America's Role In The World

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

What is America's role in the world? I'm the first to jump on the America bashing bandwagon, so one could expect me to come up with a suitably cynical snark response to this. But I won't.

America's role in the world is to be a leader.

In most ways, America is the most powerful nation in the world. Militarily, it's not hard to think that America could fight off every other nation in the world if we all tried to invade at once. They have used this military to become the unquestioned economic and political power in the world as well. Colonial wars have been fought in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America, not to rule directly, but to install governments that will allow for a favourable economic environment for US corporations. Why the hell would you want to run a country when you could just be extracting their natural resources and abuse their labour?

America has actively worked to become the leader in the world. It has been an act of conscious free will. It has been the stated aim of generations of political leaders and the desire of the electorate that votes them in. "We're #1" they cry after singing the national anthem at a "World Series" to find a the "World Champion" in a sport in which pretty much only they play in which only teams from America compete.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

Because the creation of US world supremacy has been a conscious act of free will, then the responsibilities that come along with that power are non-negotiable and must be entered into with a sense of duty, not obligation. The President of the United States has been called the "Leader Of The Free World" (and I've noticed, is still called, which I find a bit of an anachronism). The Constitution is, rightly, held up as one of the grand achievements of humanity. Americans like to believe that the ethics and values of their nation, that all men are created equal, that we have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If this is so, then their act of conscious free will to become the world leaders and the responsibilities that are the duty of the power that comes with such power, then they must lead with these values in mind as well as in practice.

Acts like unilateral military action and avoiding international treaties that are in the global interest, but may be questionable for the national interest, is failing these values.

Comments

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Zounds!

I was hoping you weren't going to go to "teh MaRkEtZ!" But you went there. Do you really think that corporations are going to be look beyond the next quarterly profit report in order to do something for the common weal? You may argue "they want to still be around in 100 years" but it would be absolute BS. If you believe so you don't understand modern capitalism. Capitalism has become a craps table. No one is interested in long term sustainability because there's a fortune to be made in this lifetime dammit!. No. Sorry, I would much rather trust the future of the world to politicians, who at least have to make a pretense of being in the service of the public, than the corporations, who are legally bound to act in the interests of its shareholders; in other words, make a profit quickly so they can move on.

You freemarketeers act as if the 1860s, 1890s, 1920s, 1980s and the last few years never happened.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Zoinks!

I was really hoping that you wouldn't go to "teh MaRkETZ R EvULZ!", but you went there.

The markets are not made up only of corporations, and corporations as they are legally defined today, are anti-free market entities. They benefit disproportionally from a preferred legal status, among several other 'less formal' preferences stemming from their attraction to favorable government intervention, and the willingness of the equally fallible politicians in granting favoritism to them.

Markets include all financial decision making processes, which requires one widen their view a bit. Every financial transaction you or I or anyone else makes, makes us an active participant in the market. Taken as the sum of all of our small, seemingly insignificant decisions, we do end up creating a set of powerful priorities.

Those priorities may not be what you think they should be and what they represent may be part of our cultural failings, but there is no replacement for this mechanism in terms of wishing to be led out of the desert from on political high. We draw leaders from within our own ranks. Our failings as a culture are perpetuated in those we elect. If we wish to change our priorities, we must begin with our own, for that we have the most control over, and through our interaction with others we encounter on our day-to-day lives.

"No. Sorry, I would much rather trust the future of the world to politicians, who at least have to make a pretense of being in the service of the public, than the corporations, who are legally bound to act in the interests of its shareholders; in other words, make a profit quickly so they can move on."

A reassuring pretense is still a lie, and using it as refuge from having to confront ourselves from a cultural viewpoint (from the sum total effect of all our decisions and what went into them) only perpetuates and exacerbates the problems.

[prader.livejournal.com]

The markets are not made up only of corporations

Yes. Customers calling in with a lie in the hopes of getting something for nothing are as much a part of "the market" as Corporations "looking out for the bottom line" are. Albeit less recognized by those who consider Capitalism to be inherently flawed.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

So you think you have as much power as, say, BP. Good luck with that.

Say I decide to exercise my free choice as a market participant. Let's say I buy local produce to reduce food miles. If there isn't a regulation that says "you can only call something local if it is grown locally" then how do I know that the food I am buying is actually grown locally? Should it really be up to me to investigate everything I buy? Wouldn't it just be easier to force the company to tell the truth in the first place?

Also, why should polluting be free for companies? Why should they be able to do something that causes economic impact without having to pay for it? Unless the state makes them pay for their pollution, they won't do it.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

One person, no. But as one of millions making decisions, absofreakin' lutely. Look, I'm getting the vibe that you wouldn't be this dismissive if you replaced 'one person' with 'one voter' being one of millions. But we only get to vote relatively infrequently, and our voices have to go through those same filters as mentioned. Our daily decisions, are daily. There is inherently more power in convincing people to change their habits directly in terms of cost/benefit, and there is no better way to convince them to change their habits then to have an environment where someone can offer you their innovative ideas as a means of extending their income.

"Say I decide to exercise my free choice as a market participant. Let's say I buy local produce to reduce food miles. If there isn't a regulation that says "you can only call something local if it is grown locally" then how do I know that the food I am buying is actually grown locally? Should it really be up to me to investigate everything I buy? Wouldn't it just be easier to force the company to tell the truth in the first place?"

Nothing I've said indicates I am opposed to punishing fraud. That said, 'locally grown' is more than a little hazy as concepts go. If there's enough people who ask for produce, say, within 20mi, 30mi, or whatever radius and make that demand known,

I do not claim that the market is the best solution in all matters, only most of them. Exceptions (for some specific reasons which would be a topic unto themselves for another time) include defense, courts and of course in matters regarding preserving the peace. Conflict resolution is part of governments legitimate role, and pollution is a large area where harm is generated, conflict is caused, and resolution is needed, with the cost of restitution needing to be incorporated into the end product. This enables the public to 'see' the effect in their pocketbooks, and adjust their risk/reward analysis accordingly.