|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted November 04, 2004 08:50 PM |
|
|
The thing is, and I'll be honest here, I would be less indignant about the Iraq war if it was actually benefitting the US in either the short term or the long term. I gotta say that the money spent on the war could be used to buy quite a bit of oil without sacrificing US lives or credibility.
And now, a message to all the imminent bridge-jumping intelligent (ie, Democrat) folks out there:
Perspective people, perspective. I'm not going to pretend that the election result isn't a bad thing. It's extremely unfortunate that this happened, but it's (probably) not the end of the world.
Don't look at the geography, look at the population. 59 million americans may think George W. Bush is a good idea, but 55.5 million don't. This wasn't a landslide, the percentage difference was only 3%. An increase from 2000, yes, but compare it to the 9% difference that Clinton won by in 1996. Are we in the minority? Yes, but barely. The glass may be 51 percent empty, but at least it's 48% full. (1% spilled out of the glass and voted for Nader)
A wartime president won by only 3%. Some of his support has to be credited to nervousness about changing presidents during a war -- look at Consis' reasoning, for instance. FDR won by 10% in 1940. LBJ won by 23% in 1964. Lincoln won by 11% in 1864.
George W. Bush's presidency is at least in part due to a cult of personality. Listen to his supporters and a frequent (note, not exclusive) theme is one of "Well, I just like the guy." That does not bode well for Republicans in the 2008 election when there is a notable absence of potential candidates with the same bewildering charisma.
Iraq is unwinnable. One thing that was always in the back of my mind was the fear of Kerry getting blamed for the eventual failure. At least this way, the fault will unambiguously be placed on Bush, the one who started the war.
Some good referenda were passed, most notably the one in California for stem cell research. As to the gay marriage bans, unfortunate though they are, the progress is that the issue is being discussed at all. Thirty years ago, people weren't even considering giving homosexuals the rights they deserve. The fact that its even an issue now is a sign of progress, small, admittedly, but progress nonetheless.
There will be some deserved and much delayed bloodletting in the Democratic party. It might have been better if the 2000 election hadn't been so close because that masked the problem that the Democratic party has had for some time now, a lack of organization. The Republicans win because they long ago figured out that, as Giradueax says in the Madwoman of Chaillot, fake pearls become more real the longer you wear them -- if you repeat the same lie over and over again, people will believe it. The Democrats need to learn that they can beat that by repeating the truth over and over again, they don't need to water the truth down with the Republican lies in hopes of getting a few more swing voters.
Spin control? Somewhat. Silver lining? A tarnished one, but it is there.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Helldragon
Hired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 09:28 PM |
|
|
HITLER WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON!!!!!!
unless you posted this thread yesterday, your kinda already too late...
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
HITLER WAS NOT A GOOD PERSON!!!!!!
What's a good person? You knew him? How do you know? How comes this here - anyways?
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 10:02 AM |
|
|
Living Without Guilt
Khayman wrote:Quote:
Right now, the United States is a huge tidal wave that is washing across the globe, and I just happen to be at the crest of that wave on my surfboard, carving it up until it eventually dies out somewhere near the shoreline...which at this point in time, that shoreline is nowhere to be seen.
Laelth responded:Quote:
Jesus H. Christ! Can you hear yourself? That's a very dangerous, disturbing, and maniacal way of seeing the world. The rest of humanity probably doesn't want to get crushed by the American tidal wave. You know that, don't you?
Laelth, of course I know that, but quite frankly, that is their problem, not yours or mine. If you choose to make it your problem, then by all means, please go right ahead and begin your uneventful search for a plausible solution. Laelth, my insightful patriot, you even pointed out the futility of trying to deter the current administration, along with its ever-growing supporters and its domination of the United States' political arenas. Let's be realistic for just a moment. Here are your options:
1. Vote them out of office. (Didn't work this time, and from the way it looks now with the country's voting base shifting even more to the right, I would agree with you that it won't work again for quite some time.)
2. Protest their actions. (Quite a noble cause, I admit. However, with so much disagreement and protest to the current administrations questionable actions, I really doubt they will alter their current path, especially since over 51% of the voting population supported them enough to grant them a second term.)
3. Worry, worry, and worry some more, yet do nothing about it except feel guilty.
4. Accept the fact that your country is a global power, enjoy being on the top of the food chain, and make the best out of your short time here on this earth.Quote:
Be honest, now. Isn't this exactly what many German people were thinking in the mid-1930's?
