a look at realism.

An open area for free-thinkers and believers to slug it out.

a look at realism.

Unread postby willow » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:27 am

paper on political realism in international relations for a class of mine. Figured I would throw it up for a lol.

Realism in one variation or another has become the main theory by which most nations conduct themselves on the international stage in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Realism rose to primacy during the post war period following WWII. It arose largely as a response to the failures of Idealism during the interwar period between 1919-1938. Realists like E.H. Carr became disillusioned with idealism after WWII. They saw the outbreak of war in 1939 as a failure of idealism and the international framework it was trying to establish. As such theorists such as J. Herz and H. Morgenthau proposed realism as an alternative. Indeed as an alternative, it originated not as a theory of its own, but more out of response to the perceived failures of idealist beliefs (W. A. Knight, T. Keating. Global Politics, 2010. p25).
Realism relies on a number of key assumptions which frame the theory in its various incarnations. These tenants assume that the state is the primary international actor with complete sovereignty over its territory. It also assumes that the primary goal of all states is the survival of the state which necessitates the acquisition of and expansion of power. Power to a realist can exist in any number of forms but are generally military, economic and technical abilities. Realists also contend that nations exist in a state of anarchy on the international stage, and as such, cannot rely on cooperation or friendship between states to ensure their own survival. All states instead become potential antagonists and the state is left to pursue their own interests independently with minimal cooperation when it proves mutually beneficial (Global Politics, 2010. p27-8).
Hans Morgenthau, a European emigres, and one of the earliest proponents of realist thought, claimed that idealists believe “[in] the essential goodness and infinite malleability of human nature, and blames the failure of the social order to measure up to the rational standards on lack of knowledge and understanding, obsolescent social institutions, or the depravity of certain isolated individuals or groups. It trusts in education, reform, and the sporadic use of force to remedy these defects” (Global Politics, 2010. p25). Morgenthau suggests that idealists believe in how the world 'should be' which is unrealistic, as how something should be is often quite different from reality, hence the term 'realism'. He also criticizes the idealist for their assumption that human nature is 'infinitely malleable' and can be fundamentally altered through things like education and social policy. Morgenthau instead thought that history had provided an objective lens by which to find logical and rational precepts by which international relations are conducted. The primary concern he advocated was the struggle for power between states which has dominated history. He viewed the interplay between power and interests as central to international relations. He thought unlike the idealist who tries to establish 'what should be' the realist should concern themselves with 'what is' and 'what is possible' (Global Politics, 2010. p26).
John Herz proposed a more clearly defined distinction between realism and idealism as one in which the focus of both theories are different. According to Herz, “Realist thought is determined by an insight into the overpowering impact of the security factor and the ensuing political, oligarchic, authoritarian, and similar trends and tendencies in society and politics, whatever its ultimate conclusion and advocacy.” while contrasting Idealism as, “tend[ing] to concentrate on conditions and solutions which are supposed to overcome the egoistic instincts and attitudes of individuals and groups in favour of considerations beyond mere security and self-interest.” (Global Politics, 2010. p25). Herz explains that to the realist the security of the state is the primary concern, while all other lesser concerns flow from it. Herz follows by explaining that idealism’s focus is on trying to establish a structure by which international relations can be conducted and global issues can be alleviated. Herz like Morgenthau criticizes idealism for assuming that such a structure is possible in, as realists argue, a state of global anarchy. The requirement inherent in such international structures, that nations submit in part their national sovereignty is, to a realist, antithetical to the belief in the primacy of state security, and therefore will not receive the cooperation of all states. Without the cooperation of all states, the realist would argue, any international system loses force since those outside its structure are not constrained and thus maintain an advantage.
As Morgenthau writes “It would be useless and even self destructive to free one or the other of the peoples of the earth from the desire for power while leaving it extant in others. If the desire for power cannot be abolished everywhere in the world, those who might be cured would simply fall victims to the power of others.” (Global Politics, 2010. p26). This is the core of realist assumptions. If you can't make everyone play by the rules then there is no point, because it then becomes in each players self interest to ignore the rules as well, or to phrase it more simply, 'one bad apple spoils the barrel'.
The failings of idealism that concerned and influenced realism were mainly events during the interwar period, which were intended to prevent conflict, but instead encouraged it. Events such as the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain regarding the annexation of Austria in 1938, France's lack of protest as to the rearmament of the Rhineland region in 1936 in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the 'Munich Agreement' of 1939 whereby the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia was given, without the consultation of the Czech government, to Hitler. The policy of appeasement was supposed to prevent war by allowing Germany to obtain its goals in a peaceful manner and nominally with international support, while avoiding any pretext for conflict. Instead the policy convinced Hitler that Britain would not become involved in a war for Poland (they had already ignored their military defence agreement with Czechoslovakia) but would rather appease German desires once again.
