Ribbit! You've got froggy!
Carlos May
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick (asda...@unity.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: Herfh!
We know. We know.
: Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
Sez Gurk:
: : : Course, I STILL dunno what
: : : Froggy believes in.
: :
: : And you never will, either. Not as long as it never occurs to you
: : to ask.
: OK, though I was under the impression that by saying, "I think X" was an
: invitation for not only criticism but counter-belief by implication.
: "SO, FROGGY....WHADDYA THINK???"
I think that if you'd been paying attention, you could have been
deducing a fair amount of my values and beliefs from some of my
comments in posts here. I'll try to spell a few out more openly
(though alas I'm sure you noticed I can't spell worth sthi).
I don't believe that there is one set "right answer" or correct
policy for politics. The answer depends on the question. By this
I mean that what the best type of government is is dependant on
what one wants from government and society.
I think that politics deserve to be discussed with at least the
seriousness of history, and am dismayed at much of the sloganeering
and unthinking overgeneralizations that pass for discussion in the
contemporary USA.
I am dissatisfied with what I see as a near monopoly by 2 large
USA political parties. I suspect that if other ideologies were
better publicized, many people would find their opinions agree more
with some party other than the Republican or Democratic. I would
be more proud of the USA and have greater confidence that we are
a healthy democracy if the presidential debates included in addition
to Dole, Clinton, and Perot, the Green, Libertarian, and Socialist
candidates, and maybe a couple of others. I think that would greatly
increase the amount of real ideas expressed.
As you might guess from this, I highly value free speech and
pluralism. I feel that an amount of disorder is a price that
a society pays for freedom, and that for the USA it is worth it.
I think that scheptisim is a healthy attitude. I see it as
a moderate viewpoint between gullibility and cynacism.
I think the concept of all persons being equal in the eyes of the
law is a damn good one.
I think that the notion that humanity is divided into different
"races" is a bunch of banana oil with only negative effects
on society.
I concider war to be a dreadfull relic of humanity's barbarous
past that should be eliminated. I am aware that it has been
part of our culture since the begining of history. I am also
aware that in past times the same could have been said for
rule by kings, slavery, and religious human sacrifice. I
think history shows that progress is possible, but not inevitable.
I do not see that Idealism and Pragmatism necessarily conflict.
I'd say that Idealism should be how one sets long term goals, and
Pragmatism is how one applies them day to day.
I usually don't like describing my beliefs in terms of "isms".
I havn't found one that encompases all my beliefs. I think that
ideologies tend to become dogmas that refuse to acknowledge human
problems for which they have no easy answer. (For example:
Libertarian and Free-Marketists who scoff at environmental
concerns.)
I think that democracy and free-markets are better than any other
system of government/economics yet devised, though both can be
misused, intentionally or unintentionally, as instruments of
oppression.
I think that how well democracies and free markets function is
dependent on how well the citizenry are educated.
There's more (plenty), but perhaps this is enough to get you
started. If this isn't what you were looking for, you might
try more specific questions than "whadda ya think".
--
C.M. fro...@neosoft.com
E.Holmes
On 9 Sep 1996 10:03:15 GMT, in alt.politics.jaffo, fro...@praline.no.neosoft.com (Carlos May)
remarks:
[...partial explication of personal belief system...]
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT
After reading Carlos's post through several times, I have to say this:
I hereby proclaim that I am a true & faithful member of the American
Ribbit Party, and nominate Froggy as our leader. Although he has no
wish to serve, like the Philosopher King of Socrates, he is best
suited, and thus has no choice other than to serve the good of the
society. And frankly, those Mardi Gras pix are the best promo shots
we could ask for.
So there,
Ellen
--
E.Holmes
http://rampages.onramp.net/~eholmes/
A weed is just a flower growing somewhere it isn't wanted.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
WARNING: POSTER IS POSTING FROM A FEDERAL DISASTER AREA AND
SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED WITH DOWNED ELECTRICAL LINES.
Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: : Herfh!
:
: We know. We know.
Hey...it's something I say at work. :) We all need our Karma Words.
: I don't believe that there is one set "right answer" or correct
: policy for politics. The answer depends on the question. By this
: I mean that what the best type of government is is dependant on
: what one wants from government and society.
Certainly, but what do -you- want from Guv'ment and Society? I want some
nitty-gritty here.
: I think that politics deserve to be discussed with at least the
: seriousness of history, and am dismayed at much of the sloganeering
: and unthinking overgeneralizations that pass for discussion in the
: contemporary USA.
