Why Do People Hate America?

[Greg_W]

Peter_Puget said:

JG – are these “elites” restrained by national boundaries? Is “hatred for America” merely amanipulated outlet provided by the elites to confuse us (non-elites)?

 

PP

 

I think it is touted by the liberal elites (especially the media) as proof that America would be better off as a socialist/collectivist nation instead of the freedom-loving, individualist country we have now (granted this idealogue is fading). They say, "see, they don't like us, we should change to be like them. Give up your freedoms."

[JoshK]

Ayn Rand is a worthless bitch. There is my well thought out and proven thesis for today.

 

Thanks.

[JGowans]

Peter_Puget said:

JG – are these “elites” restrained by national boundaries? Is “hatred for America” merely amanipulated outlet provided by the elites to confuse us (non-elites)?

 

PP

 

I don't know. I'm not elite. Actually, naturally, there is an elite echelon in every nation. However, with the U.S. in such a dominant position, I suppose the actions of the elite of this nation are more amplified and the consequences of their actions are felt throughout the rest of the world more than most. When I say elite, that also implies the major corporations with which they are typically affiliated.

 

I don't think hatred for america is a manipulated outlet. That would be a bit much to think that the elite actually want a poor perception of the U.S. from which to further their agenda. No, I think that hatred is a genuine emotion directed at the U.S. (not always justified) due to an elite not giving a shit what the rest of the world thinks. If they can do it without arousing the ire of the citizens of their "partner" nations or indeed their own population, then great, but no big deal if they do because they have an unbeatable military to pummel anyone that dares to speak out or of course they have their "partners" now so dependent on their money, to dissent would be folly.

[Greg_W]

JoshK said:

Ayn Rand is a worthless bitch. There is my well thought out and proven thesis for today.

 

Thanks.

 

Good job, stupid. Did someone think that up for you? Way to contribute. Are you a product of some southern state educational system or are your parents cousins?

[JoshK]

Greg_W said:

JoshK said:

Ayn Rand is a worthless bitch. There is my well thought out and proven thesis for today.

 

Thanks.

 

Good job, stupid. Did someone think that up for you? Way to contribute. Are you a product of some southern state educational system or are your parents cousins?

 

Wow, quicker than I expected. Where is Erik's trolling picture when I need it. I figured even a gun-toting redneck like yourself could pick up on the sarcasm given found in "There is my well thought out and proven thesis for today." GUess not.

[Greg_W]

Oh, I picked up on your troll, numbnut. I just wanted an opportunity to tell you to get fucked in my new friendly way.

[JGowans]

Greg_W said:I think it is touted by the liberal elites (especially the media) as proof that America would be better off as a socialist/collectivist nation instead of the freedom-loving, individualist country we have now

 

Greg, socialism is not tantamount to collectivism. Nor is capitalism tantamount to individualism. This is not a struggle of ideologues in my opinion. Rather, it's a dilemma of a silent majority grappling with the fallout of a half century of selfish pursuit that has benefitted a few and damaged the majority.

[JoshK]

Greg_W said:

Oh, I picked up on your troll, numbnut. I just wanted an opportunity to tell you to get fucked in my new friendly way.

 

I didn't realize you'd defend your treasured Ayn Rand with such vigor.

 

Relax, relax. Go fire off some guns or yell at some migrant workers for taking advantage of your hard earned tax dollars. It'll make you feel better about your spot on top of the food chain.

[Greg_W]

JGowans said:

Greg_W said:I think it is touted by the liberal elites (especially the media) as proof that America would be better off as a socialist/collectivist nation instead of the freedom-loving, individualist country we have now

 

Greg, socialism is not tantamount to collectivism. Nor is capitalism tantamount to individualism. This is not a struggle of ideologues in my opinion. Rather, it's a dilemma of a silent majority grappling with the fallout of a half century of selfish pursuit that has benefitted a few and damaged the majority.

 

My view is that socialism cannot survive without endorsing collectivism of a sort. On the flip side, capitalism (while not being tantamount to individualism) is ultimately successful when individualism (of choice, association, etc) is embraced and endorsed.

[Greg_W]

JoshK said:

Relax, relax. Go fire off some guns or yell at some migrant workers for taking advantage of your hard earned tax dollars. It'll make you feel better about your spot on top of the food chain.

 

Props for originality.

[Peter_Puget]

JG _ I was joking about the elites. Frankly I believe that the view of the elites controlling the world is an inferior religion that assumes that the world is more in control than it is.

