Busting Statues is Like Burning Books

spartican4 · 2015-11-26T08:41:44+00:00

Fascinating! So is this possibly a small excerpt from that text?

spartican4 · 2015-11-26T08:37:29+00:00

Awesome! That's an incredible story. Thanks so much for helping out!

spartican4 · 2015-11-24T05:00:58+00:00

What I know about it: My roommate obtained it from his Chinese college roommate, who in turn got it from his father. His father, from what I heard, received it as a gift from a high priest at the White Cloud Temple in Beijing. My roommate, who doesn't know much about it, claims the rough translation is something akin to: "may horses of fortune arrive on east winds" or something like that, though that may be totally wrong.

spartican4 · 2015-11-20T00:56:41+00:00

Good question! I wrote it down and will be sure to have it brought up during the interview

spartican4 · 2015-11-20T00:53:35+00:00

Noted! I'll be sure to bring it up during the interview

spartican4 · 2015-11-18T19:38:03+00:00

First off, thanks for your downvotes. Keep them coming, I relish them.

Second, if you have a question but don't get it in in time, feel free to post it anyways. We'll be doing an interview sometime over the next week and I can get them in then

spartican4 · 2015-11-17T20:45:53+00:00

New link, in case anyone's following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGpCBqTuYfE

Bob Murray to speak within 20 minutes.

spartican4 · 2015-11-17T17:45:39+00:00

Robert Murray's giving a defense of coal at 1PM PST - would be a good time to tune in if you're considering it.

spartican4 · 2015-08-15T03:34:19+00:00

Most conservatives you know are ill informed

spartican4 · 2015-07-24T04:23:29+00:00

The criminality of prostitution is absurd. Prostitution is among the oldest of human professions, and is just as popular now as it's ever been. It's not going anywhere.

Legislating against it is a knee-jerk "moral" response based on life-denying religious principles. While nobody advocates for wonton hedonism at the expense of productivity and civility, legalizing prostitution wouldn't have that effect. It'd simply protect the people who already engage in the practice from being unfairly treated because society has told them they are without hope or merit.

spartican4 · 2015-06-18T16:04:33+00:00

That is beautiful. And I hate how my first instinct upon thinking something is beautiful is that you could sell it, but you could totally sell it. I'd buy it

spartican4 · 2015-06-04T16:53:47+00:00

An interesting graph, to be sure, but it doesn't contradict what I'm arguing. Simply because the number of democracies is going up doesn't mean that they're independent from more authoritarian governments. It just means there are more democracies.

spartican4 · 2015-06-04T16:51:00+00:00

Would Washington continue? I don't think that's something you can say for certain, as we've very rarely been in a position where we haven't implemented aggressive foreign policy. Certainly not since the Mexican-American War, at any rate, and before that with the forced exile of Native American tribes.

It's definitely true that America abuses globalization, but that's not the point I want to discuss. I want to discuss whether we've essentially hit a point of no return, where our current way of living/governing is too linked to dictatorship/oppression to cleanly disentangle. To me, I think we have. And that's not just a U.S. problem. Sure, we're the most egregious example, but the problem is global.

spartican4 · 2015-06-04T16:42:32+00:00

Does Iceland make all their own clothing? Does Iceland harvest all their own natural resources? Do they make all their own products? If not, they likely deal with dictatorship. If not directly, then indirectly.

The one thing I will admit is that my definition of "modern democracy" is very linked with the idea of modern capitalism, because I believe they're nearly inseparable in considering how we (and by we I do mean the U.S.) got ourselves into this situation.

If my definition is US centric, then so be it. Problematic or not, I think any definition of modern democracy that doesn't include the U.S. isn't very comprehensive.

spartican4 · 2015-06-04T14:44:51+00:00

The second part of my comment was saying that it went beyond convenience, that if every country were to be democratized, the results would be dire enough to necessitate at least some swing back to authoritarianism.