I can't answer that. However, I do know that this country demonstrated enough sound moral character to outlaw slavery, extend rights to women, and protect its own citizens' basic human rights. I am not foolish enough to believe that our country does not kill innocent women and children as a result of its quest for money, power, and natural resources, but somehow I cannot envision racial genocide in its master plans.Quote:
I don't think you're a bad person, Khayman ... but blind nationalism coupled with the might of the U.S. military is a dangerous, dangerous thing.
My point exactly. I don't care if you or anyone else thinks that I am a bad person, as it has no bearing on my life and my actions. If my family or friends thought I was a bad person, then perhaps I would consider changing my ways in order to please them.
I agree that blind nationalism coupled with the might of the military is a dangerous thing. Just wait and see what happens when North Korea, or even worse, China becomes the next super power that rivals the United States. I predict that this will happen somewhere around the year 2017. What is going to stop them from dipping their hands into the Middle East's cookie jar? Better yet, the question should be WHO is going to stop them. The United Nations? Right...
Dalaran wrote:Quote:
It is up to you to change this identity, if it is possible yet. I must also say that your demonstration of "America tidal wave" crushing the world is very fun, because I'm sure you wouldn't say that if YOU were under the bombs (Have you ever thought about it ?).
Dalaran, of course I have thought about it, but what am I supposed to do? Feel guilty because I live in the most powerful nation in the world? This is just the way the cards were dealt. C'est la vie. I wish everyone could live in peace and harmony, but I am not naive enough to believe that human nature will ever allow this.
You see, as I stated earlier in another thread, most Americans have this emptiness inside them, and many of them choose to fill this void with guilt, empathy, or sympathy for others who have less than they do. It is as if they cannot survive without creating some type of drama or false adversary for themselves. That is why we have Americans spending thier money trying to Save The Prairie Dogs while their relatives are living in virtual poverty. That is why we have people spending all of their free time protesting the unethical treatment of animals while their dying grandparents are sitting at home all by themselves in sheer loneliness. That is why there are Americans driving around with Free Tibet bumper stickers on their cars while racism, prejudice, and oppression are still thriving in their own country. That is why we have millionaires in Hollywood feeling sorry for themselves and desiring sympathy from others because their lives are so difficult, yet so very empty.
The American people need to stop fooling themselves and cease creating these false realities in order to make themselves feel better. If they want to feel better, then they need to look no further than their family and friends. I intend on enjoying my status and my life while I can, and anything that is going to provide me more of an opportunity to partake in that, then so be it. This is just what I call 'keeping it real'.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 05, 2004 03:25 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 5 Nov 2004
|
A Few Thoughts
Quote:
4. Accept the fact that your country is a global power, enjoy being on the top of the food chain, and make the best out of your short time here on this earth.
If I may, I'd like to add that I do enjoy being successful but I constantly remind myself of the danger of becoming luxuriously complacent. I think the best way to 'enjoy' our success, not first chair as it were, is by bringing other people in the world to share in the same civil liberties we take for granted. I'm talking about clean water, comfortable shelter, and law-abiding neighbors.
We cannot, for even a single moment, expect to remain a global competitor if we lapse in our judgment. It was our ability to remind ourselves of our true origins that has brought us to be where we are in the world today. To me, this entails knowing exactly what sacrifices were made and by whom. We shant kid ourselves into thinking americans made americans. It was people from all over the world who decided to come here and create a more democratic system of governing for the people, by the people, and of the people. We, here in the united states, are much more than a country of established native peoples. We are a movement more than a sovereign nation. We are a group of growing individuals who seek to better ourselves and bring our neighbors with us. We are not alone in the world. To simply sit here and think that we have nothing in common with the French, the Chinese, or the Mexican peoples is audacious. Make no mistake that we are all human beings looking to live more comfortably on a planet whose will does not wait for the less fortunate.
Oh, and I disagree with the year 2017. I say at least twice as long before China becomes number two in the world. I also disagree with them 'dipping' into the middle eastern 'cookie jar'. They have their own in Vietnam.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 04:30 PM |
|
|
Khayman -- I agree with you. Americans should be looking out for their own interests. The brilliance of the Republican party is how thouroughly they've fooled people into voting against their own interests.
