The more ambiguous all present "threat" the more they can control under more ambiguous all present "threat". Virus does the job perfectly, but its hard to sustain forever, so new covid is little green men.

There is a clear patter in US goverment. In the late 19th century progressives pushed for bigger goverment and got all kinds of social programs in. This increased goverment wasteful spending and corruption so naturally they need to spend more. WWI was perfect for getting people jobs building stuff for the Brits, and eventually got involved. After WWI all that machinery and industry was converted to greet the roaring 20's and spending like drunken sailors. More goverment programs, FED in 1913 and consumer culture, lead to great depression. And than just in time, WWII, again repeat WWI , mobilize, push for more spending, get people jobs, get out of depression.

Lucky for Americans they were on a continent far apart from war torn rest of the world so they inherited new markets, free of competition, expect off course soviet union, which means more goverment spending, because of of red scare. Eisenhower warned of Military Industrial Complex on his way out in second term.

Than there was Korea, and off course space race and vietnam, so by 1970 America was banckropt. Too much spending. So they simply stole everyone gold, and sold them dollars, which under Nixon was done. 1970s were inflationary but with smaller debt and huge military and economic might America postponed the inevitable default, but simply pretending they are not backropt.

By the 2008 we had another major financial collapse, that should have been as bad as Great Depression, but instead they just printed more and than in 2018-2019, that was suppsoed to collapse again, but somehow Covid shows up, Boom print more, spend more. Than two years in look, another distracting war. Damn Putin.

Now losing in Ukraine, ups little green men, Major, immeasurable threat. We need to spend more. lol

Well anyone, who buys that one, I got some safe and effective vaccines to sell.

@Krunoslav

There is a lot there I don't agree with but we have been over it before. I would point out that the US didn't cause WWI or WWII. Subsequently the "stealing" was agreed on. Those however are relatively small points. What we can agree on is that power and easy money corrupts societies in a variety of ways.

Because of world trade I think Europeans forget that the US was more or less isolationist until the First World War. There are exceptions such as the invasion of Mexico, Panama and Cuba but relatively small scale events.

The progressive were never as isolationist as the general population. Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson perhaps good examples. Not every thing they did however was entirely unnecessary or undesirable. I would offer the Panama Canal and latter the Tennessee Valley Authority projects as examples of accomplishments. Before 1950 most American lived in relative poverty. Rural cooperatives brought electricity to millions and agricultural research greatly increased productivity.

The industrial revolution and capitalism raised the standard of living for most of the worlds population and continues to do so. For that to happen requires a lot of order out of chaos. Some of that order requires centralized authority. The question is how much of a good thing is too much. Power corrupts and it certainly has corrupted the Federal Government. Attempts at anti trust actions now seem half hearted. As the progressives gained more power what was admirable, such as concern for workers, seems to have slipped away. All the liberal values of the past such as anti censorship are no more.

@wolfhnd "I would point out that the US didn't cause WWI or WWII. "

I don't think I claimed that. The shady involvement of US directly and indirectly, certainly after and during WWII is hard to dispute.

In this case I was referring to the pattern of US goverment to use existing events or create events to excuse its reasons for spending more money and reaching far beyond what would be reasonable for a goverment.

"Because of world trade I think Europeans forget that the US was more or less isolationist until the First World War. There are exceptions such as the invasion of Mexico, Panama and Cuba but relatively small scale events. "

I'm not sure what you mean by isolationists. I know it as a doctrine, but I'm not sure it was the wining doctrine.

"There have been two dominant schools of thought in the United States about foreign policy—interventionism, which encourages military, diplomatic, and economic intervention in foreign countries—and isolationism, which discourages these.

The 19th century formed the roots of United States foreign interventionism, which at the time was largely driven by economic opportunities in the Pacific and Spanish-held Latin America along with the Monroe Doctrine, which saw the U.S. seek a policy to resist European colonialism in the Western hemisphere. The 20th century saw the U.S. intervene in two world wars in which American forces fought alongside their allies in international campaigns against Imperial Japan, Imperial and Nazi Germany, and their respective allies. The aftermath of World War II resulted in a foreign policy of containment aimed at preventing the spread of world communism. The ensuing Cold War resulted in the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, and Reagan Doctrines, all of which saw the U.S. embrace espionage, regime change, proxy conflicts, and other clandestine activity internationally against the Soviet Union.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower and, with this, continued interventions in Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the U.S. and its NATO allies launched the Global War on Terror in which the U.S. waged international counterterrorism campaigns against various extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in various countries. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war saw the U.S. invade Iraq in 2003 and saw the military expand its presence in Africa and Asia via a revamped policy of foreign internal defense. The Obama administration's 2012 "Pivot to East Asia" strategy sought to refocus U.S. geopolitical efforts from counter-insurgencies in the Middle East to increasing American involvement in East Asia, as part of a policy to contain an ascendant China.

