
The world's most toxic value system - akkartik
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM
======
pg
He's roughly correct. Yet if warrior societies are so bad, why are they so
common? The answer is that they used to work. In low tech warfare, the
fiercest and most cohesive side wins, even if they're outnumbered 10 to 1. So
for most of history warrior aristocracies have controlled territories way out
of proportion to their numbers.

Industrialization changed the balance. If you have guns and your opponents
have spears, it doesn't matter how fierce they are.

The traditions of warrior socities may be obsolete, but it seems provincial to
call them "toxic." Members of those societies would be equally contemptuous of
our traditions. For example, our lack of loyalty. We're nicer to women, but
would we be as willing to die to save a friend? We're more sensitive, but are
we as honest?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Are we as willing to die to save a friend? Are we as honest?

Yes.

In fact, no matter what your opinion of the current politics vis-a-vis Iraq,
it seems that not only would we die to save a friend, we would die to save an
enemy, or an idea. We've done it time and again. As far as I know, no other
culture is like that. As far as honesty, societies with "thar" mentalities are
some of the most dishonest societies on the planet, whereas western societies
a lot of business can be conducted on just a handshake. Ever try a handshake
at a bazaar?

I think western civilization stacks up quite well against those questions.
It's not a relative thing -- certain ideas make cultures better than other
ones. Societies are all not equal -- that's a late 20th-century mode of
thinking that's non-operative.

But perhaps I read too much into your response.

~~~
aswanson
_Ever try a handshake at a bazaar?_

I've tried them with people working on my car transmission, my real estate
agent, and various/sundry people in my path I thought I could trust. I would
trust a stranger at a bazaar more than any of those parasites.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You would trust a random person in an open-air market more than you would
trust a trained, certified, bonded, licensed real-estate agent?

Care to think that over a bit more? Perhaps phone a friend?

~~~
Xichekolas
I'd trust the Real Estate agent to not kill me... but I certainly think the
random person at the market's interests are more aligned with my own than any
real estate agent's interests are.

Real estate agents want the house to sell quickly at the highest price
possible (to increase both their deal throughput and commission). This serves
neither the buyer (who should be looking for lowest price of whatever it is he
wants) nor the seller (who gets to pay an absurd commission for what amounts
to secretarial work).

So yeah, this is completely off topic, but at least the person in the open air
market just wants to sell something, and by being there you must want to buy
it, so I don't see the swindle.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Maybe off-topic, but interesting, at least to me.

So the person in the market is unknown to you. He has something, you have
something. You trade, life is good.

But how do you know when you give your money you'll get something? How do you
know it's the thing you asked for? How can you be sure the trader isn't just
trying to lure you back to some back room where you can be mugged or worse?
While haggling at a bazaar can be great fun, there's a lot of risk involved.
Financial transactions do not like risk. That's why we don't sell houses using
the bazaar format.

I'd like to point out that houses sell and are bought for all kinds of reasons
aside from price. So I believe your reply to be a little weak in that regard.
Whatever the case, the position of "real estate agent" in our society confers
all kinds of things. If the house is not the seller's, then you are covered.
If the agent runs off with your down-payment, you are covered. If the agent
knowingly misrepresents the house, you are covered. In fact, the idea is that
the risk is reduced to simply: is it worth what I am paying for it? Financial
markets like this.

