Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Golden Age of Freethought

Rate this topic


volco

Recommended Posts

Intrigued by today's quote author Robert Ingersoll I researched more about the late XIXc America.

I raise these questions,

The Golden Age was terminated by America's involvement in the war.

What does it mean in this context the creation of the Federal Reserve and the dilution of the Gold standard?

Was America's involvement in WWI furthered by the same banks that had created the Fed bedore the war?

If we consider WWI and WII we see the end of America's "Golden Age of Freethought" at the begining and the rise of America, World Superpower at the latter

Considering that America has benefited, through a world market, from its non isolationist policies, is it fair to say that she sacrificed a little freedom for a little advantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intrigued by today's quote author Robert Ingersoll I researched more about the late XIXc America.

I raise these questions,

The Golden Age was terminated by America's involvement in the war.

What does it mean in this context the creation of the Federal Reserve and the dilution of the Gold standard?

Was America's involvement in WWI furthered by the same banks that had created the Fed bedore the war?

If we consider WWI and WII we see the end of America's "Golden Age of Freethought" at the begining and the rise of America, World Superpower at the latter

Considering that America has benefited, through a world market, from its non isolationist policies, is it fair to say that she sacrificed a little freedom for a little advantage?

Not really, now adays USA´s advantage is shrinked in comparison to the burdens it takes on.

Of course many accuse USA of selfishly guarding it´s own interests and noone argues that it is a good thing in itself. Both from the right and left voices say USA should shoulder the burden of others.

On the whole involvement in WWII was unavoidable, since USA was attacked and the directly threatened it´s interests. But WWI wasn´t really unavoidable and it really on the whole didn´t matter all that much to USA whether Germany would win or lose. In reality a stalemate probably would have suited USA´s interests best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Not really, now adays USA´s advantage is shrinked in comparison to the burdens it takes on.

Of course many accuse USA of selfishly guarding it´s own interests and noone argues that it is a good thing in itself. Both from the right and left voices say USA should shoulder the burden of others.

On the whole involvement in WWII was unavoidable, since USA was attacked and the directly threatened it´s interests. But WWI wasn´t really unavoidable and it really on the whole didn´t matter all that much to USA whether Germany would win or lose. In reality a stalemate probably would have suited USA´s interests best.

We actually went into WWI because we had sold a huge amount of weapons to the U.K., most of it on credit. When the Germans threatened to overrun the French, we either would become involved or lose out on the money. I've also heard it claimed that Progressives pushed for war as an excuse to attempt an experiment in "war socialism." Wether or not this in itself is a cause of the war, or an unpleasant effect, the result was that we got dragged into war to promote "self-determination" while our own country devolved into a fascist autocracy. Wilson's propaganda ministry was second to none and the ultimate inspiration for Hitler and Gobbles. There was a lot of nationalization and secret police, along with virulent anti-German racism.

I will give you that WWII was unavoidable. I have heard sources claim that FDR coaxed the Japanese into attacking so he could have an excuse to enter the war against Germany. While their is some truth to this (we did cut off the Japanese coal and oil supplies prior to Pear Harbor), we would have eventually gotten involved in the war. Wether it was the viciously racist Japanese (see their treatment of prisoners of war and the Rape of Nanking), or Germany, we would have had to have started fighting. Hitler was supposed to have had begun planning a bombing of New York City and an invasion of New England before the war ended. Chances are we would have never toppled Germany like we did had we gotten involved much later. Hitler was beginning to go insane was dying from either syphilis or Parkinson's and chances are someone competent would take his place.

I will agree that the World Wars were a large symptomatic, if not causal, part what opened the way for the degradation of American society. Wilson's and FDR's regimes were classic cases of fascist (who are really just militant socialists) administrations. Secret police, nationalization, concentration camps, and more propaganda than you can shake a stick at. It can happen here. It already has.

As for us sacrificing "a little freedom for a little advantage," let me ask you this; was it really worth "a little freedom" to get the nation embroiled in the worlds biggest pissing contest that could have very well ended in nuclear holocaust? Was it really worth "a little freedom" to fight useless war after useless war? Was it worth a little freedom to have to painfully pick between a liar and cheat for the job of deciding how to run the people who were supposed to be protecting us?

