Live data from Hacker News

On Moral Superiority

gatchev.info

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: On Moral Superiority

#41
post #34

A nonsensical screed, since the nations of Western Europe have also been the targets of radical Islamic terrorist groups. For example, what should the Danes have done to prevent the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan in 2008? What heinous action did they commit to lose their 'moral superiority' like the Americans? Since there's no Danish Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib to point to, might I respectfully suggest the re…

there's a simple reason for attack on Danish Embassy and you must be perfectly aware of it. I was in a moderate islamic country when the cartoons were published and shall I say it was not a comfortable feeling when communicating with locals.

Yes, of course I'm aware of it. Just as I'm aware of the simple reason for the attempts on Salman Rushdie's life.

Now read the parent article, which praises an earlier United States - one that had not yet lost its 'moral authority', which primarily consisted of its superior freedom and civil liberties.

If the author's logic is correct, the United States could reduce terrorism by regaining and retaining its moral authority. Yet both the Danish attack and the fatwa against Rushdie were specifically directed against people exercising their civil liberties, the same civil liberties that the author argues were an essential component of the American 'moral authority' that ultimately undermined the USSR.

This is why the author's article is an anti-American screed. However repugnant we might find Abu Ghirab, and whatever our opinions about the war in Iraq, these events are not the root cause of Islamic terrorism in the West.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#42

Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts." I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to…

In a communist society, the state owns everything. They own all natural resources, the industries that processes them, the supply chains, the labor and the economy. Profits and margins are not the objectives and there is no competition. So overall, the expenses to the state are far lesser than in a capitalistic society. Imagine if the US government owned IBM, Boeing, Lockheed, all the mines, had the cheapest yet most…

Except that, in the united States at least, it doesn't work that way. Public works are significantly less efficient than private works. It is very common in the US for a public entity to spend many times as much on a work as a private company. The incentive systems in the private sector are just that much much better. This is in fact one of the arguments for a capitalist society.

If a command economy were capable of producing on the same level of efficiency as a private one, then Stalin's various five year plans would not have starved millions and the collective farms might have actually worked. As it is, they didn't and Soviet Communism just wasn't very efficient.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was mora…

> making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) There are always options. The simplest argument to be made is that, at most, nuking one city would probably suffice. There was little need for nuking the second one. Next, one could, conceivably, nuke a landmark instead of a city, prove the destructive power of the device and, still, sp…

> No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.

You'd think nuking one city would have been enough for that...

The Americans didn't have to nuke any cities to test the nuclear bomb, they had already measured it's destructive capacity in the dessert. There is a belief among some historians that dropping the bomb was a way to impress the USSR and this idea does have merit.

As for the second bomb, the US only dropped the second one when the first one failed to elicit the response they desired. Japanese scientists were actually further along in designing their own weapon than the Nazi's were. They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#44

Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts." I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to…

In a communist society, the state owns everything. They own all natural resources, the industries that processes them, the supply chains, the labor and the economy. Profits and margins are not the objectives and there is no competition. So overall, the expenses to the state are far lesser than in a capitalistic society. Imagine if the US government owned IBM, Boeing, Lockheed, all the mines, had the cheapest yet most…

The problem is that people under this system are not motivated to do things efficiently. Competition itself is responsible for reducing expenses, because companies compete to lower them. Without the competition, there's no reason to.

Prices in a capitalist system are information signals that inform the system how to allocate resources. If you do away with the pricing information (by setting mandatory prices, for example), you break this and usually end up with large surpluses or shortages. Getting other people to inspect the system for inefficiency and remove it is less efficient than using prices for the same purpose.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#45
post #43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) There are always options. The simplest argument to be made is that, at most, nuking one city would probably suffice. There was little need for nuking the second one. Next, one could, conceivably, nuke a landmark instead of a city, prove the destructive power of the device and, still, sp…

> No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war. You'd think nuking one city would have been enough for that... The Americans didn't have to nuke any cities to test the nuclear bomb, they had already measured it's destructive capacity in the dessert. There is a belief among some historians that dropping the bomb was a way to impress the USSR and this idea does have merit. As for the second b…

> They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another.

Is there any evidence of that? Any official communication inside the Japanese government?

Re: On Moral Superiority

#46
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, things like nuking whole cities do count when measuring moral. Not that USSR was highly moral, just the opposite. USA was not too moral that days.

You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was mora…

It's irrelevant whether you can rationally defend dropping an atomic bomb. The only thing that matters is that you lose moral credibility when you do, whether you like it or not. This isn't about who is right; this is about how the public responds.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#47
> Things changed drastically under John Kennedy, and even more under Lyndon Johnson.