There's no problem with multiple parties all having somewhat conflicting
interests. Financial transactions occur when parties find some subset of
aligning interests in which to trade around. Not total alignment -- that
doesn't exist. Once you have enough alignment for a trade, you've got to
reduce risk. Some of these cultures, for instance, refuse to use a banking
system, believing it to be immoral. While I deeply respect the right of any
individual to believe any dang thing he wants, cultures that do things like
ban banking, private property rights, etc. greatly increase the risk during
financial transactions. That's why I'd never get involved in Russia, for
instance -- never can tell when the ruling party might decide just to take
over your entire business. You can't have a highly-functioning society like
that.

~~~
Xichekolas
_"How can you be sure the trader isn't just trying to lure you back to some
back room where you can be mugged or worse?"_

Like I said, I'd trust a Realtor more to not kill me (or perpetrate some other
act of violence). Was just saying Realtor has much more financial incentive to
screw me over in a legal, but still unkind, way.

 _"I'd like to point out that houses sell and are bought for all kinds of
reasons aside from price. So I believe your reply to be a little weak in that
regard. ... In fact, the idea is that the risk is reduced to simply: is it
worth what I am paying for it?"_

I totally agree that houses are bought for a number of reasons, but I was
discussing the dimension involving getting the best price. If you love a house
because it has fluffy pink toilet seats and are willing to pay any amount of
money for that comfort, then you aren't getting screwed. On the other hand, if
you live in the real world and have a maximum budget for a house, the realtor
will always show you things just above your range, in the hopes you will
splurge on it. Sure, you can find another realtor that won't do this, but most
people won't. It's not illegal, and only slightly immoral, so I can't say I
blame the realtor. They are just working within the system they are given to
maximize personal gain, like anyone else. The problem I was pointing out is
that the system is not well aligned with the needs of either the buyer or
seller.

 _"Some of these cultures, for instance, refuse to use a banking system,
believing it to be immoral. While I deeply respect the right of any individual
to believe any dang thing he wants, cultures that do things like ban banking,
private property rights, etc. greatly increase the risk during financial
transactions. That's why I'd never get involved in Russia, for instance --
never can tell when the ruling party might decide just to take over your
entire business. You can't have a highly-functioning society like that."_

I totally agree there.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"Like I said, I'd trust a Realtor more to not kill me (or perpetrate some
other act of violence). Was just saying Realtor has much more financial
incentive to screw me over in a legal, but still unkind, way."

I'd rather have an equal playing field and do my own worrying about the
realtor screwing me over than about my physical safety. The economy works
great with people looking after their own financial interests, but not so well
when things like contracts, personal safety, banking, or insurance bonds are
non-existent.

Still like that idea of a bazaar being better than dealing with a professional
in a western culture? From where I'm sitting it's not looking so hot. Remember
-- the guy in the bazaar can still screw you the ways professionals in the
west can -- but he can screw you in a lot more ways, too.

~~~
far33d
have you ever been to a bazaar? Or is it just a rhetorical device?

------
run4yourlives
I originally enjoyed this little essay, but the more I thought about it, the
more certain things bothered me:

1\. The word Thar: He doesn't want to saddle the Spanish, but is more than
happy to saddle the Arabs. This is bad form and almost racist. Every culture
in the world practices "Thar", why the disdain for Arabs?

2\. Ignoring European "Thar" - With the exception of the Former Yugoslavia
(Muslims - interesting), the author basically ignores the many examples of
this in European societies, from Italian, Greek, Spanish, Russian. Hell, the
Mafia is basically built on this, and last time I checked it's alive and well
- but it doesn't even get mentioned. (FYI, I'm southern Italian... my
grandparents are as "backwards" as can be sometimes.)

3\. The real reason the west no longer follows "Thar" is because of the Age of
Enlightenment (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment>).

Because it's only a few generations old (having happened in the 1800's) and
was centered in Europe - by extension North America - it has simply taken time
to reach other parts of the world. Namely, the mid east and Africa.

This is the reason that Thar - which enlightenment rejects - is still so
prevalent in these societies.

4\. The Bushido code IS "Thar". The fact is that Japan up until the end of
WWII embodied "Thar" to a degree of perfection seen nowhere else on the planet
cannot be excused away by a "remorse shine" in a doctor's office.

In fact, had the doctor been a true practitioner of Bushido, he would have
killed himself long ago. The remorse shrine is a symbol of cowardice
consistent with reason - imported from North America after WWII. (I'm not
suggesting either one is correct) This shows more than anything that the
doctor is conflicted between the notion of an insult to his honor, and the
understanding that real sacrifice should not be required.

This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at pinning Arabs and Muslims
with the moniker of backwards-stone age people that need "educating". If this
is what qualifies for advanced cultural thinking in the US, its no wonder
you're losing in Iraq.

>"It's considered bad form in many circles to criticize another culture's
values. "

Perhaps the author would do well to follow the advice of his peers.

~~~
Retric
Reading what you wrote I could not help but think of "What You Can't Say
(<http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>)"

There is a recent idea that criticizing other cultures is a bad idea and or
bad form. However, cultures are unique so Thar and "honor" are separate
concepts so not all cultures have "Thar". EX: Some early cultures in Europe
practiced human sacrifice however over time that went out of style etc. In
other words cultures are different, but we should not talk about how these
differences may be good or bad at generating wealth?

In the modern world attempting to keep doing the same job your entire life
will often fail. Doing your fathers job the same way he did is not going to
work. And doing the same thing as your great grandfather in the same way he
did is a really bad idea. However, it seems like bad form to criticize
cultures who think sons should continue in their father's foot steps. At the
same time it seems obvious that such cultures would on average be less likely
to do well in the modern world.

Anyway, rather than defending the essay I would just ask you to read it again
after "What You Can't Say" and see if you react in the same way. I think the
he is trying to talk about a vary specific kind of "honor" vs attacking
specific culture as a whole.

