The Trump Presidency

[Tiassa]

No. It requires to look at the document they signed and to understand what it means, what follows from the fact that they both have signed it. And it follows from my interpretation of the real meaning of the document that most of what Trump has told about this is a lie. I understand that this may be too difficult for you to understand, but this is not my problem.

Well, we do understand that you need multiple attempts to tell us what you really mean. So, yes, every once in a while it is hard to figure out what you're on about since you don't know either.

Meanwhile, if "Trump and Kim have found a nice and simple solution", which is to lie, well, okay, sure, we're with you, there, except for the word "solution".

Arsonists have done their work in 1950. After 1953, there was no real fire. So, your comparison does not really fit. But, if you like to use this picture, ok, my variant. Trump throws a big bucket of water into a fire made by Obama, lying at the same time "no, this is not for extinguishing that fire, I will continue to arson in two years, don't worry".

The problem with your variant is its parodical sloth: You omit 1994 (Bill Clinton) and 2003-2009 (Bush Jr., Six-Party Talks), the latter required to deal with George W. Bush's flame job; Dubya set the situation on fire, and here you are complaining about the fire crews. Yes, yes, your historical narrative works great, we know, if we just ignore history. And you really do need to understand, this is part of why people find you extraordinarily unreliable and untrustworthy: You stomp around in clodhopping, scowling ignorance. After a while it's like throwing d4 to decide what you mean, because you clearly can't tell us; after three years here, you still haven't managed to pull it off.

The word "appeasement" is the keyword that allows identifying warmongers. They always use it if they want to discredit some attempts to reach peace. BTW, even the appeasement of Munich 1938, even if it failed to preserve peace, was not that unreasonable or predatory as it is presented today based on knowledge what happened later.

Well, the thing is that people are supposed to learn from history.

That the warmongers now cry is natural and expected. But one key aspect they don't cry about is IMHO the most interesting one ....

.... Why they don't cry about "the Korean Peninsula" instead of "Northern Korea"? Which gives Kim, on a silver plate, the justification of not denuclearizing, given that denuclearization includes now also the denuclearization of parts he cannot denuclearize himself?

See, as you've made clear—

SK itself not. But the US has, and the US has bases there.

Whatever the US will claim now about what is inside these bases, NK is now on equal foot. You want that NK believes the US claim that there are no nukes there? Fine, believe the claim of Kim that he has destroyed them all. Do you want inspections of NK territory? Ok, allow Kim to inspect the US bases.

—this is about your anti-Americanism; your bigotry would simply exploit Koreans.

I can't wait to see Putin stand aside to let Kim Jong-un inspect Russian military facilities alongside American and other international operatives according to your proposition. "Worldwide disarmament" is what the North Koreans claimed to be working toward.

Certeris paribus is not in effect, here, and most people recognize that even if discourse generally fails to develop enough for them to put their finger on it. The problem here is that it is such a basic presupposition, and except for the fact of the issue, one would presume it otherwise in effect about your arguments, as well.

You seem to need to pretend certain circumstantial parity that is observably not true. Start with a broad, open, philosophical point about right and wrong, and think about how good people can be persuaded to believe in mistaken courses that amount to evil. We could look at Germany in history, or Americans and Russians today, and find myriad examples of good people becoming convinced that certain mistaken courses are good. Still, though, what defines a mistaken course? Broadly speaking, we can look to social contracts in order to find a basic sketch. For instance, we Americans know we're screwing up, and that our elections are unstable right now. Russians can present whatever pro-Putin narrative they want, but either their elections are really, really corrupt, or else they're enthusiastically part of their own tyranny. The social contracts describing how people get along with their governments still have some value, somewhere, in the Universe, and whatever else we might argue about diverse iterations of society, it seems very much an extraordinary proposition that you are somehow unable to discern certain glaring differences 'twixt social contracts posturing government of and for people, to the one, and social contracts subjecting people to government, to the other. There is no strong legitimization for the North Korean social contract; the most direct route is the general delegitimization of all social contracts, or, as more commonly applied, the arbitrary disqualification of what one personally disdains without any real consideration of function even in the context of the rest of what one pretends to personally believe.