Was "a little freedom" worth all that?

Edit: I also forgot, what makes the pre-1910 years the "Golden Age of Free-thought" in America? Usually its the late 1700's thats considered the height of the Enlightenment, which is the considered the historical golden age of Free-Thought. I always figured that came to the end with the rise of nationalism for nationalism's sake and the rise of "Realism" and Byronic Romanticism as serious philosophical mindsets. Long before the world wars. Not being hostile here, just curious as to what you mean.

Edited by Nyronus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWI was a suprisingly terrible time. An act (can't remember the name at the moment) literally made it so that people who spoke out agianst the governemnt could be jailed. In a supreme court case, a man wanted to print a number of pamphlets out denouncing the war. When he was found guilty, he appelaed his case to the supreme court on the grounds that this violated his right to freedom of speech. He lost unanimously. Nationalism was wide spread. People were asked to serve their country (WWI birthed the Uncle Sam I WANT YOU poster), sacrifice things such as meat, wheat, and other foods, and money in liberty bonds. Basiacally, people were both asked and forced to give up free thought. This reminds me of a great quote by Benjamin franklin: "Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security, deserve neither and will lose both." I find that you substitute security for pretty much anyhting else, including economic power. You should not sacrifice liberty for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a counterpoint, remember that public opinion is never uniform, and there were those who called themselves, variously "anarchists" or "libertarian" or "socialists". They saw the war as a "capitalist war" and wanted American workers to join with their Russian comrades. Check out this news article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give you that WWII was unavoidable.

...

Was it really worth "a little freedom" to fight useless war after useless war?

It seems like you are saying that the U.S.' involvement in WWII was inevitable but offered no rational self-interest to U.S. citizens anyway. Stopping monstrous ideologies such as Nazism and Japanese Imperialism is not "useless."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like you are saying that the U.S.' involvement in WWII was inevitable but offered no rational self-interest to U.S. citizens anyway. Stopping monstrous ideologies such as Nazism and Japanese Imperialism is not "useless."

I was actually referring to Vietnam and Iraq. Stopping Nazism was certainly a boon. Of course, I question our ideological convictions to freedom since Roosevelt was obviously a socialist if not a full fledged fascist, and the fact of the matter is that we never really tried to take out the Soviet Union. We tried to make the angry over the years, certainly, but we never fought them. Had we kept marching past Berlin we probably could have won and taken them out too.

I think WWII is romanticized in our culture too much. It gets far more press than any other war because we really were fighting bad guys. Really bad guys. Nazism has come to embody every form of evil for America. Yes, we killed some evil bastards who would have hurt us bad if we let them get too far, but we were not "good guys" ourselves at the time. Just because we were less evil than the bad guys does not, by default, make us good. My god, the only reason we did not nuke Tokyo was because we had already killed every living human being in the area with white phosphorus bombs. We treated our enemies better than almost everyone else, but thats because everyone else was the Nazis, Japan, and Russia.

We didn't gas anyone in our concentration camps, but they were still there.

WWII was a good war fought against an evil that made itself impossible to avoid, but it was not a romantic war. It was not a heroic war. It was a brutal one, and a brutal one only half fought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An act (can't remember the name at the moment) literally made it so that people who spoke out agianst the governemnt could be jailed. In a supreme court case, a man wanted to print a number of pamphlets out denouncing the war. When he was found guilty, he appelaed his case to the supreme court on the grounds that this violated his right to freedom of speech. He lost unanimously.

I think you're referring to the Sedition Act. Ironically, most of the people that were imprisoned by that act were openly socialist, and they were imprisoned by the closet socialists of the Wilson Administration.

I think WWII is romanticized in our culture too much. It gets far more press than any other war because we really were fighting bad guys. Really bad guys. Nazism has come to embody every form of evil for America. Yes, we killed some evil bastards who would have hurt us bad if we let them get too far, but we were not "good guys" ourselves at the time. Just because we were less evil than the bad guys does not, by default, make us good. My god, the only reason we did not nuke Tokyo was because we had already killed every living human being in the area with white phosphorus bombs. We treated our enemies better than almost everyone else, but thats because everyone else was the Nazis, Japan, and Russia.