The United States Navy has been involved in anti-piracy activity in foreign territory throughout its history, from the Barbary Wars to combating modern piracy off the coast of Somalia and other regions. "

...................

United States non-interventionism primarily refers to the foreign policy that was eventually applied by the United States between the late 18th century and the first half of the 20th century whereby it sought to avoid alliances with other nations in order to prevent itself from being drawn into wars that were not related to the direct territorial self-defense of the United States. Neutrality and non-interventionism found support among elite and popular opinion in the United States, which varied depending on the international context and the country's interests. At times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known as isolationism, such as the interwar period.

Due to the start of the Cold War in the aftermath of World War II end and the rise of the United States as a global superpower, its traditional foreign policy turned towards American imperialism with diplomatic and military interventionism, engaging or somehow intervening in virtually any overseas armed conflict ever since, and concluding multiple bilateral and regional military alliances, chiefly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A non-interventionist policy has continued to be claimed by some American figures and people since the mid-20th century, mostly regarding specific armed conflicts like the Vietnam and Korean wars or the more recent Syrian Civil War.

................................

That is the policy, here is the intervetions.

The 19th century saw the United States transition from an isolationist, post-colonial regional power to a Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific power.

The first and second Barbary Wars of the early 19th century were the first nominal foreign wars waged by the United States following independence. Directed against the Barbary States of North Africa, the Barbary Wars were fought to end piracy against American-flagged ships in the Mediterranean Sea, similar to the Quasi-War with the French Republic.[3]

The founding of Liberia was privately sponsored by American groups, primarily the American Colonization Society, but the country enjoyed the support and unofficial cooperation of the United States government.[4]

Notable 19th century interventions included:

1811: United States federal agent Joel Roberts Poinsett arrives in Chile to assess the prospects of Chilean revolutionaries during their war against the Spanish Empire, leading the first of many U.S. interventions in Chile.

1846 to 1848: During the Mexican–American War, Mexico and the United States warred over Texas, California, and what today is the American Southwest but was then part of Mexico. During this war, U.S. Armed Forces troops invaded and occupied parts of Mexico, including Veracruz and Mexico City.

1854: Commodore Matthew Perry negotiated the Convention of Kanagawa, which effectively ended Japan's centuries of national isolation, opening the country to Western trade and diplomacy.[5] The U.S. later advanced the Open Door Policy in 1899 that guaranteed equal economic access to China and support of Chinese territorial and administrative integrity.[6]

1871: The U.S. dispatched an expeditionary force to Korea after failed attempts to ascertain the fate of the armed merchant ship General Sherman, which was attacked during an unsuccessful attempt to open up trade with the isolationist kingdom in 1866. After being ambushed, the 650-man American expeditionary force launched a punitive campaign, capturing and occupying several Korean forts and killing over 200 Korean troops

1898: The short but decisive Spanish–American War saw overwhelming American victories at sea and on land against the Spanish Kingdom. The U.S. Army, relying significantly on volunteers and state militia units, invaded and occupied Spanish-controlled Cuba, subsequently granting it independence. The peace treaty saw Spain cede control over its colonies of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States.[8] The U.S. Navy set up coaling stations there and in Hawaii.[9] See also: Bath Iron Works

The early decades of the 20th century saw a number of interventions in Latin America by the U.S. government often justified under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.[10] President William Howard Taft viewed Dollar diplomacy as a way for American corporations to benefit while assisting in the national security goal of preventing European powers from filling any possible financial power vacuum.[11]

1898 to 1935: The United States launched multiple minor interventions into Latin America, resulting in U.S. military presence in Cuba, Honduras, Panama (via the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and Isthmian Canal Commission),[12] Haiti (1915–1935),[13] the Dominican Republic (1916–1924) and Nicaragua (1912–1925) & (1926–1933).[14] The U.S. Marine Corps began to specialize in long-term military occupation of these countries, primarily to safeguard customs revenues which were the cause of local civil wars.[15]

1901: The Platt Amendment amended a treaty between the U.S. and the Republic of Cuba after the Spanish–American War, virtually making Cuba a U.S. protectorate. The amendment outlined conditions for the U.S. to intervene in Cuban affairs and permitted the United States to lease or buy lands for the purpose of the establishing naval bases, including Guantánamo Bay.[16]

1904: When European governments began to use force to pressure Latin American countries to repay their debts, Theodore Roosevelt announced his "Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, stating that the United States would not just prevent but militarily intervene in affairs between European and Latin American governments if Eurean pressure resulted in the Latin countries becoming chronically unstable failed states.