Whoa, Lyndon B. Johnson? You'd have to have severe blinders on to like him, he's probably the worst President since the post-WWII era. Increased war, crime, corruption, poverty (ironically), dysfunction, bureaucracy... dude combines the worst aspects of both parties.

He massively screwed our international relations in a very corrupt fashion to increase his votes among unions. This wasn't public until after his presidency:

> In retrospect, audio tapes from the Johnson White House, revealed a quid pro quo unrelated to chicken. In January 1964, President Johnson attempted to convince United Auto Workers's president Walter Reuther not to initiate a strike just prior the 1964 election and to support the president's civil rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.[39] The Chicken Tax directly curtailed importation of German-built Volkswagen Type 2 vans in configurations that qualified them as light trucks—that is, commercial vans and pickups.[39] "In 1964 U.S. imports of "automobile trucks" from West Germany declined to a value of $5.7 million—about one-third the value imported in the previous year. Soon after, Volkswagen cargo vans and pickup trucks, the intended targets, "practically disappeared from the U.S. market."[38]

Vietnam, of course.

Immigration Act of '65, which had a good spirit but terrible bureaucratic implementation and very poorly thought out.

Great Society - all of which pretty much backfired. You know when you hear rappers say "I'm from the projects", meaning really dangerous crime-ridden drugged out zones? Yeah, that was LBJ's "Great Housing Projects" - this destroyed black communities, reduced black ownership of business, and coincided with massive increases in violent black on black crime, black on white crime, and addictive drug use.

Gun control.

Riots.

"Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" about Vietnam.

"At Kennedy's death, there were 16,000 American military advisors in Vietnam. As President, Lyndon Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963... Johnson expanded the numbers and roles of the American military following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ... The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.[62] It was Johnson who began America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam."

Should I keep going? Seriously, who was worse than LBJ? Carter or G.W.? Not even close. LBJ was the worst of Carter and GW combined. As a result of his policies, America's budgets, politics, immigration policy, international relations, military all got screwed up, massively increased corruption and bureaucracy, and increased poverty violence and drug use in black communities. He gets credit for the Civil Rights Act, but it was already done under Kennedy's watch at that point.

Clearly the worst President in the post-WWII era. How anyone could think he did anything right is beyond me. You'd have to believe in what he said was his goal as opposed to the real outcomes.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#48
post #20

Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts." I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to…

He's pretty unclear on economics, yes. Capitalism more efficiently allocates the labor of people than a command/communist economy. Thus, for the same population, a capitalist economy has more wealth -- it can spend this on better consumer goods AND better military hardware. The tokens themselves don't matter. As well, the "western world" was much bigger and better resourced than the soviet bloc, and started from a mu…

> It's amazing that the soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did (maybe to 1960-1965 in most military forces)

They actually never had arms parity - USA had over a 20:1 ratio of nukes in the 1960's. The problem is, the :1 is still enough to wreck all sorts of havoc. Also, massively more infantry.

Edit: Sorry, my numbers were wrong, misremebered. 1964: USA 2,416 USSR 375 [1]. So more like 8:1... later on the USSR closed the gap, but the USA had better strategic positions with bases in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and West Germany, and they cut off Cuba from the USSR after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

Re: On Moral Superiority

#49
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a simple reason for attack on Danish Embassy and you must be perfectly aware of it. I was in a moderate islamic country when the cartoons were published and shall I say it was not a comfortable feeling when communicating with locals.

Yes, of course I'm aware of it. Just as I'm aware of the simple reason for the attempts on Salman Rushdie's life. Now read the parent article, which praises an earlier United States - one that had not yet lost its 'moral authority', which primarily consisted of its superior freedom and civil liberties. If the author's logic is correct, the United States could reduce terrorism by regaining and retaining its moral auth…

nowhere did the author claim they're the reason. they just don't help things.

besides, could you name "western country" not part of the "coalition of the willing" that has seen similar increase in terrorist attacks?

Re: On Moral Superiority

#50
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those hunter-gatherers are amongst the world's top scientists, then of course you can produce tanks and ICBMs for peanuts. And USSR had plenty of scientists and natural resources ;)

Wealth and money aren't the same. They're related, but they don't freely interconvert, and are generally people overestimate the degree to which they are related. Building ICBMs requires not just money, but wealth. Infrastructure, the ability to divert your smartest people to building ICBMs because they aren't needed to solve "the food problem", ability to create a system where smart people can become educated, etc.…

building ICBMs has 0 correlation to wealth
Post reply on HN