 

But this comment got me thinking: “Rather, it's a dilemma of a silent majority grappling with the fallout of a half century of selfish pursuit that has benefitted a few and damaged the majority”

 

First I would suggest that they aren’t all that silent after all they have you a manipulated nonelite talking about “their” issue. But I as you to present an argument supporting your half century assertion. I think that America’s rise in the latter half of the 20th century certainly benefitted the entire world. Prove me wrong. But give me an argument not a listing of so-called “Facts”

PP

 

[j_b]

the threat of 'collectivism' is just another skeleton rattled by the far right. they can't use the eastern block anymore so they need another boogeyman. in fact the only collectivism we see is that of a bloated militari-industrial complex (insofar as we all support them with our taxes) and the widespread reach of corporatism.

 

in truth, what we are seeing is a world getting smaller by the day. corporate entities span several continents, diverse information about happenings are readily available and its just not possible to deny anymore what we have known for many decades that unexploded ordinance and landmines in particular are killing innocents way past the end of conflicts all over the globe, that governments and corporations use private proxies to do their dirty work, etc ... if wanting to put an end to random murder and shameless greed is 'collectivism' ... so be it.

[JGowans]

Peter_Puget said:

JG _ I was joking about the elites. Frankly I believe that the view of the elites controlling the world is an inferior religion that assumes that the world is more in control than it is.

 

But this comment got me thinking: “Rather, it's a dilemma of a silent majority grappling with the fallout of a half century of selfish pursuit that has benefitted a few and damaged the majority”

 

First I would suggest that they aren’t all that silent after all they have you a manipulated nonelite talking about “their” issue. But I as you to present an argument supporting your half century assertion. I think that America’s rise in the latter half of the 20th century certainly benefitted the entire world. Prove me wrong. But give me an argument not a listing of so-called “Facts”

PP

 

I'm not going to argue PP. I think there's no doubt that America has done an immense amount of good in dragging the world beyond the rubble of WWII. However, that has been tempered by the list of damaging things it has done, and the list lengthens under the stewardship of the current POTUS.

[AlpineK]

I've never read any Ayn Rand, so I can't comment on her writing.

 

It seems to me that pure individualism and pure capitalism are one and the same thing. Collectivism would be similar to Socialism.

 

I would argue that society is composed of individuals that still have needs as a group. If all you do is try and improve your own situation you will eventually have a negative impact on others.

 

For example I try and sell work and make money for myself. In order to do this I need to hire people to do the work. I pay them for what they do, and I make money. However if an employee hurts themselves on the job it is my social obligation to have industrial insurance for them, and in fact the state requires me to do that. A pure individualist would say the state should make no such requirement.

 

The downside of collectivism is easy to see by looking at communist countries or REI.

 

Somewhere inbetween the collective good and the individual good is the best place for us all to be.

[Peter_Puget]

From "benefited the few and damaging many" to "tempered by" is quite a change!

 

Alpinek - Read this!

 

PP

[JayB]

JGowans said:

Because I'm Scottish, my opinions are worthless and invalid.

Word.

 

If America will only listen to fellow Americans, then doesn't that say something as to why we're in the predicament we're in where, quite honestly, the U.S. is becoming increasingly marginalized and alienated on the global stage. It's quite an affront to the many U.S. citizens that do give a shit about the world beyond U.S. borders and care about the sustainability of the globe and the quality of life for this planet's inhabitants.

 

Jason:

 

Relax. We'll be okay. I mean, if the Germans can murder 6-million people in death camps, and untold millions more outside their own borders, only to become the geopolitical equivalent of Mr. Rogers in the world's eyes 40 years later, I think that the rest of the world will eventually get over the fact that we drive big cars, make a lot of money, and occaisionally use our millitary to arrest a slaughter or two or depose the odd dictator every now and then.

[MtnGoat]

See, here we are talking about some issues, and you then have to jump into Ayn Rand's camp and label the rest of the world a bunch of collectivists.

 

So what? You're busy labeling the US all kinds of things, and if someone disagrees with your "issues" you get all ticked.

 

But lets discuss the collectivists. The reason I use that word is it is a valid descriptor of much of the rest of the world. Any country that exhibits collectivist behaviour or structure can be described as collectivist. You guys are certainly busy describing the US as having all kind of nasty characteristics, what's the problem with recognizing the characteristics of other nations? Seems the only nation you're comfortable with applying broad labels to is US, even if this broad label is completely applicable.

 

Are you trying to imply that the U.S. is the strong Howard Roark that's going against the grain for ideological purposes?

 

I wouldn't say it is as clear cut as a character in a novel , no, but to ignore that we have severe and deep ideological differences is to ignore what you've been complaining are our differences from the rest of the world. Here you are wishing to discuss why the world supposedly hates us, and now you seem to have a problem with the idea that ideological differences play a role in this.