Toward that last, like I said, bigotry. Your anti-Americanism relies on a phantom caricature of America even more dysfunctional than the real caricature Americans have made of themselves over the years.

The word "appeasement" is the keyword that allows identifying warmongers.

The thing about that point is it requires projection of who or what you criticize and complain about. I've already noted Von Clausewitz; you're a little late.

Why they don't cry about "the Korean Peninsula" instead of "Northern Korea"? Which gives Kim, on a silver plate, the justification of not denuclearizing, given that denuclearization includes now also the denuclearization of parts he cannot denuclearize himself?

It is not surprising that you cannot discern functional differences 'twixt radically different social contracts, but nothing about that means anyone else will necessarily ignore the implications of those differences.

 

[Schmelzer]

His life insurance has been China's army and nukes - still is. Also China's market and supply chain. His slipshod nuke program is more of a provocation than a threat so far - MAD only works if both sides suffer greatly.

China would not start a nuclear war if NK would be attacked. Because of MAD. So, hist program makes sense for Kim. I think you underestimate the differences and overestimate the readiness of NK to fulfill Chinese wishes.

China made good use of them, forcing Kim to the table to weaken Trump and check Kim's nuclear ambitions simultaneously. Was that a coincidence, you think?

I think China makes actually the best out of what has happened. But it certainly did not like that Kim has made nukes and intercontinental rockets. And did not like it very much - once it has even supported anti-NK UN sanctions. It could have vetoed them, which would have been reasonable if Kim would have made what China liked.

The other problem is that Kim's regime has little resilience and an economic organization of a kind famous for failure. His regime is likely to crash or blow apart on its own.

I would name it very resilient, given that it does exist yet.

Meanwhile, the President of the US gave China - via NK - what it wanted, in exchange for a half a billion in real estate business and some promises of more in NK.

Not yet. But there is some hope that China can get it.

Meanwhile, if "Trump and Kim have found a nice and simple solution", which is to lie, well, okay, sure, we're with you, there, except for the word "solution".

You seem to have not understood what is the problem which has been solved. The problem is that he is the leader of a highly criminal state, the rational thing to do would be to stop some of its criminal activity, but he does not have full power and strong enemies. So, simply to reduce the criminal activity would have been problematic.

The problem with your variant is its parodical sloth: You omit 1994 (Bill Clinton) and 2003-2009 (Bush Jr., Six-Party Talks), the latter required to deal with George W. Bush's flame job; Dubya set the situation on fire, and here you are complaining about the fire crews. Yes, yes, your historical narrative works great, we know, if we just ignore history.

I have no reason at all to ignore history. It is irrelevant for me which of the criminal US presidents you blame for setting the situation on fire and which you name a fire crew.

Well, the thing is that people are supposed to learn from history.

You think that the lecture of Munich 1938 is that one should never make peace with anybody one does not like?

I can't wait to see Putin stand aside to let Kim Jong-un inspect Russian military facilities alongside American and other international operatives according to your proposition. "Worldwide disarmament" is what the North Koreans claimed to be working toward.

Why should Putin care about this? Putin has not signed any document of worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Russians can present whatever pro-Putin narrative they want, but either their elections are really, really corrupt, or else they're enthusiastically part of their own tyranny.

Or Russia is simply not the tyranny presented by the Western propaganda. (Of course, every state is a sort of tyranny. But in comparison with other states, Russia is quite average. I prefer other states to live, which give me more freedom to do what I like.)

The social contracts describing how people get along with their governments still have some value, somewhere, in the Universe, and whatever else we might argue about diverse iterations of society, it seems very much an extraordinary proposition that you are somehow unable to discern certain glaring differences 'twixt social contracts posturing government of and for people, to the one, and social contracts subjecting people to government, to the other. There is no strong legitimization for the North Korean social contract; the most direct route is the general delegitimization of all social contracts, or, as more commonly applied, the arbitrary disqualification of what one personally disdains without any real consideration of function even in the context of the rest of what one pretends to personally believe.