We didn't gas anyone in our concentration camps, but they were still there.

WWII was a good war fought against an evil that made itself impossible to avoid, but it was not a romantic war. It was not a heroic war. It was a brutal one, and a brutal one only half fought.

There's a new book out by Pat Buchanan called Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War" that, as I understand, takes the position that Britain didn't do enough appeasing and should've continued appeasing even after Hitler declared war on Poland. Given the amount of positive attention that the book has received, it seems that it might be the beginning of a change of public opinion about WWII and justifications for war in general. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq seems to have revived pacifism and complete isolationism again in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for us sacrificing "a little freedom for a little advantage," let me ask you this; was it really worth "a little freedom" to get the nation embroiled in the worlds biggest pissing contest that could have very well ended in nuclear holocaust? Was it really worth "a little freedom" to fight useless war after useless war? Was it worth a little freedom to have to painfully pick between a liar and cheat for the job of deciding how to run the people who were supposed to be protecting us?

Was "a little freedom" worth all that?

An isolationist America in both WWI and WWII, which I consider both the same conflict, could have perfectly resisted an invasion from the old world, but that would not have been the case anyway. That conflict was within Eurasiafrica, and determined the fall of the "Liberal" European Empires to give rise to two heartland landmass socialist countries. America could have stayed out of the conflict instead of bailing the western europeans out of their mess. Europe and JApan proved to be of great benefit for American markets, but then it would mean that in effect the wars were indeed national projects.

Edit: I also forgot, what makes the pre-1910 years the "Golden Age of Free-thought" in America? Usually its the late 1700's thats considered the height of the Enlightenment, which is the considered the historical golden age of Free-Thought. I always figured that came to the end with the rise of nationalism for nationalism's sake and the rise of "Realism" and Byronic Romanticism as serious philosophical mindsets. Long before the world wars. Not being hostile here, just curious as to what you mean.

I actually meant the age following the "second" industrial revolution when inventions thrived, private fortunes did as well, transcontinental railroads were being built in spite and without government intrusion, and America was on its way of pacifically outperforming the European empires.

It seems like you are saying that the U.S.' involvement in WWII was inevitable but offered no rational self-interest to U.S. citizens anyway. Stopping monstrous ideologies such as Nazism and Japanese Imperialism is not "useless."

But permitting monstruous ideologies like socialism to thrive isn´t?

The rational self interest of "U.S. citizens"? why not just say society? You're saying the war was benefitial for the American society. I don't believe any common american wanted to pursue his happiness by liberating Europe from their ellected philosophy. That Walker guy of the the mid 1800s, there you've got an example of an individual beggining a war for his own rational self interest as a U.S. citizen (but not speaking for them all!)

Any country's involvement in a war should be defensive, and tracing back, the only American blood that triggered the end of America's isolationism were the few passengers aboard the Lusitania in 1916.

My "instinct" tells me I'm wrong, and that America's involvement in WWII was as necessary for the advancement of human civilization as Columbus discovery of America. I am just interested by the fact that capitalism in America ended when isolationism did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But permitting monstruous ideologies like socialism to thrive isn´t?

The rational self interest of "U.S. citizens"? why not just say society? You're saying the war was benefitial for the American society. I don't believe any common american wanted to pursue his happiness by liberating Europe from their ellected philosophy. That Walker guy of the the mid 1800s, there you've got an example of an individual beggining a war for his own rational self interest as a U.S. citizen (but not speaking for them all!)

Any country's involvement in a war should be defensive, and tracing back, the only American blood that triggered the end of America's isolationism were the few passengers aboard the Lusitania in 1916.

My "instinct" tells me I'm wrong, and that America's involvement in WWII was as necessary for the advancement of human civilization as Columbus discovery of America. I am just interested by the fact that capitalism in America ended when isolationism did.

First of all, your look at what is in the rational self-interest of Americans is based upon entirely short-term views, instead of long-term views. If Germany, in either war scenario, had been able to gain dominance over Europe, they would have eventually tried to undermine America's strength in North America. The conflict between the two, if they both were dominant in their region, would be nearly inevitable. That conflict would be much worse than a WWI or WWII fought against a not-yet-dominant Germany, as well as being off of American homeland.

