It should not be a strict ends justify the means competition.

And no, competition and conflict does not necessarily mean hate.

Also I am all good with condensing into fewer countries, as long as we have at least two.
Ideally three as that keeps a better balance.

Which is probably going to happen, the US, India and China being the dominant ones.

You mention that competition and conflict does not necessarily mean hate; if we are going to make an argument based upon "human nature", I've observed that when an "out-group" is designated, members of the "in-group" will hate the out-group with a passion. My countrymen hated the Soviet Union, and vice versa. Hate leads to strife, and strife will ultimately lead to destruction. The fact that we didn't wipe ourselves out is a stroke of random fortune, as there were plenty of instances where the Cold War could have turned hot. Had circumstances been even slightly different, a full-scale nuke fight could have erupted. Although, I am willing to settle for three supranational unions/"super-states" (The successors to the United States, India, and China, perhaps?) instead of a world-state, at least in the relatively short term.