The "social contract" is a particular ideological construction to justify state power. There is no such thing as a social contract, a state is not based on any contract, but it is, reasonably, a good thing for a state if he manages to create the illusion that such a contract exist. NK does not use this trick, and so I would say there is no legitimization for any North Korean social contract at all.
What is the aim of introducing that ideology into the discussion? To argue that the US is somehow better than NK? No need. In comparison with NK, I would prefer the US too. To argue against my "on equal foot"? Sorry, but international law is about something completely different.

The thing about that point is it requires projection of who or what you criticize and complain about.

It is simply an observation. Whenever some warmonger does not like some proposal for peace, you can expect to hear "appeasement".

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not the first EOTUS* we've had, of course, but certainly the coarsest.

*Egotist Of The United States

 

[sideshowbob]

Not the first EOTUS* we've had, of course, but certainly the coarsest.

Remember when we used to vote for politicians who were smarter than us, more level-headed than us?

 

[iceaura]

I would name it very resilient, given that it does exist yet.

It has required great effort by others to prop up, the benefits of doing so are diminishing, and its problems are getting more serious rather than less.

China would not start a nuclear war if NK would be attacked. Because of MAD.

China's supposed willingness to join the war if NK is attacked - however such as war is fought - has been NK's security for its entire existence. It still is.

Not yet. But there is some hope that China can get it.

From this summit on the foothill, China got essentially everything it could hope for. The future has more than "some hope" - it is looking good.

It is simply an observation. Whenever some warmonger does not like some proposal for peace, you can expect to hear "appeasement".

And also whenever some bad action that no reasonable or decent person would approve in abstract is recommended as a way of placating or mollifying some horrible entity who is making threats; whenever someone is giving some bad people some of the bad stuff they want, in hopes of sating them or reducing their efforts to obtain more.

It's a matter of evaluation with reference to physical reality, see. One obtains information, to discover whether the accusation of "appeasement" is justified.

The "social contract" is a particular ideological construction to justify state power. There is no such thing as a social contract,

Says the guy who thinks business and legal contracts between even hostile competitors and great power disparity exist without government.

The concept is often employed, btw, as a justification for reducing or resisting - and especially, restricting - power: State, Corporate, all kinds. The fact that it is used to justify restricting Corporate power may be where you found your objection - it sometimes argues for State regulation of corporations, taxation of them, etc, and that's always objectionable to our supposed libertarian here.

I have no reason at all to ignore history.

And yet you do. Why?

Especially in the evaluations of things like the current Republican (Trump, Congress, Court) government in the US, where relevant history is available to even fairly short term memory and solid documentation, that seems odd.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Remember when we used to vote for politicians who were smarter than us, more level-headed than us?

Erm, Andrew Jackson.

 

[iceaura]

Erm, Andrew Jackson.

No need to delve: Ronald Reagan, George W Bush.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

 

[Tiassa]

Why should Putin care about this? Putin has not signed any document of worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Precisely.

The nice, simple outcome here is if you're Kim Jong-un and just played Donald J. Trump in front of the entire world. It really is a breathtaking disaster.

Speaking of which—

The "social contract" is a particular ideological construction to justify state power.

—you actually wrote that in support of pandering the North Korean racket, which, I concede isn't much of a social contract, at all:

There is no such thing as a social contract, a state is not based on any contract ....

Setting aside, for the moment, your pretense of ignorance about the phrase "social contract", which is accepted, notwithstanding, I would simply reiterate that, "There is no strong legitimization for the North Korean social contract; the most direct route is the general delegitimization of all social contracts", note the latter part, especially, long enough to point out that is precisely where you went.

Which leads in turn to a fairly blatant irony about your shiftless grift, the point of how fundamentally authoritarian your argument; in the U.S., the social contract does apply to state power, but its abstract function is viewed approximately as a threshold at which Americans start challenge their government in organized revolt.