This war scenario was already beginning to seep through before America entered either war. The Zimmerman Note, in which Germany told Mexico that Germany would help Mexico regain the SW United States if Mexico helped Germany, contributed to America getting involved. Although I don't know if America had any knowledge of this at the time, Hitler and Germany had an attack plan for New York in which they had built long-range bombers designed to take down the skyscrapers, and they had other plans to attack America before we entered the war as well. All of this would've been increased tenfold if Germany had not been contained in either war.

Second, America has never really been isolationist, so your premise of capitalism and isolationism ending at the same time is inherently false. Starting under John Adams we began to get involve with other's affairs, particularly with Britain and France. Jefferson had a fight with Barbary pirates in Northern Africa. The War of 1812 (we tried to invade Canada in this war) followed, which was proceeded by several mini-wars against various Native American tribes. This was followed by the Mexican-American War in 1846. Then we had the Civil War and Reconstruction, which kept us out of external conflicts for a while, except for some fights with lingering Native Americans. Then came the Spanish-American War, in which we began colonization (and were DEFINITELY not isolationist any more). This war then necessitated further fighting in the Philippines against nationalist movements there. It wasn't too long after that when we became involved in WWI.

In summary, then, America has never been isolationist. However, before getting involved in global affairs, a country generally tries to gain dominance over its own region (North America for the US). So America's military involvement was confined to North America for the most part, until we already had dominance over the continent. When we did achieve this dominance, we began looking elsewhere around the world.

Third, capitalism started declining before WWI. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of the 1870s was what Rand cited as a key turning point. The Federal Reserve and income tax were also both instated before WWI. Regarding WWII, I don't think it is too much of a coincidence that the war and the decline of capitalism were at the same time. The weakening of the economic markets helped contribute to the instability both in Germany and elsewhere, helping to fuel the war. If America, Britain, and France had kept their economies capitalist and strong, they would've stopped Germany before it got strong enough to mount a serious challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, your look at what is in the rational self-interest of Americans is based upon entirely short-term views, instead of long-term views. If Germany, in either war scenario, had been able to gain dominance over Europe, they would have eventually tried to undermine America's strength in North America. The conflict between the two, if they both were dominant in their region, would be nearly inevitable. That conflict would be much worse than a WWI or WWII fought against a not-yet-dominant Germany, as well as being off of American homeland.

This war scenario was already beginning to seep through before America entered either war. The Zimmerman Note, in which Germany told Mexico that Germany would help Mexico regain the SW United States if Mexico helped Germany, contributed to America getting involved. Although I don't know if America had any knowledge of this at the time, Hitler and Germany had an attack plan for New York in which they had built long-range bombers designed to take down the skyscrapers, and they had other plans to attack America before we entered the war as well. All of this would've been increased tenfold if Germany had not been contained in either war.

While I agree with the rest of this post, fighting Hitler was unavoidable, this first part concerning WWI bugs me. Germany only sank our ships and attempted the Zimmerman idiocy because we were only neutral in name. We had long before begun to supply Britain with massive amounts of weapons and vehicles. The whole reason the Lucitania was sunk was because we had loaded it with weapons. In all honesty, Germany had more than enough reason to go to war with us!

Looking from retrospect, it might have been in America's self-interest to side with Germany instead of Britain. We would have avoided Hitler, and, quiet possibly, Stalin. Not to say that some French equivalent couldn't arise, but, then again, a huge part of WWII was the victimization of Germany. Perhaps the shoe wouldn't be put onto the other foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with the rest of this post, fighting Hitler was unavoidable, this first part concerning WWI bugs me. Germany only sank our ships and attempted the Zimmerman idiocy because we were only neutral in name. We had long before begun to supply Britain with massive amounts of weapons and vehicles. The whole reason the Lucitania was sunk was because we had loaded it with weapons. In all honesty, Germany had more than enough reason to go to war with us!

Looking from retrospect, it might have been in America's self-interest to side with Germany instead of Britain. We would have avoided Hitler, and, quiet possibly, Stalin. Not to say that some French equivalent couldn't arise, but, then again, a huge part of WWII was the victimization of Germany. Perhaps the shoe wouldn't be put onto the other foot.