I agree, though one could arguably say with fair certainty that
"conservative," "Conservative (1902)," and "Conservative (1996)" are three
different things. I'm -trying- to use what I consider to be the most
popular conception of the current labels is, and the beliefs of those who
wear the labels. Of course, I may fail, and I may also address what I see
as the results of said beliefs before I address the base beliefs, but it's
not a matter of mere sloganeering or the like. I don't believe that "I am
a Conservative and anyone who disagrees with me is therefore a Liberal."
: I am dissatisfied with what I see as a near monopoly by 2 large
: USA political parties. I suspect that if other ideologies were
: better publicized, many people would find their opinions agree more
: with some party other than the Republican or Democratic. I would
: be more proud of the USA and have greater confidence that we are
: a healthy democracy if the presidential debates included in addition
: to Dole, Clinton, and Perot, the Green, Libertarian, and Socialist
: candidates, and maybe a couple of others. I think that would greatly
: increase the amount of real ideas expressed.
As do I. I regularly read posts in regional newsgroups by Ray Ubinger,
the N.C. Libertarian candidate for Senate, and, while I don't always agree
with him, I occasionally do, and I would most certainly be for at -least-
a healthily-sized minority of other parties within Congress. Since that's
never been tried in the US, we can't know if it'll bring something like
the UK's Parliament about, though speculative comparisons could certainly
be made.
: As you might guess from this, I highly value free speech and
: pluralism. I feel that an amount of disorder is a price that
: a society pays for freedom, and that for the USA it is worth it.
I believe in these things as well, though I have problems with pluralism
being transmuted to multiculturalism. Interestingly enough, I think
you'll find that Speaker Gingrich believes similarly (e.g. he spoke out
against Internet censorship, although he later voted for the CDA, which
confuses me a bit). Even as much as I admire Gingrich, I can't give him
my 100% approval for his politics. So far, only Bill Bennett and Jaffo
have that (because I have never read anything politically-bent by either
one of them with which I disagree).
: I think that scheptisim is a healthy attitude. I see it as
: a moderate viewpoint between gullibility and cynacism.
Hmmm....I find that I tend towards the skeptical (the philosophic
conservation principle: "If there is no evidence for it, we cannot
assume that it exists"), though I also believe that some things are
beyond reason (not unreasonable, but beyond it).
In any event, I think that everything political should be analyzed. I
-do- think that some things should not be taken apart in this manner,
but none of those are politically oriented.
: I think the concept of all persons being equal in the eyes of the
: law is a damn good one.
Thumbs up on that one. (Except for postal workers...THEY'RE JUST BAD.)
: I think that the notion that humanity is divided into different
: "races" is a bunch of banana oil with only negative effects
: on society.
I don't believe in a racial division, though I do think that one could
safely say that there are different "breeds" of homo sapiens. What
genetic traits constitute those breeds, however, is a different question.
For instance, I have some difficulty in believing that one breed is
inherently less intelligent than another. I'm still unsure, though,
because one breed can definitely be physically stronger than another.
: I concider war to be a dreadfull relic of humanity's barbarous
: past that should be eliminated.
The problem, though, is getting everyone to believe this. If you're
a pacifist, but Hanrahan from next door comes and kills your youngest
daughter, do you think you should use potentially deadly force to protect
your eldest one?
: I usually don't like describing my beliefs in terms of "isms".
: I havn't found one that encompases all my beliefs.
Well, in that case, simply spell out your beliefs on a case-by-case basis.
: I think that
: ideologies tend to become dogmas that refuse to acknowledge human
: problems for which they have no easy answer. (For example:
: Libertarian and Free-Marketists who scoff at environmental
: concerns.)
In a different vein, though, are those who do not scoff, but also don't
believe in a extreme environmentalIST activism. There's a difference
between wanting clean water and spiking a tree to kill or injure a man.
: There's more (plenty), but perhaps this is enough to get you
: started. If this isn't what you were looking for, you might
: try more specific questions than "whadda ya think".
Well, from now on, when I state that I think X should be or should not be
done, consider it an implied invitation to state what -you- think should
or should not be done concerning that issue. I enjoy discussion with you,
but I do wish you'd be more clear about presenting your own solutions
rather than simply critiquing others.
Additionally, most of what you have stated here is a set of base ideals
with which many people can agree, but may radically disagree on their
application. (For instance, you believe in educating the citizenry. So
do I. Should it be government mandated, taxation-funded, and enforced by
law? Should it be privatized, purely a consumer matter, that he who has
the cash get can the smarts? You see my point, I hope.)
--Gurk
--
"We're an advanced civilization. We have developed | g u r k @
a language. We eat with utensils. We have mastered | n c s u |
the elements. We edit with pico." -- Didymos, PPoS | . e d u |
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! E.Holmes in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: A weed is just a flower growing somewhere it isn't wanted.
And STILL...NO BABY!!
