Er, where did I say "kill them all"?
What I said was that, maybe, under certain conditions force
might be acceptable as a tool to bring the barbarians into the twentieth century.
Operative word being "might." Frankly, I have a hard time imagining people being forced to see the light. You see it on your own, not because you have been made to do it.
My point was that
if force is legitimate on behalf of extending civilization to those who haven't received it yet, then the force used ought to be "whatever it takes" to get "them" to see the light.
I don't buy the "making the world safe for democracy" hyperbole of politicians. My freedom has been affected in far more fundamental ways by the Patriot Act than by anything Osama bin Laden has or might do. That's a cop out used by politicians. If force is going to ever be legitimate, it will have to be to "make democracy" not that wishy-washy "ensure democracy" crap.
I don't believe that Osama and company, or Iran and its nukes, can make me change my way of life. Stalin and Kruschev and Breshnev had a hell of a lot more nukes and a hell of a lot more economic oomph, and they couldn't. Why in the world should I be in a panic just because one small group of crazies managed to shock the world for a few days in September 2001.
If my way of life is threatened by them, my way of life is weaker than a placekicker's arm.
And, to be honest, I think the only people who can "make democracy" are the people who are willing, on their own, to decide the old ways aren't good enough anymore. To take the step Jefferson and the others took.
Re: your points about those who want to choose the tribal way, nonextendability of Western lifestyles, etc...
First, economics:
Personally, my belief is that if the tribalists want to stay tribalist, they're dumb ... and they're free to stay dumb. I'm not in favor of killing them unless they try to make me become a tribalist.
And I'm not interested in converting nations to civilization either. I'm not paternalistic enough to become a father to individual children; I'm sure as heck not interested in acting like a father to several million.
I'm interested in offering them better alternatives, but if they don't buy what I offer, well, their bad decisions are between them and God. They're not worth
Now perhaps it is impossible for the entire world to live the Western lifestyle. Certainly no one's figured out how to ensure that yet.
But don't you see, Rourke, 300 years ago it wasn't possible for ANYONE to live the lifestyle of today. Somehow, in that 300 years, we've figured out a way to increase average real income FOR EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET by a factor of 800%. We've figured out how to improve childhood nutrition so much that the average person in Europe/USA/the West IS A FOOT TALLER than they were. We've figured out how to increase the DOUBLE the average life expectancy ON THE PLANET. And we've figured out how to do all those things despite having a population TEN FUCKING TIMES the size that a world based on tribal organization could sustain.
Of course we haven't figured out how to ensure everyone shares in that bounty. By no means, does everyone in the world's expanded population enjoy that addition to income or that increased nutrition or that lengthening life expectancy. But without the much maligned "West" and its civilization, we wouldn't even have the opportunity to debate this question. Because I, a preemie, would have died in infancy. And you, you'd be living the Hobbesian/Malthusian nightmare in a world with 6 billion people too many.
The "Western" way
may not be sustainable for 7 billion people. You might be right on that. But I know The "tribal" way
cannot be sustained ... it can't be sustained for 1 billion people, much less for 7 billion.
Then politics:
The tribe may well be a better unit of political organization: smaller organizations have limited power to do evil, after all.
But their smallness is why I think it's silly to fear tribes. And why I see no reason to engage the moral dilemma of force to deal with them.
Tribes are small. At worst, I can always move away from them. If Iowa sucks too much, I move. If I think Israel and Iran are countries under the control of barbarians (and I do),
and they're just tribes, then all I have to do to stay safe from them is to stay away from them.
Because a tribe by itself can only be a danger in its immediate vicinity. The tribe simply isn't scalable.
We don't have to protect our way of life against tribes. We can hang out with ones we like and ignore those who we don't.
Tribalism only becomes a potential problem politically when it gets combined with something else, namely the concentrated power of a nation state or religion, or worst, both.
But then the political problem isn't the tribe, it's the concentration of power. Israel or Iraq or whoever aren't dangers to us if they follow thousand-year-old tribal notions; they're only going to be dangers to us when they seek to avoid the limitations of tribes and concentrate their power in the long uber-barbarian tradition of Genghis Khan, the Ottoman Empire, Napoleon, and Hitler.
And even then they're going to have a tough road to travel. Because, unlike Khan and the Ottomans and Napoleon, unlike even Hitler, they are doing so in a world that has seen the last 300 years of unprecedented prosperity, in a world with unprecedently cheap and fast information, in a world with far more wealth that can be brought to bear in opposition.
Much is made of the "power of oil". But do people really think that even if Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Yemen could somehow overcome all their antipathies, get together and decide to "destroy" America through physical means or the threat thereof, that they could really make it happen without decades of war that would make the Battle of the Somme and the Soviet's adventure in Afghanistan each look like childrens' games?
Oh, I don't doubt that American politicians might prove easy to push around. But I doubt they'd get much satisfaction, economic or political, from taking over the Congress and the White House.
And back to your fear of my mentality again ...
As an economic unit of decisionmaking in a globalized world of billions, tribalism is simply awful. It's not just another way. Its a very bad way. A very outdated way.
Barbaric even.
If people want to live as barbarians, that is indeed their choice. Most of mankind, for most of its history, has done so.
And as long as they leave me alone, IMO, they should feel free to so. But neither should they criticize me for failing to associate with them.
I don't know where you get "kill them all" from what I've written. Frankly, I'm not even sure I'd want to kill them all if they invaded New York or California. Now, if they tried to come into my house and make me adopt their tribal ways, I'd like to think I'd die with my Gadsden flag in one hand and my Colt Combat Commander in the other.
But if anything, mine is the philosophy, not of the ubermensch, but of the uber-ostrich.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)