I think you're probably right about us helping France and Britain before the Zimmerman Note. However, Germany had been attacking our ships from the beginning as well. Its hard to say which side started it.

Regardless, if we would've sided with Germany, then Germany would've taken over Europe in WWI. If Germany did that, they would've begun to compete militarily with the United States even without having a Hitler. A French equivalent wouldn't have arisen, because Germany would've occupied and made France part of itself, or at least something similar (like Vichy France in WWII). The point that I was trying to make, most fundamentally, is that Germany was trying to gain dominance and Europe, and the United States, from an international relations perspective, can't allow another country to take control of all of Europe, because that country would be a threat to the United States. Because of that, the United States was destined to side with the alliance in Europe that wasn't capable of taking over Europe (in both wars, it was the non-Germany alliance, seeing as Germany was the most powerful state in Europe).

On a side note, I don't know whether or not this is the Objectivist interpretation of international relations, it is only my view. Is there a set-in-stone Objectivist IR theory, beyond "do what is in your self-interest, and protect individual rights?" That might be a framework for a theory of IR, but says little about what the theory would look like in terms of achieving that self-interest.

Edited by Branden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, if we would've sided with Germany, then Germany would've taken over Europe in WWI. If Germany did that, they would've begun to compete militarily with the United States even without having a Hitler. A French equivalent wouldn't have arisen, because Germany would've occupied and made France part of itself, or at least something similar (like Vichy France in WWII). The point that I was trying to make, most fundamentally, is that Germany was trying to gain dominance and Europe, and the United States, from an international relations perspective, can't allow another country to take control of all of Europe, because that country would be a threat to the United States. Because of that, the United States was destined to side with the alliance in Europe that wasn't capable of taking over Europe (in both wars, it was the non-Germany alliance, seeing as Germany was the most powerful state in Europe).

I'm not sure a single entity for Europe is necessarily a bad thing. Otherwise, how do you feel about the EU? I am not sure if a German lead Europe would be as bad as you say. Certainly the Bismarckian Soft-Socialist Imperialism was not something to be desired, but I think it might be, on some levels, preferable to rampant Nazi Racial Socialism, or hard bitten Soviet tyranny. I also have doubts that Germany could have controlled all of Europe for very long. Even Napoleon, arguably one of the greatest military minds in the last three hundred years, could not hold his Empire. While Germany had the most obviously superior military force in WWI, I don't think it could have held onto France, and certainly not Britain. Not long enough to impose an effective cultural change. Arguably, the most successful person at holding conquered ground, baring Rome and Alexander the Great, was Adolf Hitler, but that may have only been because that ground was taken back before it had a chance to truly rise up and drive him out.

Come to think of it, I don't even think that Germany was looking for conquest to begin with. Remember that WWI was almost totally a defensive war. Everyone thought that they were the ones being attacked. Germany only invaded France as a means to end the conflict quickly.

Of course, these are only "what-ifs." It might make fun science fiction to write, but is only interesting in the hypothetical sense.

To get back to the discussion, I don't think WWI was in our interests. WWII was inevitable. I don't think either war was taken in our interests, though. We fought the right wars for all the wrong reasons.

Edit:

I forgot to comment on this earlier:

There's a new book out by Pat Buchanan called Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War" that, as I understand, takes the position that Britain didn't do enough appeasing and should've continued appeasing even after Hitler declared war on Poland. Given the amount of positive attention that the book has received, it seems that it might be the beginning of a change of public opinion about WWII and justifications for war in general. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq seems to have revived pacifism and complete isolationism again in America.

While I am for pacifism (when no one is initiating force against me, of course) and all, I don't think appeasement was the answer with Hitler. In all honesty, the author of that book needs to be hit. Even after Poland? Did no one read Hitler's book? He makes it pretty obvious his plans for an Aryan dominated world made on the corpses of all Jews and Bolsheviks and all those who would sympathize with them. While I disagree with the way the war was fought and the way it is portrayed, I think its idiocy to think it could be avoided by the time Hitler had begun his invasions. By the time the gun has been drawn, it is obvious that reason has left the situation.