 

Your amateur philosophizing is ridiculous to say the least.

 

Yeah, internet message boards are the place you professionals go for professional analysis and philosophical discussion!

[MtnGoat]

Trying to paint this in terms of Ayn Rand's objectivism versus collectivism is absurd.

 

I agree. The US is not a nation of objectivists. It should be, but it isn't.

 

But since you bring it up, the US constitution and psyche does have elements of objectivism that place it inevitably in conflict with more socialist/collectivist worldviews.

[j_b]

to ignore that we have severe and deep ideological differences is to ignore what you've been complaining are our differences from the rest of the world

 

who is we, the 25% of the electorate that currently controls US politics? make no mistake, 2/3 of the US population in the latest polls wants the UN to have control of economic development, government building, etc .. in iraq. don't take your fantasies for realities.

[MtnGoat]

Regarding the whole world going collectivist: I think that in every day scenarios that may hold true. Political Correctness to the nth degree is a good example. However, I think that it's not so simple as to just see this as a cosmic happening whereby humankind has aligned itself so. Rather, the masses have been consistently manipulated by the elite using the media as their primary vehicle and ably backed up by power hungry politicians that are more than eager to appease their needs in exchange for much needed campaign funds. That's not really collectivism as such but merely corruption on a grand scale.

 

I agree that the corruption you describe is not collectivism, but the political viewpoints which treat people as not owning themselves, their labor, and their moral choices, are pretty much collectivist by definition. Sure there are varying levels of implementation, but the core principle is that they are less valuable as individuals than as units to be used in service of someone elses ideals.

[MtnGoat]

if wanting to put an end to random murder and shameless greed is 'collectivism' ... so be it.

 

it's not at all. lots of people, myself included, think mines and old ordnance need to be dealt with immediately and properly. Wether it's "collectivism" depends on the way you go about it.

[JoshK]

MtnGoat said:

if wanting to put an end to random murder and shameless greed is 'collectivism' ... so be it.

 

it's not at all. lots of people, myself included, think mines and old ordnance need to be dealt with immediately and properly. Wether it's "collectivism" depends on the way you go about it.

 

MtnGoat, given your past arugments, you should be stating that the mines don't really affect you, so you shouldn't share the cost of removing them. Shouldn't the people near the mine fields that care about that give money to have the mines removed?

[MtnGoat]

who is we, the 25% of the electorate that currently controls US politics?

 

that's about as many as usually control it. We do not live in a pure democracy, thank god. Get used to it.

 

make no mistake, 2/3 of the US population in the latest polls wants the UN to have control of economic development, government building, etc .. in iraq. don't take your fantasies for realities.

 

With the UN's sterling record in all the nations still in turmoil, what any 2/3 want is not necessarily actually a good idea.

 

The "we" would be the people of this nation who live under a system based on the idea that it is not the govt that grants rights as goodies to be provided by someone else, but are due to our existence alone by birthright, not govt fiat. That the state exists to protect these rights, not create them. The difference between systems based on negative rights (US) and ones based on positive rights (most of the world) is deep and fundamental.

 

[MtnGoat]

MtnGoat, given your past arugments, you should be stating that the mines don't really affect you, so you shouldn't share the cost of removing them. Shouldn't the people near the mine fields that care about that give money to have the mines removed?

 

You misconstrue my past arguments in light of what you mistakenly believe is my position. The mines may not directly effect me, but they indirectly effect me and they directly effect those they kill and maim, which is a very bad thing.

 

If the folks living near the mines played a role in laying them, they should definitely play a part in paying for their removal. And I, since I do care wether they are removed or not wether or not the US placed them, am also willing to help pay for it.

 

What you seem to be mistaking here is the idea that people need to be forced to care about other people, for approval of doing so, when we're perfectly capable of deciding to do so on our own.

[j_b]

MtnGoat said:

who is we, the 25% of the electorate that currently controls US politics?

 

that's about as many as usually control it. We do not live in a pure democracy, thank god. Get used to it.

 

make no mistake, 2/3 of the US population in the latest polls wants the UN to have control of economic development, government building, etc .. in iraq. don't take your fantasies for realities.

 

With the UN's sterling record in all the nations still in turmoil, what any 2/3 want is not necessarily actually a good idea.

 

The "we" would be the people of this nation who live under a system based on the idea that it is not the govt that grants rights as goodies to be provided by someone else, but are due to our existence alone by birthright, not govt fiat. That the state exists to protect these rights, not create them. The difference between systems based on negative rights (US) and ones based on positive rights (most of the world) is deep and fundamental.

 

it's always a pleasure to expose how deeply anti-democratic you fundamentally are.