You say the you're fine with the Iraq war because it gives us control over the oil and so forth and that this benefits you. Really? Since the beginning of the Iraq war, has it become cheaper to fill up your gas tank? Oh, right, it's become more expensive. There is only one way the Iraq war could have personally benefitted you -- do you own Halliburton stock? We had control over Iraq's oil before the war. The only difference now is that it costs us more to do so and our soldiers are being killed.
We should be looking after our own interests, but we're looking after the interests of Dick Cheney's retirement fund. Guess what, we're not the only industrialized nation and yet, they all seem to be getting the oil they need without spending a couple hundred billion and a 1000 or so lives. Canada? They got their oil. France? They got their oil. Germany? They got their oil. So hey, what would you rather have? Expensive oil while lining some fat *******'s pockets or would you rather have oil for the same price and use the rest of the money to only have a 35 hour work week? Added bonus the rest of the industrialized world has? People aren't trying to crash planes into their buildings.
Republicans get you to believe that the tax cut is in your interest because you get $300. Meanwhile your kids go to crappy schools, you go without decent health care and not enough cops walk the streets.
The difference between us Khayman, is that I can actually identify what are my interests and fight for my interests not for the interests of some jackass with a trust fund.
I want national health care. Why? Because I give a flying **** about the uninsured? Well, I do, but that's not the only reason. Because I don't have insurance? Nope, I've got as good a health plan as they can be without national health care and I'll always have good health plans. Hell, my health plan will even pay for me to get acupuncture or to see a hypnotist to help me stop smoking (I've considered taking up smoking just so that I can see the hypnotist). No, the biggest reason is because my wife will, in just over a year now, be a doctor and I want to look after our income. The goal of a health insurance company is to PREVENT people from getting treatment. Why? Because that's how they make money and what a health insurance company ultimately is is a business. It's insane how much of a doctor's time is spent wrangling with insurance companies and ultimately not getting paid for tests and procedures that had to be done but that the insurance company won't pay for. Guess who swallows the cost? Doctors. Guess who gets worse health care? You. Guess whose interest this is in? Insurance companies.
You're going to say that if my wife is going to be a doctor I should be supporting the Republican party because of malpractice caps. I thought so too until my wife convinced me otherwise. Malpractice suits are not why malpractice insurance costs so much. In areas where they've capped punitive payouts, guess what happened to malpractive premiums? Nothing. Malpractive insurance costs so much because most of the insurance companies made some really bad investments in the 90s, took a bath on the dotcom bust and have to make up the shortfall. How do they do it? Raise malpractice premiums because then they can just blame the trial lawyers. Besides, as to capping payouts, the number that's most often bantered about is $250,000. Ask yourself right now, if somebody came up to you right now and said "I'll give you $250,000 if I can put out your eyes and leave you in crippling pain for the rest of your life," would you take it?
The reason I think National Health Care is a good thing is because it is in my interests. The fact that it lines up with the vast majority of most Americans (although they've been fooled into thinking otherwise) is just a happy coincidence. People say "oh, but look at how long it takes to get to see a specialist in countries with national health care." Well here's a fun activity for you -- tomorrow make it your mission to see a neurologist as soon as possible. Then, weeks later, report back here how long it took you to see one, if you even were able to see one. Then tell us all about the long journey. Did you have to go to the HMO first? Tell me, did you see a doctor or an RN? Did the RN then let you see a doctor? What forms did the doctor have to fill out and send to the HMO head office? Oops, they denied you? Well, better luck next life. Here's the bottom line : Countries with national health care have longer lives and spend a smaller percentage of their GDP making sure of this. The only thing we've done here is create an extra parasite class that we call "insurance."
I'm an environmentalist. Is that because I care about the plight of the Armenina Boll Weevil or sea slug species #543? A little, but more importantly, I don't want to get lung cancer even though I've smoked maybe 3 or 4 cigarettes in my life (as well as a few and I mean a few extremely good cuban cigars). I also want to, in the future, take my kids to Yellowstone or Acadia or Shenandoah and have them say, "Wow dad, that's really cool!" instead of, "Dad, why did you take me to a clear-cut forest covered in smog?" I have every intention of one day owning a nice boat with a fighting chair and I want to hear my kids say, "That was awesome! We pulled in a gigantic Mahi Mahi! And I never knew how good fish tasted when it was that fresh!" Instead of having to say things like, "You know son, I remember when there were fish in this water." Or, "Sorry son, we can't eat it, too much mercury." I haven't yet been to Alaska, but when I do, I want to see a sea of Caribou, not a sea of oil wells. The fact that other Americans will be able to do the same things is an added bonus.
