I am pretty sure I can imagine better alternatives than your imagined better alternatives. That America is a force for good is not equivalent to it being perfect. It is fallacious to rely on imaginable better alternatives to argue that America is not a force for good.
The last sentence skews the terms of the discussion. Because good is relative to Chinese and other great power influences. America is compared to the other great powers. Therefore, neo-librral America, America as it is, can be relatively bad compared to a realistically possible America in another policy configuration with less push for freedom of global transaction and greater consideration of the common weal.
@@letdaseinlive No. Good is a neutral term defined by the outcome of actions (in weighing out for whom is it good and if, for whom is it bad). Equating two parties, who's more or less good, is bs and squares the circle only. Defining good first is imminent! Then we always look into ones actions and end goals, is it good, bad or mixed, and decide on this only. Compare two "maybe equal forces" is secondary or even not necessary and reliable.
@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl Well, Mr Moyn says "it can't just be a comparative". The question was whether "America is good on measure". "On measure" implies a comparison. I think Mr Moyn is against low hopes. The low hopes situation is the claim one side is slightly better than alternatives in terms of rapacious cruelty. He wants the low hopes plus greater bringing about of more perfect good.
@@alexcipriani6003 We judge in the light of an idea (maybe unsaid and without realizing we are doing it) of better or worse. If something is better it implies it is more like what is genuinely good.
I feel like in a multipolar world, nation-states must at times sacrifice higher order ideals in the name of national security and to preserve the balance of power among geopolitical rivals. In a unipolar world--it would seem to me at least--that it would be easier to live up to the high ideals of liberal democracy, and yet after the collapse of the Soviet Union this is something the United States repeatedly failed to do.
Both presenters begin with the assumption that America is a democracy. America is a continent. The US is an oligarchy. _For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other. The lord will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold - and then for a great jest he will allow the slaves to choose._ - G. K. Chesterton, "Voter and Two Voices", _A Miscellany of Men_ (1912)
Democracy has no foreign policy bearing either, as China has no vote in the U.S. The Taiwan situation is a good example. Every U.S election post WWII had a tune of China bashing and this tune is getting ever stronger and dominant. An intellectual debate became self-confession. You can not see what you are not willing to see.
@@alexcipriani6003 If you mean a mutually benefiting arrangement being sold to US domestic audience as a selfless gift that only benefits China and hinting "look how China is not appreciating what we have done to them", YES!
What "democratization"? I wonder what that means in regards to the goals of the US. We didn't see that after WW2, the US only protected its interests and even did harm to many nations when bringing "democracy" to them. The US isn't a democracy any longer, since it decided to serve the interests of US corporations and hegemony. China approaches some sort of hegemony too and it's pretty hilarious and hypocritical to accuse China of doing so. Both countries are not a force for good, but known for their anti-democratic policies (domestically and foreign). And btw , voting alone is not a sign for being democratic when having no real choices (lesser evil) and participation in power (rather non, or marginal).
America is as good a force for good in the world compared to other nations. However, with the current conservative House leadership, I question that force. Also, using religion of any sort is a dubious endeavor to give a framework and definition for what is right or good.
What democracy he talking about the one doesn't exist but for gentleman is paradise because they took a lot power and money which they were looking for 2 thousands year's and they found one for how long no body knows
Sam's main view on everything sounds similar to Chomsky's, just sped up a bit: the West is bad. However, he at least acknowledges that the alternative is worse. I wonder if he is aware of how far safer the world has been since 1945 and what horrors authoritarianism did prior.
Which government do you believe is behaving more responsibly, or would behave more responsibly with the great power that the US wields? Keep in mind, the US is economically and militarily powerful enough to do pretty much whatever it pleases, to a degree, and the restraint *not* to use that power at all times should be considered when you evaluate which other country would wield America's power better.
I am pretty sure I can imagine better alternatives than your imagined better alternatives. That America is a force for good is not equivalent to it being perfect. It is fallacious to rely on imaginable better alternatives to argue that America is not a force for good.
The last sentence skews the terms of the discussion. Because good is relative to Chinese and other great power influences. America is compared to the other great powers. Therefore, neo-librral America, America as it is, can be relatively bad compared to a realistically possible America in another policy configuration with less push for freedom of global transaction and greater consideration of the common weal.