What is the aim of introducing that ideology into the discussion? To argue that the US is somehow better than NK? No need. In comparison with NK, I would prefer the US too.

Again, certeris paribus is not in effect. It is one thing to say, "there is no legitimization for any North Korean social contract at all", which is in itself actually correct, but here is where the authoritarian root of your argument is really, really important, because, functionally, your argument against the social contract is all about the State, and not the consenting governed. Furthermore, all this only comes up because you would pretend that a cease-fire is, somehow, "peace", and thus a "nice and simple solution".

Still, the question is functional, and all things are not necessarily equal.

I have no reason at all to ignore history. It is irrelevant for me which of the criminal US presidents you blame for setting the situation on fire and which you name a fire crew.

Well, it is relevant when you assert inaccurate historical arguments—e.g., "... After 1953, there was no real fire. So, your comparison does not really fit. But, if you like to use this picture, ok, my variant. Trump throws a big bucket of water into a fire made by Obama"—you are ignoring history in such a manner that undermines the rest of your analysis. If you must continually play word games, then you're doing it wrong.

To wit:

You think that the lecture of Munich 1938 is that one should never make peace with anybody one does not like?

If Trump gives Kim everything he wants, then who will have what peace according to which definition?

Yeah, you should probably give such questions some thought. When all you have is anti-identification and antisociality, you will continue failing to account for actual function. And we get it; this is about how it makes you feel to say what you do:

You seem to have not understood what is the problem which has been solved. The problem is that he is the leader of a highly criminal state, the rational thing to do would be to stop some of its criminal activity, but he does not have full power and strong enemies. So, simply to reduce the criminal activity would have been problematic.

It's always problematic to lead with something pretentious, like, "You seem to have not understood," when it turns out you are incapable of explaining what one has not understood. That is, not only were you unable to explain how solution works, neither were you capable of actually expressing what was solved.

I know it feels good to put on the pretense, and all, but come on, at some point you need something more than nothing:

It is simply an observation. Whenever some warmonger does not like some proposal for peace, you can expect to hear "appeasement".

And?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No need to delve: Ronald Reagan, George W Bush.

I like Andrew. IIRC he shot a man on the White House lawn.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A question:
Does the USA actually have any formal international trade agreements in place currently?
(or agreements that can be relied upon)

 

[iceaura]

A question:
Does the USA actually have any formal international trade agreements in place currently?
(or agreements that can be relied upon)

This one's still working, afaik:
https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Trade-Agreements

 

[Schmelzer]

It is one thing to say, "there is no legitimization for any North Korean social contract at all", which is in itself actually correct, but here is where the authoritarian root of your argument is really, really important, because, functionally, your argument against the social contract is all about the State, and not the consenting governed.

It is not about consenting governed, because the people are governed even without their consent. So this is, essentially, a lie, a trick. I would like to sign such a contract, but I was never asked to sign it.

(This does not mean that a government which really tries to create a plausible impression of such a "social contract" existing may be much better than an open dictatorship. I understand that one may think that rejecting the "social contract" ideology can be interpreted as preferring open dictatorship. With the Marxist criticism of democracy as "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" as the classical example.)

Furthermore, all this only comes up because you would pretend that a cease-fire is, somehow, "peace", and thus a "nice and simple solution".

No. What I name the solution would be a real peace contract, ending the ceasefire, before the denuclearization has succeeded.

Feel free to think that I'm ignoring history, but if you make such claims, present evidence for this.

That is, not only were you unable to explain how solution works, neither were you capable of actually expressing what was solved.

What part of my starting post were you unable to understand?