1906 to 1909: The U.S. governed Cuba under Governor Charles Magoon.[18]

1914: During a revolution in the Dominican Republic, the U.S. navy fired at revolutionaries who were bombarding Puerto Plata, in order to stop the action.

1916 to 1924: U.S. Marines occupied the Dominican Republic following 28 revolutions in 50 years.[19] The Marines ruled the nation completely except for lawless parts of the city of Santo Domingo, where warlords still held sway.[20]

1899 to 1901: The U.S. organized the China Relief Expedition during the Boxer Rebellion, which saw an eight-nation alliance put down a rebellion by the Boxer secret society and toppled the Qing dynasty's Imperial Army.

1899 to 1913: The Philippine–American War saw Filipino revolutionaries revolt against American rule following the Spanish-American War. The U.S. Army deployed 100,000 (mostly National Guard) troops under General Elwell Otis to the Philippines, resulting in the poorly armed and poorly trained rebels to break off into armed bands. The insurgency collapsed in March 1901 when the leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, was captured by General Frederick Funston and his Macabebe allies.[21] The concurrent Moro Rebellion resulted in the subsequent annexation of the Philippines by the United States.

1910 to 1919: The Border War along the U.S.-Mexico border saw U.S. forces occupy Veracruz for six months in 1914. U.S. troops intervened in northern Mexico during the Pancho Villa Expedition.[22]

1917 to 1920: The U.S. intervened in Europe during World War I. Over the next 18 months, the U.S. would suffer casualties of 116,708 killed and 204,002 wounded. U.S. troops also intervened in the Russian Civil War against the Red Army via the Siberian intervention and the Polar Bear Expedition's North Russia intervention.

@wolfhnd "The progressive were never as isolationist as the general population. Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson perhaps good examples. Not every thing they did however was entirely unnecessary or undesirable. I would offer the Panama Canal and latter the Tennessee Valley Authority projects as examples of accomplishments. Before 1950 most American lived in relative poverty. Rural cooperatives brought electricity to millions and agricultural research greatly increased productivity."

Perhaps. As for most Americans living in poverty before 1950, I don't know how does that related to the rest of the world, because "poverty" is not absolute unite of measurement, its relative.

"The industrial revolution and capitalism raised the standard of living for most of the worlds population and continues to do so. For that to happen requires a lot of order out of chaos. Some of that order requires centralized authority. The question is how much of a good thing is too much. Power corrupts and it certainly has corrupted the Federal Government. Attempts at anti trust actions now seem half hearted. As the progressives gained more power what was admirable, such as concern for workers, seems to have slipped away. All the liberal values of the past such as anti censorship are no more. "

My view is that increase of goverment became progressive ideology and has continued ever since. There was not always need for goverment to intervene but it managed to find reasons to do so, until today it wants to be part of everything in everyone life. This is not surprising, since every goverment will try to grow in size and power until there the host is too weak to feed it.

The Progressive Era

The difficulties brought on by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption in the 19th century were attempted to be solved by a number of legislative reforms, the creation of new federal agencies, and political activism.

A new zeitgeist known as “progressivism” emerged, resulting in the “Progressive Era,” starting in the 1890s and roughly lasting until the start of World War I (somewhere between 1916 and 1920).

They say, the road to hell is paved with noble causes. In hindsight, noble ideas promoted by progressivism, gradually turned America into something so far removed from how it was founded, that one can only think of it as regressive policies, instead of progressive ones. To be fair. Not all was bad. It’s a mix bag.

Progressive ideas serve as the foundation for modern liberalism in the United States today.

The Beginnings of Modern Liberalism

Developed over time to address the concerns about inequalities created by laissez-faire capitalism. The goal is to respond to a set of economic and social circumstances that, in view of the progressive intellectuals, couldn’t have been foreseen at the founding and for which the founders’ constrained, constitutional government was insufficient. This was an argument put forth for significantly expanding the federal government’s authority. Progressivism, which calls for letting go of the political goals of the American founding fathers, claims that the constitution of the United States is outdated and that American society must progress by implementing new solutions to new problems.

Classical Liberalism was about protecting civil liberties by safeguarding a system under which individuals could independently grow to the potential. Government rules, regulations, and social programs were kept to a minimum, with every person acting on his or her behalf. Because of their outsized capital, large corporations could influence the government more. This inevitably, over time, increases social and economic inequality. Modern Liberalism, at first, argued for creating equality of opportunity for all individuals, with more individuals in society receiving rights. And they were keen on using the government intervention to ensure that the most vulnerable people are cared for.

Unlike classical liberalism, which saw the government as a necessary evil or, more naively, as a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the progressive belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone “evolve,” and thus couldn’t avoid the temptation to use the state’s power to become more authoritarian as it “progressed.”