~~~
run4yourlives
I don't take issue with the idea that certain aspects of some cultures should
not be condoned as morally right.

However, the author has no facts to back anything he asserts. Warrior
societies are successful, and always have been. Thar is a proven business
practice, as it were.

~~~
qaexl
I am curious how many people who writes here are actually involved in some
form of modern 'warrior culture'.

Among my martial arts friends, we have a description of "Old Man Powers". What
we mean by that is described in this Kung-Fu Magazine article:
[http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=74...](http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=740)

... that is to say, the survivors tend to be very, very crafty. Whether or not
there is social sanctions for 'thar' behavior, I think that insults to honor
and blood feuds often used by the immature, adolescent male more than the
older, mature male. 'High-tech' may prove more as a means for killing people
with more expensive equipment.

I've had some interesting times reading the comments here over the past couple
days and thinking about them. My conclusion (for now) is that the author of
the article has some insights in a very broad sense while overlooking some
things. He says things that can be mistaken for racism because he did not
provide specific examples to the contrary. Having looked through some of his
other articles on the site, I see that he also has some very strong opinions.
However, at the end of the day, his opinion is more or less irrelevant to
someone who _is_ living a modern warrior's life (as archaic as that sounds) --
whether that person is a martial artist, or a hacker. I find I have trouble
taking his opinions seriously when I have doubts that he has been at the
sticky end of violent conflicts. You cannot intellectually stop yourself from
pissing your pants and vacating your bowels when your body is screaming in
mortal danger.

Culture shapes us the way, say the Ruby on Rails framework shapes a web app.
Conventions may be the results of hard-won experience, but the truly mature
human being walk that path of evolution and learn from their own mistakes.
One's whole life is an iterative process of development. Evolutionary
scaffolding. Technological superiority does not entitle us supremacy any more
than our ability to deliver violence. Hack your own life and make it better.

Good coding folks.

------
jsearson
Well, this is, first of all, racist. He doesn't want to use the Spanish term
because he thinks it's "really not fair to saddle Spanish culture with the
term." But it IS apparently fair to saddle Arabic culture with the term.
Considering that Arabia was the birthplace of Algebra and underwent a
renaissance that in large part made the European Renaissance possible, no, I
don't think that's very fair at all.

But even if I let this racist term go through, what is Thar, exactly? A good
deal of time is spent talking about how it isn't various things-- honor,
bushido-- but it isn't ever defined. Instead I get this list of things that
are associated with the "mentality," a list that, among other things,
describes Tokugawa Japan perfectly. As a side note, anyone who thinks Japan's
is a culture of Bushido does not know Japanese history. The Bushido code was
written by a samurai who never saw combat, whose father never saw combat, and
whose grandfather, in likelihood, never saw combat. The Bushido myth is a
propaganda piece for convincing daimyos to keep their samurai on the payroll.

So we have a clearly racist document using a nonsense term to describe
nothing. What, exactly, is this?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"What, exactly, is this?"

It is a commentary on a way of life usually practiced by Arabs, but also
commonly found in other places in the world. It is not a blanket statement
about any race, therefore your charges of racism are total BS. You can be a
member of a race and participate or not in a particular culture. Race is not
culture. It's not a one-to-one relationship. To say that it is, ironically
enough, racist. People are free agents and can choose to be anything they
want. Cultures are fair game for all sorts of criticism -- we are really good
at criticizing our own culture. Thank goodness we live in a world where
criticism of culture is encouraged.

~~~
qaexl
I don't like how the original author failed to distinguish between Arabian
culture and Muslim religion. Though they are intertwined, there are non-
Arabian Muslim cultures as well. To add to DanielBMarkham's comment, though,
Arabic culture centers around the language, not the ethnicity. Some of the
original author's arguments are evidence of Muslim rather than Arabian origin.
Lastly, just to throw more confusion into the issue, some of the Sufi sages
were tortured to death by their Muslim bretherens as heretics, and they died
with the same kind of aplomb the way the Buddhist monks were tortured to
death. (Not all Arabs sacrifice themselves in hopes of attaining 72 virgins).

