Frequently when I debate the ethics and politics of warfare World War II is brought up by conservatives or liberals as a trump card example of the success of interventionism. I am not really sure how to respond to some of these claims. Usually I say that I don't think Americans should be drafted and have their economy nationalized to subsidize the security of European nations. Then people give me an after the fact claim that World War II was so beneficial because Japan and Western Europe were turned into productive and peaceful (with us) nations.

I believe that these wars were preventable. Even if we accept that WWI had already happened, there were alternatives (counter-factual I know).

Even the conservative narrative agrees with me on this. Most conservatives love to talk about how European leaders appeased Hitler and how progressives praised Mussolini. They use this logic to argue for more acute interventions and ideological activism so that later interventions will not be as damaging to the public. I think this is an admiral goal in some ways and I can agree that killing an enemy while he is weak and small is definitely better for everyone than killing an enemy while he has the continental Europe under its control.

Still, this raises the question. Why did Europe fail to deal with Hitler in the first place? If statists are going to argue that drafting powers and taxation are necessary for the survival of a country during wartime, then why were all European states in such desperate need of help? Why did America need to subsidize the European continent's security? If governments are supposed to protect us, why did three fascist governments require a "World War" to put down? And why were the axis governments so powerful?

ou can get written up for talking about politics. a coworker at one job did nothing but agree with some point a customer offhandedly made and another customer got offended and called the little corporate care number and she got a write up for it. another coworker told me her husband got fired from his job for "talking about" unionizing. at one job the basic entry level position will get you about 18 hours/week on average. at the other you don't get breaks period, you don't clock out for them and you almost never get to have even 2 minute breather. at the other i clock for breaks but wind up having to work through them, even though i could get in trouble for doing so, about 90% of the time. and these are still not that bad comparatively

Everyone has their first world problems. 95% of people escape minimum wage labor by getting a community college degree in air conditioning repair or dildomaking or whatever so they make a decent wage, but every proletarian is exploited somehow.

I would say becoming self employed is a lot easier and more personally rewarding than organizing a union at a shitty job that you hate, but hey, its whatever.

Edited by Lucille (Aug. 5, 2013 06:23:36)