Edited by Nyronus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure a single entity for Europe is necessarily a bad thing. Otherwise, how do you feel about the EU? I am not sure if a German lead Europe would be as bad as you say. Certainly the Bismarckian Soft-Socialist Imperialism was not something to be desired, but I think it might be, on some levels, preferable to rampant Nazi Racial Socialism, or hard bitten Soviet tyranny. I also have doubts that Germany could have controlled all of Europe for very long. Even Napoleon, arguably one of the greatest military minds in the last three hundred years, could not hold his Empire. While Germany had the most obviously superior military force in WWI, I don't think it could have held onto France, and certainly not Britain. Not long enough to impose an effective cultural change. Arguably, the most successful person at holding conquered ground, baring Rome and Alexander the Great, was Adolf Hitler, but that may have only been because that ground was taken back before it had a chance to truly rise up and drive him out.

Come to think of it, I don't even think that Germany was looking for conquest to begin with. Remember that WWI was almost totally a defensive war. Everyone thought that they were the ones being attacked. Germany only invaded France as a means to end the conflict quickly.

The EU is hardly a "single entity" from my perspective. It is an attempt to unite Europe, but fundamentally the individual states will still act autonomously. The next time that some countries in Europe face a threat, I think the EU will likely fall apart, or at least split into factions.

Germany during WWI would've been able to hold Europe just as well as Hitler would've been able to. I think its less an issue of the leader and more an issue of how strong the country is, and (I believe) that Wilhelm's Germany was just as strong relative to the rest of Europe as Hitler's. Regardless, the problem with one major political entity in Europe from the perspective of an American is less about what domestic program they would implement, and more about how they would be in terms of IR. If a country was able to gain hegemony over Europe, it would in all likelihood seek to extend its influence into other regions, which is where the problem with the United States would arise.

That's essentially why I think that the United States was justified in entering WWI from a self-interest perspective: it was better to deal with Germany then instead of waiting until they became stronger.

Rand seems to have held the opinion that Wilson was wrong to try to "spread democracy" and such in WWI, although I don't have any quotes saying she actually stood opposed to WWI. She also criticized the handling of Europe after the war, but again, that isn't actually standing in opposition to the war. I got the quotes of Rand from here, although it seems they try to distort her opinions a bit.

While I am for pacifism (when no one is initiating force against me, of course) and all, I don't think appeasement was the answer with Hitler. In all honesty, the author of that book needs to be hit. Even after Poland? Did no one read Hitler's book? He makes it pretty obvious his plans for an Aryan dominated world made on the corpses of all Jews and Bolsheviks and all those who would sympathize with them. While I disagree with the way the war was fought and the way it is portrayed, I think its idiocy to think it could be avoided by the time Hitler had begun his invasions. By the time the gun has been drawn, it is obvious that reason has left the situation.

I agree with you on this, definitely. Although I don't think pacifism is the right label for a policy of self-defense, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fighting the berber pìrates to protect american vessels I can't consider intervention, but I do believe you forgot to mention that America opened the Japanese market by force of cannonship.

Of course I knew about the Canadian affaire, the conquest of maybe 50% of the continental U.S (although I'm sure even after the louisiana purchase that vast territory had to be taken by force since it was french only de jure), and the the Democratic Spanish American war with teh liberation of the Phillipines, Puerto Rico. But all of those wars were either intra-continental, or not very defying to the then World Order.

I began this thread because the "Objectivist Theory of History" which I'm sure it's not marked in stone, pretty much says that Capitalism only existed during XIX century America (w brief mentions to Victorian Britain, and Rennaissance Italy) , and that it began to rot with the Sherman Act, all the other retroactive laws, and finally the FED which paved the way for Roosevelt's baldfaced corporatization of the country.

When discussing Capitalism with a capital C, as described by Ayn Rand and the Austrians, I am usually confronted with the same argument I pose to the marxists: that it is a utopia, and that it never existed.

Ayn Rand, in Conservatism: an obituary, tells us that Capitalism indeed must be discovered, not unburied. She also identifies that the seed of Capitalism's destruction: christian altruist morality, was present from the beggining.

Before and Besides Ayn Rand, I've heard about two distinct eras of American History, the Frontier one, and the XX c. and on.

An America with a frontier to conquer is an open system. After the continent was secured (a lot more with legal purchase and productive colonization rather than conquest I must admit) we see the rise of this second era of American History.