--Gurk
--
"By this, I see that France is worth Me, Gurk.
1700 beef logs. This frightens me." gu...@ncsu.edu
-Tyche, Therapeutic Wizard of Smerp Andrew S. Damick.
The Philosopher from Hell
E.Holmes (eho...@onramp.net) wrote:
: GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT
:
: After reading Carlos's post through several times, I have to say this:
:
: I hereby proclaim that I am a true & faithful member of the American
: Ribbit Party, and nominate Froggy as our leader. Although he has no
: wish to serve, like the Philosopher King of Socrates, he is best
: suited, and thus has no choice other than to serve the good of the
: society. And frankly, those Mardi Gras pix are the best promo shots
: we could ask for.
I would like to second this nomination (even though I will still
campain for Richard Nixon). 3 cheers for Froggy!
And quite frankly I don't trust anyone who doesn't have any embarrasing
photos of them somewhere. Those Mardi Gras pix are evidence that Froggy
is a real person, who has been out there with The People[tm] and bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.... and is somewhat aware of reality (something
which most politicians seem to be very lacking(see Prez Bush commenting
on scanners in supermarkets in the last election)).
I just have one question: How will this effect Kibo's running from the
Internet Party? (or should Froggy be Kibo's running mate?) (no, I like
the sound of The Ribbit Party)
--
/ tp...@io.com The Philosopher from Hell http://www.io.com/~tpfh/
\ If Hello Kitty was in Hell, she would redecorate it and turn /
/ it into a cute and happy Place. -- Carlos May O- /
\ Nixon in '96! Because the only good politician, is a dead one /
/ Only 666 shopping days till Armageddon | Visualize Dead Spammers \
E.Holmes
On 10 Sep 1996 05:58:05 GMT, in alt.sex.hello-kitty, tp...@io.com (The
Philosopher from Hell) remarks:
/I would like to second this nomination (even though I will still
/campain for Richard Nixon). [...]
As all good Americans should.
/And quite frankly I don't trust anyone who doesn't have any embarrasing
/photos of them somewhere.
Anything different & I'd suspect them of unscrupulous activities
in the cleaning up process.
/I just have one question: How will this effect Kibo's running from the
/Internet Party? (or should Froggy be Kibo's running mate?) (no, I like
/the sound of The Ribbit Party)
Since Kibo is running as an independent, perhaps he should run
under the aegis of the Ribbit Party! And since Kibo already has
the name recognition, perhaps Froggy should be his running mate
this year (Froggy being mostly an unknown). Then after serving
as VP, he'll have more credibility & we can run him for Prez.
The Ribbit Party could stay in power quite some time.
--
"Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some of
the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?"(Patricia O Tuama)
http://rampages.onramp.net/~eholmes/ news:alt.politics.jaffo/alt.rissa
Carlos May
: : I concider war to be a dreadfull relic of humanity's barbarous
: : past that should be eliminated.
: The problem, though, is getting everyone to believe this. If you're
: a pacifist, but Hanrahan from next door comes and kills your youngest
: daughter, do you think you should use potentially deadly force to protect
: your eldest one?
Damick, are you changing the subject here, or just trying to use a
metaphor? Or do you think this is acually relevent to the question?
If the last, than I should point out to you that being against the
custom of war does not necessarily mean one can't acknowledge that
violence or force may sometimes be necessary against criminal or
irrational people. No more than being against government by Kings
meant advocation of anarchic chaos, nor against slavery meant
abolition of private property. I'd expect you to know that.
If your above statement is intended to be a metaphor for war, I
guess we could extend the metaphor to say that "you" should then
kill some of Hanrahan's family, and then blow the arms and legs
off of unrelated tenents living in Hanrahan's building until
Hanrahan signs a treaty.
No, I don't think that's a rational way to do things.
And I don't think war as it's practiced is any more so.
Okay. As you say, I've stated my opinion of the issue. What's yours?
-- F.
* * Fro...@neosoft.com * "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] * *
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: Damick, are you changing the subject here, or just trying to use a
: metaphor? Or do you think this is acually relevent to the question?
It would seem that I'm trying to use a partially broken metaphor. :)
: If the last, than I should point out to you that being against the
: custom of war does not necessarily mean one can't acknowledge that
: violence or force may sometimes be necessary against criminal or
: irrational people. No more than being against government by Kings
: meant advocation of anarchic chaos, nor against slavery meant
: abolition of private property. I'd expect you to know that.
How do you define violence vs. war? Where's the line? In the good ol'
USA, we seem to think that it takes an Act of Congress to define a war,
but I tend to believe that it's in terms far less formal.
: No, I don't think that's a rational way to do things.
: And I don't think war as it's practiced is any more so.