Why have I expected nothing? Because of the main problem, the nuclear weapons. It was quite clear: On the one hand, Kim is not suicidal, at least we have no evidence for this. That means, to give away the nuclear weapons, which is, together with the intercontinental missiles he has now, all that deters a US aggression. On the other hand. the nuclear weapons are officially the main issue, the justification of the sanctions and all this, so Trump cannot simply accept that ok, NK is now a nuclear power, so be it, but let's nonetheless make peace.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This one's still working, afaik:
https://www.export.gov/article?id=Russia-Trade-Agreements

Any one else see what I see?
It is really hard not to seriously consider that Trump has been hell bent on sabotaging international security and trade relationships ultimately to benefit of Russia.
Maybe someone who has the research and investigative skills could confirm that the Russian trade deal is the only major USA international trade deal still standing?

Can't help but hold me nose for the stink that's coming out of the White House...

 

[iceaura]

It is not about consenting governed, because the people are governed even without their consent. So this is, essentially, a lie, a trick.

Everybody's fooled but you.
They think they actually get to vote and stuff. But you know they don't, really.

 

[Schmelzer]

Everybody's fooled but you.

Not everybody, only those who have heard at all about this theory, cares about this and accepted it.

 

[iceaura]

Not everybody, only those who have heard at all about this theory, cares about this and accepted it.

One does not have to have heard about the theoretical explication, to have been fooled by the principle. It's written into the founding documents of the US itself - "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed" - for example. Fooled most of an entire population for 250 years now.

But maybe they'll wake up, once the Republicans have done their thing in this latest Republican administration. Then the East German truth - that all government is like Putin's government, a conspiracy against its citizens - will become visible to them. Sound about right?

 

[Schmelzer]

Then the East German truth - that all government is like Putin's government, a conspiracy against its citizens - will become visible to them. Sound about right?

Not really. My position on the "social contract" is the libertarian one. It has nothing to do with East Germany (the people of East Germany are as statist, even more, than everywhere). And it has also nothing to do with the East German position about Putin (which is more favorable than that of the West Germans, given that the West Germans believe the mainstream media much more, while the East Germans have learned from their parents that one should not trust the media, so that the West Germans are more vulnerable to propaganda in general and anti-Russian propaganda in particular).

Moreover, those Russians who defend the state seldom refer to any "social contract" in their argumentation. They recognize very well that a state is something based on power, military power.

 

[iceaura]

Not really. My position on the "social contract" is the libertarian one.

Your explicit position on the social contract is that it doesn't exist - that people are incapable of establishing such a contract as members of a community, or indeed of being raised into a community at all, and any claim to have done so is illusion or deception.
That is in direct conflict with your science fiction fantasy of commercial and economic contracts made within an industrial economy between organizations of people disparate in power, without government enforcement.
And it is in comprehensive conflict not only with various political theorizing, but with game theory and anthropology and evolutionary biology and so forth - long list.
As a left libertarian, I have had years to adjust to the slandering of the term "libertarian" by repeated association with such fantasies - but it's still a nuisance. People see "libertarian" and they think "juvenile", and it's hard to blame them.

Moreover, those Russians who defend the state seldom refer to any "social contract" in their argumentation. They recognize very well that a state is something based on power, military power.

And that explains Putin. They - like you - have no idea what's going on in liberal democracies other than State deception of the citizenry.
Meanwhile: since military power is your only basis of the State and vice versa, you see nothing inherently problematic or wrong with business - the private commercial entity has no such inherent defect you guys can see. Gaining power by deception and coercion is done by the State, in its own interests, only, in your universe.
And so you - like the overtly Statist Russian defenders of Putin's government, and the bulk of the Trump voters in the US - cannot see fascism when it's right in front of you. It just looks like government, any government, to you. And that's the Republican line, in the US - that's the line behind the invasion of Iraq, Homeland Security, W&Cheney's administration, and now Trump's administration.

 

[Tiassa]

Interlude: Click for a distraction, because the joke that goes here involves words that should never go together.​

Your explicit position on the social contract is that it doesn't exist—that people are incapable of establishing such a contract as members of a community, or indeed of being raised into a community at all, and any claim to have done so is illusion or deception.

