|
21 Jan 05 - 07:56 PM (#1384808) Subject: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: freda underhill George Bush has pledged in his second inauguration address to spread liberty and freedom to "the darkest corners of the world". There was clearly no room in his address for these immortal words of the late Reverend Martin Luther King: "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars." It is ironic that King, a great advocate for peace, was violently murdered. what do people think - is there any place for challenging darkness with darkness? can threats and confrontation ever achieve anything worthwhile? freda |
|
21 Jan 05 - 08:34 PM (#1384827) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow One of the darkest corners of the world today is Guantanamo Bay. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 08:37 PM (#1384829) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Fishpicker George Bush needs to concentrate his attention on this country, making sure that freedom and liberty are protected right here and that the wellfare of every citizen is being addressed. He has no business imposing his will on any other country IMO. Not everyone in the world wants to be a "born again" christian republican. The use of force to bend others to your way of thinking rarely, if ever, works for the positive. Running around the world tilting at windmills when there is one person homeless in this country or one child not getting three square meals a day is insane, unless of course your only purpose is to further the financial interests of your wealthy backers. Power always corrupts. FP |
|
21 Jan 05 - 09:14 PM (#1384854) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Once Famous Bush's speech has had some pretty good reviews. Fishpicker, not everyone to be a born again Christian, but what's wrong with someone wanting to live in a Democratic and free society? Do you have a problem with that? |
|
21 Jan 05 - 09:40 PM (#1384864) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace How would meeting Hitler's Third Reich with love have changed things for the better? (I already know the argument that goes, "If the treaty ending WW I had been more equitable . . . , and that said, how would meeting tanks and stukas with flowers have changed things? I agree that King was correct. And in a perfect world . . . . |
|
21 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM (#1384868) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Teresa I think this society is less free and democratic than it has ever been. As for the use of violence ... I'm still thinking that one out. I avoid violence and have never had occasion to use it, but if someone were attacking my loved ones, I couldn't see that I wouldn't use violence. I also have never been a part of a severely oppressed society, and in some ways I can see that violent revolution is the only thing that makes a change. But for the ideas Bush espouses ... corporate power, every country having the same kind of "freedom" as ours ... I don't think violence is called for at all. Also, although I don't have the citations to back this one up, I've heard that King was not necessarily anti-violence. On one occasion he even posed a hypothetical question about not only avoiding the draft in Vietnam, but switching sides ... I remember hearing this in one of his speeches; anyone have more details? teresa |
|
21 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM (#1384869) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: hilda fish Where the American 'concept' of a democratic (no capital 'D) and free society are judged to be nonexistent (and not only in American eyes, I'm an Australian with the horror of Howard) the description "the darkest corners of the world" seems to exist as a judgement of 'lesser'. It is difficult to be 'free' if you are a national minority in a so-called democratic society where democracy is primarily about a rule of the majority. It has been said again and again that power is a problem of both democracy and of freedom - profit over people - the privileged over the underprivileged, and so on. As a national minority I have said often that I don't believe in democracy as it stands. This I might add, has been seen as an abominable heresy, particularly by Americans. I also add, that I haven't seen any workable solutions yet in national politics, particularly in western nations. Democracy is a myth to justify violence as history shows again and again. Bush is a minority I am given to understand, one of the least supported Presidents ever so it's a mystery to me why HE espouses democracy. Like many Presidents, he has tied Christianity to justifying an abominable world relationship. That being said "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars" is absolutely true so thanks to both Martin Luther King and also to freda for drawing our attention to it. We are all accountable, in my opinion, to history, for what we leave. It seems to me that this is not about democracy and a free society but about how we want the world to be for the generations unborn and how we practice our humanity. We are all demeaned by violence, by the diminished dignity this inflicts on our fellow humans so if we accept Bush's inauguration address to spread liberty and freedom to "the darkest corners of the world" well.......... |
|
21 Jan 05 - 09:57 PM (#1384873) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Sorcha And, I think it's a real pity that the articles I read never have a 'respond to this article' button...boy, would I like to. 51% is NOT a mandate. I'm scared...real scared. NOT a good time for US citizens to be abroad. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 10:03 PM (#1384880) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Respectfully, I would ask people to consider the following: www.thelutheran.org/war/justifiable.html law.gonzaga.edu/borders/documents/deforres.htm I would then posit that the philosophical foundation of Reverend King's statement should be seen and considered in the light of its historical context. Had Black people reacted violently in demonstrations, they would have been met with force, and had that happened, it would likely have escalated and resulted in the Federal sanction and application of 'force majeure'. King's aim was equality for 'his' people specifically and others parenthetically. Violence would have gained him nothing in that regard. IMO. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 10:23 PM (#1384895) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: akenaton Agreed Bruce...Just watched a documentary on Dr King, felt inspired by his oratory. Although swathed in christain dogma, the mans feeligs for his people shone through. Wonder what Dr King would think of his children Colin Powell and Condi Rice?....Would they shame the man who personified the struggle for civil rights...for people of all colours...Ake |
|
21 Jan 05 - 10:31 PM (#1384904) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Greg F. Shit. You mean the U.S. can't bomb all those wogs into democracy?? Bummer! |
|
