the 'it' in bullshit

close
more_vert
duckbreath D
duckbreath Sep 17, 2003 14:52:01
Replying to morfe

"If capitalism is (in it's objectivism) fundamentally opposed to 'morals', and the 'use of force', why oh why does 21stC capitalism take the side of the 'moralist ' warmongers who reduce the whole world to 'good vs evil'??? "

Iraq wasn't bombed for moral reasons it was bombed for economic reasons

"Reading today an article from Capitalism.com, stating that unfettered nuclear destruction of a country is the only way to stop terrorism. Is capitalism inherently totalitarian?"

Capitalism moves to destroy anything that threatens it. Islam threatens it since it binds citizens to uncompromisable divine commands. You don't believe the 'good vs evil' stuff do you? It's a coating innit.

You can't just talk about 'Capitalism' when you talk about governments as if that's all that individual governments are. Capitalism is just a way they achieve one of the aims of the social contract which is individual freedom. There are various other 'moral' aims that states follow that say nothing one way or another about the movement of Capital. ie it is perfecty plausible that America could interfere in another state's affairs if it was going to infringe the rights of its own citizens. An anti-terrorist programme may be justified under these terms.

Sometimes America does act for reasons apart from commercial pursuits ie the Balkans and Northern Ireland - where it's actions can't be described as capitalistic.

M morfe
morfe Sep 17, 2003 19:20:51
Replying to duckbreath

"Iraq wasn't bombed for moral reasons it was bombed for economic reasons"

I know that, you know that, hence my 'morals' in inverted commas, and reference to the creed of capitalists i.e. do not use force or impose morals on another etc. Yet it's this kind of stuff I read about every day from the Capitalists (not my label, it's what they call themselves):

"What is needed for world peace is a "ban" on statism — or, more precisely, an uncompromising declaration calling for the full protection of individual rights, and an un-breached MORAL condemnation (and economic boycott where appropriate) of any country that violates individual rights."

And...

"...our mainstream intellectuals choose to be "ignorant" about the root cause of war, and promote "bleeding-heart," "feel-good," intellectually-bankrupt campaigns such as the UN-sponsored treaty on banning land mines."

So banning land mines is a bad lefty, feminist, hippyshit idyll huh? Actually harming people more than doing good? (doing good = selling weapons).

It's useless fiddle faddle to argue that capitalism isn't essentialy right wing, it's as useless as saying that cause doesn't have effect.


"Retribution or Appeasement
What some people (mostly liberals) are saying is that the solution is to carefully kill one of the hit man's bosses, but not destroy the structural system that creates hit men and bosses. Nuclear annihilation offers the intimidation factor to others of the same ilk. If you kill one terrorist, another will rise to take his place. If you wipe out the system in one country, everyone else in the other countries who think it might be fun to kill Americans will cower and blank-out the fact that they ever thought about it. "

http://www.capitalism.com/international/body/retribution.shtml

See, it's either nuclear annihilation or you're a frigging appeasing commie.


How can a political system tout selfishness as the highest human goal, and then on the other hand claim that nuclear annihilation is a 'good lesson' for people living in the same country as selfish thugs who would be terrorists?