In this case Germany was acting on its self interests, expanding its territory, industrial capacity and military, or as a rationalist would say, increasing its 'power' to the maximum extent possible. Germany was able to increase its power beyond the limitations imposed upon it by the Treaty of Versailles because as realists, its leaders were not constrained by the international agreement signed by their predecessor. The rest of Europe was however, in idealist tradition, attempting to avoid conflict through international cooperation, until the situation became unbearable and conflict ensued.
Another major failure that led to the rise of realism was the collapse of the League of Nations organized by President Wilson following the end of the first world war. The League, precursor to the United Nations, was intended to be an international arena for settling disputes between states without recourse to armed conflict. The League was established in 1919 but after its creation, several major nations, most notably the United States, abstained from membership. President Wilson was prevented from joining the League he himself created by the US Congress, which viewed the League of Nations as impacting US national sovereignty. A situation where the realist concerns of government limited an idealistic leader. During the course of its existence the League of Nations member nations changed continually, as some members joined while others, most notably the USSR left.
The League collapsed after the end of WWII, to be replaced by the United Nations, which obtained membership of the leading world powers, who had left or refused to join the League, by granting them veto powers on a permanent security council, essentially ensuring that the UN was prevented from taking action which conflicted with the interests of those major nations. In essence the international structure sought by idealists to moderate global conflict was replaced with a larger more capable structure, which was then limited by political realists in control of the largest nations. An example of this would be how all 5 security council members block progress on reduction of small arms sales as they are themselves the largest exporters of small arms globally (globalissues.org). The inefficiency and inability to enforce its resolutions, for which realists often criticize the UN, is a result largely of the veto powers held by a select few member states, who have subverted the UN into an extension of realist power.
Following what many saw as the failure of idealism, the sensibility of realist thought seemed all the more apparent. The experience of war and the militaristic pragmatism which many leaders like Churchill or Stalin were forced to adopt may have helped to solidify the place of realism in the post war environment. During the war security became the primary concern of all major powers, and many members of government as well as the citizenry had embraced some form of realist thought as they sought to protect the state and thereby themselves.
The main strength of realism comes largely from its ability to use any means at its disposal to accomplish its ends. A realist state views its own sovereignty as supreme and will do anything it needs to ensure the survival and growth of the state at the expense of other states if necessary.
Because the realist does not believe that anything including morality should limit the state in pursuit of its interests, they are not constrained by moral concerns outside of the impact those actions may have on their reputation. If the nation is as China or the USSR, then they may not be overly concerned with their international reputation and as such, employ repressive tactics to suppress dissension domestically. Examples like the Chinese persecution of political dissidents, or internationally, the USSR's brutal repression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956.
Political realism also excuses nations from cooperation under an international framework in favour of individual goals. This desire to seek goals that most benefit ones own nation rather then the global community is for example, the driving force behind the failure to coordinate a proper global response to pressing environmental issues like global warming. Because the commitment to an international solution is differently distributed among nations, it conflicts with national interests to a greater or lesser degree. Those most seriously affected my decide not to cooperate and in so doing largely render the global effort ineffective.
As the realist assumes that the sovereignty of its state is supreme, it supersedes the sovereignty of other states. This can be seen in the use of foreign intelligence organizations, which were largely developed and expanded during and immediately after WWII, like the CIA, KGB, MI6, and Mossad. States which possess foreign intelligence agencies use them to further the states interests often in ways that ignore international law and obligations. Actions such as the assassination of Leon Trotsky in Mexico by the KGB in 1940 or more recently of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by the CIA. Often these actions are clandestine by nature, intended to preserve the image and reputation of the state, but defended when discovered as necessary to protect the security of the state and its interests.
Realism is a pragmatic approach to international relations which provides an immense amount of room for action by any state, limited only by its ability to project its power onto other states through a variety of overt and covert means. As a theory it has shaped the 20th century as nations used realism to excuse nearly any action as necessary to the security of the state. It contends with idealism, but by its very nature prevents the system sought by idealists from coming to fruition.