21 Jan 05 - 10:32 PM (#1384905) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Rapparee Violence. Yes, it has a place and sometimes, because this world is imperfect, it's unavoidable. That in no way means that I'm all for killing and burning and destroying. But there is evil out there. And it will destroy people of goodness. Gandhi and King were both struck down by a bullet. The creation of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and the rest; the Gulag; the Killing Fields; Rwanda; Darfor; Bosnia; Wounded Knee -- you can recite the places as well as I -- demonstrate the persistence of evil. Sometimes you have to take up arms against evil or you will lose your humanity. I read that a noted philosopher (I can't remember who) was asked to describe civilization. He said that it was a wonderful city, full of museums and art and towering churches and great libraries that sat on the bank of a river, down the middle of which constantly flowed a tiny trickle of blood -- and that sometimes the river overflowed its banks. It's a description I like. Me, I try to sandbag the flood. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 10:41 PM (#1384913) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert Wel gol danged... Wonder why it is that the folks in the darkest areas that need all this American made freedom and liberty are sitting over top oil??? Anyone got an answer fir this??? Bobert |
|
21 Jan 05 - 10:50 PM (#1384918) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: DougR Well, I'm not really sure they are, Bobert. Name the countries you have in mind, and the oil fields they occupy. Gracias! DougR |
|
21 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM (#1384932) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert Iran, fir the mosr part Dougie, but also Syria... Meanwhile, Bush couldn't care less about the lack of freedom, liberty ot human rightds in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbelistan, Russia of Chine, justr fir starters, all of which have no particular interest on democracy, liberty or freedom.... And all serious human rights bad guys... This, my friend, though sounding lofty and idealistic..... is about oil.. Nuthin' else... I know that it is aginst your Bushite religion to accept this very basic fact... but it's about oil.... Bobert |
|
22 Jan 05 - 12:38 AM (#1384950) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: DougR Bobert, you are so full of horse pucky I'm surprised it is not seeping out of your ears. Bush addressed the world yesterday and laid out a blueprint for freedom without war. You, and many others have derided American administrations because they backed terrible dictators who, in the opinion of the American leadership at the time, might be despots, but did nothing to get rid of them because it was "in our best interest". The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. So why don't you, and your fellow travelers support that POV? Also, Bobert, buddy, I assume you have an automobile. Does it operate on cooking oil, or are you still dependent on gasoline? My point is, those of you who cry, wring their hands and scream to high heaven that the only motivation for the U. S. administration's doing anything at all is because of OIL! Do you REALLY think conservatives are the only ones in America that use gasoline in their cars? DougR |
|
22 Jan 05 - 01:45 AM (#1384965) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: dianavan From the financial Times: "Monitoring is a big problem. There won't be any international observation mechanism," said one United Nations diplomat. "The UN is not willing. No one is willing. No one wants to send their people there." What kind of a democratic vote happens under these conditions? So much for freedom, so much for liberty! |
|
22 Jan 05 - 01:57 AM (#1384967) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Kaleea I had the good fortune to be in attendance when the grandson of the late Mahatma Gandhi spoke at a nearby University a few months back. He was asked what his grandfather would have done if he were president of the USA after 9-11. He answered that since his grandfather was not president of the USA he could not say. He does believe that if terrorism came knocking at the door, his grandfather would not answer answer with more violence or war. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 02:02 AM (#1384969) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,heric "The UN says it cannot observe the January 30 poll because it played a role in setting up the elections. . . . " Can anyone put any meaning to that assertion? (Assuming it was actually made.) (Isn't the "UN" supposed to be roughly synonymous with "a comunity of nations"? Is the UN a "thing" with its own motivations, so that it could have conflicts of interests ascribed, or is this political horseshit? (Surprise me.) ) |
|
22 Jan 05 - 03:01 AM (#1384994) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,Clint Keller Doug: I heard no "blueprint" laid out. (Can you hear a blueprint anyway?) I heard vague goals, but nothing about how to get to the goals. What exactly was the blueprint for bringing democracy peacefully to Syria, Norrth Korea and Saudi Arabia? "Just Say No To Dictators?" clint |
|
22 Jan 05 - 04:19 AM (#1385012) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,guest from NW "Bush addressed the world yesterday and laid out a blueprint for freedom without war. You, and many others have derided American administrations because they backed terrible dictators who, in the opinion of the American leadership at the time, might be despots, but did nothing to get rid of them because it was "in our best interest". The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. So why don't you, and your fellow travelers support that POV?" because GWBs actions give the lie to his words. the bush "policy" is reflected by what he does, not what he says. when we give similar ultimatums to china, saudi arabia, uzbekistan, pakistan, egypt, et al, i'll begin to believe he means any of his malarkey. by the way, he laid out no "blueprint". he did not indicate any way we were going to accomplish his great plans or how we'd pay for them. i support the view of "hey, freedom is great" which is all his speech amounted to, but the idea that our country has the right and/or duty to force american-style freedom on the world is as arrogant as it gets. especially when people like yourself (you proud hummer owner you!) aren't willing to make the smallest sacrifice in your comfort and convenience while countrymen of yours and innocent citizens of iraq are paying the ultimate price for dubya's load of crap. also, you're showing your age with the "fellow travelers" line. are you an old john bircher? "...My point is, those of you who cry, wring their hands and scream to high heaven that the only motivation for the U. S. administration's doing anything at all is because of OIL! Do you REALLY think conservatives are the only ones in America that use gasoline in their cars?" of course, all of us with cars use gas. there is a segment of the population that believes, however, if we were more "conservative" in our energy consumption we could lessen our dependancy on mid-east oil, thereby having less reason to kill people to get enough of it. when there are demonstrably available ways of doing this (and there are many) it would seem to me that people that actually cared about their sons and daughters dying would be on the front lines demanding action on "conservation" and alternative energies rather than lining up for their next hummer. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 05:59 AM (#1385041) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 08:04 AM (#1385087) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 09:33 AM (#1385146) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 01:08 PM (#1385305) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,guest from NW 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." |