It is an interesting paradigmatic dichotomy; what I find striking is not the difference between, say, common aspects of our outlook fashioned in a society with a direct heritage and explicit foundation in social contract, compared to ... er ... ah ... yeah, y'know, I mean, Hegelian jokes and antisocial dialectics are one thing, but ... uh ... right, this is neither Hegelian in particular nor dialectic in general; this part—

It is not about consenting governed, because the people are governed even without their consent. So this is, essentially, a lie, a trick. I would like to sign such a contract, but I was never asked to sign it.

—seems key.

It doesn't work that way. It has never worked that way. It will never that way in our lifetimes, and the nearest thing I can imagine is some manner of (ahem!) science-fictionish post-syndicalism, the real liberty of living in a real protection racket that can arbitrarily come apart at any moment according to the whims of one or two people, and one has nowhere to run. Isn't there an argument somewhere in the history of political philosophy that slaves have true liberty? Sometimes I think what they want, what they really, really want, is anime.

Anyway.

(cough!)

What I cannot figure how I'm supposed to even believe the argument, "I would like to sign such a contract, but I was never asked to sign it."

No, really, it's hard to figure what to do with that, as it's unbelievable. That is to say, am I supposed to believe he really doesn't understand the basic idea of social contract? Every time I try to figure what question comes next, I find myself shrugging as if our neighbor's statement makes its own fundamental point; there is no next question; this is a full stop.

Well, y'know.

Because, ¿Fuckall that even mean? isn't a proper question.

 

[Schmelzer]

Your explicit position on the social contract is that it doesn't exist - that people are incapable of establishing such a contract as members of a community, or indeed of being raised into a community at all, and any claim to have done so is illusion or deception.

At least in principle, a community can have such a contract. Many communities have such contracts - like clubs and associations, where participation requires your explicit acceptance of the contract. A state is something different. One cannot exclude that there may be mini-states, which could work that way. Gated communities can be, in principle, mini-states with a social contract.

That is in direct conflict with your science fiction fantasy of commercial and economic contracts made within an industrial economy between organizations of people disparate in power, without government enforcement.

No. Volitional contracts are possible. But the "social contract" is none. If I live in a territory, I'm forced to pay taxes not because I have agreed to this, signing some social contract, but because the police imprison me if I don't.

And that explains Putin. They - like you - have no idea what's going on in liberal democracies other than State deception of the citizenry.

LOL. Greetings from Berlin.

Meanwhile: since military power is your only basis of the State and vice versa, you see nothing inherently problematic or wrong with business - the private commercial entity has no such inherent defect you guys can see. Gaining power by deception and coercion is done by the State, in its own interests, only, in your universe.

No. Deception is something open to everybody, the business uses it too. Instead, as far as possible (states are sometimes too weak for this and tolerate some non-state coercion), coercion is a state monopoly. Deception is inherently wrong, independent of who is doing this. But in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with the business.

... and the nearest thing I can imagine is some manner of (ahem!) science-fictionish post-syndicalism, the real liberty of living in a real protection racket that can arbitrarily come apart at any moment according to the whims of one or two people, and one has nowhere to run.
....
What I cannot figure how I'm supposed to even believe the argument, "I would like to sign such a contract, but I was never asked to sign it."

I could easily imagine a world where there would be really a social contract instead of some general law enforces even without the consent. All one needs are sufficiently small "states", of the size of a gated community. You live there because you have signed, volitionally, the social contract of that particular mini-state. Contracts signed volitionally by hundred or thousands of people are quite realistic. If you later decide that your signature was an error, you are free to terminate the contract and to leave, and there will be a lot of other mini-states open to joining them if you, volitionally, sign their social contract.

To change such contracts will be very difficult, even with only hundreds of people in some gated community. So, the social contract will be comparable to a really unchangeable constitution. There are everyday decisions which have to be made but cannot be fixed a priory in the constitution, and for those, there will be methods fixed to decide them, in the social contract. So that this ideal is not horribly far away from how, in principle, a constitutional state works. Except that the constitution is something you have really volitionally signed, having real alternatives available. Whenever you today simply rent a different flat, you would have the chance to improve also the social contract obligatory to you. So, you could care about the freedoms important to you.