Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in How foreigners view the President

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:47:32 -0000

ben,

Tell that to the families of the 3300+ American soldiers who have died and the tens of thousands wounded -- http://antiwar.com/casualties -- the vast majority of whom would have died were it not for recent advances in medical care.

And if you think this thing's anywhere near over, then I've got 14 "enduring" military bases for you to tour -- http://www.globalsecurity.o...

Re: How foreigners view the President

ben — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:35:54 -0000

"a ruinous war of aggression . . ."

I don't agree with the war, but the one thing it is not is ruinous for the US. Costly and ruinous are not the same thing.

Re: How foreigners view the President

Tim — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:47:13 -0000

Whether GWB is the worst President in US history I do not know. Presumably the future will judge him as either an incredibly far sighted leader who could see what neither his military or intelligence chiefs, his allies and most of his voters couldn't see. Or incredibly inept. What many Americans apparently do not understand is just how low the US has now sunk in the opinion of other nations. This can hardly be explained as "anti-Americanism" as it has not always been this bad. Even those nations culturally and politically closest to the US are impacted. The damage is quite great. Thanks to Bush administration policies, if in the event of "another 9-11", it is unlikely a similar wave of sympathy would be generated for the US. It is arguable that it is better for a nation to be feared than to be loved. This however doesn't strike me as a course American voters would support. Also it would seem to me that counter-terrorist intelligence relies on some level of goodwill from people in other countries. Why the Bush administration has apparently chosen to degrade America's assets in this way and at this time is beyond rational explanation.

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:47:47 -0000

Tim,

I have no doubt that GWB will go down as the worst president in American history, but it's going to take a lot more than replacing him to "rectify this sad situation":

http://www.atlanticfreepres...

Re: How foreigners view the President

Joe Average — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:22:04 -0000

"We lived with segregation for another 100 years after the war."

Slavery ended in Brazil in 1888. The Confederate refugees in Brazil ended their practice by 1875.

"Facts are facts. The Civil War ended slavery."

Fact is that slavery in Canada ended in 1833. Safe to say that slavery would have ended sooner and with less bloodshed had the colonists remained under the British crown.

Re: How foreigners view the President

Tim — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:45:23 -0000

Foreigners today have a much lower opinion of GWB than foreigners back in the day had of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was able rally foreign opinion to the Union cause, via the anti-slavery issue. The anti-slavery cause had widespread popular support among working class and middle class people in Britain and France, then the most influential foreign nations. Lincoln by appealing to this group was thus indirectly able to influence the major European powers from intervening in the US internal war. The confederate government vainly hoped that "King Cotton" would buy them stratgeic leverage. Bush and the US are now in the radically opposite position. The US president and government have, fairly or unfairly..it doesn't matter, have lost popular support world wide. This is so not only in the islamic and third world, but in the west, in Europe, and even in closely allied countries like Australia and the UK. Bush's unilateral policies and his "nudge nudge wink wink" support for torture have radically undermined American credibility at the "grassroots" level. In WW1 and WW2 the US benefited enormously from this international regard and good will, almost all of which came from the common man, not necessarily foreign power elites. This asset has now been completely squandered by the Bush administration in an enormous "own goal" in the war on terror. Nothing short of Bush's replacement will likely rectify this sad situation. Americans are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:44:12 -0000

Here's Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's classic "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the Civil War":

http://www.amazon.com/Emanc...

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:14:34 -0000

hummbumm,

Yes, we're the lucky ones, at least for now. Not so for all those who have lost everthing, along with being tortured and imprisoned, in the name of "national security." Indeed, since decades of military intervention in foreign lands are the root cause of 9/11, it is not too much to say that a mugger, having incited others to want to kill you, puts a gun to your head and says, "I will protect you from them, and here's what it's gonna cost. Out of the kindness of my heart, however, I'll give you until April 16 to fork it over."

You're welcome to do so willingly, but if you think your overlords respect you for it, be assured that they're laughing all the way to the bank.

Re: How foreigners view the President

Sudha Shenoy — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:57:30 -0000

"Also comparing American emancipation [with]that in other nations is difficult because in nearly all of the other countries a change in government accompanied the freedom of the slaves. (See: Simon Bolivar)"

[Adam Malone, earlier]

In Brazil, 42% of the slaves were manumitted under the colonial regime. Similarly, emancipation came to the West Indies with the planters still in power.

