Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
Broadly speaking, I’m a Pacifist and believe any kind of military confrontation or military aid is bad public policy. The idea of collateral damage - civilian casualties taken in pursuit of military objectives - is fully immoral and should be broadly rejected. Military resources should be tasked first and foremost as disaster relief and recovery with the primary mission being the preservation of human life, rather than offensive missions to defeat or deter an opposition military.
Military reprisals (starting with the MAD policy and going down to retributive strikes in border disputes) are monstrous and should be ended. Military prisons should be closed and POWs immediately repatriated. Embargos, particularly those aimed at economically vulnerable nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea, serve no useful purpose and should be lifted immediately. And the only offensive military action should be reserved for securing evacuation routes for refugees, with the bulk of resources dedicated to extending shelter and both immediate and long term relief to the refugees we accrue through these policies.
So, I’m genuinely curious - what do you think the US should have done during WW2?
I can tell you what we shouldn’t have done. We shouldn’t have turned away the 937 passengers of the St. Louis. It shouldn’t have done the mass arrest and internment of Japanese American civilians. We shouldn’t have sent Germany military aid in the form of IBM computers and Standard Oil. Hell, there was a laundry list of American government-backed big industry supporting German and Italian Fascists even after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
What the US should have been doing was enforcing the accords struck after WW1, implementing a Marshall Plan in Europe and North Africa and East Asia 30 years earlier, and providing immediate unconditional refuge to anyone threatened by a fascist government, rather than hot-housing them in fascist states until they either fled to the Middle East, Latin America, or Soviet Russia or got shoved into the ovens and gas chambers.
I was aware of some of this from reading “The Arms of Krupp” someone on Lemmy pointed me to, but not the extent on the US side. Great link tyvm.
That depends on your point of view. The point of view of US lawmakers is that, by forcing people into “hunger and desperation” (quoting them) through imposed economic violence, they’ll bring about a change of regime. Of course, that’s absolutely disgusting, but it does serve a purpose, which in many instances worked (deposition of Mosaddeq in Iran, sanctions to Chile’s Allende…). I just disagree with the methodology and the purpose because I’m not Satan, unlike US policymakers.
Okay, yes, but it’s a bad purpose.
But, again, the Shah and Pinochet were bad dudes and elevating them to national office only really managed to secure cheaper-than-market-rate natural resources for a decade at the expense of tens of thousands of people’s lives. And then the end result was what? The Iranian Revolutionary Guard reclaiming Iran? The twenty year dictatorship of Pinochet plunging a valuable ally and trading partner into hyperinflation and social upheaval? Wouldn’t US firms paying market rate for oil and copper have been better for everyone in the long run?