What about war practiced in another manner?
: Okay. As you say, I've stated my opinion of the issue. What's yours?
Well, heading back to my Source of All Basic Beliefs (the Bible), I see
that God occasionally used war to accomplish things that he wanted,
particularly in the Old Testament. Because I see this, I must therefore
incorporate the idea that war, under certain circumstances, is necessary.
Now, the question of when it is necessary and in what manner it should be
practiced is another entirely, but I do feel that some violence is
necessary for certain situations within our imperfect world. In the
perfect world (in which there'd be Theocracy (God-rule, not Church-rule)),
violence would never be necessary, of course.
I -will- say that I have not yet determined for myself all situations and
possibilities in which violence (and war) would be necessary, nor in what
manner it should be practiced. There are simply some things I haven't
worked out yet. I imagine that they may become so upon various examples
of specific application.
--Gurk
--
g u r k @ n c s u . e d u
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/
s a v o i r f a i r e p e r s o n a l i t i e s , l t d .
Carlos May
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick (asda...@unity.ncsu.edu) Herfhed:
: Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: : I think that the notion that humanity is divided into different
: : "races" is a bunch of banana oil with only negative effects
: : on society.
: I don't believe in a racial division, though I do think that one could
: safely say that there are different "breeds" of homo sapiens. What
Oh boy. I can tell you've never taken an intro Anthro class.
Interesting choice of term. Okay, have you really seen as much
variation in humans as in, say, dogs? We talk of "breeds" of dogs;
pit bulls, Irish setters, chihuauas, etc. Do you really see that
type of difference in size, shape, etc in human beings? (Implied
answer for the clue impaired: Nope.)
: genetic traits constitute those breeds, however, is a different question.
: For instance, I have some difficulty in believing that one breed is
: inherently less intelligent than another. I'm still unsure, though,
: because one breed can definitely be physically stronger than another.
Well, it's certainly hard to get away from some traditional notions
of "Race", as they're so firmly embeded in our culture. They were
part of our legal and property system. But you seem to have educated
yourself out of some more of the recieved B.S. than many folks. Keep
at it.
"Race" as it's commonly percieved is largely a cultural construct without
scientific underpining. The few anthropologists who use the term
do so in a very different way than common usage, and I believe a
majority of physical antrhopologists find the term so weighed down
with nonsencical baggage that they don't use it at all. (Some use
the term "cline" when refering to groups of shared physical traits
in human sub-populations.)
The popular conceptions of "race" over the past few centuries can
be seen to mostly be a construct for Xenophobia Made E-Z. A way
of labeling Those Who Are Not Us to emphase otherness, often into
a construct minimizing their humanity. While societies have been
denying the humanity of outsiders throughout history, the "Race"
construct is only a few centuries old.
Certainly, if 500 years ago you took a number of people from
Northern Europe and a number of people from SubSaharan Africa,
you probably have no problem identifying which individuals came
from which area. However if you walked from Northern Europe,
through Central and Southern Europe, around the Mediterranian,
through the Middle East into Northern Africa and then south,
you wouldn't find any distinct dividing lines, but rather
gradual changes in sets of physical characteristics.
I ask those who believe humanity is divided into distinct "Races"
to tell me how many "Races" there are. No matter how one trys
to define it, one will find many populations that won't easily
fit.
My race is human. You're welcome to join. You may already
be a member!
-- F.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: Oh boy. I can tell you've never taken an intro Anthro class.
Actually, I'm taking one right now. :) (Although it's the Cultural
variety...I'm not really much interested in getting thrown piles of
exclusively evolutionary theory in a Physical Anthropology course,
as you could probably surmise.)
: Interesting choice of term. Okay, have you really seen as much
: variation in humans as in, say, dogs? We talk of "breeds" of dogs;
: pit bulls, Irish setters, chihuauas, etc. Do you really see that
: type of difference in size, shape, etc in human beings? (Implied
: answer for the clue impaired: Nope.)
I don't really think your comparison is valid. Size (partially) and shape
(particularly) are far less varying in the example of domestic cats.
Perhaps the term "breed" isn't the right one, but there -are- recognizable
genetic trends within certain groups of homo sapiens which have been
(comparitively) genetically isolated. Does that mean that I think that
any person who belongs to one of those groups is worth more than another
person who belongs to another group? (Implied answer for the clue
impaired: Nope.)
: I ask those who believe humanity is divided into distinct "Races"
: to tell me how many "Races" there are. No matter how one trys
: to define it, one will find many populations that won't easily
: fit.
It's rather like linguistic history, really. I couldn't give you the
date that people stopped speaking Old English and began speaking Middle
English, but one can look at the center of each period and say, "Uh,
yeah, that looks like *** English."
