You seem to be forgetting the reason that we no longer fight our wars as vigorously as possible - nuclear deterrence. The Cold War could have been concluded at any time in about 23 minutes, and several times nearly was (that being the flight time of a nuclear missile from the US to the USSR and vice versa). We are excellent at short wars pursued vigorously against non-nuclear opponents (e.g. Iraq in March 2003) and terrible at nation building (Iraq subsequently), but pursuing maximally vigorous war against a nuclear power is clearly suicidal.
I'm not exactly sure I follow the logic. To my knowledge we have not engaged in active conflict against a nuclear power and I don't quite follow where in the essay you were reading me as saying that we should. It goes without saying that I would like to avoid a hot war with a nuclear power. I live near an airbase, which I presume would become a target.
The " drawn out conflicts" I referenced are, as I think you picked up, pointed quite clearly at the follow-up conflicts in the Middle East. I try not to get too bogged down in current affairs as they often detract from real substance, but these are clear examples of the modern approach being very different from the ancient...
...and it turns out the Romans were rather good at nation building!
My point is that, in international affairs, we are often forced into a "middle course of action". Too vigorous an approach with regard to, e.g., Ukraine or Taiwan would result in a disastrous war; too soft an approach little cedes Europe and East Asia to powers that increasingly regard us as enemies. The all-or-nothing Roman approach is often not suitable to modern challenges.
It was not always suitable to ancient challenges, either. At the end of the battle of Thermopylae, king Leonidas's head was impaled on a stake and his body crucified. At the other end of the spectrum, Roman nation-building was a failure (or perhaps a catastrophic success) where immigration from Germania was concerned.
Ah I see. I can reassure you that no part of this essay was written with current affairs in mind (re: Ukraine/Taiwan). As it relates to the gamut of US foreign affairs misadventures, from Vietnam to the Middle East, I am quite comfortable standing behind the thesis as presented above that we chose a "middle course of action" to disastrous and obscenely expensive consequences, resulting in both tactical and strategic failure. In the cases I am referencing, there was no potential of "hot nuclear war" so there was nothing to "forget".
In that context, the advice of 2,000 years ago seems shockingly apt.
Directly regarding our current foreign policy, I'll decline to comment explicitly. One can read between the lines of my writing and deduce that I think it poor and judge the people involved critically -- but I will again reiterate that I probably live very close to a potential military target and desire zero nuclear exchanges to ever take place involving America. Indeed, this past summer was quite the sight with the number of military transport aircraft that were flying low over our Atlantic beaches.
Regarding Rome...is your contention truly that the Romans were not "good" at nation building? Is this a true thing you believe? Or are you just looking for counter examples to try and disprove the point? If so, I am earnestly curious who you believe to have been good at it in a historical context.
I would agree that there was much less risk of a nuclear war in the middle east and Vietnam, although I'd be hesitant to say none - wars often spread and escalate. Hardly anyone expected the death of a Serbian archduke to throw Europe into chaos. I agree that American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was disastrous, although I also remember how little traction dissenting voices (including mine) got at the time. The political imperatives demanded war but would not tolerate meaningful sacrifice, which made failure largely inevitable.
As for the Romans, they were good at nation building until they weren't. Rome changed over time; its environment and its possibilities also changed over time. The germanic tribes made fine Roman subjects and citizens when it was to their advantage, but not so much toward the end.
But to answer your question, I'd probably say that the Tokugawa were the best nation-builders in history. Also, hideous bastards. Per your Ouroboros theory, these facts are not unrelated.
I think part of the reason for my confusion is that you were thinking in the paradigm of business where externally-enforced laws set limits to behavior. My usual paradigm is more historical. I think both Machiavelli and Lily were closer to my paradigm than yours.
3: Rome Became a Great City by Destroying the Surrounding Cities and by Freely Receiving Foreigners into Its Ranks
"err, based?" is such a good choice instead of "confused USA chants" lmao
There's a very uncomfortable synthesis of common political arguments, which is "we are incorporating new people because we are the best." On one hand, there's the "We are the best, why add people" which is commonly rebuked with various good arguments, but then there's the unspoken argument of "How good at colonialism are we if people are coming here, we sometimes don't even have to get off the porch to deplete the resources of entire countries." No one mentions it, no one rebuts it, no one phrases inclusion as "You should do this, because you are the best neighbor in the world" to the opposition. A whole realm of questioning that nobody picks up. I think this is an old TLP point, but I am surprised I still don't see it. It's funny to think of how far beyond the Overton Window you have to go - "an anonymous twitter profile picture, veneration of the ancient world, bodybuilding aesthetics" to get anything other than the usual discussions on this topic. Said as someone who is not a bodybuilder.
