ExecutiveStapler

I agree you used chauvinistic to mean that, but you then followed it up by saying that you didn’t have to justify why what they said is wrong. You do. It’s also not the case that what they said was definitionally chauvinistic, although I’ll let that slide because it was something similar enough.

Suppose it was the case that one nation was in every way better than all other countries. Shouldn’t the citizens of that country be proud of that? Beyond pride, shouldn’t they do everything they can to spread their glorious system to the world and bring prosperity to all? That doesn’t necessarily mean wars and colonialism, that simply means all soft power efforts to implement systems that show themselves to work. I think the answer to this hypothetical is this nations citizens should feel pride and should spread their system.

The key point here is the United States isn’t better than every country in the world, thus Americans shouldn’t feel such extreme pride about their country. However, the United States is pretty good. I think some form of pride / patriotism are justified for Americans and even forms of soft power to implement effective policies are justified, but this answer is impossible to reach when you throw out all feel good thoughts about nations as chauvinistic.

Ah, what a great example of a thought terminating cliche, a statement that does what it says to save you from cognitive dissonance and nuance. You are clearly using chauvinistic as a pejorative, so you need to either justify how they’re wrong or take it back and stop muddying the waters with your empty ideological language.

To be clear, I don’t necessarily agree with op’s statement. The US as a developed nation clearly has more opportunities and advantages than developing nations, but there are other developed nations that meet and sometimes beat the advantages the US brings. I’d argue the US is at least in top 3 of being the most successful nation in diversity and global influence, but other nations have better welfare programs, housing policy, and cultural aspects imo.

Another answer to your question is that it’s fundamentally misguided due to your assumption that good and evil are absolute concepts and that there can’t exist separate and consistent moral worldviews. Consider the historical crusaders joining a brotherhood of Christ to save their holy land from the infidels and secure safe pilgrimages for millions of their fellow Christians, and then consider a Muslim warrior defending his homeland and family in the name of Allah from crazed zealots of an imperfect prophet. Who is good there? If you asked them, they’d both say they’re the good one and the other is the evil one. They’d both say the reason they KNOW they’re the good one is ultimately due to insight into the moral fabric of the universe granted to them by God (the same god, funnily enough). Ultimately, it’s impossible to say absolutely which one is right without appealing to something like divine revelation.

Another assumption I think you should reconsider is your implied stance that good people are necessarily absolutists in their principles. You say the good people wouldn’t use nuclear bombs, but why? Nuclear bombs have ushered humanity into the greatest and longest period of peace in human history. You say the good people would never use torture, but why? I agree with other commenters that for practical purposes torture is nearly always useless and inhumane, but suppose a hypothetical hemophobic (and Evil!) nuclear terrorist that you’d just need to barely cut (light torture!) and then he’d tell you the secrets to his dastardly plan to bomb an orphanage. Are you sure that a good person would be obligated to stand by as the orphans explode instead of giving that guy a pinprick? Suppose the “good person” sticks to their principles and lets the orphans dies, what should they do to the terrorist? This guy’s really evil, he spits on puppies and doesn’t even feel bad about it. You also know with 100% certainty that he’ll never reform, Doctor Strange told you so. If so, wouldn’t it be more moral to just kill him? Why waste resources on his useless imprisonment when it could be spent on thousands of mosquito nets saving thousands of nonevil lives from malaria? Also, why is he evil? Suppose it’s even 1% likely that evilness spreads through genes, if the good guy knew that and let him have kids wouldn’t it be partially the good guy’s fault if his nuclear terrorist baby bombs another orphanage? Perhaps you have satisfying answers to all these questions, but if you don’t you just justified the torture, killing, and eugenics-ing of “evil” people.

Ultimately, the impression I want to leave is that ethics are hard and complicated and most certainly more nuanced than a good and evil divide. There exist counter arguments to some of the things I said in this comment, but I’m guessing exploration of those counter arguments would leave you with a more nuanced view of good and evil regardless.

Your summary is certainly not about removing LBTG rights, it’s saying he agrees with the institutions of the United States. I find it interesting however that that’s how you’d choose to summarize the quotes.

The part about removing LGBT rights is where he’s saying that law is / should be god’s will implemented and that god’s will is marriage being purely between a man and a woman. He can say he loves all equally, but he shows that’s not true when he classifies some people’s marriages as being unworthy of legal recognition.

link

Two quotes:
“But let me say on this issue, if we got to know each other, you’d know the Pences love everybody,” Pence continued. “We treat everybody the way we want to be treated. But on this issue, and it’s frankly something that when the Obergefell decision was made which legalized same-sex marriage in America, the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy wrote at the end, that this decision will likely create an intersection and tension between people in same-sex relationships and people in the exercise of their religious liberty.”