: My race is human. You're welcome to join. You may already
: be a member!
Please do not make the mistake of pinning me a racist or xenophobe.
Having lived on Guam for several years and felt the literal fist of
racism against minorities, I have a direct knowledge of what it can
be like. I do still believe, though, what I stated above, that there
are recognizable genetic trends within certain groups and areas.
This isn't a value judgment, just an observation.
--Gurk
--
*-*-* "Sometimes, even I don't want my flesh." -- Scott "Smerp" Parkerson
asda...@unity.ncsu.edu. Meat Gurk. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
E.Holmes
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> WARNING: POSTER IS POSTING FROM A FEDERAL DISASTER AREA AND
> SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED WITH DOWNED ELECTRICAL LINES.
Indeed, it's been taking quite a long time for you to even
propogate out of the state. I'm seeing multiple followups
to you a whole day before I see your posts.
STAY AWAY FROM THOSE DOWNED LINES, WE'LL NEVER GET A GOOD PARTY GOING.
> I agree, though one could arguably say with fair certainty that
> "conservative," "Conservative (1902)," and "Conservative (1996)" are three
> different things. I'm -trying- to use what I consider to be the most
> popular conception of the current labels is, and the beliefs of those who
> wear the labels. Of course, I may fail, and I may also address what I see
> as the results of said beliefs before I address the base beliefs, but it's
> not a matter of mere sloganeering or the like. I don't believe that "I am
> a Conservative and anyone who disagrees with me is therefore a Liberal."
I see a basic problem in the way people are TRYING to equate
Liberal & Conservative with Democrat & Republican. It just ain't
so. The parties may have a few characteristics of the respective
ideologies, but both are a blend. And I, as a true Liberal,
highly resent being branded a Democrat (I've voted Republican
half of my voting history, and in 1988 I voted every Libertarian
candidate than ran on the ticket - that was before a few Libertarians
made so many bizarre platform statements that I got turned off).
I appreciate the way some people (at least those here, and I'm
hoping we are representative of at least a significant subset of
citizens) are trying to keep the terminology meaningful. If we
accept loose usage in an area so filled with passion, rational
discourse will become even more difficult because we might be
using one word to mean radically different things, and two
other words to mean much the same thing.
And the ideologies of liberal/conservative are found in BOTH
main political parties.
--
"Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some of
the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?"(Patricia O Tuama)
http://rampages.onramp.net/~eholmes/ news:alt.politics.jaffo//alt.rissa
E.Holmes
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> :
> : custom of war does not necessarily mean one can't acknowledge that
> : violence or force may sometimes be necessary against criminal or
> : irrational people. No more than being against government by Kings
> : meant advocation of anarchic chaos, nor against slavery meant
> : abolition of private property. I'd expect you to know that.
>
> How do you define violence vs. war? Where's the line? In the good ol'
> USA, we seem to think that it takes an Act of Congress to define a war,
> but I tend to believe that it's in terms far less formal.
It's rather simple. War is when people paid to fight go and fight
other people who are paid to fight. "Paid" can be used loosely,
in the sense that some group, either a governing or citizen group
is providing subsistence to the fighters. Willingly. (Which
precludes honoring actions against terrorists and unscrupulous
revolutionaries (note the adjective applied, it is an important
distinction) who simply TAKE subsistence from a populace too
frightened to resist.)
PERSONAL APPLICATION:
Note that as a member of said mercenary class, I did not become
truly active in that culture until I became involved with a job
that could be critical to the lives of many (thousands, to tens
of thousands, depending on what level I worked) of my fellow
soldiers. Knowing that my job, well done, could save lives was
a major motivating factor throughout my career.
And like many solid career soldiers, I have a very strong
distaste for war. Perhaps it is selfish; we don't really want
to get shot at, thanks. But I (like all the other professionals
I have known) was willing to take that risk because I knew I
had a skill that I could apply to benefit others, including my
country if necessary.
I would prefer war never occur. I would prefer that people
treat each other decently & humanely. I see absolutely no
reason or excuse for being cruel or hurting others. I become
extremely upset when I hear or think about some of the
terrible things that are done by people to each other. This
does not preclude my working in what I consider an honorable
fashion to support the defense of something I consider
important (i.e., this country & its basic ideology).
--
"Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some of
the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?"(Patricia O Tuama)
http://rampages.onramp.net/~eholmes/ news:alt.politics.jaffo/alt.rissa
Carlos May
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick (asda...@unity.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: : Damick, are you changing the subject here, or just trying to use a
: : metaphor? Or do you think this is acually relevent to the question?
