From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 12:46:16 BST
> [Arlo]
> No, that's is not what you said. Case had made the following statement:
>
> "It's their oil, they dont want to sell it to us and would rather give it
> to the chinese for free, it's their choice."
>
> You replied:
>
> "It's not a free market if a seller restricts buyers to certain nations."
>
> This was your justification for military occupation:
Where do you see "military" in that sentence?.
> "Of course our interests are partially economic, or would you rather live
> in a tent huddling around a campfire to keep warm?"
>
> There are many ways I could respond to this, but first I want to focus on a
> simple one. If "it's not a free market if a seller restricts buyers to
> certain nations", and that unsupplied nation is morally justified in using
> military means to attempt to secure those products... then you've just
> argued that (1) the US is in violation of upholding a free market for
> refusing to trade with Cuba, and (2) Cuba would be, in your opinion,
> morally justified to use military action to secure what we are denying by
> preventing a "free market".
Yes. But we are morally justified to blockade (or invade) any dictatorship
for violation of individual rights, especially if they threaten us. Cuba
tried to threaten us once. Remember?
> But let's get away from the "denial of service" aspect and just talk price.
> What if, say, the OPEC nations decide to charge ten times the current price
> per barrel of oil (using an extreme figure). This might not be "sound
> business" but within the neocon model, it is the right of the owner to set
> a selling point. If no one can afford the product, we can't "force" them to
> lower their price, can we?
No. But if they raise the price too high, the market will move to their
competitors. I don't think you understand how free markets work.
> [Arlo previously]
> If we can claim "it's part of the survival thing", I'm sure he supports
> (other countries) claiming too...
>
> [Platt]
> Sure. Most wars are economic, Japan and Germany being prime examples in
> World War II. You have pointed out a number of times that terrorism stems
> from economic deprivation. So you think they should win?
>
> [Arlo]
> The point is not that they *do*, its that you feel they are morally
> justified to do so. If the U.S. is morally justifed in using military
> action to force access to goods denied to it, or threatened, by the "free
> market", then these other nations too must have your moral justification.
>
> Or, again, is it only morally justified when the U.S. does it?
They would have moral justification if the survival of their societies
were at stake, just as you believe that terrorists have moral
justification for blowing us up. Now the question is, what other moral
issues come into the picture? Do you think there aren't any? Do you think
there's no moral difference between a terrorist and a U.S. soldier?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 13:03:11 BST