|
22 Jan 05 - 02:21 PM (#1385347) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: gnu 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. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 02:47 PM (#1385372) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: dianavan heric - I think the U.N. provided an electoral advisor. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 03:47 PM (#1385417) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace 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). |
|
22 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM (#1385418) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,JH 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. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 05:24 PM (#1385486) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace "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. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM (#1385532) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 06:50 PM (#1385550) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,JH 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. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 06:59 PM (#1385556) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Greg F. 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, ............................ |
|
22 Jan 05 - 07:33 PM (#1385568) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,JH Oh, Greg, you mean like "Neo-cons"? |
|
22 Jan 05 - 08:00 PM (#1385581) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 08:05 PM (#1385584) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 08:10 PM (#1385589) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: hilda fish 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? |
|
22 Jan 05 - 08:19 PM (#1385594) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert Ask yourself how Martin Luther King would have handled the same situation, hilda, and I think you'll find your answer... Bobert |
|
22 Jan 05 - 09:39 PM (#1385633) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 10:04 PM (#1385647) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 11:17 PM (#1385681) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace 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 |
|
22 Jan 05 - 11:20 PM (#1385685) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace 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. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 11:29 PM (#1385689) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert Now that's the brucie I love.... Sniff... B~ |
|
22 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM (#1385696) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: LadyJean 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. |
|
22 Jan 05 - 11:51 PM (#1385700) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert 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 |
|
23 Jan 05 - 12:00 AM (#1385701) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace 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. |
|
23 Jan 05 - 12:03 AM (#1385702) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace . . . and while you're flying the falg, fly the flag, too. |
|
23 Jan 05 - 12:36 AM (#1385709) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert awww, shucks, my falg is always flyin, brucie... You be da man I want runnin' the show... Sniff... B~ |
|
23 Jan 05 - 06:26 AM (#1385928) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
23 Jan 05 - 08:05 AM (#1385969) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: freda underhill 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 |
|
23 Jan 05 - 09:30 AM (#1386014) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: freda underhill 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. |
|
23 Jan 05 - 10:36 PM (#1386699) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,heric >>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. |
|
23 Jan 05 - 10:58 PM (#1386711) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Teresa 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 |
|
23 Jan 05 - 11:19 PM (#1386725) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: dianavan 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. |
|
23 Jan 05 - 11:37 PM (#1386735) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,heric "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. |
|
23 Jan 05 - 11:44 PM (#1386741) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: dianavan 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! |
|
24 Jan 05 - 09:24 AM (#1386901) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,Rapaire 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. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 10:06 AM (#1386911) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Stu It's a wonderful world. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 10:22 AM (#1386924) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor "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? |
|
24 Jan 05 - 11:09 AM (#1386978) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Rapparee Which brings up the point that there is not now and never has been a true "democracy" of a population of any significant size. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 11:53 AM (#1387038) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers '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 |
|
24 Jan 05 - 12:05 PM (#1387056) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace 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 |
|