“Look, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe in traditional marriage, and I believe marriage was ordained by God and instituted in the law, but we live in a pluralistic society, and the way we go forward, and the way we come together as a country united, I believe, is when we respect: Your right to believe and my right to believe what we believe,” Pence said.

There’s not exactly a specific law because it was decided by the Supreme Court. He’d most certainly support a law in Congress to overturn the Supreme Court decision though.

Who trampled on the Russian tomatoes? (Don’t say the Nazis, they trampled on everyone’s tomatoes including their own) For Russia, there was some small scale support for the whites during their civil war, but otherwise trade between the Soviets and the west increased year by year during the NEP period until Stalin purposely contracted it (if someone knows more about this period, feel free to correct me. I’m working off of information I learned in classes years ago and this article that matches with what I remember). I’d propose that the Soviet issues were internal due to blindly ideological governance that crippled their economy and society. They didn’t have to make such an insane number of nukes, create the culture that caused Chernobyl, nor invade Afghanistan.

Otherwise, who trampled the Mainland Chinese tomatoes? They basically won their civil war, their only issue was blind allegiance to chairman Mao that resulted in disaster after disaster. The West didn’t force them to try the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Down to the Countryside ‘Movement,’ nor the One Child Policy. The CCP did those to themselves, and they only found success once Mao died and they made their economy more capitalistic.

And then once more, who trampled on the North Korean tomatoes? At the beginning of their war, they tried to crush the South’s tomatoes until a UN authorized force pushed them to the Chinese border and then a Chinese force counterbalanced to the current borders, but otherwise the North was economically better off once the stalemate began (the Japanese centered their industrial developments in the north). North Korea failed because of dramatic mismanagement and a ideology of constant militarism while the South, with ups and downs, prospered.

Sure, there were military actions, police actions, and garden trampling that harmed both sides during the Cold War, but you can’t just blame your enemy for beating you, you have to recognize why you lost.

Any rational capitalist (or more realistically, mixed market supporter) should agree that other systems are theoretically possible, and should probably even support small scale scientific tests of whatever people want to realistically propose.

This already happens with tests of UBI occurring all over and examples of coops existing in many places as well. UBI is too new to say but looks promising, and coops seem great in certain areas of the economy if properly supported but not optimal everywhere, as far as I’m aware.

However, if someone thinks their system can only work with absolutely everyone in society participating after a revolution where the sinners (whoever they are) are eliminated, they really ought to recalibrate their beliefs or join a militia if they’re really serious.

Gesturing vaguely at everything is not an argument for anything. Supposing the person you’re talking to agrees that everything is bad, then it’s simply an argument for radicalism, not necessarily anticapitalism or whatever your particular strain of belief is. Someone could, while gesturing vaguely, just as easily argue that it’s because of moral decline, that society isn’t capitalist enough, for race realism, for the need for a strongman to take over, or really anything that’d promise (but almost certainly not deliver) to vaguely fix everything.

You are misusing terms, a stakeholder is anyone affected by a company’s actions while a shareholder is anyone with ownership in a company. All shareholders are stakeholders, not all stakeholders are shareholders.

If you genuinely accept critiques of Iran, China, and Russia as well as disliking the West’s capitalism then you’re just a communist, not a tankie. However if you just kinda accept critiques in a “No one’s perfect” kinda way but still cheer when Russians shoot Ukrainians, you’d be a tankie who fell for Russian propaganda. I’d recommend looking into the firehose of falsehood, it informs a lot about certain righties’ and lefties’ perspectives.

Other people have given good answers in terms of the structural and financial reasons, but if you want to see an alternative there’s the example of this region of Italy where there’s a substantial number and % of coops. I believe this is due to preferential taxes and subsidies by their government, although I haven’t looked into it nearly enough to say anything conclusive.

Other people have given good answers in terms of the structural and financial reasons, but if you want to see an alternative there’s the example of this region of Italy where there’s a substantial number and % of coops. I believe this is due to preferential taxes and subsidies by their government, although I haven’t looked into it nearly enough to say anything conclusive.

I’m pretty sure nothing in NATO’s articles explicitly requires a joining state to have their territory secured, at the very least article 10 says nothing about it. I believe it’s hypothetically possible, if consensus exists among each member state, for them to grant membership to Ukraine, for Ukraine to immediately call on article 5, and for the United States and everyone else to militarily intervene immediately. It’s just that in reality no one wants that to happen.

Nobody cares about Russian nuclear threats when Russia is still following all best practices in telling the world where their nukes are going and when. Either way, China doesn’t support Russia using their nukes, so Russia won’t in order to keep their support.

The truth is nobody besides the most hawkish wants Ukraine joining NATO right now, because that would grant them access to article 5 and thus boots on the ground from every other NATO state. Ukraine’ll almost certainly be invited into NATO once either they regain Crimea + other occupied lands from Russia or if they renounce their claim to those territories.