As Camille Paglia, in her book “Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism,” elegantly pinpoints the problem; “Modern liberalism suffers from unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects the government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism sees the government as a tyrant father but expects it to act like a nurturing mother. ”

The movement began by focusing primarily on local issues, but as time passed, it gradually began to operate at the state and federal levels. Throughout the Gilded Age, the parties were reluctant to involve the federal government heavily in the private sector, except for railroads and tariffs (late 19th century). The laissez-faire philosophy, which opposes government intervention in the economy other than to protect law and order, was universally accepted by them. This attitude began to shift during the economic depression of the 1890s as small business, agricultural, and labor groups began to press the government to act on their behalf. The middle class backed progressivism, as support was given by many business owners, clergy, educators, professionals, and medical personnel who saw government intervention as beneficial to their self-interest at the time.

Hence, even in its early stages, social issues regarding women’s suffrage and racial relations were also pushed by the progressives. New reforms and laws that were passed, included labor union laws, income taxes, and antitrust laws in an attempt to curtail monopolies. The very term “progressive” reveals the fundamental nature of the movement. Always keep pushing for more and more changes, arguing for progress. Eventually, political activism became the core of the movement, more evident today than in the past. It’s not about improving anymore, it’s about the pursuit of political power and, on a broader scale, social utopia. In that sense, the ideological, rather than practical, push for progress is more forceful and far-reaching today than it was at the end of the 19th century, when the era began.

Some progressives believed that by improving regulatory operations and services, the American government would be better able to meet the requirements of the populace. Instead of using legal justifications to challenge conventions, they attempt to do so by citing “scientific principles” and data compiled by social scientists to argue their case. The progressives’ pursuit of efficiency occasionally conflicts with their pursuit of democracy. Politicians’ voices were muffled as power was transferred from elected officials to professional administrators, which in turn muffled the public’s voice.

While centralizing decision-making and giving local governments less authority may have resulted in less corruption overall, it also encouraged a distinct type of corruption, since it kept local government farther from the people it was intended to serve. Progressives who stressed the need for efficiency frequently asserted that trained, impartial professionals might make better decisions than the local politicians. This technocratic attitude toward society is still in place today and has only gotten stronger over time as technology has developed.

Far from being founded on scientific method, it has evolved into a scientism religion led by a class of professionally trained “experts” who serve as the system’s gatekeepers. The new priestly class, enjoying special privileges in the new order. This was not unique to America, and we see it today in the European Union, Great Britain and all over the English-speaking sphere where unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are making decisions that influence every aspect of the lives of millions.

“The appeal by twentieth-century pluralists to scientific method was also ideologically—and even messianically—driven. It ignored scientific data that interfered with environmentalist assumptions and misrepresented socialist faith as ‘scientific planning.’ ― Paul Edward Gottfried

Some progressives believe that science should be applied to all aspects of life, including family, government, business, industry, finance, healthcare, and education. This resulted in a much darker side of progressivism. The Eugenics programs, a set of beliefs and activities that aim to enhance the genetic quality of the human population, were born because of this. During the Third Reich, Hitler adopted some of these principles and methods after being inspired by American eugenics. Even today, in some situations, American men and women are required to get sterilized. Compulsory sterilization in America continues to this day.

Numerous policies were adopted during this particular progressive era, including perhaps the most far-reaching overall. A significant overhaul of the banking system by establishing ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island,’ in 1913. It’s more commonly known as ‘the FED’ (Federal Reserve System). The FED is unique in that it’s composed of twelve regional banks that are coordinated by a central board in Washington, D.C. the central bank is a bank for banks. It does for banks what banks do for individuals and businesses. It holds their deposits, or legal reserves, for safekeeping; it makes loans to other banks and governments; and it creates its own credit in the form of created deposits, or additional legal reserves, or banknotes, called Federal Reserve notes. Furthermore, it also has the responsibility of promoting economic stability by controlling credit.

At first, the Federal Reserve’s chief responsibilities were to create enough credit to carry on the nation’s part of World War I. Later, after World War II, with the U.S. dollar becoming the world reserve currency and going off the gold standard in 1971, it has become the de facto central banking system of the world.

@Krunoslav

Although I can find little fault with your latest reply it ignores a deeper reality. A frontier society will by it's nature be more free than a congested one. Even then in the least populated parts of the country you had "wars" over the free movement of cattle and water rights. Your only as free as the people around you allow you to be. The greatest freedom comes from responsibility and cooperation. The founding fathers assume that progress would be accompanied by developing ethics. For example even the slave holders among them assume that slavery was sufficiently unethical and would disappear.