24 Jan 05 - 12:12 PM (#1387061) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos BAW-BAW Frog? You gotta be kidding. A |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:18 PM (#1387258) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor "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. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:23 PM (#1387266) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: just john 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. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:24 PM (#1387272) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Nope. It was on the 'net. Baw Baw Frog. Had to read it twice to believe it once. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:30 PM (#1387282) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor Bam Bam Flinstone? Yes. Baw Baw Frog? I dunno. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:32 PM (#1387288) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor 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. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:36 PM (#1387298) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos 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 |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:41 PM (#1387303) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor 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. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:46 PM (#1387312) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos 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 |
|
24 Jan 05 - 03:02 PM (#1387332) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor Michael Millard is one of the most respected guitar builders in the country. Midchuck is fortunate enough to have one of his guitars. As the desired end is to commonly own all, I am willing to give midchuck the joyous opportunity to not have to wait until public ownership is official. I'll let him send it to me now. I'm only thiking of him -- I'd hate for him to be cast as the money-grubbing capitalist that wouldn't share his unfairly gained means of production. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 03:10 PM (#1387338) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos I am not sure whose desired end that is, Jim. I have desired many different ends in my life, and actually gotten aholt of a few, but I don't recall ever getting worked up about common ownership of things. Especially guitars!!!LOL! A |
|
24 Jan 05 - 03:16 PM (#1387348) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor You obviously need to shed your vestigial captitalism. It's making me feel violent. Well, sort of violent. Maybe just uneasy. No, really it's more "apathy". Yeah, "apathy" was what I was going for. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 03:21 PM (#1387351) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Jim, Their last name was Rubble. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 04:04 PM (#1387392) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor That's right! Alas, so is my rememberer (rubble, that is). I was probably reflecting a resistance to referring to that hottie, Betty, by her married name. Barney was a very lucky cave man. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 04:08 PM (#1387394) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Barbie paled in comparison. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 04:58 AM (#1387933) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers So a Froggy Bottom is rather nice guitar. Amos writes: '. . . common ownership is necessary. Social Security is an example.' As I said above state ownership is not the same a social/common ownership. Nominally, citizens might 'own' an industry, but control is vested in a minority who are bound by the same production principles as a private enterprise. Social security is necessary because capitalism is inherently insecure. If there are not enough guitars for everyone who wants one then there is clearly a problem. Capitalism means scarcity, as well as artificially created scarcity. In capitalism goods and services are allocated according to the ability to pay - can't pay, can't have, however much you might need something (and even in highly developed countries there are many folk that do not get essential food and medicine). The 'common good' is an essentially capitalist ethic, the sort of thing political and industrial leaders (often one and the same) imply when religion or patriotism become unfashionable. Everybody has different needs and preferences for work, things to consume and play with, hence the age-old socialist slogan 'from each according to ability, to each according need'. Socialism means socially owned and democratically controlled production of goods and services directly to fulfil human needs, without the disfiguring effect of the market holding us back. In socialism if there are not enough guitars then it could dealt with by discussion between makers and users, suppliers of raw materials etc, etc. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 08:54 AM (#1387984) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST "In socialism if there are not enough guitars then it could dealt with by discussion between makers and users, suppliers of raw materials etc, etc." Somewhat tongue in cheek I ask, "And where is the tax man in all this?" |
|
25 Jan 05 - 08:55 AM (#1387985) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,Brucie Sorry, the above poster was me. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 09:04 AM (#1387990) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,Rapaire Socialism in its pure form would seem to reward the bland and mediocre. What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place? In a small group humans can get along, each giving from his or her abilities. In a larger context other factors come into play, and either the best or the worst seems to rise to the top. A pure socialist society would have no leaders -- and no incentive to improve itself. In a modified one, there would be a "safety net" for all, but the society would be so structured that people would be encouraged to excel. Of course, the same problem regarding "the worst rising to the top" would have to be dealt with -- and suppose that the worst wanted to excel at that? I can't envision any human society as perfect, given the imperfect materials from which it must be made. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 11:07 AM (#1388055) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos The definition of such perfection would have to be dynamic with a clear perspective on the boundaries of "perfect" rates of change. You don't get good quality control defining a static and unchanging perfection. However, there are probably some rations that you could define workable "perfect" limits for -- some of them would be grounds for interesting research. For example, ratios between advertising and crime, or the frequency and magnitude of social perturbations resulting in protest come to mind. The frequency of public falsehoods compared tothe frequency of violent deaths. The ration of a base-line low-end salary to the highest incomes. Or the range of earnings using a loaf of bread as a unit of measure. Anyway, there are unlimited things you could measure, but the interest question would be which measures would mean something? A |
|
