Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> Come on, isn't there someone here to argue with? Where's Flint? Justinian? Anyone?>
This election is trivial and irrelevant, because at the end of the election the theocratic elites of Iran will continue to exercise supreme authority over all secular government in the country.
I think that the victim's market disturbs the peace and disrupts the free market. Dont you?
I don't watch any tv. I can either afford cable or internet. I chose internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_funeral#Features_of_a_military_funeral_in_the_United_States
Ok... What was is Bachelor party?
I know my best friend is getting married, but a while ago his brother emailed me about a bachelor party. Supposedly this party involves paintball and going to bars. Now while that sounds fun, I'm a little confused. What the hell is a bachelor party, and why was I invited? Does it have something to do with his wedding?
> esa wrote:
> Didn
Another way to lower rape rates is to legalize prostitution. The opportunity to have sex should be a human right too!
Yes, I am promoting genocide, but you can all show relief since I am not talking about humans. I am talking about dogs, specifically pit bulls. Pit bulls are known to be a dangerous and aggressive breed with a disproportionate number of dog bites. In fact, the only reason you would own a pit bull is to have a guard dog, like meth lab owners, or to massage your ego by owning an aggressive breed. For this reason alone, pit bulls should be illegal to own, breed, or be used for commercial purposes. Furthermore, pit bulls should be exterminated from existence.
Would it be as efficient, inexpensive and affordable to the poor as the free-market advocates claim it would be?
Why do minorities in power who speak out in favor of their ethnic group end up in the media, while the good minorities that are driven by power and ally with the elites aren't in the spotlight?
Dirty democrats and their divide/conquer strategies. They are too chicken to fight like real men.
I didn't say both are necessary, I said soft power can be complementary to hard power. If you are going to pick between any one of them, then I would consider hard power as more essential.
I think whether one is better than the other is a matter of testing whether people are more motivated by social incentives or economical/power ones. Are we more motivated to please people who share our values and are likeable, or are we more motivated to please those who have something tangible that we value or can take away something we value? While I can't cite any major study supporting the latter, I think based on personal experience and my study of history that the latter has much more weight.
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> Still, why are they mutually exclusive??? Carrot and stick approaches, such as South Africa, prove that a willingness to use both is the key to power gaining.>
I'm of the view that if nothing else, rely on hard power. But it's better to use them both, with soft power complementing the hard power. If you only rely on soft power, then you are in a situation where you have nothing to offer or deter. In that kind of situation, the resulting outcome is you will be taken advantage of.
In my opinion, Ghenghis Khan was brilliant as exercising both kinds of power. He was able to persuade and inspire men to obey and die for him, and he was also brilliant with coercion and providing incentives for remaining in his empire. We hear a lot about his ruthless battle tactics, but he was also charismatic and a a major promoter of trade. Alexander The Great was also brilliant with using both kinds of power. You knew he would own you if you messed with him, but he was also sensitive to religious and cultural differences. He was, for example, religiously tolerant and married in to the Persian royal family. When Darius was executed by his own guards, his response amounted to "you killed my father in law!"
> Noir wrote:
> Soft power can achivie things hard power cannot. For instance is the business world (ive studied this in leadership psychology) you can aspire people with soft power (influence) to work efficiently, trought giving them motication and internal joy for their work. While you can fear people into staying at work or working hard, the minute you turn your back they will be taking breaks etc. In addition hard power often has transaction costs when implicated, such as costly routines to catch slackers etc. Furhtermore soft power can often be much more effective to aspire creativity and inovation (look to google)>
Interesting. My study of psychology indicated that providing positive reinforcement on a variable ratio schedule was the most effective for maximizing work place efficiency. Although, I do agree, that having a kind of bonding relationship between co workers and leadership is also an effective way to improve work efficiency. We work better with people we know better.
However, in dealing with other countries, this soft power stuff comes off as fake. It's like offering an empty hand on many occasion. "Yeah we stand for justice and equality for all" is just typically inappropriate in business or foreign relations transactions. Soft power has its uses, don't get me wrong, but it's most useful as a complement to hard power, not as a substitute.
> esa wrote:
> How was the Bush hardpower strategy profitable?>
There are many hard power options, and not all options are equal. Some in fact, like the ones Bush chose, are down right stupid under certain circumstances. It may be that providing the incentive of aid is more effective than coercion or vice versa. However, the most effective and reliable strategies in international relations are typically ones that fall within the boundaries of hard power.
Just to add a comment:
I think Obama relies too heavily on soft power, and I predict that throughout his presidency he will consistently forgo a hard power strategy when it is both more profitable and reliable than a soft power one. If indeed he does do this, I also predict that the US will decline even faster than it is currently.
Someone please give Obama a copy of "The Prince."
For those of you who don't know the difference, allow me to explain. Soft power is power obtained by bonding (charisma, favors, empathizing shared values and flattery etc) and hard power is power obtained by more overt actions like having the ability to provide rewards (money, resources and weapons etc) or punishments (coercion and embargos etc).
Lately, there has been a hype in circles of political science that soft power is a highly valuable tool to increase in international relations, if not preferable to hard power. In fact, Chinese leaders have recently focused on increasing their own soft power, with investments in cultural exports and the 2008 Olympics. As would be expected, of course, many critics have argued that the costs of soft power are immense and the investments are less secure than strategies focused on hard power. I happen to agree with them. Soft power may have its uses, but it also has considerable limitations.
Machiavelli's "The Prince" couldn't do a better job explaining the limits of soft power. While he admits it's good to be loved and feared, between the two being feared is the best option. His reasoning is that while being loved may inspire the cooperation of others in periods of convenience, when you need their help in a time of adversity they will disappear. We see this every day. People may have superficial friendships by virtue of their likability, but when they really need their help their friends are gone. If, on the other hand, your friends are in some way dependent on you or you have a symbiotic relationship with them, then you can expect them to stand by you in a time of adversity. In the case of a ruler, they can expect the same if the adversity will cost their friends too, or if they are afraid of being punished for desertion. Incentives also work as an exchange for support. An unpaid army just isn't going to fight as well as paid one.
Ultimately, I think the soft power hype over rates its usefulness. It may be useful for breaking ice or establishing trust, but in the end hard power is more reliable. The bottom line is that statesman want to maximize their power, and if you can not offer them an incentive or threaten them with a punishment, you can not expect to reliably receive their cooperation. Hard power strategies may be more expensive, but they are also more reliable.
> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:
Why would you want to? =/>
I'm not really motivated to, but sometimes I just want to get away from these idiots who greet you by asking what church you go to.
Can Americans emigrate to Europe?
Who cares about the majority? They want pension entitlements.
Agreed.
Poor people should never vote either. Elitism ftw!
English democrats ftw!
Who votes for BNP?
I voted for Elaine Cheeseman.
Newt is the best Republican ever. I wish he could run for president. I also love how he has followed a pattern of getting remarried every 19 years.
Hey now, don't bash the ladies. Lower prices are good.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.