The telling point would be to find a non-Arabian culture that encourages
'thar'. Unfortunately, I have not yet thought of an example off the top of my
head involving an non-Arabian culture.

The original author also vaguely discusses the rise of 'thar' culture
sprouting on the internet without giving any specifics. I've been to forums
where where people flame each other for sport. I remember the occasional tiffs
here, and people trashing Reddit. I know Digg and YouTube comments are full of
inanities. Not to mention the flames on blog posts and regular news articles
when someone gets upset but clearly did not thoroughly read the article in
question. It often seem to closely track the maturity level of the people
involved: immature human beings don't know how to set good personal
boundaries, whatever culture that might be.

~~~
nostrademons
"The telling point would be to find a non-Arabian culture that encourages
'thar'. Unfortunately, I have not yet thought of an example off the top of my
head involving an non-Arabian culture."

American urban hip-hop culture.

~~~
aston
Boo. Apparently lots of people agree with you. I'm curious about your
reasoning.

~~~
nostrademons
I don't have first-hand experience, so obviously I could be wrong, and if I've
mischaracterized the culture, correct me. But here're a few points I've
noticed:

1.) The obsession with "bling" and personal status through high-priced
consumer goods. I've read that it's poor urban kids buying those $200 Nikes,
and then marketers hope that their tastes will filter down into middle-class
American kids. The street kids on the subway often have more stylish clothes
and accessories than rich white kids. Remember Ludacris's song "Glamorous"?

2.) Anti-intellectualism. I have a couple friends who teach in inner-city
school system. When black kids do well in school, they're taunted and teased
by their classmates for "acting white". There's a strong cultural pressure not
to stick out or excel.

3.) Gang warfare and revenge killings. There was a shooting a block away from
my workplace a couple of years ago. A few gang members had apparently been
slighted, so they got in a car, hunted down the rival gang member responsible,
and shot him in a drive-by.

~~~
aston
I think there's a bit of bias as an outsider looking in, so here are my
comments, having been a bit closer involved in "black culture," as it were.

1) Obsession with personal status isn't one of the points of Thar, at least
not as expressed by the collecting of property. And black kids aren't alone in
buying clothes that outwardly indicate their high price, although they might
be alone in buying rainbow colored AF1's.

2) Anti-intellectualism is an interesting point which I'll grant does show
itself in middle and high school aged kids. I think if you ask those kids (or
their parents) if education is important, however, I think they'll all say
yes. I haven't actually tried it, but I've never met a high school dropout (of
any race) who didn't regret it. Inner city schools are filled with kids who,
by high school, have often given up on themselves, and the "acting white"
expressions are sort of a outward expression of that frustration. Rather than
muddle this too much with socioeconomic rhetoric, I'll just say that one look
at MySpace and another at Facebook demonstrates there are plenty of kids
steeped deep in hiphop culture who are getting their four year degrees.

3) Gang warfare among blacks is probably comparable in degree to that seen
with the Mafia and various Hispanic gangs. I don't think your standard
Italians, Hispanics, or black people are gang banging, no matter how hiphop or
"urban" they are.

------
DanielBMarkham
It's good to see an article that makes the case that cultural values are not
completely relative. Some things just work better than other things. Stuff
like private property rights, for instance. Perhaps "right" is the wrong word,
perhaps it should be "effective". Whatever.

For an interesting read along these lines, try "Culture Cult" -- excellent
book.

------
weiser
"..it's not hard to find poor societies or societies with long histories of
oppression where the thar mentality is much less virulent. Instead, I argue
that the thar mentality causes poverty, and causes or certainly reinforces the
oppression in the society."

the author then goes out to enumerate scenarios to argue how thar mentality
might cause poverty.

I agree, thar mentality can cause poverty. But again, poverty can cause thar
mentality. Imagine you are poor destitute. All you probably have to defend is
your honor, or that your wife (if u are lucky to have one) is not doing
someone else.

In the end, I dont know if thar mentality. causes poverty or vice versa.
Maybe, they are both caused by some other factor. What I do know is that the
Author needs to do a better job than this, Unless all he wants is to appease
western cultural supremacists. In that case, he is doing exactly the right
thing.

------
qaexl
As I was reading this, I flashed back to the discussion here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=91794> about traffic jams. One person
slows down, forcing people behind him to slow down. The whole thing ripples
outwards depending on the traffic density. So it is with generations of "thar"
dominant cultures, of blood feuds begetting blood feuds.

