Why the heck would this submission be flagged? For what?
Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
21–30 of 37 posts
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s done a lot of really good work since then. I recommend “Origins of Political Order.” He really has some fascinating ideas.
But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…
Obama killed more people than all three of the names you cite. In fact he killed more than all the world leaders combined during his temure.
In fact he was the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to kill another recipient.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombi...
He killed american citizens without due process and get it a beatiful Orwellian name:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
He even killed a 16 year old American:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...
Obama created the world’s largest surveillance state. He illegally spied on US citizens and his administration constantly lied to Congress about in testimony under oath.
He put kids in cages.
He deported more people than all American Presidents ever.
He did not fire anyone who tortured people.
He kept Guantanamo bay open.
The worlds largest prison population (aka forced prison labor or concentration camp) increased under his tenure.
He illegally spied on members of Congress and the opposition.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/07/31/336855226...
So is that good leadership to you?
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#23Fukuyama: Liberal societies are more innovative, wealthier. Reality: It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be. In evaluating that assertion its important to note that absent production of desirable goods & services no country can maintain its wealth. Fukuyama: Neoliberalism = hostility to the state. Reality: Neoliberals lack faith in the individuals who make…
China is not wealthy it is simply large
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#24Why the heck would this submission be flagged? For what?
Snowflakes
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#25Fukuyama: Liberal societies are more innovative, wealthier. Reality: It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be. In evaluating that assertion its important to note that absent production of desirable goods & services no country can maintain its wealth. Fukuyama: Neoliberalism = hostility to the state. Reality: Neoliberals lack faith in the individuals who make…
> It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be
How so?
The US GDP has grown year over year every year since the 1960s, how is that not a sign of wealth?
The number of patents per year has also grown year over year since the 2000. That would indicate a good amount of innovation.
I think you'd need to back up your assertions with some data, or explain what your measures and metrics are that you're basing your assertions on.
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…
Obama killed more people than all three of the names you cite. In fact he killed more than all the world leaders combined during his temure. In fact he was the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to kill another recipient. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombi... He killed american citizens without due process and get it a beatiful Orwellian name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matri…
Lots of these specific claims are correct, though I’m not really sure how you get
> Obama killed more people than all three of the names you cite
and indeed that’s sufficiently vague and open to quibbling that I’m not surprised you give a source (and the truth of this would likely be resolved on dubious definitional grounds rather than anything more generally meaningful).
I suppose the other question is this: what relation does this have to the parent comment? Of course Obama is I suppose a fairly good example of a liberal, but he’s not the only one, and it’s quite plausible that he did these things qua president of the American Empire (not a ‘liberal’ position) rather than qua a liberal; compare, say, Icelandic or Zambian liberalism, which, not being attached to great imperial apparatuses, don’t tend to do this sort of thing.
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#27Fukuyama: Liberal societies are more innovative, wealthier. Reality: It is very hard to argue America is as wealthy or innovative as it was, or as China is proving to be. In evaluating that assertion its important to note that absent production of desirable goods & services no country can maintain its wealth. Fukuyama: Neoliberalism = hostility to the state. Reality: Neoliberals lack faith in the individuals who make…
Is China innovative? Or is Chinese labor inexpensive? The US is still the second largest manufacturer in the world and broke it's own record in adjusted dollars for production in 2018. Pandemic aside, the US has never been more productive. Your sentence about hostility to government is spot on, I think, and brings to mind that old Bastiat quote asking if government officials are, "made of finer clay."
I don't really know what "smaller is safer" means?
The US government is massive in terms of number of people it employs, so do we mean just less taxes and to leave more to the private sector? Like private energy, water, sewage, garbage, shorelines, parks, hospitals, military, schools, etc. ?
Or do we mean overall we need less institutions with less people employed, less judges, less senators, less mayors, less military personnel, less civil servants, representatives, police, firefighters, etc. ?
For me personally, I wouldn't say "smaller is safer", I'd say that each employed individual should have restrictions on its term length and responsibility/authority and better accountability.
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s done a lot of really good work since then. I recommend “Origins of Political Order.” He really has some fascinating ideas.
But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…
> liberalism is a good thing
Liberalism can be a good thing, yet the zeal of its practitioners espousing something in tune of "Outside Liberalism theres no salvation" might not be good.
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s done a lot of really good work since then. I recommend “Origins of Political Order.” He really has some fascinating ideas.
But has he done an explicit post-mortem of his "end of history" idea which obviously went belly up? I agree that liberalism is a good thing, the only problem it's not me you need to convince, but Putin, Erdogan and Xi, and they obviously don't want to give their power like it would imply. What' even more concerning ia that nobody else seem to want it. It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump…
> It's not like people are lining to replace Putin, Xi or even Trump.
People were, in fact, lining up to replace Trump.
And one did. Rapid transition from antiliberal to liberal regimes (rather from illiberal leaders within a basically liberal system) is a hard problem; the elements of liberal regimes evolved slowly through class power politics, mostly long before liberal philosophy rationalized them, and otherwise have spread mostly slowly by contact, though occasionally rapidly through conquest and deliberate social reengineering by rhe conqueror. But even then, its usually a rapid burst after a long infiltration, not a 0-60 rush.
Re: Francis Fukuyama’s Defense of Liberalism
#30Why the heck would this submission be flagged? For what?
somewhat ironic, since this is the kind of political topic (political philopsophy) that a curious mind should gravitate toward rather than the popularity contests and tribal rhetoric we're otherwise awash in.
with that said, i do see liberalism as having 'jumped the shark' so to speak, and become too much of a virtue totem, rather than a sociopolitical model worth examining and critiquing.