Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
18
-
16
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
"My" way of thinking might be "old-school", but it isn't naïve and wishful thinking, as I feel yours is.
Even the wording you used, "progress into the future", is vague and dreamy. What, exactly, does that mean? How will that functionally make people's quality of life better? What is the development plan?
You're skipping ahead to the humanitarian future, without thinking of the journey needed to amass the wealth and stability to be able to do that.
In fact, the sole example you gave, Taiwan, only occurred because of $4B of US aid, along with help from the USAID budget.
The "Asian Tigers" also received such help, and Japan was spared the consequences of losing a war in exchange for becoming a defense against the Soviets.
Similar situation with Germany- in exchange for their Nazi scientists, the U.S. flooded them with money.
But this gets back to the real issue: without the (self-interested) monetary injection from a country that has already industrialized, no country will ever do so ethically. Even with Western help, the citizens will be worked to the bone. Success only comes through struggle. Villages and rural life will be destroyed.
And again, I'm aware of the ambition to be a force for good, but you must at some point recognize that the fact that one of your priorities is an performative abstraction, is a sign that you're playing on easy mode.
South Sudan cannot afford to think of itself in such a way.
1
-
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
No, it isn't. But you wouldn't have that luxury if, when Canada was developing, other countries took the same approach to you.
If, in the 19th century, the English and French had cared about your treatment of Native populations, you'd still be an icy backwater. Or an American state.
So to then doggedly insist on principles you never followed, and don't even consistently follow today (committed to being environmentally friendly, yet Trudeau wants to keep pumping oil), is just hypocritical.
You fail to recognize that you're denying another country the same grace that was given to you.
I understand the want to stay out of messy affairs, but the fact is that these countries will eventually industrialize. When they do, our planet will collapse under their strain. We can either help them now, or wait until they do it in the least safe way.
Your principled stance is ignoring the long-term needs for global stability.
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
Ah, yes, it is [current year]. How silly of me to forget. That's not really indicative of anything.
I am unwilling to "understand that concept" (concede to your view) because no alternatives have been presented. There are virtually no countries that have zero current issues that fall into the categories you described.
Spain suppresses its Catalan and Basque independence movements. Finland suppresses its Sami population. Will you refuse to do business with them? Or are they countries with "a lot to work towards" instead of ones you'll refuse to do trade with them?
You might say that you were talking about arm sales only, but money is fungible, so you'd just be washing your own hands and sitting back as your money goes to murder anyway.
No one's saying it's your responsibility, but you're still choosing to uplift some over others, and I don't believe you can stick to your own principles as a matter of logistics. So, choosing to cut off sales to a certain country is little more than theatre to make you feel righteous.
And you're ignoring the fact that there is no way to develop without A) bloodshed and/or exploitation or B) Wealth injection, which you've already sworn off.
So... what do you suggest? That they figure it out by burning coal to industrialize, until Canada proudly says, "stop that!" through thick smoke. By then, it's too late.
Choosing to be principled is foolish. Your rigid values assume givens that aren't present in the modern world. For one, if you don't help countries skip past the oil-producing phase of development, you'll end up hurting yourselves. By destroying the environment.
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
No, I think you've just run out of reasons to avoid directly addressing my points.
Your "responsibility" is, at the very least, to yourself.
If you don't want the climate to make Canada uninhabitable, you need to trade with less-than-desirable countries. Or wait for the whole of Africa to start burning fuels, and see what happens to the world's climate. Your pick.
Not to mention, you're picking and choosing countries arbitrarily. "Crimes against people" then why trade with your largest partner, the US? Or any country, for that matter?
No one lives up to your imaginary standard, not even you, so might as well avoid climate catastrophe by, if supporting autocracies, at least averting the effects of burning coal and oil, like the Western countries did.
Capische?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1