: It would seem that I'm trying to use a partially broken metaphor. :)
: : If the last, than I should point out to you that being against the
: : custom of war does not necessarily mean one can't acknowledge that
: : violence or force may sometimes be necessary against criminal or
: : irrational people. No more than being against government by Kings
: : meant advocation of anarchic chaos, nor against slavery meant
: : abolition of private property. I'd expect you to know that.
: How do you define violence vs. war? Where's the line?
Hmm. I'd have to think about "violence", but I suspect my definition
is fairly conventional... everything from a slap on the cheek to
mass murder.
I'd say war is a subset of violence. Hm. I guess it's a ritual
use of violence by governments to attain political ends. Amoung it's
distinguishing characteristics is that it is usally declared by
governmental leaders supposedly against eachother, but is practiced
by governments commanding their own citizens to kill citizens of
another state. IMO this seems to tie back to ancient ideas of
government such as a semi-divine ruler who owns the lives of
his expendible peon citizenry.
In the good ol'
: USA, we seem to think that it takes an Act of Congress to define a war,
: but I tend to believe that it's in terms far less formal.
I'd imagine you have some idea of what war is, and that when people
use it they usually aren't talking about a fistfight between two
barroom drunks? Hmmm, maybe I should check Merriam-Webster:
"war n. 1: a state or period of usu. open and declared armed
fighting between states or nations."
That'll do fine by me.
: : No, I don't think that's a rational way to do things.
: : And I don't think war as it's practiced is any more so.
: What about war practiced in another manner?
Intellectually I have some sympathy for the concept Bertrand Russell
called "Relative Pacifism", that being in essence that war is always
evil but in some extraordinary cases it may be the lesser of multiple
evils. However I havn't seen any cases in modern history where
there wouldn't have at least hypothetically been better ways to
avoid or solve problems than war.
: : Okay. As you say, I've stated my opinion of the issue. What's yours?
: Well, heading back to my Source of All Basic Beliefs (the Bible), I see
: that God occasionally used war to accomplish things that he wanted,
: particularly in the Old Testament. Because I see this, I must therefore
: incorporate the idea that war, under certain circumstances, is necessary.
Hoo boy. I really don't want to touch on religious issues, as I feel
sure that would quickly destroy whatever civility we enjoy. However
I must point out something I immagine you know, that many people who
take the Bible as their inspiration just as sincerely as you do have
reached the oposite opinion.
One can also find in that same book examples of some other practices
that I've compared war to (and you've twice snipped out in replying)
which it seems hardly anyone seems to have nostalgia for after they
were eliminated from civilized nations.
: Now, the question of when it is necessary and in what manner it should be
: practiced is another entirely, but I do feel that some violence is
: necessary for certain situations within our imperfect world. In the
: perfect world (in which there'd be Theocracy (God-rule, not Church-rule)),
: violence would never be necessary, of course.
I'm not sure we wish to get into this, but I am curious if your notion of
"God Rule" is something that will only come with divine intervention,
or if it is something you think should be strived for by mortals.
* Fro...@neosoft.com ** "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs]*
President, Froggy's Usenet Salvage Company. Newsfroups R Us!!
Note: "http://" is pronounced "Hut-up". Glad To Be Of Assistance!
***"http://www" is pronounced "Hut-up Wow!". Hope This Helps!***
Ben Weiner
asda...@unity.ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) writes:
>Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
>I don't really think your comparison is valid. Size (partially) and shape
>(particularly) are far less varying in the example of domestic cats.
>Perhaps the term "breed" isn't the right one,
I think that was a major part of Froggy's point.
"Breed" is the kind of word that one uses to describe animals which
are specifically, well, bred, generally for purity. For example, my
aunt breeds Dalmatians. The unintended connotations of using this word
to describe groups of humans are thus rather unpleasant.
And BTW, there are massive differences between "breeds" of dogs.
Dalmatians, for example, are rather dumb (though pretty). You would
never want to use a Dalmatian to herd sheep. This is another thing
that seems to be inapplicable to the notion of human "races" - their
members seem to all have pretty much the same abilities to swim,
write poetry, do nuclear physics, whatever. (OK, the short ones
will have a harder time making it in the NBA, but that's pretty
clearly an extreme case.)
> but there -are- recognizable
>genetic trends within certain groups of homo sapiens which have been
>(comparitively) genetically isolated. Does that mean that I think that
>any person who belongs to one of those groups is worth more than another
>person who belongs to another group? (Implied answer for the clue
>impaired: Nope.)
OTOH, those genetic trends are largely in wholly superficial traits
related to appearances, like skin or hair color, facial structure, and
so on. (The only other well-known genetic trends with ancestry I can
think of are some propensities to hereditary diseases like Tay-Sachs
or sickle-cell anemia.) And using appearance to categorize races
is a shifty thing.