25 Jan 05 - 11:14 AM (#1388068) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,Grab Sure, confrontation can achieve something - *provided*: you know exactly what you want to achieve; you have near-unanimous agreement with other people (including those of a different political viewpoint) that it is the right thing to do; what you plan to do is specified; the target is specified; and the exit strategy when the target is achieved is specified. If you're thinking self-defense, it maps out quite nicely. You plan to stop the other guy hurting you, and your plan is to fight until he can't hurt you any more, and then you stop. I would have no quarrel with GWB's two invasions, had they been planned to impose democracy. But they weren't - Afghanistan was planned to salve America's feelings after 9/11, and Iraq was planned to finish what Daddy started. And to create a concentration camp for storage of Afghan fighters afterwards, or to invade Iraq with no plan of how to put the country back on its feet afterwards or of how to get the troops back out - *that's* the problem. And while we're at it, if you want to use that kind of language then you *have* to be scrupulous about your own integrity, and the same standards have to be applied everywhere. Support of Israel in appropriating Palestinian-owned land, failure to act in "non-headline" places like Sudan, failure to apply the rule of law in Guantanamo - all those things and more mount up against the US. I have no problems with the US being a "tough cop", but the US being a cop prepared to falsify evidence or beat evidence out of people is not acceptable. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 11:16 AM (#1388072) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos The definition of such perfection would have to be dynamic with a clear perspective on the boundaries of "perfect" rates of change. You don't get good quality control defining a static and unchanging perfection. However, there are probably some rations that you could define workable "perfect" limits for -- some of them would be grounds for interesting research. For example, ratios between advertising and crime, or the frequency and magnitude of social perturbations resulting in protest come to mind. The frequency of public falsehoods compared tothe frequency of violent deaths. The ration of a base-line low-end salary to the highest incomes. Or the range of earnings using a loaf of bread as a unit of measure. Anyway, there are unlimited things you could measure, but the interest question would be which measures would mean something? A |
|
25 Jan 05 - 11:18 AM (#1388074) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: pdq Under Socialism, you would ask the government for a guitar and three years later they give you a banjo. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 11:34 AM (#1388088) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor LOL, pdq! I think that, generally *wink* speaking, these types of discussions, for those who favor some sort of pure socialism, seem to come from an understanding of economies which are characterized by some concept of production that seems to imply that most GNP is the result of huge, mega-employee business. And if only those businesses were governmentally owned, there would be a fairer distribution of the goods produced. The problem is two-fold (at least). One is that most economy's GNPs are NOT primarily the output of mega-employee businesses. The small business far outweighs the large (midchuck's ability to make his living with his privately owned Froggy Bottom is more the rule than the exception). Second (and ironically), the more the government tries to gain the kind of control/ownership that is the goal of the pure socialist, the more the pragmatic means of production is merely driven underground for survival (try to assume ownership of midchuck's Froggy Bottom and he will relinquish it -- deeming the red tape to maintain his business via the governmental red-tape not worth the effort. He will then resume his business, underground now, with his undeclared Collings -- and the common treasury from which all would have drawn will be forever without midchuck's input -- until he's imprisoned.). Pure socialism loses its appeal when faced with the pragmatics of zero private ownership. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 01:37 PM (#1388243) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos I have no drum to beat for pure socialism. Chrysler Motors, however, should be grateful that some sort of balancing action through the Federal government was available to them when they failed. Lot of old folks skimped through their last decades because of the SocialSecurity system. So maybe a small dose of social organization is worth the trouble, sharply constrained by individual rights. Once that latter boundary starts to be eaten away at, as is currently occurring, I think alarums should be oiled up. A |
|
25 Jan 05 - 02:03 PM (#1388266) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: GUEST,Frank Freda, George Bush's idea of freedom is not for all people but those who have a vested interest in maintaining his status quo which is about the myth of "free trade" (because it is not free, it is regulated) and advancing the wealth of his cronies. Can't expect Bush to be as eloquent as King since he has not mastered the English language and his script writers have kept the comments he made as general as possible so as to mean nothing. Peacemakers are the bravest of all. They face opposition whenever and wherever they advocate. It's so amazing how people are co-dependent on war solutions. The idea of a "just war" is a case in point. War reigns destruction on the innocent as well as those who are deemed guilty. How can that be "just"? I don't think that war solves anything. It may make some richer for a time at the expense of others who suffer. But another irony is when FDR claimed that WWII would be the war to end all wars. It's like saying that you can save the house from fire by burning it down. War is the cure that kills the patient. War will never solve anything really. Hitler goes, we have Pol Pot or Saddam or Osama. War is a disease that breaks out periodically throughout the world and the only cure is peace (which entails justice). In the meantime, we are subjected to war as a political football by leaders who keep the public controlled through fear and anger (demonizing others). Frank |
|
25 Jan 05 - 02:18 PM (#1388276) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor "War will never solve anything really. Hitler goes, we have Pol Pot or Saddam or Osama. War is a disease that breaks out periodically throughout the world and the only cure is peace (which entails justice)." Interesting syllogism. Because another, unrelated war breaks out, the previous one is therefore, unjustified. How rhetorically beautiful -- the "Peace cure", and how logically unfounded. And in this world of self-interested humans, by what means do you propose we maintain "justice"? And "justice" by whose definition? So evil men will just lay down their arms when we offer them peace? What if that isn't what they want? Martin Gibson may not have a very eloquent or gracious way with words, but when it comes to questioning the validity of the extreme left's logic, he may well have a point. This vapid peacenik rhetoric seems only to resonate with those who already accept it -- and not with a pragmatic world. Have a nice day *BG* |
