BS: liberty, freedom, and violence

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:46 PM

Jim:

Ya know, if I knew what Froggy Bottom really is, I might be able to speak to your point, but you have the advantage of me there. How did this Froggy Bottom become "ours"? Was it by random decree?Agreement? Exchange? What was the deal, exactly, and what is Froggy bottom anyway?I assume it is an alcoholic beverage. :>D





A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:41 PM

You're implying that I have anything but the common good in my insistance that midchuck share our Froggy Bottom. I resent the implication. I have just as much say in the common good. Don't I?

I think I could play a much more common music -- after all, midchuck merely plays bluegrass with a flatpick, whereas I play bluegrass with a flatpick and fingerstyle with picks and without, as well as jazz with both. I also play pop.

My music is far more common than Peter's.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:36 PM

Any time there is clearly a common good to be served, but which cannot be served at a profit, some form of common ownership is necessary. Social Security is an example.

Our "civilization", as we like to think ofd it, is partly social, partly democratic, and partly corporatist.

Social-based activities steer toward the good of the whole society. Democratic initiatives elevate the role of the informed individual is pursuing his own view of right action. Corporatism moves to benefit groups of people working around a common theme of production and sales and delivery of services and goods.

The truth is that all of these views have contributed benefit to our society, and the only time we have gotten into trouble is when one or another of them was held up as a senior good to the detriment of the others. Corporatism without democracy becomes fascistic. SOcialism without corporate and democratic power becomes inefficiently Marxist. Corporatism without any social conscience leads to the abuses of the 1890-1930 era. Democracy without any social engineering is fun, but haywire and open to corruption.

Extremism corrupts, and absolute extremism corrupts absolutely.


A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:32 PM

Just as I hit "submit" I realized my error. Bam Bam was not a Flintstone. Pebbles was. Bam Bam was the son of Barney and Betty, and I don't know their last name.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:30 PM

Bam Bam Flinstone? Yes.

Baw Baw Frog? I dunno.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:24 PM

Nope. It was on the 'net. Baw Baw Frog. Had to read it twice to believe it once.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: just john
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:23 PM

Speaking of freedom and dark corners, don't forget that the USA imprisons more of its citizens (as a percentage of its population) than any advanced nation.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 02:18 PM

"always meant social or common (communism) ownership, the negation of private property"

So when would I get my turn with our Collings and Froggy Bottom that midchuck is currently hogging? I'm not asking too much am I? I mean, I am currently using our Yamaha and I'm more than happy to give someone else a turn while I use our Froggy Bottom and Collings.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:12 PM

BAW-BAW Frog? You gotta be kidding.

A

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:05 PM

It's the posterior of a Xenopus laevis. In brief, the southern appendage of

Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Class Amphibia
SubClass Lissamphibia
Order Anura
Family Myobatrachidae
SubFamily Myobatrachinae
Genus Philoria
Species frosti
Common Name Baw Baw Frog

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:53 AM

'So, for example, The government would own midchuck's Froggy Bottom and Collings guitars. Right?'

No, social ownership is not the same as state ownwership. State ownership does not change the capitalist character of production and consumption, look at the so-called 'communist' countries. The term socialism, before it was corrupted by the leaders of various reforming and opportunist 'vanguard of the people' parties, always meant social or common (communism) ownership, the negation of private property.

What's a Froggy Bottom?

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:09 AM

Which brings up the point that there is not now and never has been a true "democracy" of a population of any significant size.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:22 AM

"Socialism means social ownership and the democratically controlled production of goods and services for use"

So, for example, The government would own midchuck's Froggy Bottom and Collings guitars. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:06 AM

It's a wonderful world.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,Rapaire
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 09:24 AM

I will not fight, hand to hand, unless I have no other option. The reason is simple: I taught hand-to-hand combat in the Army and were I to "engage in fisticuffs" I could very easily go into automatic and engage in "finishing techniques."