realism bugs me because I accept a number of its basic assumptions, but disagree with the immoral application of them. since realists reject morality i have to reject realism though. A weird conflict, I agree with the notion of targeted assassinations, but I can't agree with the way they have been used.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:42 pm

Your essay brings up many highly relevant issues pertaining to international affairs, state action, state interest, human psychology, and human behavior in general. I'm glad you wrote it and posted because it's a lot to chew on. Btw, your spelling was excellent.

You point out the distinction between motives of realism and idealism very well. Realism takes into account how people really act and thus plan their actions predicated upon such interests, whereas idealists act based upon what they think should be because they think their end goals are ethically worthy as such. Those who wield the power of the state act in their own interests and these interests almost inevitably subvert any moral ideals that they may otherwise have, thus their interest overcome any ideals they may have otherwise. Those involved in the state have power that cannot be obtained anywhere else, and very few act as if they are martyrs for their own beliefs and will then sacrifice their ideals for their own benefit. If the interest of those who represent a nation-state is to represent the interests of the people within that state, then they will hold priority of that nation-state over international interests. One cannot maintain office if they are to go against the will of their voters or campaign contributors. People act as individuals and not as collectives. This is why you get such things as prisoners dilemma, tragedy of the commons, market failure, etc. The most important thing is to emphasize on the individual interests to particular interests. What you apparently point out is that realism deals with this phenomenon far more effectively than idealists do. Although idealists formulate their ideals based upon what may be better for people in general, the realist will take into account how people actually act and then act according to such information. Machiavellianism does indeed work because it recognizes how people behave and what people are apt to believe, as opposed to trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

I think the correct approach is to influence the incentives of people have for acting so that they will naturally behave in a way that benefits themselves as well as others. This point is not very relevant to your essay, but i think it's a very good conclusion to draw from it.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby willow » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:48 pm

ICM, glad you liked it :P

Realists do try to anticipate what others will do and react accordingly. It is in many ways similar to the 'rational actor' theory in other disciplines. However as Robert McNamara points out "rationality will not save us" Khruschev, Kennedy, Stalin, Bush, Saddam, Castro etc were all rational leaders, yet still could not prevent conflict and nearly induced global nuclear war on at least 3 occasions. (there were functioning nukes in cuba BEFORE the beginning of the cuban missile crisis, castro was pushing kruschev to use them on the US.)

I agree realism subverts morality and this i think is its key failing. because no state believes in morality and each sees its own interests as being primary, it precludes co operation and devolves international affairs into an excercise in power. This also legitimizes subverting other states or peoples for the benefit of yourself. Realists see economic dominance and the destabalization of other states as acceptable if it provides for the enhancement of their own interests.

The realist need to see the state as primary and the protection of and enhancement of the states power and security is evident in the US refusal to agree to any international norms that may limit them like the ICC, the Kyoto Accord many many UN initiatives etc as well as its radical shift post 9/11 towards a police state.

my problem is that realism leads to things like arms races and preemptive unilateral military action. it drives conflict because inherent in realism is the view that all other states are potential antagonists or enemies
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:42 pm

To sum this up as generally as possible, this is a prime example of market failure. Market failure is defined as a situation where the individuals acting are incentivized to behave in a way that harms them instead of benefiting them. David Friedman(Milton Friedman's son) has a lecture on this on youtube.

One example I like the most is about 2 guys complaining about how slow their camels are. Both are traveling together through a desert and trying to reach an oasis. The wager a gold coin and each bet that their respective camels will arrive at the oasis last. In order to try and win the gold coin they each command their camels to walk as slowly as possible because they want that gold coin really really badly. Eventually they meet up with another man and explain their bet and their situation. The man figures out the problem here and solves by telling them to simply switch camels. You can figure out what happens then.

If Barack Obama can get more votes than his republican opponent and be guaranteed to stay in office by having to resort to crucifying every prisoner in guantanamo bay that's what he will do. The incentives for him are so strong as to overwhelm his personal convictions against crucifixion. He also risks nothing by doing this because he will just get all of his thugs to do it for him. They have great incentives to do crazy things, have great means at their disposal to carry them out and face little to no consequence when doing them. The solution here is to find a way for them to switch camels and not rely on their morals to overwhelm their incentives.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby willow » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:25 pm

Fuck.... hit the wrong key and lost my post.....

long post short, incentives are not the problem as the incentives are consistant with the goals of the state, namely increase in power through military, technical, economic or territorial means. You would have to change the goals of the state

Most states are constrained from acting in such fashion directly by the use of the UN and international governing bodies. However as the US is a superpower which does not accept the authority of any international organization treaty or norm (despite desiging and pushing for many of those standards and norms), it does not constrain itself in the same manner. The reason is the limitation it would place on the US to exercise sovereignty. This is the reason they would not join the ICC, the League of Nations or numerous treaties like the ban on AP Land mines.