One of the biggest problem with the people that call themselves progressive today is they have embraced philosophical positions that exclude the possibility of morality. Something nobody involved with the enlightenment or the period shortly after foresaw. Later Nietzsche would come close to understanding how the enlightenment had gone wrong but even he didn't fully understand that determinism was at the heart of the enlightenment. It was natural philosophy not political or moral philosophy that would capture the future generations with serious negative consequences.

@Krunoslav

Still the US history is not one of attempted complete hegemony of the likes of Napoleon and other European leaders. That has a lot to do with geography but environment always determines the nature of the creatures that evolve in it.

@wolfhnd "The greatest freedom comes from responsibility and cooperation." I support that, for sure.

"The founding fathers assume that progress would be accompanied by developing ethics. For example even the slave holders among them assume that slavery was sufficiently unethical and would disappear. "

When I first started learning about American history, culture and politics etc. I found the same assumptions being offered. Now that I've looked into it more deeply and been exposed to it for a while. I can't say I accept the official story about that. But lets assume it was true for the sake of argument.

If the argument was that morality will prevail on a societal level and people will act morality as a society to abolish slavery for example. Where were these morals supposed to come from?

Liberal ideology that guided the founders was by its very nature a problem for this, since it insists that there each person must choose their own morals, and that it would be indignifaying to force common set of morality on everyone by central authority. Hypocrisy of liberals aside, even if we take them at face value, it would create a problem for a nation that was supposed to rely on common moral values.

The closest common morality in USA was that which came from Christianity. But since USA via constitutions claims that goverment should not favor one religion over another by law, it creates a conundrum about that common shared moral values thing. Furthermore, Liberalism is hostile to Christianity and it was only a matter of time before it would try to impose its own values, as it eventually did.

"One of the biggest problem with the people that call themselves progressive today is they have embraced philosophical positions that exclude the possibility of morality. Something nobody involved with the enlightenment or the period shortly after foresaw."

Well, liberalism was the foundation for that since its clearly lefty utopian anti human religion. Liberalism does not look at human nature and tries to build a system to nurture that, it instead envisions utopian version of the world and than tries to force people , weather they want to or not to fit the mold of that utopia. Egalitarianism is a clear and easy to make example of that.

Liberalism is also a religion of statism. It replaces God with state. Liberals always worship state above everything else. And while it may have not been as obvious in the first 150 or so years of USA, the more liberalism becomes itself the more clear its inherent problems are. Early Americans were not more liberal and therefore more moral, they were more christian and therefore more moral. Any morality was more in spite of Liberalism and not because of it.

After all, the supreme legal document. The constitution is not moral or methodological theory, its a legal document. Legal document that envisions legal framework as administrated by the state, which is held to not moral standards, but legal standards. Legal and moral can be, but often are not the same thing.

At one point holocaust was legal, but certainly it was not moral.

The liberal ideology is a contemporary religion. I disagree with the viewpoint of the progressive modern liberals that pursuing religious freedom is a worthwhile objective, because it is a false premise. Liberals impose their own religion upon other religions because they believe it to be the only true faith and the most moral of them all. So much so, they believe that simply self-identifying as a liberal is enough to be morally superior. They outsource the responsibility of personal morality by unloading it onto the liberal ideology itself. This is expanded by the Liberal dogma of the “doctrine of universal human rights.” Those who disagree with it are rarely tolerated; hence, those that are more dogmatic among the liberals, consider even challenging the human rights doctrine to be blasphemous.

...............

“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.”

*Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.

....as we see today.

“Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology.

A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”

― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018)

Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected.

Liberalism vs. Reality - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.

Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.

The Guilt of the Liberal - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 221-8.

..............................

@wolfhnd "Later Nietzsche would come close to understanding how the enlightenment had gone wrong but even he didn't fully understand that determinism was at the heart of the enlightenment."

My understanding of enlightenment was that people who were between the clergy and royalty, but academic and intellectual found themselves in a position in society where they though they knew how to run the society better for the good of everyone , and were at the same time limited by the sociopolitical reality of their day, subordinate to the ruling classes of royalty and clergy.

And while their intentions might have been good ones, it eventually lead to old regime being just fat and lazy and hypocritical for the new luminaries the enlighten ones to lead the way to new era. Some of it was spontaneous, some of it was planed, some of it was opportunism, but here we are.

"determinism, philosophical thesis that every event is the inevitable result of antecedent causes. Applied to ethics and psychology, determinism usually involves a denial of free will, although many philosophers have attempted to reconcile the two concepts. Thomas Hobbes, identifying the will with appetites and defining freedom as the absence of impediments, concluded that free will exists where nothing prevents a person from satisfying his prevailing appetite. David Hume argued that a person's willful conduct counts as freely chosen even though his will has itself been determined by his motives. William James called such attempts to fit notions of free will into determinist systems "soft" determinism; "hard" determinism excludes the possibility of free will altogether. The doctrine of determinism is opposed by the principle of emergence, which states that truly novel and unpredictable events may occur out of the composite forces of nature.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2023, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved."