"Finishing techniques" is a nice euphemism for "When the guy is on the ground, you drop both knees into his chest or jump up and come down with both heels into his chest. Or maybe you throat-punch him. Or kick him in the armpit. Or stomp on the bridge of his nose. Or kick him in the temple. Or at the very least break his elbows and/or knees."

You can explode the heart, crush the lungs or esophagus, drive bone into the brain. At the very least he won't trouble you much anymore.

And I'd be questioned by police officers.

Too much trouble. Easier to walk away.

But if you put me in a situation where I think that my life is in danger, or if you so threaten another (especially a child or one of my family), I will take you out with whatever weapons I have. Guns, knives, sticks, string, wire, a tie, my hands and feet -- they're all one.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 11:44 PM

Seems that the Shiites will win if Iraq is truly democratic. They are the majority. The U.S. doesn't want that though. They are hoping the Sunnis will win although the Sunnis are the minority. Thats why many are saying that what Bush really wants is civil war which will give him an excuse for keeping troops in Iraq.

You see, if the Shiites do win, they will most assuredly form an alliance with Iran to oppose U.S. intervention in oil commodities. Thats why U.S. intervention has been wrong all along. Thats why the U.S. fears Iran. Thats why the U.S. will do whatever they have to do to keep the Shiites out of power.

When you think Sunni, think Arab. Saddam was also a Sunni. The U.S. is better at negotiating with the Sunnis than with the Shiites. The Shiites want nothing to do with Bush. The Shiites would rather be ruled by the Moslem cleric than American facists or Saddam or any other western puppet.

Bush is in big doo doo. Unless of course he is considering taking on the Shiites of both Iraq and Iran and that might just be what he thinks he is capable of doing. He did say, "Brin 'em on." What an idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 11:37 PM

"Too dangerous" I could live with and the Yanks/Brits would have to take the blame for that.

(I still have some hope the Financial Times editors were a confused between "US" and "UN." Otherwise, the result is quite sickening.)

I see on the prayer thread that our resident anarchist equates the election with the US putting guns to peoples heads and ordering them to vote or die.

I reiterate that I am sure looking forward to less interesting times.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 11:19 PM

heric - I am not sure why the U.N. cannot send an electoral advisor and monitor the election as well. Perhaps after being there in an advisory capacity they realized that it was far too dangerous for U.N. troops to monitor the event.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Teresa
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 10:58 PM

Well, with regard to bullying of any kind, I initially ignore it as I would a fly buzzing around. However, if a bully gets right up in my face, I do take immediate action. You can bet if someone grabs me physically, I wouldn't rule out physically defending myself.

because I've experienced physical abuse, I have a flash response when I'm grabbed by the arm or wrist, and often I have to curb it when someone is doing this in an effort to help guide me, since I am visually-impaired. If it's a helpful move, I immediately let them know that I will take their arm and have them guide me that way.

Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 10:36 PM

>>And please please please - not Ghandi, never Ghandi, it's Gandhi<<

But translating names into English can be difficult and requires some discretion. I have always preferred this, your own
alternate spelling ;)
I hope you haven't abandoned it completely.

diana: if the UN really did say they won't send international monitors (and your comment makes it seem more likely that they did, and that the FT quote was accurate), then their refusal to send election monitors on "conflict of interest" grounds is APPALLING. If they are really so shallow that they would willingly foster post-election unrest for a SPURIOUS reason, then maybe that entity really is seriously broken.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:30 AM

this much shorter article on Hinduism and its various contradictory views on violence summarises most of the for and against arguments about violence and war.

hinduism, violence and self defence

it's more common to argue in favour of violence when dealing with international tensions/war, what do people think about as personal responses in situations of conflict with others?