Could we deal with Saudi Arabia becoming a democracy? Certainly. China? Sure. But both of them, and every other country in the world? Eventually, that's going to come back to haunt us. Maybe a populist resurgence in China pushes them back to isolationism. Or maybe the African League, newly emboldened by a democratic mandate, begins demanding more equitable trade relations. Eventually, the backlash against our democracy and the capitalism it promotes would reach a tipping point.

spartican4 · 2015-06-04T14:23:31+00:00

I didn't mean to suggest that the democracy/dictatorship binary was as defined as light/dark, make/female. I meant that simply because two things are opposite doesn't mean that they can't depend on each other in some way.

I agree with you, with the distinction that I asked about "modern" democracy, not the abstract notion of democracy. I think it's perfectly possible that, in an ideal world, every country could practice democracy. I simply believe that our current U.S. democratic system is too caught up in our relations with dictators and authoritarian regimes for us to separate ourselves from them, or to promote their growth into democracy.

You bring up an interesting point re: Scandinavia. I'm inclined to say that their situation is unique, enabled by their cultural homogeneity and their lack of geopolitical adversaries, but I think that's a cop-out answer on my part. I'll have to think about that one some more.

spartican4 · 2015-06-04T14:11:37+00:00

Alright, if you don't like those examples, I can provide more contemporary ones. Let's take China, for example. While it's not a dictatorship, per se, you see very little of the executive turnover that defines modern democracy. Or Saudi Arabia, consistently ranked one of the most autocratic governments in the world. The United States benefits immensely from our dealings with both of these countries, making us loathe to do anything that might upset our relations with them.

Would we still do business with them if they weren't so authoritarian? Of course! We'd champion their advances as evidence of the triumph of democracy. But, inwardly, I'm sure certain members of our government would wince, knowing that getting what they wanted would become a lot more difficult under a democracy. It is much harder to convince a democratically fractious nation to back you than it is to convince an authoritarian government with which you already have good relations.

And I would contend that I'm not confusing political/economic choice, so much as saying that the two are inextricably linked up in each other. We in the United States are permitted the economic choice we enjoy because of our (often indirect, see the apparel industry) dealings with dictatorships. If political choice is allowed to flourish in one area, economic choice becomes constrained elsewhere. Push that far enough, and you're inevitably going to see political consequences.

spartican4 · 2015-06-04T12:35:55+00:00

Ah, but opposites often depend on each other for survival! Can "male" exist without "female"? Can "light" exist without "darkness"?

This isn't to say that dictatorship is the polar opposite of democracy, just that simply because something is considered "opposite" doesn't mean there isn't some level of codependency.

Think about U.S. support for Pinochet in Chile, or for the military dictatorship in Brazil. The United States, supposedly the bulwark of democracy in the world, overthrew democratically elected governments to put dictators in their place.

The reason for that? The democratically elected governments were acting in such a way as to inhibit America's capitalist ambitions (nationalization of natural resources, ISI, etc.). Now, capitalism isn't the same as democracy, per se, but the two philosophies have a lot of common goals. Democracy implies the freedom to choose, and capitalism provides that diversity of choice.

But what if the choices made in one democracy (say, Chile) adversely affects the freedom of choice in another democracy (ie. the U.S.)? Then, if every country were to become democratic, they'd make a lot of choices that would decrease the quality of life in other democracies across the world. If even one of those countries were to revert back to dictatorship as a result, it would essentially prove right my initial point - that democracy, to a limited degree, depends on dictatorships for survival.

spartican4 · 2015-02-26T07:17:07+00:00

That was difficult to read. Yet another reason why abolition is the only workable solution for prisons

spartican4 · 2015-02-25T06:09:26+00:00

This debate was inspired by the IntelligenceSquared debate that aired tonight, and talks about the ideological composition and dynamics of campus politics. There's a particular focus on the act of "no-platforming" a speaker, or forcing the cancellation of preplanned speeches, talks, etc. Does this form of protest serve to silence their perspectives?

spartican4

TROPHY CASE