Do I care about the AIDS and other humanitarian crises in Africa? Yep. Because I feel sorry for the people there? Of course. But guess what else? You make a stable Africa, that's another trading partner for the US and more money for all of us. I also want to travel there again. It's too dangerous now, but I went to Kenya when I was 6 and it was one of the most incredible experiences of my life. I want to do that again and it's not going to happen unless Africa becomes a safe, stable continent.
Look after your own interests Khayman, but make sure that the interests you're looking after are actually your own.
EDIT: Is it really that hard to censor your own posts? Use the shift and 8 key next time, works wonders.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 05, 2004 08:30 PM |
|
|
bort,
For some reason your post sits well with my digestive tract. It was well-delivered and washed down smoothly. It tasted great and was less-filling.
It was also quite enlightening to your personal insight and perspectives. I couldn't help but wonder if you weren't referencing/alluding to Israel's healthcare system(which has been thoroughly socialized). I was wondering, if that was the case, if you have any ideas to increase the likelihood/effectiveness of a national healthcare system for america.
I too have a wife who is a part of the medical career field. She and I have regular discussions about your exact complaints.
I simply want to say that it's a difficult thing to make happen what most believe is only a dream. Rome was not built in a day. And I think you know what I mean by that.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 08:39 PM |
|
|
Khayman, you know I love you.
(PAUSE)
I'm trying to catch my breath and control myself.
(PAUSE)
You say the only thing that matters to you is your family. Try and remember that if you ride this wave in an unnecessarily reckless manner, in 2050 when the economy is in ruins and environment has collapsed, where the threat of terrorist attacks has only grown along with the flames of anti-Americanism upon which he've been throwing gasoline for fifty years, it's not just some stranger in 2050 who will be living there. It will be your own children and grandchildren.
It's hard for me to believe this about you after having met you, but at some point you have apparently achieved almost a complete disconnect with your own humanity, my sweet friend. Your basic philosophy, that of self interest, can and does work, but only if it is "enlightened." Self-interest is best served when it benefits the entire group. This is one of the principles behind free-market economy.
For instance, the more stable the rest of the world is, the more it benefits the United States. You might claim that completely stable world is impossible, with which I would agree. But this does not justify us taking actions which unnecessarily further the destabilization process. The United States might be well-served in the short run by practicing unrestrained hegemony, which you apparently espouse and support. But we are participants in the global economy. If you think the rest of the world is utterly powerless to bring any negative impact to bear on us because of our military might, your analysis leaves out this very important point. We can act in our own self interest, but it simply makes better sence for the sake of ourselves as well as others to do so in the most effective way, which is frequently, if not usually, the most diplomatic way.
Bort gave a beautiful illustration of how enlightened self-interest works in his narrative on health insurance reform in his above post. Let me speak to how unenlightened self- interest could work against us.
Wielding our globally superior power with a sense of complete arrogance and recklessness will cause further global economic and military instability, which works to nobody's self-interest, even and especially our own. The more interested portions of the constituencies in countries where there are emerging democracies will become jaded and turn to fundamentalism. This will lead to increasing instability in regions where we have interests, requiring more and more of our budget to cover a growing number of military actions.
The more of our budget is committed to sustaining these actions, the less stable the American economy will be. If the actions are pursueed recklessly, then occupations anticipated to be short will go on indefinitely, and may lead to further destabilization regionally, in turn causing the need for further engagements, and damaging or destroying the anticipated economic returns from the engagement (example -- Iraq oil). Not to mention the further military expenditures impacting the economy.
Additional short-term thinking by those in power, based on your philsophy of "riding the wave and enjoying our lives," makes long-term environmental protection irrelevant. I can promise you, Khayman, that it will not be irrelevant to your grandchildren when the ice caps are half gone, the Gulf Stream stops its flow, and the entire balance of ecosystem throws the planet into mass flooding, famine, and general economic collapse.
So you can claim that your philosophy is based on pragmatism, but I think you are deluding yourself in doing so.
If you really care about your family, I urge you to rethink all of this.
|
|
LordTitan
Famous Hero
Hit Dice: 76d12+608 HP
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 10:07 PM |
|
|
Long and meaningful posts
I've always wondered why people post thier personal relationships and family issues on the internet, but of course it's none of my buisness.