The rejection of morality and limitations on the actions a state can take are typical of realist nations and its this refusal to create accepted norms and institutions for conflict resolution that drive arms races and conflict. Israels posession of nuclear arms to protect the survival of its state (another realist nation) drives the desire for nuclear arms in Iran, while the patronage of the US allows them to ignore the constraints of international law and treaties in their treatment and expansion into palestinian territory.

The lack of consequences that might insure moral behaviour in his subordinates and indeed in himself are prevented by US policy. Because the possiblity of repercussions for "following orders" was very real (based on precidents set by the US in international law), all CIA interrogaters were given blanket pardon, and the US refuses to join the ICC. You can see this sense of exceptionalism in their refusal to admit that presidents past and present have commited war crimes and crimes against humanity. (every sitting president since 1940 has engaged in actions which are criminal under international law). Instead the US prefers to leave it at 'we did what we had to do to protect our interests'

to sum up US realism, the US can do whatever it wants in any nation it wants, by any means it deems necessary in order to insure the protection of American security and interests. This is evident across US history from their 22+ armed regieme changes (largely to protect economic interests) to the economic domination of developing nations through the WTO and IMF to ensure the growth of the US economy. International bodies are only usefull when they can be used like the WTO and IMF to increase US power, but cannot be allowed to limit US sovereignty.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:10 am

Change the goals of the state? That's exactly the point. For someone to maintain office (survive) and increase their well-being, therefore, likelihood of survival he must appeal to those who can fund a political campaign and receive enough votes/rig the election in a democratic nation-state. After this, all they must do is provide something people will tolerate. Not benefit from, just tolerate. A drug fuhrer that imprisons people for non-crimes or the DMV that makes you wait several hours to renew your diver's license isn't something people want but are obligated to put up with and won't be pissed off enough to endanger a member of the state's position. If a member of the state can accomplish these things, they are apt to do as they wish to benefit themselves. If the UN's control over other nations is highly predicated on US authority, should be pretty obvious whom the UN serves the most.

Can you expect anything but disaster and disgusting behavior from such strong incentives by the people with such power and who risk so little when use such power? Finding out how to get such people to switch camels is crucial. People act on behalf of their own interests and no one else's. Even suicide bombers who yell "Allah Hu Akbar" before killing themselves are doing it for the 72 virgins among other things they think benefit them. People act upon the interests of others to the extent it benefits themselves. This is why you see the Amish or close nit communities thrive so well. It benefits the individual to benefit others. The Amish never suffer from recessions or depressions. They are a self-sustaining tribe. Lots of things about the Amish are really bizarre and crazy, but their survival is highly likely. It's the same with people who are tied economically. If I want to convince to voluntarily give me something without means of manipulation, coercion, etc I had best figure out a way to provide you something you like. If I am incentived to just take what you have that I want with great ease and of little to no consequence, I am going to do that. I'm not a martyr for my beliefs, I act to do what I think is best for me. I think that's how you need to switch camels. As Franz Oppenheimer described the political vs the economic means of obtaining things. The incentives are diametrically opposed and will lead to entirely different behavior. Political means of getting stuff is to take things by force, economic means are producing things you think other people want in exchange for things you want. I see this as the most profound way to switch camels and the most desireable.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby willow » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:08 pm

you assume realism is an explination for individual action, in which case its ethical egoism. the actions of the state however are more long term and seem rather consistant across presidents. I suppose you could say that is due to each president having to play to the same themes in manipulating the electorate.

Part of the reason that the US can engage in realist actions is because it is a superpower, and because it is one of the few nations which posess a UN veto vote, which gives idt the ability to shield both itself and its client states from international criticism (it should be noted however, how how often the US uses it and how rarely the Soveit Union/Russia or China do.). Its the fact that the IMF and World Bank voting system is weighted by contribution rather then one member one vote, that allows the US to subvert those bodies to benifit it economically by forcing developing nations into depenancy and export economies.

Its the fact that the US as a state rather than any one leader, thinks this kind of application of american power is appropriate which shows the lack of morality in international relations. like I said to a realist all other states become a means to an ends, namely the extension of the states power in whatever means.

Realism while really effective, seems to me to almot have a strain of nihilism to it. The US doesnt believe in human rights, nor dose it want global security or the development of lesser states. Whats good for the world, is not good for the United States. How does one go about changing this?

Lesser states are not provided with the option so to speak, they must work within the framework of the international community as they cannot coerce compliance ecnomicially. They are subject to UN sanctions like Libya, and Syria or Iraq before them etc etc etc.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 am

Hold on for a minute. I think you need to explain yourself for this statement
The US doesn't believe in human rights, nor dose it want global security or the development of lesser states
.
I suppose this might be true until elections come around. They want to bring "freedom and democracy" to other nations and create alliances and do so more humanely than any other super power ever before, etc. What's more important? What they say or what they do? That to me is why realism is the only way to predict or retro-dict the actions of people in the state.