I have used self defence (snap kick to the groin) once when stalked and threatened by a man in Bombay. I have also hidden behind a wheeelie bin from a man who followed me down a dark street (leading to my home) in his car, driving backwards to continue chasing me. in this case, avoidance was the best technique - with his car and superior strength, i would have had no chance.

these are easy situations where violence is justified, the more challenging ones are situations of interpersonal conflict, here i'm talking mental violence, aggression, bullying. its this situation which can be very difficult to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 08:05 AM

This is an interesting article on the peace potential of religions in terms of their inclination to condone or reject violence. It is written by Johan Galtung, the person who invented peace studies and founded the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo in 1959. He worked on his first book, Gandhi's Political Ethics, while in jail as a draft resister.

religions, hard and soft

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 06:26 AM

Accuracy please:

Luke is my least favorite Apostle - Luke wasn't one of the Apostles.

And please please please - not Ghandi, never Ghandi, it's Gandhi.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:36 AM

awww, shucks, my falg is always flyin, brucie...

You be da man I want runnin' the show...

Sniff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:03 AM

. . . and while you're flying the falg, fly the flag, too.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:00 AM

Geeze, Bobert. I just took a closer read of your post and mea culpa. I misunderstood what you'd said. Sorry my friend. Not your writing; my reading. Good on you and keep this falg flying. I have children who will live in this world, and I hope people like you are running it when that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:51 PM

There are times when ya gotta do what ya gotta do, L-Jean. I'm sorry you found yerself in such a position but you did the right thing and I'm glad fir it... Defense is a differeent critter...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: LadyJean
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM

Ghandi also died by violence. Come to that so did Christ. Preaching altruism isn't the safest mode. Of course George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi party was killed by an assasin.

Now my own experience is that I am 5'7, strong for a woman, which isn't saying much, and I have only full use of my right arm. When I find myself in a difficult situation. (And it happens, if you live in the city.) I have to find a non violent solution. On one occasion this meant swearing like a Marine drill sergeant. It worked. If I'd tried to fight the guy, I'd have wound up in the Allegheny River.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:29 PM

Now that's the brucie I love....

Sniff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:20 PM

One more thing: I agree in principle that violence is wrong. I also hold to the notion that if no one starts it then no one has to finish it.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:17 PM

Maybe then the real question has to be, "What constitutes self defense?"

I am remined of the following: "What should be the penalty for a cold-blooded murderer?" IMO, he/she who committed the murder has already shown agreement with capital punishment. Therefore, there IS no question. Simplistic, but neat and to the point--and I was happy to be reminded of it because I said that in an argument when I first started to reconsider my stand on capital punishment.

Freda initially said, "what do people think - is there any place for challenging darkness with darkness? can threats and confrontation ever achieve anything worthwhile?" I think they are excellent questions and the answers above have been good. I am just surprised that fewer people have talked about the rights of the individual. If the legal system provides for protection, good. The enforcement arm of the legal system isn't always around when stuff happens. So, do people have the 'right' to act in place of the police? A question that was posed in a court case a few years back had to do with a teacher's actions to do with an unruly student. Under that Province's law, teachers were deemed to be acting 'in loco parentis'; that is, in the place of the parent. Therefore, the thing that had to be answered was whether or not the teacher had behaved as a responsible parent would have given the same circumstances. Because the answer was yes, the case was dismissed.

This rambles somewhat--so I'll get to the point. When there are NO mechanisms to protect individuals, does the individual then have a right to protect the self? My answer is yes. Mostly because I have difficulty seeing why not.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 10:04 PM

Luke is my least favorite Apostle, brucie, with Paul coming in a close second...

But with that said, Dr. King would not have made a decisssion to physically attacking a man for the man's views. He might have attempted shout the man down but more than likely he would have found the man, when the man didn't have the microphone, and quietly asked if he could pray with the man...

Non violence is the *only* way to bring about *positive* change because it makes a statement about values and love. And it stops the cycle of hatred and revenge...

But know that I love you, my brother and also know that if Johnny Ashcroft's boys come round my joint and wanta mess wid me, I know how to defend myself... Different game here...