But bort is right, 3% is not much of a difference and bush and kerry basicly tied.
...
so in the "end", we have 1/2 of a country opposed to the others in what they believe, bush had better have a big candy bribe of some sort for kerry's supporters.
--------------------------- ----------------------------
____________
Spaek the Titan
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 06, 2004 01:30 AM |
|
|
Ouch, harsh words guys
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 06, 2004 05:14 AM |
|
|
Bort and Peacemaker, do you think the world is such designed so that self-interest is best maintained in a peace-loving and just society? I think here, Khayman is right.
Self-interest, by its nature, cannot be best served in a society of equals. Historical examples also confirm this. USA would have never arisen to a unique global power, controlling markets and governments all over the world if it hadnt been its hegemonic approach to world politics. I believe a state of injustice can be maintained with the practice of pure supremacy for as long as the privileged side keeps the methods effective, which is, theoretically possible, forever. What it takes is the right ideology and some minimal economical concessions for the oppressed, and they’ll even be happy to serve. Call it, as Nietzsche called it, mentality of the herd, but it always works.
You can be sure that Iraq will go well with American interests in the long run. First, it will take some effort to be put into stabilizing the country, but very soon, the borders of the “free world” will shift to include yet another country, with a huge market ready to devour and produce American goods.
Or would bort have supported public health care, if his wife didn’t work as a doctor? Clearly you have a more than reasonable salary to allow you the best treatment. If you are guided by self-interest primarily (which you claim you are), then why would you want to get in the same line with the vast majority Americans who take only a modest salary, and cannot afford the benefits you can. (I assume you’re well paid, in order to make my point. If its not the case, the same logic would apply to some other “guy in a privileged position” model).
Peacemaker mentioned the driving force behind American economy to be self-interest. Absolutely correct, but how is that one positive example? I mean, it only goes to show how effective and both exploitatory it can be, which proves Khayman’s point. Sure, there are differences in approach between liberal and conservative ideologies, and just maybe conservative ones are truly suicidal since they tend to create resistance to themselves, but if that’s a reason for you, Peacemaker and bort, to support the silent method of expansion the liberals advocate, then there’s nothing brighter with your perspective of the world compared to Khayman’s. I don’t think you two are led by self-interest, and any attempts to justify fair action with it are both irrational and unpractical. If you really believe your self-interest is your greatest goal, than imo you’re living in a virtual reality about how the world functions, which from my pragmatic point of view, isnt that bad, since you’re working toward greater equality and freedom, albeit counter-productively to your own selfish interests.
What concerns me much more is Khayman’s fascist imperialism, or as other diplomatic scholars wish to term it – Nietsche’s philosophy. That’s an intelligent, realistic perspective of the world, but so full of evil and inhuman intentions, that disgusts me.
Well, any lights at the end of the tunnel? Sure, but for that, what it takes is to eliminate the animal spirit of pursuing self-interest, and replace it with the human spirit of pursuing self-interest, which shows more concern for fairness, humanity and the needs of other less fortunate people, not thriving on their misery and despair [having made this distinction in the end, its important to note that in the bigger part of this post, the “animal spirit of pursuing self-interest”, is what I meant when I referred to “pursuing self-interest”]. What we get in the end, is a much greater benefit for the community overall (more production, culture, happiness generated), but distributed more fairly than before, i.e. at the expense of the privileged few, and the benefit of the oppressed many. Seems like a fair trade to me, doesn’t it?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 06, 2004 09:04 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 6 Nov 2004
|
I Really Don't Like Svarog's Post
I think what I hate the most about it is that it sounds like he learned something from his visit to the u.s. He's certainly right about several things.
Svarog, I want you to know that I personally make certain to not forget the Joe Kennedy lesson. As an american I know greed is the morsel that dangles before the well fed shark. It was born a fish, grew into a shark, and reacted as only an animal could, with instinct. Your words ring true to me and I shall not allow myself to fall prey to the alluring scent of luxury. Enron reminded me how similar we are to Romans after all. We don't crucify, hold slaves, or conquer the known world. What we do is feed the capitalist beast that lusts for insatiable power. It's an invisible id until it's too late. Then when the governments of the world realize Halliburton is more than a successful business they wonder. What do they wonder? They wonder how difficult it is for a roman general to kill an established poisonous senator. Not so easy says I. Tis a war between deeds and boots and who suffers in the end? A brother, sister, daughter, son, helpless baby, the very ground we stand upon, and the air we breathe. All for what? For power. All for power.