For example, no one would ever take me for an Italian, yet in the
currently popular racial categories we are both "European"
(was "Caucasian," which makes no sense - from the Caucasus???).
However, at the turn of this century, neither Italians nor people
of my ethnicity were generally regarded as "white."
(The changes in racial categories with time are a fascinating subject ...)
Biologists who study genetics and human populations will tell you
that, physical appearances notwithstanding, the spread in the overall
genome _within_ any large ethnic group is far larger than the
difference between the average of one ethic group and the average of
another.
>: I ask those who believe humanity is divided into distinct "Races"
>: to tell me how many "Races" there are. No matter how one trys
>: to define it, one will find many populations that won't easily
>: fit.
>It's rather like linguistic history, really. I couldn't give you the
>date that people stopped speaking Old English and began speaking Middle
>English, but one can look at the center of each period and say, "Uh,
>yeah, that looks like *** English."
On the other hand, the languages are incommensurate in the sense that
a speaker of Old English and a speaker of Middle English from the
center of each period could almost certainly not communicate with each
other, while no similar division exists for humans of two different
"races." (That they speak two different languages doesn't count,
that's a different analogy.)
>: My race is human. You're welcome to join. You may already
>: be a member!
>Please do not make the mistake of pinning me a racist or xenophobe.
>Having lived on Guam for several years and felt the literal fist of
>racism against minorities, I have a direct knowledge of what it can
>be like. I do still believe, though, what I stated above, that there
>are recognizable genetic trends within certain groups and areas.
>This isn't a value judgment, just an observation.
A question is: If these genetic trends are no more than matters of
appearance, do they make any sense as the basis of a system of
classification? Does the system then have any content or really
any use? That is, why worry?
I believe there are such things as ethnicity and culture and that they
can have a powerful effect on how people become who they are. (D'oh,
Master of the Obvious.) So groupings of people on ethnic lines can
have some meaning. Sri Lankan-American families are in some respects
"different on average" from Jewiah-American families. On the other
hand, a friend of mine who was born in Sri Lanka and brought up in the
Bronx has, culturally, as much or far more in common with me than she
has with another person we knew who was fresh off the boat from Sri
Lanka. Teenagerhood is destiny, man!
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: I'd say war is a subset of violence. Hm. I guess it's a ritual
: use of violence by governments to attain political ends. Amoung it's
: distinguishing characteristics is that it is usally declared by
: governmental leaders supposedly against eachother, but is practiced
: by governments commanding their own citizens to kill citizens of
: another state. IMO this seems to tie back to ancient ideas of
: government such as a semi-divine ruler who owns the lives of
: his expendible peon citizenry.
The difficulty is abolishing this type of violence is that Everyone,
Everywhere, must do it all at once. If every nation on the planet
agrees to end war except one, that one will necessarily be able to
destroy and rule the planet, assuming that the pacifist nations don't
break the pact. What are the defenders to do?
: : Well, heading back to my Source of All Basic Beliefs (the Bible), I see
: : that God occasionally used war to accomplish things that he wanted,
: : particularly in the Old Testament. Because I see this, I must therefore
: : incorporate the idea that war, under certain circumstances, is necessary.
:
: Hoo boy. I really don't want to touch on religious issues, as I feel
: sure that would quickly destroy whatever civility we enjoy. However
: I must point out something I immagine you know, that many people who
: take the Bible as their inspiration just as sincerely as you do have
: reached the oposite opinion.
Understood, though I have extreme difficulty in seeing how, given the
basic stuff mentioned in the relevant passages. "And God said go kick
Bob Canaan's butt all the way to the Med." Or something. :)
(Just as a side note on religion determining politics: I'm of the firm
belief that one's views of theology, morality, and LTUAE will necessarily
determine the politics of the intellectually honest. I don't believe in
mindless following of a particular belief set, but I also believe that
it's better to be a mindless follower of truth than an intellectual leader
in a lie.)
: One can also find in that same book examples of some other practices
: that I've compared war to (and you've twice snipped out in replying)
: which it seems hardly anyone seems to have nostalgia for after they
: were eliminated from civilized nations.
There are certainly practices mentioned in the Bible which I think are bad
ideas, but not any of those prescribed to Christians (which is a slightly
different set from OT Jews, and that's a distinction best made by the
scholars with a LOT of time for the subject). For instance, I still
believe quite firmly in corporal punishment (even for disciplining
children), though it is becoming radically unpopular among a number of
sects of those who wear the label of Christianity.
: I'm not sure we wish to get into this, but I am curious if your notion of
: "God Rule" is something that will only come with divine intervention,
: or if it is something you think should be strived for by mortals.
