Every time I read Tom Friedman of The New York Times, I shake my head. How? How can this guy be taken seriously by anyone?
Check out this paragraph from Friedman:
When people in a country are ready to live together, you just need one Nelson Mandela — a unifying leader — to galvanize the political system to work productively. When people are not ready to live together but are ready to live apart — as in Bosnia or Lebanon after years of civil war — you just need 5,000 peacekeepers to police the de facto or de jure lines of partition. But when people are not ready to live together or apart — because of a lack of trust, lack of exhaustion or one or all parties still think they can have it all — then you probably need 500,000 peacekeepers to come in, remove the dictator, eliminate the most extreme elements on all sides, and protect the center for a long time while it forges a new citizenship and party system able to share power.Prepare yourself to laugh before you read the very next sentence:
Even then, failure is a real option.You think?
This is considered "respectable opinion"! You're supposed to take these wise words and chat about them with your colleagues at the water cooler. Maybe at the dinner table as well.
Here's the better idea:
"Liberty is not something we design and construct but, instead, is a felicitous situation in which people find themselves once authoritarianism is abandoned." - Leonard Read
No "peacekeepers" necessary.
Chris Rossini is on Twitter, Facebook & Google+
Hey Rossini, love your posts. Please talk some sense into Wenzel on Bitcoin and IP. We notice you never back up his insane points of view on those two subjects. We need him to come back from the dark side, please help him.
ReplyDeleteHe's such an intellectual. I wish we had a libertarian pundit who was as smart:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFaSpca_3Q
Read's point is irrelevant since Friedman has described situations in which the competing sides have both REFUSED to give up authoritarianism. Friedman's point that any outside force will meet with enormous difficulties if it decides to intervene in such situations is both valid and entirely justified. The history of the world does not suggest that human race is easily convinced "live and let live." That may be the majority view, but it isn't generally shared by the violent minority. As Madison noted, "If men were angels, we would need no government."
ReplyDeleteIs a violent monopoly the best solution for dealing with a violent minority?
DeleteUm, no, you need a violent monopoly that is unprincipled and makes itself available to the highest bidder. It works even better if it plays both sides.
DeleteYou need to live in the real world, dude. Be violently aggressive or be a victim. Screw everyone else - that's the true historically proven path to prosperity.
You gotta love Friedman's casual use of the word "eliminate". It is a safe word you could comfortably use while sipping tea.
ReplyDeleteHey, Chris... LOVE your posts!...but, stay out of the Bitcoin and IP debates... Bob is, most likely, correct on both.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post! Let's ask Friedman how his solution would have been applied to the US/CSA in 1864. "Hey Tom, who was the dictator then?"
ReplyDelete"then you probably need 500,000 peacekeepers to come in, remove the dictator, eliminate the most extreme elements on all sides, and protect the center for a long time while it forges a new citizenship and party system able to share power."
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Has that EVER worked?!?!?
Uh, I forgot, to answer my own question, it seems to have worked for the Nazis.
Delete