My view on this is simply this....

“Let us not say, every man is the architect of his own fortune; but let us say, every man is the architect of his own character.”
― George D. Boardman

Some people believe in fortune or luck, that is to say a chance happening, or that which happens beyond a person's control. Believing that Fortuna as Machiavelli calls it, controls everything, so that there is no use in trying to act. Others simply refuse to believe that they don't have control over their lives and choose to believe in free will instead. In the power of personal choice. Often with great deal of defiance.

A man who is observant and honest with himself will come to realization that it is both of these forces that define our destiny. They are intricately interwoven and make up the fabric of our lives. For the sake of simplicity we could say that fortune controls only half of one's actions, leaving free will to control the other half.

Fortune can be compared to a river that floods, destroying everything in its way. But when the weather is good, people can choose to prepare dams and dikes to control the flood. It is a matter of fortune or misfortune the kind of genes you are born with, but you can choose to make the most of it or dwell on its shortcomings. We can't choose in what time and place we are born, that is again a matter of fortune or misfortune. Being born in the rubbles of Poland after the second world war is not the same thing as being born in the place like United States in the same time period. These are the circumstances that are clearly beyond our control. However how we choose to respond to these challenging or favorable circumstances is withing our control.

It would be inaccurate to say that only one of these factors determine our destiny. It is the combination of the two. For better or worse. For instance. We can't choose our parents, but we can choose what kind of parents we want to be. Some of us are fortunate to have loving parents that help us navigate trough challenging process of reaching adulthood. Others might be less fortunate and may have parents that abuse them, don't undersetand them or simply have lose their parents in war, natural disasters to some illness. But what thing is undeniable and it is fully a matter of personal responsibility. And that is our disposition towards life challenges and how we choose to prepare for them.

What we choose to do every day, rain or shine is what become our habits which ultimately determine our character.

"It is not set speeches at the moment of battle that render soldiers brave. The veteran scarcely listens to them, and the recruit forgets them at the first discharge..." - Napoleon I Maxims, No. LXI (1831)

@wolfhnd "Still the US history is not one of attempted complete hegemony of the likes of Napoleon and other European leaders. That has a lot to do with geography but environment always determines the nature of the creatures that evolve in it."

Yes, they say geography is destiny and certainly dictates geopolitics. Being a new country in a virgin continent with lot of resources and not much competition, and far away from big powers, starting a country from scratch while being rich colonies, and also with two oceans open for trade and good protection against invasion, helps. Two world wars that led to destruction of many of the rivals was also fortunate. Americans are not exceptional as the doctrine of Americans Exceptionalism claims, they are however fortunate with geography. That part is not disputed. A time and place was also a big fortunate factor. A few centuries earlier would be a problem because there was no ships for trade and conquest and few centuries later would be a problem because of the different world wide politics and technology. That is why today, there are no so called founding fathers in a free open resources free land to start paying with it. There is no such place anymore. Maybe a new planet one day.

Someone wrote:

“The German and Russian state apparatuses grew out of despotism. For this reason the subservient nature of the human character of masses of people in Germany and in Russia was exceptionally pronounced. Thus, in both cases, the revolution led to a new despotism with the certainty of irrational logic. In contrast to the German and Russia state apparatuses, the American state apparatus was formed by groups of people who had evaded European and Asian despotism by fleeing to a virgin territory free of immediate and effective traditions. Only in this way can it be understood that, until the time of this writing, a totalitarian state apparatus was not able to develop in America, whereas in Europe every overthrow of the government carried out under the slogan of freedom inevitably led to despotism.

This holds true for Robespierre, as well as for Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. If we want to appraise the facts impartially, then we have to point out, whether we want to or not, and whether we like it or not, that Europe's dictators, who based their power on vast millions of people, always stemmed from the suppressed classes. I do not hesitate to assert that this fact, as tragic as it is, harbors more material for social research than the facts related to the despotism of a czar or of a Kaiser Wilhelm.

By comparison, the latter facts are easily understood. The founders of the American Revolution had to build their democracy from scratch on foreign soil. The men who accomplished this task had all been rebels against English despotism. The Russian Revolutionaries, on the other had, were forced to take over an already existing and very rigid government apparatus. Whereas the Americans were able to start from scratch, the Russians, as much as they fought against it, had to drag along the old. This may also account for the fact that the Americans, the memory of their own flight from despotism still fresh in their minds, assumed an entirely different—more open and more accessible—attitude toward the new refugees of 1940, than Soviet Russia, which closed its doors to them.