We must also remember that during teh XIX century America distanced itself from the British, and found a replacement in the German. Ethnographic studies, at least the govenments' shows that German genes are prevalent over any other majority among American whites. While German philosophy had had time to sink in at the eve of the XX century, the American government decided to restore ties with the British, bail them out when they needed (like in 1913), and side with them in the arms race that was being held between the British Crown and the II Reich.

I'm not sure I've made my point clear: if capitalism requieres a strictly voluntary and defensive army, then: has it ever existed at least in the United States - given the fact that "country engineering" wars were fought constantly (against mexico for territory, or forcing japan to open its market? By the way, what does Branden mean when he accuses me of not seeing the long term benefits of sacryfing the youth for the future youth? How is it that different from Social Engineering?

One further correction: How do you base your premise that unless America was to bail Western Europe from German agression, the krauts would have won? As fas as I know, the FIRST world war was stagnated in putrefact foxholes until the Boys landed. Of course this is highly speculative, but why do you think the newly formed state of Germany would have prevailed?

Germany is the typical third position country, sandwiched between different powers, with an inferiority complex for missing out on the colonization and liberalization feast, and with its corresponding pretensions of greatness. Why do you believe them?

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I've made my point clear: if capitalism requieres a strictly voluntary and defensive army, then: has it ever existed at least in the United States - given the fact that "country engineering" wars were fought constantly (against mexico for territory, or forcing japan to open its market?

"It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies." (Rand, Capitalism, pg 38)

By the way, what does Branden mean when he accuses me of not seeing the long term benefits of sacryfing the youth for the future youth? How is it that different from Social Engineering?

When did I say that?

One further correction: How do you base your premise that unless America was to bail Western Europe from German agression, the krauts would have won? As fas as I know, the FIRST world war was stagnated in putrefact foxholes until the Boys landed. Of course this is highly speculative, but why do you think the newly formed state of Germany would have prevailed?

Germany is the typical third position country, sandwiched between different powers, with an inferiority complex for missing out on the colonization and liberalization feast, and with its corresponding pretensions of greatness. Why do you believe them?

Of course I'm not certain that they would've won, but it would've been very bad if they did. I think that they might've had a good chance of winning, since their economic power surpassed Britain and France by that time, their population size was second only to Russia in Europe, and they had very well-trained officers in the military. Plus, Russia was leaving the war, which would've allowed Germany to redirect troops from the Eastern to the Western front, causing trouble for Britain and France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies." (Rand, Capitalism, pg 38)

Yes but in a different sense that XX century America was a mixed economy. Britain was a certainly mixed economy with heroes like Rhodes expanding civilization and capitalism with imperial help. America was still a mixed economy but the whole point of A.R. is that XIX America was the CLOSEST thing to Capitalism.

When did I say that?

First of all, your look at what is in the rational self-interest of Americans is based upon entirely short-term views, instead of long-term views

Of course I'm not certain that they would've won, but it would've been very bad if they did. I think that they might've had a good chance of winning, since their economic power surpassed Britain and France by that time, their population size was second only to Russia in Europe, and they had very well-trained officers in the military. Plus, Russia was leaving the war, which would've allowed Germany to redirect troops from the Eastern to the Western front, causing trouble for Britain and France.

That's what I mean by social-engineering, what right had the American Government to draft young men to liberate France in order to acquire international markets in the long term?

Perhaps this is where we should find a distinction between internal and foreign affairs, and yet: "any free country has enough volunteers in case of foreign invasion" (sic)

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but in a different sense that XX century America was a mixed economy. Britain was a certainly mixed economy with heroes like Rhodes expanding civilization and capitalism with imperial help. America was still a mixed economy but the whole point of A.R. is that XIX America was the CLOSEST thing to Capitalism.

America in the 1800s was a mixed economy, but it was the closer to capitalism than most, if not all, other economies throughout history. So capitalism has never truly existed in the United States, but we got close.

That's what I mean by social-engineering, what right had the American Government to draft young men to liberate France in order to acquire international markets in the long term?

