[TravelerKai]

(11-12-2016 01:30 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

Pfft, why do people still promote this idiot. He was completely wrong way back in the early 90s but they still hold up to be some messiah on international relations. Samuel Huntington was right up there and is the one who should be talked about. The start of Balkan breakup showed that there was no 'end of history', no point even bringing up 9/11 and the first set of 'oil wars'.

Francis' theory is heavily misunderstood. When he said The End of History, he meant no more conventional wars between legitimate state actors. Which he is right in alot of ways. No theory is perfect, otherwise it would be an actual law with repeatable proofs.

The US declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq is arguably a Colonial War (Powerful colonial power vs. smaller territorial holdings), if it took place 100 years ago. Neither of those countries are legitimate states. They have no legitimacy whatsoever on the world stage. You could make the same argument for North Korea. Population size does not dictate legitimacy.

What he meant by the End of History is nutshell wise, you will never see junk like England and France fighting each other conventionally over land or sea over disputes, like they did for hundreds of years in the past. It was the end of history as we knew it.

It's a good theory and in an interesting one for political philosophy, but like Britney Spears, Francis is looking for another number one hit. He will say or do anything these days to get it too, hence Roosh's reaction.

Francis had become a Neoconservative since that book. He has always been a very hawkish globalist and comes from the Leo Strauss line of thinkers. His economic theories are terrible and are no better than mine. You can take 3-4 economics classes at a university, but that does not make you philosopher level with it. Paul Krugman should stay in his lane (Economics) and Francis should stay in his lane (Political Theory).

I tend not to comment as much on Economics because, while I took classes on them, that is not my expertise. Would be a strange day on RVF if I went back and forth with Samseau for 4 pages on a thread over economics. I'd wager I would lose that debate as well. Anytime Francis starts talking economics I instantly think about Daniel Drezner. Dan is a economics guy but thinks he understands Foreign Policy and Political Theory at the same level, and is always ends up being wrong, too many times to count.

I digress, OP his article was wrong on too many things to point out. Only thing I thought he was correct on was this:

Quote:

If the US begins acting unilaterally to change the terms of the contract, there are many powerful players around the world who would be happy to retaliate, and set off a downward economic spiral reminiscent of the 1930s.

That is true, but only half true. Say for example, we tarriff all light bulbs from China or Vietnam. Let's just say for the sake of argument they make 90% of our lightbulbs we use. The prices of them would skyrocket and the supply would shrink super fast right? Correct. Would that damage or set off market prices on other things? Yes, it would. Would it stay that way for long? No. Someone in America will see that business opportunity and start their own factories and start hiring.

This is like pulling off a bandaid. It will hurt at first, but eventually but the wound will heal by getting some air.

My questions are:

1. What consequences will Trump face during the pain period politically? At home or abroad.

2. Will the readjustments make America poorer or richer than before? If richer, how long would that take? Would these kinds of policies make take away wealth from others and enricher others? If so, who?

3. After Trump and this Anti-Globalism movement has won and complacency comes back, will Globalism rise again? Can it ever die? Can it actually ever be stopped to begin with?

4. What impact does this have on US Foreign Policy outside of economics? Francis asked plenty questions about that, but decided that Trump is likely going to be an isolationist. We probably do not have any historical proof to lean on to decide what impact there will be on that. It's never been done before at this scale.

The rabbit hole gets pretty deep with this. Could be thrown into the Deep Forum for sure.

When I used to study political philosophy back in school, the professors used to always ask us to write out what our questions were in response. Whether we agreed or not with the writer, a decent philosopher could always invoke more questions than answers. Which is at heart the nature of philosophy in general.