@@letdaseinlive No. Good is a neutral term defined by the outcome of actions (in weighing out for whom is it good and if, for whom is it bad). Equating two parties, who's more or less good, is bs and squares the circle only. Defining good first is imminent! Then we always look into ones actions and end goals, is it good, bad or mixed, and decide on this only. Compare two "maybe equal forces" is secondary or even not necessary and reliable.
@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl Well, Mr Moyn says "it can't just be a comparative". The question was whether "America is good on measure". "On measure" implies a comparison. I think Mr Moyn is against low hopes. The low hopes situation is the claim one side is slightly better than alternatives in terms of rapacious cruelty. He wants the low hopes plus greater bringing about of more perfect good.
nobody measured against an idealized version they simply looked at facts
@@alexcipriani6003 We judge in the light of an idea (maybe unsaid and without realizing we are doing it) of better or worse. If something is better it implies it is more like what is genuinely good.
I'm not sorry to say that this was the most rediculus conversation I had ever heard.
Moyn to get taste of what Chinas impact would be - I think Myanmar and even Hong Kong give you pretty solid overview.
This was very interesting! (don't sweat the faulty connection at the end)
Democracy can only serve itself not the people who live within it. Other institutions also have a similar effect. We all fight to remain together?
I feel like in a multipolar world, nation-states must at times sacrifice higher order ideals in the name of national security and to preserve the balance of power among geopolitical rivals. In a unipolar world--it would seem to me at least--that it would be easier to live up to the high ideals of liberal democracy, and yet after the collapse of the Soviet Union this is something the United States repeatedly failed to do.
Thanks so much
Both presenters begin with the assumption that America is a democracy. America is a continent. The US is an oligarchy.
_For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other. The lord will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold - and then for a great jest he will allow the slaves to choose._
- G. K. Chesterton, "Voter and Two Voices", _A Miscellany of Men_ (1912)
Shadi makes interesting points. Yes, American hegemony is not optimal, but the alternatives are monstrous.
Democracy has no foreign policy bearing either, as China has no vote in the U.S. The Taiwan situation is a good example. Every U.S election post WWII had a tune of China bashing and this tune is getting ever stronger and dominant. An intellectual debate became self-confession. You can not see what you are not willing to see.
pricely and eloquently, sir
precisely and eloquent
China bashing post WW2 ? 😂 integrating China into WTO sound like bashing to you
@@alexcipriani6003 If you mean a mutually benefiting arrangement being sold to US domestic audience as a selfless gift that only benefits China and hinting "look how China is not appreciating what we have done to them", YES!
What "democratization"? I wonder what that means in regards to the goals of the US. We didn't see that after WW2, the US only protected its interests and even did harm to many nations when bringing "democracy" to them. The US isn't a democracy any longer, since it decided to serve the interests of US corporations and hegemony. China approaches some sort of hegemony too and it's pretty hilarious and hypocritical to accuse China of doing so. Both countries are not a force for good, but known for their anti-democratic policies (domestically and foreign). And btw , voting alone is not a sign for being democratic when having no real choices (lesser evil) and participation in power (rather non, or marginal).
Can you please do live public debates, no one wants to watch these online and you won’t attract more viewers
America is as good a force for good in the world compared to other nations. However, with the current conservative House leadership, I question that force. Also, using religion of any sort is a dubious endeavor to give a framework and definition for what is right or good.
No
the fact is that China made a lot of mistakes since 1949, and it fixed it everytime, this is self correction.
Not really. A surveillance society due to Tianaman square is not self correction
A 100% US is on the whole a force for good. US backed out and world started falling apart, even till recently.
What democracy he talking about the one doesn't exist but for gentleman is paradise because they took a lot power and money which they were looking for 2 thousands year's and they found one for how long no body knows
Sam's main view on everything sounds similar to Chomsky's, just sped up a bit: the West is bad. However, he at least acknowledges that the alternative is worse. I wonder if he is aware of how far safer the world has been since 1945 and what horrors authoritarianism did prior.
AmeriKKKa is a force for good in the world 🤣🤣
The are saving the World by bombing it.
Which government do you believe is behaving more responsibly, or would behave more responsibly with the great power that the US wields?
Keep in mind, the US is economically and militarily powerful enough to do pretty much whatever it pleases, to a degree, and the restraint *not* to use that power at all times should be considered when you evaluate which other country would wield America's power better.
Oh, shush.
Might makes right.
@@ryanstrahle I just think your dad should have been c@strated before you were born