Perhaps this is where we should find a distinction between internal and foreign affairs, and yet: "any free country has enough volunteers in case of foreign invasion" (sic)

First of all, drafts aren't appropriate, as were other Wilsonian tactics. Second, my justification for America entering WWI would be to protect Americans from Germany warring us in the future, as they would likely have done if they beat France. The Americans being protected in the future would be the same Americans that engaged in war. I don't mean incredibly long-term future like 100s of years or something, just however long it would've taken Germany to regroup if it defeated France. That is different than warring to liberate France, warring to sacrifice to future generations, or warring to acquire markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America in the 1800s was a mixed economy, but it was the closer to capitalism than most, if not all, other economies throughout history. So capitalism has never truly existed in the United States, but we got close.

Well that was my original point. How to defend 100% unregulated laissez faire capitalism when it never existed, or when it is compared to a utopia. I know the facts, I know how Hong Kong is richer than the UK, richer than Israel, and the three is one more economically free than the other. But i was having trouble defending this "perfect Capitalism".

First of all, drafts aren't appropriate, as were other Wilsonian tactics. Second, my justification for America entering WWI would be to protect Americans from Germany warring us in the future, as they would likely have done if they beat France. The Americans being protected in the future would be the same Americans that engaged in war. I don't mean incredibly long-term future like 100s of years or something, just however long it would've taken Germany to regroup if it defeated France. That is different than warring to liberate France, warring to sacrifice to future generations, or warring to acquire markets

But the Germany and particularly the Austro Hungarian Empire were not necessarilly worse off a threat to America than any other European power. Germany was rising menacing BRITAIN not America. You might as well have to accept that just as the FED was created to bail the British economy out of their self-provoked mess, WWI was also an involvement to bail out Britain from their situation.

At the end you didn't answer me - without evading me - Why wiping out Nazi Germany was imperative, but letting the Soviet Union trhive over half of the old world wasn´t?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end you didn't answer me - without evading me - Why wiping out Nazi Germany was imperative, but letting the Soviet Union trhive over half of the old world wasn´t?

The answer is: Your right, there is no real difference. I suppose that Nazi Germany was a bigger threat since they were truly all for invasion. Their actions proved such. Stalin was content to sit upon and terrorize his private midden heap. They also had a better chance of hurting us than Soviet Russia, at least until Russia got itself the bomb. Germany had a Navy and an air force. They supposedly had a plan to invade New England, but the probability of success was probably not all that great. Let us remember the glorious success that was Operation Sea-Lion, after all. Russia was not so much threat to America, but a political scape-goat. If you look at the logistics of it, until the advent of the ICBM, a Soviet invasion of North America was utterly laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was my original point. How to defend 100% unregulated laissez faire capitalism when it never existed, or when it is compared to a utopia. I know the facts, I know how Hong Kong is richer than the UK, richer than Israel, and the three is one more economically free than the other. But i was having trouble defending this "perfect Capitalism".

That is a difficulty in defending capitalism, I suppose. But like you said, the more capitalist a country is, the better off it is, so its only logical that a completely capitalist country would be even better. Besides, you can defend pure capitalism from a moral standpoint without having an empirical example of that pure capitalism.

But the Germany and particularly the Austro Hungarian Empire were not necessarilly worse off a threat to America than any other European power. Germany was rising menacing BRITAIN not America. You might as well have to accept that just as the FED was created to bail the British economy out of their self-provoked mess, WWI was also an involvement to bail out Britain from their situation.

At the end you didn't answer me - without evading me - Why wiping out Nazi Germany was imperative, but letting the Soviet Union trhive over half of the old world wasn´t?

In my view, the German alliance was a greater threat than any others. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here, as arguing this point would require specific research of the relative powers of the countries.

Bailing out the British economy might well have been Wilson's justification for war (in fact it probably was). My only point was that, although that particular justification was wrong, there was a justification based on self-interest, although I don't know if any major figures back then advocated that justification.

I agree with Nyronus regarding Nazi Germany and the USSR. Germany was a more immediate threat during WWII, and thus we were justified in fighting them first, although after WWII we should've done more to assure that the USSR didn't come to power. (In my history class we learned that the reason we didn't handle the USSR well was because FDR was sick and dying at the Yalta Conference, and he essentially single-handedly handed over post-war Eastern Europe to the USSR.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...