Re: How foreigners view the President

hummbumm — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:46:25 -0000

Hey David, when someone walks up to your house takes it from you, takes all your possessions, takes your children, and sleeps with and then sells your wife on, and then on pain of corporal punishment requires you to work 7 days a week for nothing on whatever task he deems appropriate, limits where and with whom you can talk to etc... then we can start drawing parallels. Excuse me if I don't see a progressive tax code or frankly any tax code enacted by a government which I and other citizens both voted and from whom i derive benefits from as the same. You clearly have no concept of what slavery is, or frankly of democracy. anyways clearly pointless to have this discussion.

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:10:03 -0000

hummbumm,

". . . then having ALL your labor and the labor of your children and their children in a perpetual cycle confiscated and directed by the state with no hope of redress or any benefit from, which would be the equivalent of slavery."

A nearly $10 trillion national debt, another $50-70 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a ruinous war of aggression . . . all as a result of the complete corruption of money and its attendant plunder through inflation.

Slavery under the banner of "freedom and democracy," that's all.

Re: How foreigners view the President

hummbumm — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:21:25 -0000

Oh please there is an ever so slight (sarcasm intended) difference between paying income taxes on some of your labor in a career of your choice to an institution that you participate in the process of for services that you benefit from and yes of course there is a lot of waste, but protection of property rights is the foundation of the rule of law, and some taxes would have to be raised for that, then having ALL your labor and the labor of your children and their children in a perpetual cycle confiscated and directed by the state with no hope of redress or any benefit from, which would be the equivalent of slavery. And lets not get into the forced family break ups, the physical and sexual abuse and all the other unsavoury aspects of slavery. To equate the two is so ridiculous. That IRS guy should have moved to the Soviet Union to see what a totalitarian state is really like. These parallels are just as inane as the Bush=Hitler tropes. If you really think you are enslaved for paying income taxes, I pity your lack of imagination. We can all argue about the size and scope of government and the level and means of taxation, but a basic system of governance would still be required and the means to pay for it.

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:06:24 -0000

hummbumm,

I'll let Goerthe respond:

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Hint: Try not paying your income taxes, about which a certain -in-the-kinow official had this to say:

"I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.' That's socialism. It's written in the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him." -- T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, U.S. News & World Report, May 25, 1956

Re: How foreigners view the President

hummbumm — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:30:19 -0000

To Scott Clark, you obviously have no conception of what slavery is. To equate the sway of the federal government of post civil war america (by the way up to FDR fedral gov.t spending was only 3% of GDP) and its impact on citizens to slavery is so ridiculous.

Re: How foreigners view the President

TGGP — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:52:23 -0000

CardinalXimenes, southerners who owned large numbers of slaves were exempt from military service, so it was not "those who profited" form slavery that died for it. I don't understand how we can call the mass slaughter of mountain men and immigrants who may well have never seen a slave in their lives "justice", nor can I see how anyone can compare the manner in which all other civilized countries that had slavery eliminated it with the way the U.S did and feel the sense of pride in that period of this country's history and feel the sense of pride invested in it by so many.

Re: How foreigners view the President

David P. Graf — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:42:35 -0000

How did Lincoln make slaves of free men?

Re: How foreigners view the President

Scott Clark — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:12:47 -0000

Lincoln was a protectionist, a mercantilist. He and his party were in the pocket of industrial interests, the railroads. He came to Washington explicitly promising to enforce the Morrill tariff, and the South could not abide by that. Lincoln had to issue the emancipation proclamation to keep the British from coming in on the side of the South. He needed to make it about a moral issue, rather than a political one. Lincoln wanted to have a strong executive with a big tax base to grant favors and accumulate power. Secession was the last check on an abusive federal government. Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but he made slaves of free men.

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:49:53 -0000

CX,

Your question strikes at the very heart of the social enterprise, as the individual is either the locus of human action -- http://www.mises.org/humana... -- or he is not. And if not, then what collection of individuals is, and on what basis does this collective derive its power?

What is ultimately at issue here is the very notion of the state, a true understanding of which is where the debate regarding secession should properly begin. And THAT begins with understanding the crucial distinction between "the economic means" and "the political means":

http://www.franz-oppenheime...

