steve
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> So, you buy the Hobbesean "authorization" account, that I authorize my
> elected representatives to act on my behalf? Don't be silly, Nathan. I do
> nothing of the sort. I authorize Bush to bomb Afghansistan by voting for
> Nader? Maybe you think I caused Bush to be in that position (though Gore
> carried Illinois), but I certainly don't "authorize" even the candidates I
> do vote for and who win to do anything. What I do is try to influence them
> to behave, which they mostly don't.
>
> Nathan, you are losing all perspective here. You are a sociologist. You
> should gbe aware of the very extensive polisci literature on the
> determinants of foreign policy. It's basically the mainstream, consensus,
> nonradical, conservative-liberal view, shared incidentally by most radical
> scholars, that foreign policy is the area where the public has the least
> influence in a democracy.
>
> The dominant neorealist view is that states are states and pursue their
> perceived interests in the international system regardless of theor
> political form. I think that accounts for a great deal of the variance. The
> other views that give attention to internal structure don't give a lot of
> weight to the political form of the country, although there is the
> intriguing and oft-remarked on fact that liberal democracies don't go to war
> with each other.
>
> The reserach on particular cases just doesn't support the idae that even the
> public in general, much less the working class, has had much appreciable
> effect on foreignpolicy outside of even extraordinary mobilizations, and
> even then it is debatable how much effect. e.g., the Movement had on the war
> in Vietnam or the Nuclear Freeze, etc. on the end of the Cold War.
>
>
> Apart from all that, your arguments are getting wilder and wilder. Tos show
> that people who seek to explain in part the events of 9/11 by reference to
> bad us foregn policy are really blaming the working class, you have to
> attribute them increasing heaps of suppositions that we who offer these
> explanations expressly reject, that causation is justification, that the
> working class has a lot of influence in foreign policy, etc. MAybe your idea
> is that the public acceots thsi set of connections so taht it would be
> inopportune to say what we think just now, and that proposition could be
> debated, but you yourself affirmatively adopt them. It's nit like you. Time
> to step back from the bar, counsel; recognize when to cut your losses.
>
> jks
>
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> > >I am generally not responsible for injuries caused by
> > >intervening criminal acts...There isn't enough
> > >causation in voting for a candidate, even if you intend the candidate to
> >do
> > >certain things we'd consider bad, to get the causation past the first
> >step.
> >
> >Wait a second...anyone is responsible for the actions of an agent for acts
> >for which they were authorized. An elected offical who runs on a platform
> >and is elected to perform those duties is as much an agent of the
> >electorate
> >as the president of a company is the agent of the board of directors or of
> >the shareholders - who may be held liable for that agents' actions.
> >
> >People are held liable for agent actions with far more contingent
> >authorization than election platforms.
> >
> >On points from the other post:
> >
> > >So your view, Nathan, is that only rational acts are foreseeable?
> > >If you limit your goals to preventing only
> > >foreseeable in the sense of rational responses, your goals are too
> >limited.
> >
> >One is responsible for some acts that are not even foreseable, because the
> >connection to one's own acts is so direct. If I punch someone in a way
> >that
> >would normally do little damage, but they have a disease that makes bruises
> >fatal, I can be held liable for murder - even though that result from my
> >punch was not foreseeable.
> >
> >On the other hand, irrational acts are always a foreseeable consequence of
> >any action. Mere foreseeability is not enough to constitute causation in
> >anything other than a "but for" string of related events sense. If I
> >laugh,
> >someone may decide irrationally that my laughter is at them and they'll
> >will
> >kill me. In no sense did I "cause" that person to kill me, other than in
> >the remotest sense of the word.
> >
> >Yes, some irrational acts can be expected. We actually relieve people of
> >some of their responsibility when they act under emotional distress - death
> >of a loved one, etc. - although we rarely attribute direct causality to the
> >person who might have created the irrational condition.
> >
> >There are degrees of irrationality. When a person responds to a direct
> >provocation in a violent manner, we sometimes treat that response as caused
> >by the original provocation and therefore create no liability. Certain
> >self-defense responses, even if mistaken and a little irrational, may come
> >under this category. But when a response is completely disproportionate to
> >the provocation, is aimed at people other than those giving the direct
> >provocation, or otherwise deemed to be outside the reasonable range of
> >human
> >response (rational and irrational), then "causality" somewhat drops out of
> >the discussion.
> >
> > >I find the middle paragraph below morally horrific [killing off foreign
> >policy tools after
> > > we are done with them], not only in its causual
> > >acceptance of killing without any semblance of due process, but in the
> >easy
> > >identification of you-and me--with the policies that make bin Laden "our"
> > >tools to be used and, apparently, murdered afterwards. Is that how you
> >see
> >us?
> >
> >Is it the policy I'd like? No. Although given our track record with a
> >range
> >of folks, from Noriega to Hussein, trying to kill off former tools when
> >they
> >became troublesome is hardly foreign to US policy.
> >
> >My point was that merely pointing out that Bin Laden was previously
> >supported by the US does not automatically imply the policy prescription of
> >not doing something similar in the future. The hawks essentially give the
> >answer above, dressed in nicer langugage, but the basic idea.
> >
> >My point is that the Left needs a positive foreign policy alternative. Not
> >that it doesnt exist, but it doesn't seem to make it into our antiwar rally
> >principles. "NO X" is pretty much the standard slogan. For the September
> >29th rally, the word "justice" does not appear anywhere in the rally call;
> >it's a completely negative critique of US policy with no alternative
> >demanded that would address the fears of attack and insecurity people feel.
> >
> >As I've said, just because I think causality is a poor way to approach
> >these
> > issues, there is plenty that we can do to decrease the likelihood of
> >similar attacks in the future- address global poverty, settle outstanding
> >national grievances (read Palestine), and create more collective security.
> >
> >But merely critiquing past policy is insufficient. For every critique,
> >there are often multiple alternative solutions - and not only the Left
> >choice. That was my point.
> >
> >Nathan Newman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>