I believe that all men/women have the capability for such terrible things. We must first understand that people are common among ourselves. There is no nation, or mountain, or deep dark sea that can change this.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 07, 2004 12:15 AM |
|
|
Wow. Why do I feel like I've landed on Mars and everyone around me I thought I once knew is speaking Martian???
Quote:
Self-interest, by its nature, cannot be best served in a society of equals. Historical examples also confirm this. USA would have never arisen to a unique global power, controlling markets and governments all over the world if it hadnt been its hegemonic approach to world politics. I believe a state of injustice can be maintained with the practice of pure supremacy for as long as the privileged side keeps the methods effective, which is, theoretically possible, forever. What it takes is the right ideology and some minimal economical concessions for the oppressed, and they’ll even be happy to serve. Call it, as Nietzsche called it, mentality of the herd, but it always works.
Svarog, I think you might like this concept of enlightened self-interest more than you think. Google Alexis DeTocqueville and John Stuart Mill, or just the term enlightened self-interest itself, and read on. Personally I am pretty much an Indian on this stuff, and I was trying to use a term to which Khayman could relate. I think that it's absolute suicide for the human race to behave the way it has been behaving, both throughout human history and especially lately.
So you're right when you say I can't justify my existence by it; I don't even try or want to do that. I prefer to do things for the people around me because that's what I prefer. I prefer to stop and talk to street folks because nobody else does and I think that's mean and cruel. I prefer to stop and help people with a flat tire or who have been in an accident because I know they need help. I prefer to volunteer to go rake old ladies' yards who can't do it themselves because they need me to do it. In my self interest? No. But to claim that all humans are basically nasty and selfish, and therefore it's okay to be that way yourself, is just an outright self-defeating prophesy.
My whole point was that there are western philosophical constructs that describe how operating solely for personal gain is a self-defeating prophesy, but operating for the good of all benefits all and creates stability, thus benefitting the one. Why is that such a difficult and contentious point? I guess I am farther away from the dominant western/European cultural frame of thinking than I ever thought.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 07, 2004 03:01 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 6 Nov 2004
|
Peacemaker,
Please tell me if I'm over-stepping my boundaries with what I'm about to say. I don't usually speak for other people but I feel compelled to mention what I practice, myself.
There is something else you do, taking the indian perspective, that you did not mention and that was generally common among all native american indian tribes. I feel this is especially important when trying to understand where you, as a person, are coming from. An indian does more than worry about wars, famine, hunting, and aristocratic treachery. An indian does not only want to protect the land where he/she lives but even more so seeks a connection between it and him/her self. It is spiritual, personal, and ultimately guiding in all principals for all decisions and behavior.
"Who can own a rock or a tree?" Long ago this question was asked to the 'white man' when approached for permission to buy the territory they inhabited. They were confused and didn't understand the question. They soon realized it meant more 'white men' were coming to inhabit the land of their ancestors' ancestors.
This is why, even today, many people such as myself listen when a native american speaks about land and property rights. I want to protect the earth with as much understanding as the common indian does. I think this is an understanding we should all try to learn more about. I'm not an indian but I know they can help us take better care of our environment the way their people have done since the earliest people crossed the land bridge during the last ice age.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 01:04 AM |
|
|
Consis, I don’t see just why you hate so much what I wrote, especially because as far I succeeded in encrypting the metaphorical comments after the initial disagreement, I don’t see any opposition.
Peacemaker, perhaps it was too hasty of me to “blame” you for pursuing self-interest. You’re always diplomatic, but trying to bring your perspective closer to Khayman by using his vocabulary is what created the confusion. Sorry, ma’am. 
I’m not sure if I made my point clear enough.