I don't know why you equate realism with ethical egoism or some sort of nihilism. I see realism as merely accepting what will happen rather than prescribing what should happen. Machiavelli is the quintessential realist, and I, seemingly paradoxically, find this to be the least disgusting of political theories. At least they are honest about the fact that they will usurp the power of the state for their own interests and don't make any empty promises of being some benevolent dictator or leader of the people for the people as if they have any meaning. To an objectivist, a syndicalist, marxist, mutualist, North Korean nationalist, etc. they all see other states and other people as means to ends regardless if they belong to a state with superpower privilege. China or Russia would do the same as the US if given the same power. Iran or Denmark would do the same. The US lacks any morality because its incentives lack any morality. They are domineering and brutal. The incentives are, that is. Don't expect it to change after so many thousands of years of the exact same thing just because you get someone in that you like.

Also, I don't think you understood what I meant by bringing up Oppenheimer's separation of the political means of gain vs the economic. If the US uses the IMF through political means to force other countries into labor livestock, that's not a means through economics. That's politics. It's not a mutual exchange. It's a unilateral imposition.

And how do lesser states not act as realists? Why is it that it's only the US who can get away with playing realpolitik? Don't smaller states use their powers for survival and surrender control to greater powers when it's beneficial? The Pope will behave predicated on his political incentives irrespective of his religious convictions. What is there else to say?
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby willow » Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:35 am

realism is like ethical egoism at the state level, it assumes like ethical egoism that ones highest ethical objective is the service of ones own self intertests.

the reason I brought it up was because you keep providing examples that are on the individual level, while realism does not apply outside of international and global politics. The politican would not use realism in seeking re-election, that would be ethical egoism. If realism applied at the individual level then as a realist he would as the incumbent most likely have his opponents arrested or shot. I suppose that means theres aspects of realism common to totalitarianism as well.

Lesser states can act in a realist fashion largely only towards even lesser states, the core to the semi periphery and periphery while the semi periphery can only impose its will on the periphery and the periphery is subject to the whims of its superiors. The US is the remaining superpower, but the application of realist policy is found in all great powers. China does to a large extent behave in a realist fashion but is unable to exert is power over the US in the same direct way it can obtain complience from lesser nations for example. My mention of foreign intelligence services in the paper are an expression of how many great states exercise realism.

Smaller nations are restrained from explicit realist policies because they are constrained by the need for international cooperaton or support to acheive many of their goals at the international level. Superpowers and to a lesser extent great powers are not restricted in this fashion as they possess enough 'power' to exert their will in the face of opposition. Largely because the remaining international community does not desire open conflict in opposing said actions.

The fact that the palestinian state cannot gain admittance to the UN despite the desire of the majority of world nations for it to do so is representative of this restriction. The US is able through veto to single handedly block palestines admittence to further its national self interests in the middle east through their proxy of israel. The international community doesnt really have recourse to contest this imposition of will.

as for not believing in human rights, that would be as evidenced by their foreign policy. declairation of independance should be reworded 'we hold these truths to be self evident, all americans are created equal'

Im not sure what kind of incentive you would want to substitute for power, or how you would even make the state consider it an incentive as they see power as the means by which they obtain other objectives and incentives.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: a look at realism.

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:46 pm

The reason I keep using individual actors for this is because the actions of the state are predicated on how individuals act. It manifests itself at the international level in such a way because people don't all of the sudden begin to start acting as collectives, but still as individuals. It still remains as a great determining factor of how people act in politics. Call it ethnical egoism, I don't really care. Ethical egoism is a normative term whereas realism is not a system of ethics, rather a study of how things actually are. With realism, you can far more accurately determine how states will behave and explain how they have behaved.

I don't see why you can only engage in realist policies only if you can bully someone else. Why is it a necessary condition to be able to dominate over others to be realists? Just because they cannot carry out policies of expansion and domination, why does that mean they would forgo striving to gain more power? Is realism limited entirely to overt acts of expansion of territory and taking of resources?

For your last 2 sentences, yeah. That kind of says it all. Hence my anti-statism. If you are trying to ride a bear like a horse but it keeps trying to eat you because you are covered in honey (or even not, but tax livestock to government is probably even more enticing), you have a few options. You can try to change the incentives of the bear to not want to eat you, change the nature of the bear so it's more like a horse, or you can just ride horses.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541


Return to Rational Thought vs Irrational Beliefs



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
[Valid Atom 1.0]