This may explain why the attempt to preserve the old democratic ideal and the effort to develop genuine self-administration was much more forceful in the United States than anywhere else. We do not overlook the many failures and retardations caused by tradition, but in any event a revival of genuine democratic efforts took place in America and not in Russia.

― Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism

@Krunoslav

You can't take people out of the historical context, it's always a case of compared to what.

Of course the founding father were not the people the myth describes. Their motivations were not entirely noble. It was the landed second or third class nobility in the US that drove the revolution against England to a great extent. Washington in particular was extremely ambitious and when he found out that he would never be accepted as an equal by English nobility it provided a great motivation to rebel. It you want to make it that simple and just conclude they were no different than any other group of ambitious men you are making a mistake.

As I said earlier it is the environment that determines how the creature will evolve. Liberty was a fait accompli in the new world. The people that immigrated there and tried to set up a new Europe, especially in North America, tried to recreate the landed nobility that they knew from Europe. Especially in the plantation south. Racial slavery was the answer to their biggest problem. You couldn't have a peasant class because they could just wander off to free land to the west. They needed some group that was easily identified as belonging to the land. Racial slavery was the answer. At the same time in the north the merchant class had no interest in imitating the system of landed nobility. They may not of cared about slavery but they certainly didn't need it. Still they had to a lesser extent the problem of maintaining a reliable working class when land was free.

The New World was an environment that evolved a concept of liberty impossible in the Old World.

Although liberty may have been a fait accomple for anyone brave enough to set off on their own their was another factor in form an ethos of equality. Rich and poor alike had to respect men who could choose to fight or not. Frontier societies are always at the mercy of nomadic or less settled peoples. The hardy frontiersman was the perfect people to turn to for defense against the "barbarians". They were respected in a way that they never could have been in the old world where they would have been seen as rebels or social misfits.

@Krunoslav

I don't know why you feel the need to state that "Americans" are not exceptional. How would you even go about proving or disproving something that subjective? The citizens of every country feel they are exceptional. Members of almost every identifiable group feel they are exceptional.

None the less I would still maintain that the US constitution is exceptional. The environment in which it evolved made it exceptional. You can argue all you want about whether the people that wrote it were exceptional or not. That really is not the point. For almost a century the frontier spirit made the US the freest country in the world for the majority of people. The bill of rights were respected and the US had exceptional freedom of religious expression, free speech, and movement. The individual had a kind of dignity hard to find in more crowded environments such as Europe.

Freewill is meaningless unless you have the freedom to express it. It is the basis for agency and dignity. It's an individual property that a group cannot possess. Mobs are mad because they lose their individual identity.

Their is a line from "Band of Brothers" I like to quote. An American soldier riding in the back of an open truck on seeing German prisoners of war being marched out to a camps yells out "you subservient scum". There is a fine line between being civilized and "subservient scum". Often Americans err on the side of being free. Still the instinct for individual dignity is part of that freedom. Today because of increasing crowding, the complexity and interconnectedness of modern life, a change in genetics from adventurers to ordinary migrants, rigid educational practices focused on producing technocrats, the civilizational tiredness that all European people feel after two world wars, the luxus that follows economic empire, non European diversity, shame over the institution of slavery, and other factors have dulled that desire for freedom.

@wolfhnd "I don't know why you feel the need to state that "Americans" are not exceptional."

Because its a doctrine, not a statement of fact. This same doctrine has been applied by others before America, so its not even unique. Same was said about themselves by the Spanish, by Romans, by Greeks, by British, by Germans etc.

American exceptionalism

[newworldencyclopedia.org]

" How would you even go about proving or disproving something that subjective? The citizens of every country feel they are exceptional. Members of almost every identifiable group feel they are exceptional. "

Yes, they do feel that about themselves, but you know what would truly be exceptional, those that are great without claiming it. As the saying goes. You are not humble, because you are not that great.

Humbleness is an important trait of the great nation. And while there are humble Americans and even presidents who spoke of the virtue of it, the doctrine of American Exceptionalism has not been written by people who are humble. And when I used the word exceptional, I primerally was speaking of the doctrine. A political doctrine.

However if you instinct on measuring exceptionalism of a nation, one good way to measure it would be how long does it last and what does it do with its power. On both fronts America, or rather United States has a problem. Its not been around for very long. Its still a relatively young nation and its in free fall, morally, spiritually, economically, militarily etc. By comparison there are empires that far outlasted America so far. And in terms of what great nations do with their power., this is a tricky one since most fail and America is no exception. Pun intended. Certainly in recent decades America has been worlds number one tyrant in terms of forign policy while thinking of itself as invincible. Do I have to pull out historic examples about how not exceptional this line of thinking is? I hope not.