I’m still not sure what “enlightened self-interest” means, but from the context in your and bort’s post, I got it as self-interest working towards long-term goals and emphasizing cooperation. What I tried to point out is that self-interest is not always dependent on cooperation, and in fact is often better attained through sheer domination (depending on the circumstances). From here, I don’t consider self-interest (egoism), which states that the individual has advantage over the group, to be a guiding criterion, but utilitarianism, which favors the group over the individual.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 05:58 PM |
|
|
Consis, thank you for your very respectful and accurate post. I just left all that out because I figured I was talking to a group which focuses on the human element of the human behavior equasion. People start hearing flutes and crap in the background when Indians talk about such things as the land being a living thing that deserves equal consideration in that equasion. Just so you'll know though, I sat there nodding through your entire post. Myself, I have been so numbed over a lifetime of what I consider an appalling rape of the land that others apparently do not see, that I no longer even bother trying to express my deep feelings about it anymore.
Svarog, thank you for your response as well. "Enlightened self-interest" is a concept of western philosphy originating with Alexis De Tocqueville some several hundred years or so ago (like 18th century? I'm terrible with timeframes). This concept was adopted by John Stuart Mill who is considered one of the Founding Fathers' (primarily Jefferson's) most influential sources of guidance in the formation of the United States.
Put oversimply, the analysis of "enlightened self interest" takes self-interest a step further by describing how acting purely in one's own self-interest is pretty reliably self-defeating because it destroys community. Since community exists for the benefit of all (including the self) acting purely in one's own self-interest at the expence of the community ultimately defeats the act of self-interest.
Take taxes for instance. Acting purely in one's own self interest by refusing to pay taxes makes police and fire protection, infrastucture maintenance, and other public programs impossible. So the one refusing to pay tax will have more money, but no road system, fire department, police protection, etc. Her car is damaged by driving in potholes, her house burns down or is looted, and she ultimately loses vastly more money than she saved by not paying the taxes.
The same concept can be stretched to environmental protection and international relations. George Bush can walk away from the Kyoto Accord stating "it would have cost the United States too many jobs" but everyone will pay the price when the Gulf Stream and Atlantic current cease after billions of gallons of fresh water that is already breaking away from the ice shelf continues to melt and de-salinify the oceans. Much more than a few American jobs will be lost.
Similarly, we can practically single-handedly wage a war in Iraq, but when the thing starts falling apart, if we don't have international support and participation we will probably not be able to stabilize the situation on our own. Destabilization in one Middle Eastern country will likely lead to further destabilization throught the Muslim World because of fundamentalist backlash uprisings and increased anti-Americanism. This in turn would lead to increased interest in waging large-scale terrorist attacks against the United States, which presumably is the very equasion we sought to disrupt by stopping the rise of the Middle East's worst dictator.
So, enlightened self-interest is at the root of the move away from "zero-sum game" thinking in international relations (a winner automatically implies a loser) toward the concept of "collective security." Collective security is a term which refers to the negotiation of actions and relationships which benefit all participating parties, albeit perhaps not to the extent that unilaterally beneficial actions might. However, the more economically interrelated we become, the more critical collective security becomes as a purely pragmatic matter, particularly now in the new terrorist era. (Forgive me, Svarog and other, for identifying the present in such a manner. As most of you know, terrorism has been afflicting many nations for decades, and so have the problems which have inspired it. But in the eyes of Americans, the single superpower, 9/11 brought it into the mix which is why they tend to think of this as a new era and react accordingly.)
While this approach to international relations has its own warts and flaws, those warts and flaws arise primarily from a lack of good diplomatic skills than any irreconcilable differences between nations (not including the nutcases like Saddam). The exercise of American hegemony could ultimately reverse and destroy the progress made toward collective security policies made over the past fifty years.
So, when I use the concept of "enlightened self interest" in the face of comments such as those my good friend Khayman made, it is really a utilitarian approach to get him to see why doing what some (like me) might call the "right thing" actually serves him and his family in the long run. While I think it is a rather soul-less way of looking at things, the result is similar, whether you engage in "enlightened self-interes" or in simply doing what you think of as "the right thing."
Personally I think when you take the soul out of anything you do, the outcome is negatively affected. But we have to start somewhere with the Khaymans of the world.
Thanks to all of you for this wonderful conversation.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 08, 2004 07:54 PM |
|
|
The terminology of "enlightened self-interest" was Peacemaker's, not mine. I don't think there is such a thing as "enlightened" self-interest. My point was that if most americans were actually looking out for their own, and not GW, inc.'s interests, the US and indeed the world would be better off than it is now (note, not the best it could be but better than it is.).