Related to your Twitter (the least controversial thing you've written that got you the most hate): Economics-the-field is the conqueror that subsumes all opponents. Every economics department I've engaged with has done an absolutely ridiculous "Econ for sports" "Econ for romance" "Econ for literature" etc. presentation that was either brilliant or ridiculous. The humanities departments never once called in the accountants! A quick look at JPE, etc. shows how freewheeling Econ is in defining itself even at the highest level. I think Jordan Peterson is the only humanities-oriented person to find critical success, and I'm guessing his most popular podcast appearances were Joe Rogan and Tyler Cowen. Even excusing the whole "money talks" component (it's a big component) it's stunning to see how little work is put into doing "humanities for fun" in other subjects, and if you remove negative criticism I think the discrepancy in "seized territory" widens even further.
Ha, good comment and thank you. And yes -- the mainstream perspectives on the synthesis of demographic change, elitism vs. populism, and imperialism vs. liberalism are all very boring (but perhaps well calibrated for a midwit audience).
Rome doing "imperialism, but with the immigration trends of liberal democratic capitalism, gladly welcoming the elites from conquered peoples to compete for Roman social status and wealth" is an amusing juxtaposition.
You say JP is a "humanities-oriented" person because you know even his academic background is all in research psychology! Most of the field may be unreplicatable nonsense, but the stuff he worked on DOES seem to be the only sliver of it that replicates. It's uncouth to comment on these things in public -- especially under a real name account -- but you don't have to look too hard to find many results like this: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_226.30.asp [compare reading score of Math majors to English majors from 2017 HS graduates]
So it's not too surprising that Econ would colonize many of the other departments -- at least for their most interesting insights. It's the STEMcoded social science, with all that that implies about Verbal/Math score splits.
There's a note in there too on the twitter thread: in order to get hate online, you first have to be intelligible to the demos. This is one good reason my essays are so long. I got ~4.2 million views and hundreds of QTs and none of them even had the inclination to click my profile and find this website and read anything I've written.*
*technically there was one guy who took the time to read some of my Full Stack essay and then tweet at me, but he blocked me before I could thank him & engage :(
You seem to be forgetting the reason that we no longer fight our wars as vigorously as possible - nuclear deterrence. The Cold War could have been concluded at any time in about 23 minutes, and several times nearly was (that being the flight time of a nuclear missile from the US to the USSR and vice versa). We are excellent at short wars pursued vigorously against non-nuclear opponents (e.g. Iraq in March 2003) and terrible at nation building (Iraq subsequently), but pursuing maximally vigorous war against a nuclear power is clearly suicidal.
Thanks for the comment!
I'm not exactly sure I follow the logic. To my knowledge we have not engaged in active conflict against a nuclear power and I don't quite follow where in the essay you were reading me as saying that we should. It goes without saying that I would like to avoid a hot war with a nuclear power. I live near an airbase, which I presume would become a target.
The " drawn out conflicts" I referenced are, as I think you picked up, pointed quite clearly at the follow-up conflicts in the Middle East. I try not to get too bogged down in current affairs as they often detract from real substance, but these are clear examples of the modern approach being very different from the ancient...
...and it turns out the Romans were rather good at nation building!
My point is that, in international affairs, we are often forced into a "middle course of action". Too vigorous an approach with regard to, e.g., Ukraine or Taiwan would result in a disastrous war; too soft an approach little cedes Europe and East Asia to powers that increasingly regard us as enemies. The all-or-nothing Roman approach is often not suitable to modern challenges.
It was not always suitable to ancient challenges, either. At the end of the battle of Thermopylae, king Leonidas's head was impaled on a stake and his body crucified. At the other end of the spectrum, Roman nation-building was a failure (or perhaps a catastrophic success) where immigration from Germania was concerned.
Ah I see. I can reassure you that no part of this essay was written with current affairs in mind (re: Ukraine/Taiwan). As it relates to the gamut of US foreign affairs misadventures, from Vietnam to the Middle East, I am quite comfortable standing behind the thesis as presented above that we chose a "middle course of action" to disastrous and obscenely expensive consequences, resulting in both tactical and strategic failure. In the cases I am referencing, there was no potential of "hot nuclear war" so there was nothing to "forget".
In that context, the advice of 2,000 years ago seems shockingly apt.