Actually I remember back in the late 60's being carted off from a pro-war, pro- Nixon gathering for trying to question and shout down their speaker. I'm real gald I didn't go up and try to punch huis lights out. That wouldn't have sent the message that I sent... I had forgotten that incident until just now but by then I was allready a good student of Dr. King...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 09:39 PM

That does not answer Hilda's question, Bobert, because what that dear man would have done doesn't have to do with hilda's situation. Even one of the earliest pacifists was attributed with saying the following:


Mt.10:34
    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Lk.12:51
    "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Lk.22:36
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

It's all in the context, Bobert. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:19 PM

Ask yourself how Martin Luther King would have handled the same situation, hilda, and I think you'll find your answer...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: hilda fish
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:10 PM

To get back to Freda's original question as brucie so kindly did. The discussion between personal acts of violence over acts of violence by states or nations is an important one.   How often in reality have we been faced with the person with a gun/knife/bludgeon ready to instantly kill our loved ones where the only defence is to kill or be killed? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - clearly it does - and I would suppose we've all been in the situation where a well-placed kick has diffused and/or resolved many situations. It is a very rare event nevertheless. However violence that is endemic i.e. institutionalised racism, the assumption by State or National police of a right of judgement and action beyond their mandate, the assumption by soldiers (witness recent events re US, British, Swiss, soldiers) because they have the position and the weapons to do what they like to people, occupation forces, national liberation struggles, anti-union attacks, and so on continues, as freda observes, a spiralling violence that becomes part of a culture, a form of ongoing terror, that has no resolution beyond escalation and the end result is more and more people die. Horrible. And we live with it daily and by living with it, are we accepting it? Who wants a world like that? Yet, at the same time, and here's a discussion; in Redfern Aboriginal people finally attacked the police - didn't couldn't win in the long run - but that night of violence gave a strength and a power to individual koories unified that challenging authorities that for too long have been killing them could in fact change a dynamic that previously, they had been powerless in. Yet in the long run it will be mediation, education, and sheer commitment to future history that will change things. I've been in a situation, as a committed non-violent person, of having to whack someone. Most recently at a pub where I was at a loose sort of meeting where a person was being allowed to say the most offensive and racist things. There was no reasoning there but it was important that those words were not allowed to live comfortably in that atmosphere so I launched myself at the speaker and gave him a good smack in the mouth. Bedlam! I was the one who was banned which seemed a bit mean to me but by the same token it forced the issue about how people were allowed to talk about things. Words are a very dangerous form of violence and people accept them easily as part of a "freedom of speech" democratic right. Was I right or was I wrong as a person who is anti-violent to do this? And what is the difference between personal "protection/defence" and institutional violence? And does accepting this part of the discussion as okay undermine an anti-violence stand?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:05 PM

Well, gol danged!

Boy if this hasn't been some week, 'er what?

Not only do the Bushites have one new excuse fir invading Iraq but now, Glory Be..... TWO!!!

The Europeans made us do it!!!

I personally thought that beardedbruce's "Well, we did it because Saddam occupied Kuwait 14 years ago" was bit of a stretch but given the list of excuses wever been hearing for 3 year, it was at least something new...

But, JH, they say that timing is everything so if you have knowledge from yer inside Bush connections that they are gonna blame the Europeans, its not real smart to let it out until the "Kuwait Occupation" excuse is past it's self life...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:00 PM

JH, I agree that 'social programmes' can exist because they are paid for out of the real economy. But 'social programmes' or welfare is not socialism. These are palliatives necessarily afforded by the state in the knowledge without these the market system would be much less efficient or probably collapse.

Socialism means social ownership and the democratically controlled production of goods and services for use.   Capitalism, the market system - which you seem to call democracy - is based on private property, minority ownership and control of the production of goods and services driven for sale on the market. Last time I heard from my comrades in the WSPUS capitalism was dominant in the USA. Capitalist society is divided into classes based on the relationship to the means of producing wealth. The vast majority live by selling their labour to a minority who posses the means of wealth production and distribution (factories, mines, shops etc) as capital, and whose living comes from surplus value, that is by paying workers less than the value they create.