My post was not meant to imply that I consider myself to be doing the right thing by looking out for my own interests. I was simply being honest in saying that in many cases, my primary reasons for supporting causes that happen to be good ones are selfish ones. As to whether or not I would support nationalized health care even if my wife was not a future doctor (she's not one yet), the answer is yes, I would. Would I be actively supporting it? Probably not. If there was ever a referendum on the issue, I'd support it and vote for it, but if I had to be 100% honest, I wouldn't do anything else about it.
Svarog, out of curiosity, what is your response to the oft raised objection to utilitarianism that, by its emphasis of overall hapiness can either lead to a) excessive concentration of pleasure in an elite few as long as the total happiness is maximized or b) the rights of the few being completely trampled if it serves the many? For example, situations such as Guantanamo Bay can be easily justified under utilitarian rules -- the fact that some are unjustly imprisoned is okay if it makes the majority feel more secure.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 09, 2004 12:52 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 8 Nov 2004
|
Post Election B.S.
What a bunch of crap. The election is over and I'm getting so sick of hearing the media say that morals decided the election! I mean come on who are they kidding? Before the election they wouldn't shut up about the issues they thought were affecting the election. And then! Right after the votes came in.....total change in news delivery! I was so annoyed when I heard them say, "Oh yeah it was obviously morals that decided the turnout." I was like, "What, people voting for religious reasons?! Who would have thought?!" One minute, we're discussing vietnam and Iraq and the next......ugh.....That was right after a full year of talking about major national and local issues! I simply want to say, "Gee, yah think?" Oh my god of all the things they could be talking about they want to talk about homo-religious(mankind) deciding what the turnout would be! Give me a break! Doesn't anyone read history? Has there ever been an election where morals didn't matter?
I swear my filter for news seems to be growing from the sheer bulk opinionations. I'll sit down, watch a few news stories which I think merit serious attention, and then come here to post detailed thoughts on issues that really do matter. If I had nickle for every republican or democratic pitch I'd be rich. My head may spin and I'll often try to understand regardless, but I won't listen if I see someone is going out of their way to shove it in my face.
I was watching the news and I saw these people from New York and Los Angeles standing amazed that they, "don't even know half the people in this country". Apparently, "there are people of whom they haven't the slightest idea who they are". Ugh, what a rediculous thing to say. I come here and speak with bort(New York), Peacemaker(Colorado), and many others americans who don't share my beliefs but I don't go around saying, "Who are these people that they would vote for my opposition?" I think some americans need to wake up and smell the individuality. What the hell is with secluding yourself to the point of complete secularism? Whose fault will it be if the country collapses from poor leadership? The leader or the voter?
I have more to say about this morals b.s. but I think I've said enough to bore an elephant.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2004 01:29 AM |
|
|
Im sorry Peacemaker, but your statement that John Stuart Mill was used by Thomas Jefferson is unfortunately wrong.
John Stuart Mill is a british philospher who wrote his main pieces "On liberty" and "Utilitarianism" in 1859 and 1861, around 80 years after the declaration of independence.
As to the concept of "enlightened" utilitarianism, the main problem is actually not as Bort raised, the problem about a few getting a huge amount of happiness, outweighing a little loss in happiness for the many, or for that matter the excellent example of Guantanamo. But rather the fact that "enlightened" implies that to make a choise based on utilitarian principles, you need to know all the consequenses of your different choises. In all manners you need to be godlike to make a truly enlightened choise.
This has lead alot of contemporary philosphers who defend utilitarianism to instead adopt a form of rule-utilitarianism, which as the name implies tries to make rules based on utilitarian principle, and then let people apply these rules instead of having to weigh in all consequenses of a given action every time a choise has to be made.
Utilitarinism is actually an attempt to base ethics on a foundation that is not dependent on religion. But this has proved to be a notoriously tricky business.
The best attempt I have seen so far, is John Rawles "Weil of ignorance" which he has put forward in his classic "A theory of Justice".
This is a thought up example where you imagine yourself to know everything about the world (Or rather as much as we know today) and then without knowing which slot in life you are going to get, make up rules for a society.
As usual Im way of topic here. But it is allways interesting to discuss these topics. Btw Bort, I know that your examples against utilitarianism is very good, and is a very good starting platform for discussing utilitarianism.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 09, 2004 03:03 AM |
|
|
If I rememeber my studies on both characters Defreni.
Mill was born in 1806 & was raised soley on his father in his young age.
Jefferson was president from 1801-1809.
He died when 1826 which would make Mr. Mill 20 yrs old.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
