- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).|
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and defend globalism or our military posturing as it stands post- cold war. But between the security and economic benefits we offer to the world, it is undeniable that it is in the best interest of western allied governments to remain mostly benevolent toward their people. For instance, if Canada were to suddenly decide that they were going to round up and prosecute a certain class of people, it would be the United States that would spearhead a worldwide response - global shipping to and from Canada would begin to restrict, and in the worst case scenario, military action would be employed. Of course, this example is deliberately ridiculous, but it remains less ridiculous to think that Canada would establish the next Auschwitz than it is to think that we would do nothing about it. There is a very clear carrot (free trade and prosperity) and stick (military action) that keeps western allied governments mostly benevolent.
So, how do we trust the American government to remain mostly benevolent, if it is maintaining the foundation of the peace, prosperity, and approximation of freedom that most of the western world takes for granted? Because I think we can agree that the US government is not worthy of our trust. Simple: a government must respect their people's vote if there exists the means to dismantle that government with force. If a government cannot be held to account with violence, it has no long term reason to not run roughshod over its people. The United States government usually remains in line, because it is afraid of its people. Anyone who tells you otherwise didn't learn any lessons of fighting insurgent forces in Vietnam or Afghanistan. And if there's any government employee who isn't afraid of pissing off American gun owners, it's because they're too goddamn stupid to make a living in the private sector.
To recap, there is a clear chain of accountability that forms a critical cornerstone for world power, stability, and economics: civilians in most countries live at ease because their governments remain mostly benevolent. Those governments would largely devolve into dictatorship, war, and genocide without American military presence and security in global trade networks, as they did for most of their histories. And the American government remains accountable to its people, because Americans reserve the right to revoke their privilege to govern by force.
I believe, wholeheartedly, that if this chain breaks the world will experience unimaginable consequences.
Y'all can keep planet California. People from New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maryland can elect to be relocated there or receive corrective bitch slaps until they shape the fuck up. If they demand to become their own country, then we're still keeping I-95, but it'll have to be rerouted, because I'm sure we can all agree that New Jersey just needs to be nuked off the face of the earth.
Alternatively, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine can become its own libertarian nation, and y'all can duke it out and leave us the hell alone.
True, but I was trying to describe the origin of our social structures and why homosexuals are reviled throughout history, not the etymological root of the word in question. If you have a suggestion for a better pejorative to use against people who demand unworthy masters, I definitely want to hear it.
The difference between a rich moron and a poor genius is that the poor genius is waiting for someone to recognize his potential and multitude of great ideas, while the rich moron got one or two decent ideas across the finish line.
Actions will always be better than ideas.