Are you seriously saying that workers have more in common with the wasters who live off our backs than workers on other bits of land, and we should go off and kill them if we are told to in order for this relationship to continue. We could have a society of real economic democracy, rather than just political democracy, without the misery of   that stems from capitalism - that is the only thing worth fighting for.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 07:33 PM

Oh, Greg, you mean like "Neo-cons"?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:59 PM

Oh great. Another paranoid "United Nations Is The Root Of All Evil" nutter-guest.

Guess these pathological types need to have an institutional bogey-man of some sort to order their world around. The UN, "environmentalists",the "International Jewish Conspiracy" the Trilateral Commission, ............................

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:50 PM

Shaw was wrong. And one needn't believe that their country is right in all things or superior in all things, to believe that it might be right in one (or even many) things.

If the majority of countries from whom we solicited support, but who rejected that solicitation, had not been profitting from the sanctions that were suppose to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem, we would never have gone to war. The "starving and being blown to bits unnecessarily" is the stain on THEIR hands.

Socialism is not a necessity so much as an inevitability in any kind of democracy. That's why we employ it to such a great extent here in the USA. But we're not afraid to acknowledge through our vote for both Democrats and Republicans that we understand the same inevitability and strength of market-driven economies by which social programs gain the productivity necessary for their existence.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

Can there be anyone more self-deluded than a patriot?

GB Shaw said 'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.' That's the kind of 'reasoning' JH exhibits above. Leaving aside the cant and nationalism it doesn't take much to see that to see that from one bit of land to the next its the people with least to gain from war that die, and the ones that have the most to gain or the most to lose from war who sit miles from the action saying go on boys and girls 'do your bit!'. JH talks about 'lofty goals' and 'self-loathing' while people are starving and being blown to bits unnecessarily. Socialism is a necessity, lest we condemn more people to death, misery and environmental destruction.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:24 PM

"Your self-loathing is almost totally projected to colour your political views. You save just a wee bit to spread around this site though."

Seems you have a piece of that market, too, JH.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM

If any of the posters here were proportionately alarmed about the scandlous, anti-semetic, money-grubbing, USA-hating, international embarrassment that is the UN, I might be able to take their anti-USA sentiments more seriously. It is the UN's scandlous behavior that made the war in Iraq probable. Had so much of the international community not been profitting so mightily by circumventing the UN sanctions (and illegally profitting from them), those sanctions might have had the "tooth" necessary to cause non-violent change in Iraq.

If any of the posters here were proportionately alarmed at the atrocities of international terrorism, I might be able to take their accusations of US-as-the-embodiment-of-international-evil rhetoric. Why is it I still hear the echos of cheering over 9/11 every time I log on to this site?

It is little wonder that when Thomas The Rhymer logs on all he sees is vulgarity. This is a closed society, self-deluded into believing a world-view that is almost totally hopeless for it's lack of having achieved what you aging hippies dreamed as a glorious eutopia in your salad days, the '60s. Having fallen short of those lofty goals, you judge the world a failure, though it goes on and on with life improving for more and more on this planet.

Your self-loathing is almost totally projected to colour your political views. You save just a wee bit to spread around this site though.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:47 PM

To get back to Freda's original question, because in my mind the world does not revolve around Dubya or US foreign policy, are we maybe meaning that there are different kinds of violence and only some situations that require applications of violence? The tone here seems to be (from many people) that ALL violence is wrong. Others, myself included, feel there are times when violence is necessary (to protect the self, to deal with the preservation of status quo over a proposed change, to effect change when the status quo no longer serves a humane function in a country).

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:47 PM

heric - I think the U.N. provided an electoral advisor.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:21 PM

Yeah, I suppose... to hell with women's liberation... to hell with the abolition of slavery... to hell with religeous intolerance... to hell with ethnic cleansing... to hell with the killing fields... to hell with all human rights... to hell with a stable world economy built on democracy and freedom. None of that means anything to us rich westerners. It's only about the oil and the minerals and the profits... the greed. We westerners never gave anything to the world. We are so weak and so stupid that we could never survive on our own so we have to subjugate and rape the poorest of our fellow man and his resources.