------
geezer
amazing how nobody here sees the 800lb gorilla. our response to 9/11 is the
classic thar mentality.

"But thar is one of innumerable cases where the "natural" response to a
problem is the one that will make the problem worse in the fastest possible
way."

Our natural response to retaliate, and in the process, attack the wrong
country....so thar

~~~
pg
I wish it was even that high-minded, but though the people who planned the
invasion of Iraq exploited these attitudes, they were not themselves motivated
by them.

Powerful groups wanted the US to attack Iraq before 9/11 made US voters easy
to convince.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Read "The Gathering Storm" for an argument to topple Saddam made before we
went in (but post 9-11) There is a long list of reasons which I won't go into
here. 9-11 was the tipping point in terms of domestic politics, no doubt. It
also seems to be the tipping point in terms of strategic policy.

There's an interesting discussion about why democratic nations go to war. If
there is a mixed number of reasons and a volunteer army, which are the actual
reasons we fight? I just read read a blog entry by an Army 1st Lt. killed last
year who made the argument that he was joining up to stop oppression. To do
something and make a difference. I also hear a lot of folks talk about leaders
with supposedly bad intentions who "got us into this." So when a president and
congress vote on something, and people volunteer to do it, is it possible to
assign any one reason to why it's being done?

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. Probably get downmodded again for this comment.
Have at it, then.

~~~
aswanson
You should not get downmodded for difference of opinion, but frankly, I think
thinking in these simplistic terms (good vs. evil, us right, them wrong) has
led us into military adventurism and disasters, including the current one.
This is not 1938, Saddam was not Hitler, and dissenters were not Chamberlains.
They were thinkers.

How people who were alive and had a front row seat to Vietnam let this happen
escapes me. It was very clear from the mixed reasons given, along with the
silencing of dissent and rush to attack that there were ulterior reasons for
invasion.

Coupled with the quotes from senior admin officials "cakewalk", "oil will pay
for it", "done in a few weeks", and the end of this fiasco was as clear and
predictable as day to me.

But I digress. And feel free to disagree.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Dissenters were not Neville Chamberlains. They were thinkers. I agree. I spent
many hours pouring over various arguments on Iraq before we went in, and I was
deeply emotional about the way things turned out. But I also digress.

But the other side were also thinkers. Thinkers can disagree. The wonderful
thing about both startups and politics is that if you are wrong, somebody else
will come along and be right. The parallel extends in that sometimes we work
on incomplete information. Additionally, traction on the ground is all that
matters, hence the reason why we should all know a little more about COIN
(COunter INsurgency) today than one year ago.

I was too young to remember the politics around Vietnam. I had an uncle who
volunteered in the Marines, only to be sent to California instead. He was very
disappointed. I know that hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese left the
communist invasion to go wherever they could. I feel certain that South
Vietnam could have held against the North had we not cut off all of their
support in Congress. But I am not a military expert, so what do I know?

Communism is not bad, as in moral terms. It is bad in terms of effectiveness
and efficiency. More people are happy under capitalism. That doesn't make
Capitalism right, it just makes it more "right" than other systems. "right" is
a term that needs further definition before you can comment on it.

As a side note, I would have not supported the invasion of Iraq had I not felt
that we as a country were in it for no matter what it took. Fighting a war is
a horrible thing, and if it is necessary, it doesn't become "not necessary"
once the bill gets too high, the deaths get too high, or the newspapers start
trashing your political party (not that I am a Republican.) Wars are not
football games. Nobody wins in a war. But yet the applied use of physical
violence seems to be a constant in the reality I live in. It also seems
obvious that it is a duty on each of us to determine the rules by which such
violence should be fostered on others. It is not sufficient to make blanket
statements -- each of us owes our society a reason when and why we would or
would not use violence. I think this responsibility for analysis is missing.
Perhaps because most people feel more like spectators than participants.