Directly regarding our current foreign policy, I'll decline to comment explicitly. One can read between the lines of my writing and deduce that I think it poor and judge the people involved critically -- but I will again reiterate that I probably live very close to a potential military target and desire zero nuclear exchanges to ever take place involving America. Indeed, this past summer was quite the sight with the number of military transport aircraft that were flying low over our Atlantic beaches.
Regarding Rome...is your contention truly that the Romans were not "good" at nation building? Is this a true thing you believe? Or are you just looking for counter examples to try and disprove the point? If so, I am earnestly curious who you believe to have been good at it in a historical context.
I would agree that there was much less risk of a nuclear war in the middle east and Vietnam, although I'd be hesitant to say none - wars often spread and escalate. Hardly anyone expected the death of a Serbian archduke to throw Europe into chaos. I agree that American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was disastrous, although I also remember how little traction dissenting voices (including mine) got at the time. The political imperatives demanded war but would not tolerate meaningful sacrifice, which made failure largely inevitable.
As for the Romans, they were good at nation building until they weren't. Rome changed over time; its environment and its possibilities also changed over time. The germanic tribes made fine Roman subjects and citizens when it was to their advantage, but not so much toward the end.
But to answer your question, I'd probably say that the Tokugawa were the best nation-builders in history. Also, hideous bastards. Per your Ouroboros theory, these facts are not unrelated.
I think part of the reason for my confusion is that you were thinking in the paradigm of business where externally-enforced laws set limits to behavior. My usual paradigm is more historical. I think both Machiavelli and Lily were closer to my paradigm than yours.
A couple of thoughts:
3: Rome Became a Great City by Destroying the Surrounding Cities and by Freely Receiving Foreigners into Its Ranks
"err, based?" is such a good choice instead of "confused USA chants" lmao
There's a very uncomfortable synthesis of common political arguments, which is "we are incorporating new people because we are the best." On one hand, there's the "We are the best, why add people" which is commonly rebuked with various good arguments, but then there's the unspoken argument of "How good at colonialism are we if people are coming here, we sometimes don't even have to get off the porch to deplete the resources of entire countries." No one mentions it, no one rebuts it, no one phrases inclusion as "You should do this, because you are the best neighbor in the world" to the opposition. A whole realm of questioning that nobody picks up. I think this is an old TLP point, but I am surprised I still don't see it. It's funny to think of how far beyond the Overton Window you have to go - "an anonymous twitter profile picture, veneration of the ancient world, bodybuilding aesthetics" to get anything other than the usual discussions on this topic. Said as someone who is not a bodybuilder.
Related to your Twitter (the least controversial thing you've written that got you the most hate): Economics-the-field is the conqueror that subsumes all opponents. Every economics department I've engaged with has done an absolutely ridiculous "Econ for sports" "Econ for romance" "Econ for literature" etc. presentation that was either brilliant or ridiculous. The humanities departments never once called in the accountants! A quick look at JPE, etc. shows how freewheeling Econ is in defining itself even at the highest level. I think Jordan Peterson is the only humanities-oriented person to find critical success, and I'm guessing his most popular podcast appearances were Joe Rogan and Tyler Cowen. Even excusing the whole "money talks" component (it's a big component) it's stunning to see how little work is put into doing "humanities for fun" in other subjects, and if you remove negative criticism I think the discrepancy in "seized territory" widens even further.
Ha, good comment and thank you. And yes -- the mainstream perspectives on the synthesis of demographic change, elitism vs. populism, and imperialism vs. liberalism are all very boring (but perhaps well calibrated for a midwit audience).
Rome doing "imperialism, but with the immigration trends of liberal democratic capitalism, gladly welcoming the elites from conquered peoples to compete for Roman social status and wealth" is an amusing juxtaposition.
You say JP is a "humanities-oriented" person because you know even his academic background is all in research psychology! Most of the field may be unreplicatable nonsense, but the stuff he worked on DOES seem to be the only sliver of it that replicates. It's uncouth to comment on these things in public -- especially under a real name account -- but you don't have to look too hard to find many results like this: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_226.30.asp [compare reading score of Math majors to English majors from 2017 HS graduates]
So it's not too surprising that Econ would colonize many of the other departments -- at least for their most interesting insights. It's the STEMcoded social science, with all that that implies about Verbal/Math score splits.
There's a note in there too on the twitter thread: in order to get hate online, you first have to be intelligible to the demos. This is one good reason my essays are so long. I got ~4.2 million views and hundreds of QTs and none of them even had the inclination to click my profile and find this website and read anything I've written.*
*technically there was one guy who took the time to read some of my Full Stack essay and then tweet at me, but he blocked me before I could thank him & engage :(