@wolfhnd "Freewill is meaningless unless you have the freedom to express it. It is the basis for agency and dignity. It's an individual property that a group cannot possess. Mobs are mad because they lose their individual identity. "

That's true.

Because men are in a group,
and therefore weakened,
receptive, and in a state of
psychological regression, they
pretend all the more to be
"strong individuals." The mass
man is clearly sub-human, but
pretends to be superhuman. He
is more suggestible, but insists
he is more forceful; he is more
unstable, but thinks he is firm
in his convictions ...
Democracy is based on the
concept that man is rational and
capable of seeing clearly what
is in his own interest, but the
study of public opinion suggests
this is a highly doubtful proposition.

JACQUES ELLUL, Propaganda

@wolfhnd " Often Americans err on the side of being free. Still the instinct for individual dignity is part of that freedom. Today because of increasing crowding, the complexity and interconnectedness of modern life, a change in genetics from adventurers to ordinary migrants, rigid educational practices focused on producing technocrats, the civilizational tiredness that all European people feel after two world wars, the luxus that follows economic empire, non European diversity, shame over the institution of slavery, and other factors have dulled that desire for freedom. "

I don't think Americans err on the side of being free, I think Americans are just like everyone else. Its an American trait, its a human trait. Just during last two years we have seen covid tyrannical policies implemented around the world and we have seen people act more or less the same , regardless of skin color or nation or geography. Only individuals has chosen to act in a particular way, but it was not related to nationality, ethnicity, race or even creed. Neighbors attacking neighbors for mask wearing, or not wearing, demanding jabs etc. Same thing world over. Because we are all humans.

@Krunoslav

Well at least we have a conversation now and then. In the end I'm afraid there is just too much subjectivity to sort through and it really isn't important to the practical problems we want to address.

@wolfhnd "None the less I would still maintain that the US constitution is exceptional. The environment in which it evolved made it exceptional. You can argue all you want about whether the people that wrote it were exceptional or not. That really is not the point. For almost a century the frontier spirit made the US the freest country in the world for the majority of people. The bill of rights were respected and the US had exceptional freedom of religious expression, free speech, and movement. The individual had a kind of dignity hard to find in more crowded environments such as Europe."

But Aborigines and what some call native Americans, had that for thousands of years. Freedom of speech, freedom to roam etc. Even in Americans colonies people's lives didn't change much after constitution was written. Instead of British now they had to pay taxes to American goverment. Paying taxes is not mentioned in constitution and yet there was Whiskey rebellion over that very same fact. People in America like to talk about Boston Tea Party - 1773 American protest against British taxation, but know less about Whiskey rebellion under newly formed American federal goverment.

So how exceptional was American thing? I don't know, To me it does not seem as exceptional as it is claimed to be. Nor do I find it important to have that label if I was an American.

The "American Exceptionalism" doctrine goes hand in hand with "The Empire of Liberty" A theme developed first by Thomas Jefferson to identify the responsibility of the United States to spread freedom across the world. Jefferson saw the mission of the U.S. in terms of setting an example, expansion into western North America, and by intervention abroad.

If you look at British Empire and compare it to American Empire, you find similar ideas. Same doctrines of being exceptional, more civilized, and destined to spread civilization across the globe. Greeks has same ideas too. I don't find these exceptional ideas at all, but quite expected of those who think of themselves as exceptional, regardless weather its true or not.

Han Chinese. Same thing. Aryan NAZi's. Same thing. Japanese during certain periods. Same thing. Were they all exceptional? I don't think so. I think the ideas are very similar and far from being exceptional I find them predicable. Its human nature after all. That is why to use another quote....

“Of all manifestations of power, restraint impresses me the most.”
― Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War

“The measure of a man is what he does with power.”
― Plato

...now that is truly exceptional.

In the context of America, I must say that I find George Washington as the best American president and exceptional leader, but he is not a reflection of America as a whole, he is just one man.

@wolfhnd "Well at least we have a conversation now and then. In the end I'm afraid there is just too much subjectivity to sort through and it really isn't important to the practical problems we want to address. "

I guess so. Someone said the other day that what he described as "conservatives" are hard to rally around the common cause, because they are so individual minded and think differently in many things and prefer individuality. While the lefties are more organized because they follow whatever the current thing is. Maybe our strength is our weakness and our weakness is our strength , than. What do you think about that?

@Krunoslav

It really is a new age. Things exist that have never existed before. The future is particularly difficult to predict. That said the advantages that come from individualism primarily come into play once freedom is established. We probably have to go backwards to go forward. Fighting a collective requires a collective. Still individual initiative on the battlefield shouldn't be discounted. For the collective effort logistics are key but once in place battles take place on a different and more individualistic level. We have to start with the logistics which I'm afraid means resources or money. Peasants make horrible armies.