Re: How foreigners view the President

hummbumm — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:37:38 -0000

The original post had nothing to do with economics thus this train of comments is perfectly appropriate. Mr Roberts suggests that Lincoln was being deceptive in talking about democracy and a new birth of freedom in the gettysburg address. As i mentioned before, the emancipation proclamation had taken place by the address, so yes Lincoln could easily talk about a new birth of freedom, and could easily talk about a rededication to the founding principle of this country namely that "all men are created equal". The goalposts shift when war starts, at the battle of lexington and bunker hill, we had not yet declared independence, and the stated aim at the beginning of the revolution was not independence but that was the logical outcome once conflict began, ditto with the civil war, once the fight began , if the union won slavery would in fact be abolished, a return to the status quo would be impossible.

Re: How foreigners view the President

CardinalXimenes — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:35:32 -0000

Then at what level does divisibility reside? At the state level? County? City? Individual? If you're going to argue that sovereignty correctly resided at the state level in 1860, then you have to explain why Virginia had the right to take its western end with it when it seceded, despite the west end's rejection of the proposal.

The argument that the South had the right to secede hangs in a peculiar space which insists that sovereignty existed neither above it, in the Union, nor below it, in its slaves, nor around it, in the internal regions that voted against secession. When a state declares that there is tyranny in the prospect of being made to give up its slaves, I have no pity for its fate or interest in its wellbeing. If seven hundred thousand Americans died in extirpating slavery within our borders, we can only count it a peculiar note of justice that among those who bled were many who had profited by slavery or had formerly tolerated it within the Union. It's uncommon in history that a sin is paid for mostly by those who've committed it.

Re: How foreigners view the President

nathaniel — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:24:59 -0000

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is NOT either to save or to destroy slavery."

-Abe Lincoln

Re: How foreigners view the President

David White — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:02:47 -0000

Kent,

I'm obviously with you. And I would ask everyone to reflect on the fact that as a direct consequence of the Civil War -- http://history.vineyard.net... -- generations of Americans have been brainwashed into pledging allegiance to an "indivisible" nation the was founded on the exact opposite principle.

Re: How foreigners view the President

Kent Gatewood — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:46:54 -0000

1-My Google entry into Cafe Hayek says social, political, and economic.

2-It is striking that one can think that killing hundreds of thousands of people will make the union stronger.

3-If Scotland can leave the United Kingdom, the South may yet leave the Union.

Re: How foreigners view the President

CardinalXimenes — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:45:01 -0000

The South was perfectly content with the Union so long as it dominated the government and saw no risk to its favored policies. Only when the game turned against it did it find union intolerably burdensome. To allow the South to leave the Union under those terms would have been an open invitation for the secession not only of the Southern states, but _all_ states. How long until a rump faction, North or South, saw their ox being gored by some new policy? And if states could gain their sovereignty so bloodlessly, why not counties, or cities? A New York legislator counseled that the city secede from both North and South and set up as a free city.

Of course, there's the venerable argument that the South had the innate right to secede, and that it was a great wickedness for the North to compel them to remain in the Union. Those that favor this point tend to be somewhat vague as to the appropriate level at which sovereignty might correctly reside, so I will be pleased if they could inform me how many slaves must be united in wishing freedom before they can correctly be thought to be sovereign from their masters. When they can illustrate the South's cheerful willingness to extend this principle of self-determination to its own constituent parts, I will perhaps believe the South was more sinned-against than sinning.

Re: How foreigners view the President

Adam Malone — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:07:11 -0000

Hummbumm and cohorts:

A grave problem in most of these discussions is that people seem to be forgetting that what we have here at Cafe Hayek is a place to discuss ECONOMICS. Oddly enough, economics have been left out of most of the discussion...

Time of the Cross by Fogel & Engermen is probably one the most complete studies of the ECONOMICS involved in the Civil War. One of the many outstanding conclusions that they arrive at has to deal with the necessity of the war. The North could have paid every master the worth of their slaves and given forty acres of land and a mule to every slave, and spent less than the war cost.

Comparing the Civil War to the Revolutionary War is economically problematic:

1. The "Patriots" had no pool of resources (like a federal coffer) to offer payment like that available to Lincoln and the North.

2. The forced monopolies of the Crown were inherently unstable. And even worse, the companies that enjoyed monopoly the powers were often in control (de facto and/or de jure) of the British military. They had a vested interest in promoting military force.

Also comparing American emancipation that that in other nations is difficult because in nearly all of the other countries a change in government accompanied the freedom of the slaves. (See: Simon Bolivar)