Edi wrote:
In case you didn't notice, there was a liberal dose of sarcasm included in that, the exact point being that such an approach is generally NOT constructive.
I was agreeing with you. I was then asking why a constructive approach is necessary; that is to say, is constructiveness really necessary in the political realm?
Perhaps I misunderstood your intended definition when you used the word "constructive".
As for your contention that it is impossible to have a consistently constructive approach to politics and interactions with other people, I happen to disagree. You can have that by starting with an approach that looks for possibilities of mutual gain instead of singlesided gain and then comparing what the possible effects on innocent third parties are, and if the effects are excessively negative, then that would probably negate the gains to be had from any such deal (i.e. supporting tinpot dictators like the US supported Saddam in the 80s isn't acceptable). All you need is some modicum of morality and principles tempered with an appreciation of realism to manage it. That obviously disqualifies you, since you have the latter but lack the former almost completely.
You make the rather massive assumption in such an approach that:
1. Mutual gain is in fact possible (In many disputes or disagreements it simply is not; the object of contention cannot be possessed or divied in such a fashion.)
2. The effects on third parties can be calculated reliably.
3. The party you're negotiating with agrees with the concept of mutual gain, which is utterly required for it to work.
4. The third parties agree with the concept of mutual gain.
5. Would excessively negative effects on third parties actually negate the gain? This must be rationally calculated in each individual case.
What I'm saying is that the conditions to meet those assumptions do not exist, and will not exist, at least for humanity as a whole, or in our terms, in the interactions between Nation-States. They could only exist under a one world government, which could never be formed precisely because those conditions cannot be met in the geopolitical realm (Well, it could be, but not in a peacable fashion)
Of course you will sometimes be driven to conflict with other people's interests, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should act preemptively against their interests in pursuit of your own.
Agreed. You should only do so when doing so would provide you with gain. (And acting preemptively would not necessarily mean armed conflict; though it could.)
The consequences of that in a case of misjudging the situation are usually worse than what would otherwise have happened,
Simply because the possibility of misjudgement exists does not mean you should always end the strategic calculus at negotiation. Removing an entire section of the calculus is vastly more hobbling than any error; and the levels of misjudgement which lead to famous defeats are usually caused by levels of stupidity that pursuit of a lesser course would not have helped them.
You consistently approach everything as a zero-sum game where you seek to maximize your own gain at the expense of others
Which is how the political realm operates.
when settling for a little less and allowing the others to have something as well would in the long run lead to more gain all around.
Assuming, of course, that the others didn't grab for it, and succeed in it while you were lacking.
I am not denying that what you are proposing is philosophically the ideal.
However, I am simply saying that:
1. Any attempt to enact your system will result in the destruction of the nation (Though, obviously, only "immediate" in pure theory) doing so by those who have not yet enacted it.
2. Therefore, no nation ever will, as survival always trumps ideology.
Even the European countries often talk like you do but in principle don't enact such policy. The French are a prime example of that.
Thank you for using the rest of the post to analyze my personality, nature, profession, and whatever else you did. Honestly, I didn't much care about what you said. It wasn't quite a personal attack; but it was irrelevant enough not to make much different to the discussion.
Perhaps I am an armchair philosopher, and perhaps my language is obtuse and at times complicated. I made an effort to clarify this response.
I should, I think, write regarding my philosophy; that would be interesting, indeed.
Anyway, let us see...
Ah, yes. Well, I think we simply hold different world views. A dismissive statement, but reviewing our disagreements, probably true. I see the cosmos as a fundamentally horrific place, a universe of tragedy waiting to befall everyone - After of which, of course, you die.
In this, the best you can do is fight to make your life, and the lives of those within your power, enjoyable within the circumstances of a horrific and tragic cosmos and impending death.
Essentially, to focus that down: I think the philosophy contained therein is fundamentally honest, and frees one from depression at such a thing by its honesty.
People are going to die, and we'll all be equal as dirt. HIV will sweep through Sub-Saharan Africa and tens of millions will die. A famine in Asia will kill tens of thousands. A civil war somewhere in South America, the same. A pointless soccer riot in Mexico, a hundred. A mob hit will go down in Russia and fifteen bodies will drift past the Kremlin along with chunks of ice,
ad infinitum.
And there's nothing humanity can do to completely stop this. Things like that will always happen. Solutions to some of it will cause other problems to arise, etc.
So don't try to solve - Instead, just to solve individual things. There's no point in trying to "End Hunger", but give to the local mission station that runs a soup kitchen or something of that nature. At the same time, keep in mind that human life is transient, and that your own life ought come first in this when it comes down to the wire. Overriding this are certain impulses; love of family, a sense of pleasure in giving, and a love of country, or sense of pleasure in serving it.
And indeed, to speak of nations, this can apply at the higher level. Nations have a duty of seeing that their citizens' interests are served, when it comes down to, and maximized to the greatest possible extent. Both citizens, and nations, are transient, even of the later outlasts its consituent citizens; and the leadership has a duty to maintain their interests foremost.
Certainly, advancing the interests of others is a laudable goal, but it always must come second to the interests of a nation -- Which in this age of the democratic nation-state, are of course the interests of the people.
This may be hardly ideal for the fate of utopian dreams in a mild or an extreme fashion, and in the short or in the long term, but I think it creates a society in which people can live out their lives, content and successful, and knowing that they have done some good, on a scale that one being can cope with.