Yeah, I suppose you have a point. Perhaps we should just walk away, turn a blind eye and carry on with our lives. It would be much easier than sacrificing our sons and daughters and spending their inheritance on trying to guide the world toward a utopia that may never be achieved. To hell with it all. To hell with you all. F*** the poor and oppressed - we don't need them - never did - never will... we're rich.

PS... we're going to stay that way. Get used to it. You can get with the program or you can fade away. There's a message.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 01:08 PM

the backpedaling has already begun. this from the WApost with white house toadies letting us know that the speech was just a bunch of hot air on a cold day and means nothing in terms of "policy" other than "more of the same greed, thievery, and murder".

"White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Nor, they say, will it lead to any quick shift in strategy for dealing with countries such as Russia, China, Egypt and Pakistan, allies in the fight against terrorism whose records on human rights and democracy fall well short of the values Bush said would become the basis of relations with all countries.

Bush advisers said the speech was the rhetorical institutionalization of the Bush doctrine and reflected the president's deepest convictions about the purposes behind his foreign policies. But they said it was carefully written not to tie him to an inflexible or unrealistic application of his goal of ending tyranny.

"It is not a discontinuity. It is not a right turn," said a senior administration official, who spoke with reporters from newspapers but demanded anonymity because he wanted the focus to remain on the president's words and not his. "I think it is a bit of an acceleration, a raising of the priority, making explicit in a very public way to give impetus to this effort." He added that it was a "message we have been sending" for some time."

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 09:33 AM

I would argue that the violence, and I mean social violence rather than 'man kills unfaithful lover' violence, has its roots in the inequity of private property society.

Physical force is the ultimate line of defence of any privilege. From the security guard in the shop, to the police beating back protestors or the current war over energy resources. Social violence follows economic competition (buyer vs buyer, buyer vs seller, seller vs seller). For example, buyer vs seller, the US in need of energy resources and unwilling to negotiate with the seller (middle-eastern oil producers) use physical force to ensure domination. Or seller vs seller, race riots - the locals versus the migrants who are perceived to be a threat to the labour market.

Thus, until we can say we are all at liberty or free to democratically control the resources on which we all depend and free to enjoy the products of those resources there will be incentive to violence.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:04 AM

Yeah, Doug, what GUEST in NW said.

Where's the blueprint?

And. yes, Dougie, I do drive a car. It has 4 cylandars and gets over 35 mpg on the highway and 25 around town. The P-Vine also has a car. Same make and model. We plan all of our trips so as to not burn any mote gas than we have to.

We also have two woodstives up stairs and one in my shop which provided us with about 75% of our heat. If public transportation ever makes it out here, I will be more than happy to use it as much as possible.

Now, my friend, if every American family lived as energy conscious as we live, I'd bet America could cut its need for oil in *half*!!!

What that would do, Dougie, is at least conserve what oil is left while we work on creating renewable energy sources. Unlike the so-called "energy policy" that the oil industry wrote with Dick Cheney, this would represent a responsible energy policy. We have no right thinking it is our jobs to try to burn up as much oil as we possibly can during our time here on the planet. It narcisistic, greedy, immoral and downright stupid.

Now, back to your so-called blueprint for getting the oil without war. Exactly how's this supposed to work again? And is Iraq the model?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:59 AM

The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. (Supporting friendly tyrannies, that is.)

I'm not aware of any examples so far where Bush has acted to dissociate himself from friendly tyrannies, or ceased to provide them with assistance and cooperation.
..................................

Freedom and democracy are not the same thing by a long way. An government which has been duly elected through a democratic process can be a thoroughly repressive one. Nazi Germany is the extreme case of this. Other examples are common enough, where democratically elected governments have acted repressively in regard to domestic minorities or to people living in occupied territories of one sort or another.