|
25 Jan 05 - 02:55 PM (#1388310) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos There is a world of difference between a codified method of justice and starting a war. Armed sheriffs are a very different thing from armed Marines. One is a bailiff ofd the peace, handling exceptions individually; the others is an intentional instrument of destruction. I am not so radical a peacenik that I would oppose the defense of good people. But I must draw the line at unilateral aggression, wrongful use of force and wanton slaughter. A |
|
25 Jan 05 - 03:06 PM (#1388325) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor "I am not so radical a peacenik that I would oppose the defense of good people. But I must draw the line at unilateral aggression, wrongful use of force and wanton slaughter." My read of Frank is that this doesn't really matter. All your splitting of hairs would still put you in the "war monger" camp. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 03:25 PM (#1388338) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Begs the question: What do ya do when you are attacked? Flash the V? Pass some flowers? Anyone with the brains God gave a turnip knows war is bad. On that, everyone DOES agree. But, again, if no one starts it, then no one has to finish it. This "he pushed me back first" crap has gotta go. IMO. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 04:23 PM (#1388404) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos Jim: Frank Hamilton made it clear -- he doesn't think war solves anything. He's right, it doesn't solve anything. A |
|
25 Jan 05 - 04:30 PM (#1388412) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: DougR Hilda: anyone who attacks another person with their fists, regardless of the reason, might find it a bit difficult to sell her/himself as anti-violent. DougR |
|
25 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM (#1388415) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Maybe so, Doug, but IMO there is a difference between being nonviolent and nonliving. I think people have the right to defend themselves, and I think they can do that and still be nonviolent (as in nonaggressive (sp?). |
|
25 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM (#1388416) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor Each breath, by that reasoning, doesn't "solve" anything either. It doesn't make breathing any less necessary. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 05:18 PM (#1388459) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place? So as to be able to use it for playing music. You can only honourably own as an individual what you can use yourself as an individual. You can own the house you live in. When you make someone pay you for living in a house you don't lve in, that is a kind of stealing. That is the distinction Proudhon with "Property is Freedom" and at the same time "Property is Theft". |
|
25 Jan 05 - 05:20 PM (#1388462) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place? So as to be able to use it for playing music. You can only honourably own as an individual what you can use yourself as an individual. You can own the house you live in. When you make someone pay you for living in a house you don't lve in, that is a kind of stealing. That is the distinction Proudhon was making when saying both "Property is Freedom" and at the same time "Property is Theft". |
|
25 Jan 05 - 05:22 PM (#1388464) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace That was worth saying twice, IMO. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 05:42 PM (#1388481) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor "You can only honourably own as an individual what you can use yourself as an individual. You can own the house you live in. When you make someone pay you for living in a house you don't lve in, that is a kind of stealing. That is the distinction Proudhon was making when saying both "Property is Freedom" and at the same time "Property is Theft". " This is so simplistic that there's no kind way to put it -- it's silly. It is "property as theory" and has little basis in the reality of property (what? it's limited to real estate?) or ownership. It fails utterly to take into account labor (a very meaningful moral element to ownership) or risk (another meaningful element to ownership and investment). It fails, in addition, to take into consideration the free agency of individuals to NOT chose to live in a house one may own but not live in. And stealing? From whom? Those who live in a house they do not own are merely completing a transaction, the likes of which free people enter into every day. They may not want to own the house in which they live -- for many reasons. And the other side of the transactional coin is that the property owner has the community obligation to maintain the property if he wants it to remain both his and an investment from which he, with his risk and labor might make his own way in life. Have a nice day. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 06:17 PM (#1388517) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers Brucie 'Somewhat tongue in cheek I ask, "And where is the tax man in all this?"' Socialism is the negation of the market system, where goods are produced according to need not for exchange, thus no need for money, and no need for taxmen. Of course without all the labour and resources that is dedicated to the finance industries, military, police, advertising and state, all essential for capitalism but not actually producing anything there will be a lot more time for making music or guitars or whatever you want to do. Rapaire, 'Socialism in its pure form would seem to reward the bland and mediocre.' Would it? How's that? What incentive is there to invent a guitar in the first place?' I'm not sure the guitar was ever 'invented', but people like inventing things, some people live in dire poverty because they'd rather spend their time inventing things than getting a 'proper job' that pays. In a small group humans can get along, each giving from his or her abilities. In a larger context other factors come into play, and either the best or the worst seems to rise to the top. Yes, but capitalism must has always had a top and a bottom and minority control of the means of wealth production on which everybody depends - something to fight over. 'A pure socialist society would have no leaders -- and no incentive to improve itself.' The former statement is true, and I don't understand where you are coming from with the latter. 