We use terms like "bad" "good" "right" "wrong" to signify some serious and
nuanced opinions. It makes sense to take the time to explain ourselves. Thanks
for calling me on it. Apologies if I continue to offend folks and get down-
modded again.

~~~
aswanson
_It also seems obvious that it is a duty on each of us to determine the rules
by which such violence should be fostered on others. It is not sufficient to
make blanket statements -- each of us owes our society a reason when and why
we would or would not use violence. I think this responsibility for analysis
is missing. Perhaps because most people feel more like spectators than
participants._

If only our elected leadership thought like this. At least you went through
the process and were willing to accept the consequences.

We were led into this _as if_ it were a football game, and the public bought
it. I remember arguing with people about the cost in lives, and they were
pissed at people like Susan Sarandon because "they don't have to pay high gas
prices. What are those stars worried for?". The whole "shut up and sing" anti-
analytical thought process in the run-up showed me how amenable the public is
to control with fear. I counted at least 4 changes in the rationale for war
within a week by Bush during this time period, and it didn't seem to matter to
anyone but me.

I figured, "maybe I'm too skeptical and they know something I don't". If only
that were the case. Due to the football game cakewalk mentality of our
leadership, we have had 5 years of hillbilly armor, extended tours of duty, an
insurgency, thousands dead, etc. It didn't have to be this way.

Again, thanks for your opinion and glad someone else is thinking.

------
bayareaguy
If you are interested in this sort of thing, you may enjoy James Bowman's
"Honor" (<http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/honor>). I particularly like the
way Bowman avoids the trap of having to provide a specific definition of honor
by instead explaining various notions of honor in cultural and historic
contexts.

------
jsnx
Both the code of Bushido and the less culturally specific "Texas Justice"
mentioned in this article arose in similar circumstances -- cultures that are
war-like, family-centric and deeply conservative. Bushido, however, likes to
put on the face of self-censure, and therein lay the real difference.

Neither seppuku (suicide with a helper) nor harikari (the solo version) were
matters of "killing yourself if you get super pissed and can't find anybody
else to kill" (as per Real Ultimate Power). They were a means of averting the
wrath of an indiscriminate government, which would punish _your entire family_
if you failed to make up for your shame in the appropriate way. Of course,
your family would not be happy about this -- the option of "do it yourself or
your family gets it!" drives a wedge between the family and the individual,
strengthening the position of the central government by a large margin.

With a government so strong that it can even make people kill themselves, who
needs to go around enforcing one's honor by wildly killing people? The
strength of the government encourages order, both discouraging revenge and the
slights that lead to it. Disputes go through "official channels" and people
have confidence in their resolution.

In lieu of "the rule of law", people are more inclined to take justice into
their own hands. When there is no law to cover a certain trade or group, honor
killing often reasserts itself. Consider Asian gang members in San Francisco
who traffic in narcotics -- when one cheats another, they have no one to turn
to for dispute resolution, so it's killing time!

So many things are bundled up in that article -- misogyny, honor killing,
notions of honor, backwardness, privilege -- but it is important to
acknowledge that "Texas Justice" (lolz) is present whenever the sheriff is
absent, weak or corrupt. Take a bunch of "Enlightenment" people, put them out
in the middle of nowhere with some guns and, voila, you've got Thar!

~~~
DanielBMarkham
bullshit.

the author either knows nothing about the subject or never saw the experiment
deployed

~~~
jsnx
It would nice to know what exactly you disagree with, and why you disagree.

------
uuilly
I really enjoyed this article and I think he's largely right. Pride (thar) is
the most overlooked variable in geo-politics. But he leaves out an important
detail. The US provides much of the defenses for Europe and almost all of them
for Japan. After Bosnia it is hard to conceive of Europe going to war alone.
These places may be free of thar but perhaps it is only b/c a thar-ish country
(The US) provided them with breathing room.

~~~
JeffL
The US is not a "thar-ish" country. It is probably the farthest from "thar-
ish" of all the major countries in the world if you judge by the importance
placed on individualism over groups and disregard of what other people think.

~~~
uuilly
Agreed but the article said otherwise. It said japan and northern Europe
achieved the highest marks for non-thar-ness. The US was criticized for minor
thar. I merely asked whether a little thar was such a bad thing. Esp when two
common traits of non thar countries are an inability to defend one's borders
and two of the biggest US military bases outside the US.

------
nanijoe
This article should have been published in the National Enquirer. I can't
think of any other demographic that would fall for the crap this guy is trying
to sell.

------
tptacek
I don't know about toxicity of value systems, but there's no more toxic form
of debate than a semantics argument, which is what this essay devolves to.

~~~
qaexl
That's fallacious. I'm getting tired of people bringing up 'semantic
argument', soon to be followed by 'agree to disagree'. The toxicity of a
'semantic argument' comes from two or more people unable to _emotionally_ get
in rapport with each other and has little to do with the study and crafting of
semantics itself.

