"You guys need to get a union!"

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
Proves my point though...americans don't like to learn outside of their little bubble, too much effort. ;)
What proves that point? You proved your own point? I have studied plenty about other countries. I won't claim to be an expert, but that knowledge doesn't change the fact that many people still want to move here, despite what some poll says. So many people want to move here that we have to build walls to try to keep people out.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
What proves that point? You proved your own point? I have studied plenty about other countries. I won't claim to be an expert, but that knowledge doesn't change the fact that many people still want to move here, despite what some poll says. So many people want to move here that we have to build walls to try to keep people out.
wanting to come here, rather than trying to escape elsewhere...interesting spin
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
No one said it's awful, fallacy in that argument
Awful and great are both subjective. Logic doesn't apply. I think America is great, you think people only come here because they can't get to Norway or Sweden (or whichever country you think other people like more). Let's go ahead and start a refugee transport system to the places people really want to go then.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
Awful and great are both subjective. Logic doesn't apply. I think America is great, you think people only come here because they can't get to Norway or Sweden (or whichever country you think other people like more). Let's go ahead and start a refugee transport system to the places people really want to go then.
What's with the black/white thinking? I know you enjoy arguing just for the sake of it but the logical fallacies are silly. No one said people only come here because of desperation and lack of resources. I would say yes, there are some.
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
you should talk mister 800 military bases worldwide and 8 concurrent wars.
Hey, I don't want those things any more than you do. But when we have treaties with countries wherein they need us to provide them with military protection, it brings us back to my original point, if those countries were able to take care of themselves they wouldn't need our military forces in their countries.
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
you should talk mister 800 military bases worldwide and 8 concurrent wars.
Hey, I don't want those things any more than you do. But when we have treaties with countries wherein they need us to provide them with military protection, it brings us back to my original point, if those countries were able to take care of themselves they wouldn't need our military forces in their countries.
Come to think of it, what other country could even hope to maintain the sort of military presence we do? None?
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
Maybe the British Empire. Which is what some people believe the U.S. and NATO has.
Some people are wrong. If we were in the empire business we wouldn't just provide military protection to other nations while allowing them to maintain their sovereignty.

And what do you mean by the British Empire? Do you mean the UK and the Falkland Islands? Or are you talking about the common wealth? Sure, 53 other countries combined could probably offer the same military protection across the world that the US does.
 

PT Car Washer

Well-Known Member
Some people are wrong. If we were in the empire business we wouldn't just provide military protection to other nations while allowing them to maintain their sovereignty.

And what do you mean by the British Empire? Do you mean the UK and the Falkland Islands? Or are you talking about the common wealth? Sure, 53 other countries combined could probably offer the same military protection across the world that the US does.
Try reading a history book. Excuse me, Google a history book.
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
Try reading a history book. Excuse me, Google a history book.
I know what the British Empire was. I didn't ask what historical dominions could have maintained a military presence on par with the US. I'm talking about the present. It's kinda funny that I have to explain that to you right after you were condescending to me. For the record, the commonwealth is basically what is left of what used to be the British Empire, but you knew that, right?
 

Whither

Scofflaw
I guess it depends on what you think "great" means. Why is it that we garner so much influence in the world? I think the philosophical ideal of America is great. Clearly we don't generally live up to the ideal, as individuals or collectively. But if you take it in historical context, the culture of liberty, if you will, has spurred on some of the greatest advancements in civilization ever seen.
In my view, there has probably been nothing more harmful/distracting to the fortunes of workers than nationalism. Our union, like many others formed before the World Wars, calls itself an international brotherhood ... perhaps because it was better understood that as workers we have a common self-interest against the exploitative might of capital (and governments) regardless of where we happen to be born, what language we speak, local/regional customs, etc etc.

After a closer look at the history of union-busting (and union-taming!) in the US, I think it's a stretch to speak of a 'culture of liberty' ... that liberty has been reserved for markets and the products trafficked in them, including 'human capital' as they say nowadays ...
 

zubenelgenubi

Well-Known Member
In my view, there has probably been nothing more harmful/distracting to the fortunes of workers than nationalism. Our union, like many others formed before the World Wars, calls itself an international brotherhood ... perhaps because it was better understood that as workers we have a common self-interest against the exploitative might of capital (and governments) regardless of where we happen to be born, what language we speak, local/regional customs, etc etc.

After a closer look at the history of union-busting (and union-taming!) in the US, I think it's a stretch to speak of a 'culture of liberty' ... that liberty has been reserved for markets and the products trafficked in them, including 'human capital' as they say nowadays ...
I'm not advocating nationalism, at least not in an exclusionary or detrimental to other nations manner. I am all in favor of finding positive sum solutions to problems. But for you to say that the culture of liberty is for the markets and products, sounds like a "grass is greener", envious mentality to me.

No one is being compelled to participate in the market by anything other than their own self interest. You are at liberty to aim towards whatever level in the market at which you wish to operate. The only things in your way are your own competence and the other people competing for the same things you want.

You are at liberty to join a union, and throw in your lot with others to improve your bargaining position. Or you can apply yourself to enhancing your, or gaining new, skills and bargaining on your own behalf.

You don't like the way your state or city is being run? You are at liberty to run for office and try to improve things, or get out of dodge. Yes, the people with money will always have more influence in the world, that is how it has always been. But you are at liberty, in this country, to strive to amass your own fortune, and wield what influence you might.

You are at liberty to apply yourself to solving a problem, and you are at liberty to do nothing, and still complain about the problem. That's an amazing thing right there.

These things may be the case in many other countries, but America was a pioneer in individual liberty. Those ideas have spread and been adopted. Maybe other countries have surpassed us in some ways. That does not, in any way, detract from the greatness of America.
 
Last edited:

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Hey, I don't want those things any more than you do. But when we have treaties with countries wherein they need us to provide them with military protection, it brings us back to my original point, if those countries were able to take care of themselves they wouldn't need our military forces in their countries.
PATRIOT ACT wasnt for your protection and neither is the military
 
Top