'I can't envision any human society as perfect, given the imperfect materials from which it must be made.' Neither can I. Jim Tailor '. . . those who favor some sort of pure socialism, seem to come from an understanding of economies which are characterized by some concept of production that seems to imply that most GNP is the result of huge, mega-employee business. And if only those businesses were governmentally owned, there would be a fairer distribution of the goods produced.' I obviously haven't explained myself very well: government ownership is not socialism. There was a case in the UK where a chap had been taking coal from a government-owned coal yard, in his defence he said it was publically owned and so it belonged to him - he didn't win. Socialists see democracy not as the narrow definition used in the developed countries, hierachy-enforcing, choice of which leader, but democratic decision making being part of the process at every level, that maybe consensual, or formal voting but everything from what time you start work to how much to produce, to how many houses to build in a place. There is no need for a government, because everybody governs. Big business, medium sized business or little business doesn't change the fact that the majority of people are forced to earn their living from selling their labour, be it as a self-employed person, working for a small company or a large corporation or the government. Capitalism = private property, production for sale on market, allocation of goods and services according ability to pay, political democracy if you are lucky. Socialism = social ownership, production for use, allocation of goods and services according to self-defined needs, total democracy for all. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 06:45 PM (#1388536) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow Of course it's simplistic - in three lines it has to be simplistic. I'm talking about an attitude, in which "ownership" is about things you can use and look after, not about taking advantage of other people. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 09:35 AM (#1388908) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor Of course it's simplistic - in three lines it has to be simplistic. I'm talking about an attitude, in which "ownership" is about things you can use and look after, not about taking advantage of other people. There is a qualitative difference between "simplistic" and "simple". Three lines might imply the latter, but has nothing to do with the former. Nice dodge though, for those whose eyes are off the ball. Piers, All due respect, but your last definition makes even less pragmatic sense that the previous. So everybody owns everything, but we don't need any organization to sort this thing out? So it isn't government that makes midchuck's Froggy Bottom mine, it is midchuck's....what? ...generosity? And again, it doesn't address the fact that most business is not developed to enslave workers -- most are developed around a desirable product or service. If you don't want those products or services nobody is requiring that you avail yourself of them, but history has shown that most people are willing to participate. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 10:08 AM (#1388947) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow "So it isn't government that makes midchuck's Froggy Bottom mine" - you lost me there. ??? |
|
26 Jan 05 - 10:38 AM (#1388978) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor You're not the only one "lost", MofH. I'm not sure what to make of... "Socialism = social ownership, production for use, allocation of goods and services according to self-defined needs, total democracy for all." I think that Pier's definitions are as "simplistic" as yours, but I can't be sure because they really don't make any sense (try as I might to find some). I'd say that Pier's views are "theoretical" and not "pragmatic", but usually when something is "theoretical", "irrational" is not implied. In Pier's case I fear it is. There is little, if any, pragmatic element to his/her suggestions. You were merely trying to cloud the issue -- make a rhetorical point when a practical one wouldn't fit. I could understand that. I don't understand Pier's. Both are natural responses to the inability of the theoretical to answer a pragmatic question (who owns midchuck's Froggy Bottom in a socialist economy?). It doesn't mean that the theory is disproven, but it surely casts doubt on it. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:18 AM (#1389036) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Hey, y'all. This is worth Googling. If someone could do a link, that would be great. A Bovine Guide to Ideologies |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:21 AM (#1389041) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos A Bovine Guide to Ideologies |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:23 AM (#1389043) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: freda underhill a bovine guide to ideologies |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:23 AM (#1389044) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor you mean this? |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:32 AM (#1389060) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: freda underhill forget cows, what about this.. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:40 AM (#1389073) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Peace Thank you Freda, Amos and Jim. I hadn't seen this one before--I was looking for a print copy of a momologue Pat Paulsen (sp?) did back in the late 1960s or early 1970s on Laugh In. However, this one works. What a hoot. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:43 AM (#1389078) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor Wow, freda! And you might be the typical "mudcat liberal" if you think that any of those jokes have any basis in reality! (though some of them are kinda, y'know, funny.) |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:06 PM (#1389190) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: DougR brucie: Oops, I guess I didn't read Hilda's post correctly. I didn't realize she was defending herself. I'll re-read it. Nope, I read it right, brucie, perhaps it is you who did not understand what she wrote. Guess I'll stand by my original post. :>) DougR |
|
26 Jan 05 - 01:35 PM (#1389224) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers Dear Jim Tailor, 'I think that [Piers'] definitions are as "simplistic" as yours, but I can't be sure because they really don't make any sense (try as I might to find some).' I am writing about the basics of socialism in a non-pragmatic way for what I feel is a very good reason. It is the job of the socialist to state that socialist society is possible and provide an organisational basis to make it happen rather than to run a socialist society - that is the job of people, pragmatism can wait until it happens. Our job is to get across the message that we can organise without the 'no profit, no production', 'can't pay, can't have' premise to the economy, as humans did for tens of thousands of years. Providing blueprints for a future society is doomed because there are a huge number of possibilities within the framework of social ownership and democratic control, the people who know how best to organise e.g. guitar production are the people producing them now. We could sit here and speculate on the possibilities for days, but it will only ever be speculation. We are not travel agents selling a packaged holiday who say take this option you will go there and this is what will happen on each day, we are more geography teachers saying socialism is over there, it is a propertyless society, go there and decide what you want to do when you get there. If you are interested there is a load of much more articulate info at the WSM website. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 02:07 PM (#1389259) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: McGrath of Harlow "So it isn't government that makes midchuck's Froggy Bottom mine" - what I meant was, that must mean something, but I couldn't interpret what that was enough to decide whether I agreed with it or not. ................................................ "Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, but socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Michael Bakunin, writing back in the 1870s, and summarising in a sentence much of the history of the 20th century. And the 21st too, as it's panning out. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 02:58 PM (#1389306) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers So are you an anarchist Mr McGrath, in the vein of Bakunin and his creed? Respectfully, Piers |
|
26 Jan 05 - 03:01 PM (#1389311) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Jim Tailor "It is the job of the socialist to state that socialist society is possible and provide an organisational basis to make it happen rather than to run a socialist society - that is the job of people, pragmatism can wait until it happens" well, piers, you obviously see it that way. I see your "theoretical" approach as avoidance. It is in the pragmatics that socialism breaks down. To assert that it just seems that way, so let's try it anyway and see what happens, isn't naive -- it's disatisfaction with the way things are (probably because you see inequity or feel slighted) and saying that anything would be better. And it avoids economic realities and realities of human nature that, rather than "are decided by an economic system", decide how economic systems evolve. You're entitled. I just think you're wrong (and I assume you think the same of me). Have a nice day! |
|
26 Jan 05 - 03:27 PM (#1389336) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers To be honest Jim, you are touching on a contentious issue within the socialist movement, but I stick by my guns. I am not saying anything is better than capitalism, I am saying socialism would be better than capitalism. You say that 'It is in the pragmatics that socialism breaks down.' which is a presumption because socialism has never existed. You assert that 'economic realities and realities of human nature' might be a barrier to socialism let's discuss the pragmatics of what you mean. Have a nice day yourself Piers |
|
26 Jan 05 - 03:39 PM (#1389352) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Amos The absence of individual ownership is a serious dsincentive to most individuals to acheive. It may be enlightened to "work for the good fo all" but the experience of the USSR shows pretty plainly that individual wins and ownership are important to motivating individuals to produce better. So I suspect that while a safety net is mandatory in any but the most barbarian societies, that a balance between that net and individual excellence and the motives that fuel it must be struck. A |
|
26 Jan 05 - 04:40 PM (#1389436) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Piers In the old days in USSR the state owned and controlled capital, but private ownership still existed, they still needed money to exchange things, still had to purchase their possessions, how else could they match the inequality that exists in 'free' world. State ownership of capital did not change the capitalist character of industry, socialism is about terminating the social relation that is capital. I do not believe socialism involves 'working for the good of all' it means working because you want to, because work is a pleasure, and more often than not work in capitalism is not a pleasure or it carried out in conditions that make it less pleasureable than it could be. When there are jobs that can never be a pleasure cleaning bogs or digging roads then we could democratically organise a way to share out the unpleasant tasks. The 'socialism is the enemy of individualism' argument is a complete fallacy. As if there isn't a McDonalds in every town, new fashions that people follow every year, the same shops selling the same things all over the place. Socialism could mean free associations of producers, independently controlled rather than huge corporations where what to make or distribute is dictated from above and with more efficient production there would be more time to take a bit of pride in producing something better. Piers |
|
26 Jan 05 - 05:15 PM (#1389487) Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence From: Bobert Without complicatin' the issue, I am less intersted in the structure of either socialism oe capiatalism. Both can work well or work poorly depending on how the wealth created from the two systems is distributed. Herein lies the problems we are seeing with capitalism, at least how it is practices in the US. Over the last 25 years the capitalists (as opposed to those who provide the labor for the machine to work) have taken used their influence over the governemnt to reduce regulations and taxes and in doing so have been taking incresingly larger shares of the collective wealth created by the system. This money grab is certainly not any thing new in human nature but there does become a tipping point where those who provide the labor stand up and say, "No more!". This generation of capitalists is very aware of that sticky point but to by them time they have leant back to the labor force enough money so that the labor force *thinks* itself to not be slipping backwards qutie as fast as it is. Throw in the dumbing down of the labor force and the capitalists of today might very well get a good run this time but inevitably the system will break and it will be the labor force that makes the gains. I'm sure that their are advantages to a capitalist system n however, in that it is somewhat more streamlines and can, for many poducts and servics, outproduce a socialist system since it is more market driven and more intertested in "net". What I would rather see is the best of both sytems working in one society. There are certain things, such as health care and energy that lend themselves more to being collectively owned since we all gotta have these services and capitalists providing them makes the society on the whole more vulnerable. We are ceratinly seeing no in health care and we need to look no further than Enron for an example in the energy field... Plus we don't need to deregulate industries. This is not a good idea from the standpoint of either our envirnments or out pocketbooks. Capitalists need to compete hard and play on a level playing field. Anything less is a formula for disaster... Bobert |