Because I believe that 1) Man cannot, of himself, save himself, not in
any appreciable heavenly or earthly sense and 2) Man will not do so of
his own volition ("No man seeks after God..."), the only thing which could
institute Theocracy would be an act by God Himself. According to the
stuff at the end of the Bible, it will happen, but it may be a while yet.
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick "Anyone who views poodles Herfh-->
Literal Prophet of Smerp as primarily a source of Herfh---->
g u r k @ n c s u . e d u protein is okay by me." Herfh----->
- - - - - - - - - - - - - --Ellen Holmes Herfh-->
Richard Crew
On 10 Sep 1996 18:54:59 GMT, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <asda...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
: Well, heading back to my Source of All Basic Beliefs (the Bible), I see
: that God occasionally used war to accomplish things that he wanted,
: particularly in the Old Testament. Because I see this, I must therefore
: incorporate the idea that war, under certain circumstances, is necessary.
Where is it....hmmmmmm.....lessseeee.........
Ahh! here we are: King Solomon: "And he had seven hundred wives,
princesses, and three hundred concubines" (I Kings 11:3). Whatta guy.
It was this passage and others that were used by Joseph Smith and Brigham
Young to justify polygamy. Yes sir, the Bible can be used to justify all
*sorts* of beliefs.
Personally I think that 300 concubines is a bit much. What was the man
trying to prove? Brigham Young was rather restrained, in comparison.
BTW, you'll find a deliciously awful (fictional) sketch of an interview
with Brigham Young in Mark Twain's _Roughing It_.
--Rich "sorry dear, I have a headache"
--
Indeed, I am convinced not only that what I say is wrong, but that
what will be said against it will be wrong as well.
Robert Musil
Richard Crew
On 12 Sep 1996 18:41:52 -0400, Ben Weiner <bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu> wrote:
:
: For example, no one would ever take me for an Italian, yet in the
: currently popular racial categories we are both "European"
: (was "Caucasian," which makes no sense - from the Caucasus???).
: However, at the turn of this century, neither Italians nor people
: of my ethnicity were generally regarded as "white."
: (The changes in racial categories with time are a fascinating subject ...)
According to Stephen Jay Gould, the use of the term "caucasian" as a
racial classification originated with J. F. Blumenbach (1752-1840), a
professor at Gottingen. In the third edition of his monumental work
"De generis humani varietate nativa" (On the natural variety of human kind)
he writes
_Caucasian_variety. I have take the name of this variety from Mount
Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern
slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, and because...in that
region, if anywhere, we ought with the greatest probability to place
the autochthones [original ancestors] of mankind.
In other words, banana oil. If we have to name races from where they
come from, then we're all Africans.
--Rich
The Philosopher from Hell
Ben Weiner (bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu) wrote:
: asda...@unity.ncsu.edu (Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick) writes:
: >Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: so on. (The only other well-known genetic trends with ancestry I can
: think of are some propensities to hereditary diseases like Tay-Sachs
: or sickle-cell anemia.) And using appearance to categorize races
: is a shifty thing.
In an anthro class I took years ago they discussed sickle-cell anemia.
The gene for it is recessive, so you need two of them to have the
disease... The thing is, if you have only 1 gene, it gives you immunity,
or at least a strong resistance, to Malaria.... which is why you find
sickle-cell anemia in regions where Malaria is a problem.
: For example, no one would ever take me for an Italian, yet in the
: currently popular racial categories we are both "European"
: (was "Caucasian," which makes no sense - from the Caucasus???).
: However, at the turn of this century, neither Italians nor people
: of my ethnicity were generally regarded as "white."
: (The changes in racial categories with time are a fascinating subject ...)
Yea, and what about racemixers? I've got 4 distinct cultures (by surname)
going up just 2 generations, 3 "white" 1 Jewish. So what am I? :)
Although it makes me happy to know that the KKK and other white trash
does not consider me "one of them." :)
There was an interesting article in Anarchy magazine about the science
of "races" and it mentioned the Human Geno project (that there is as
much genetic variation within "races" as between "races") And also
mentioned that a large percentage of people in the US are mixed.
I forgot the exact numbers, maybe I'll scan it and post it to this
thread....
: A question is: If these genetic trends are no more than matters of
: appearance, do they make any sense as the basis of a system of
: classification? Does the system then have any content or really
: any use? That is, why worry?
Well, I think we need to set a new standard for racial supremesy.
Instead of judging people by their complexion, we ought to judge
them by their body hair. The less body hair the better. Of course
if a person had electrolysis they could move up through the caste
system :) Actually, a short story of Philip K. Dick (Turning Wheel)
described a society close to this, Japanese were at the top, and
whites where at the bottom. Elites joked that whites were not actually
human but descendants of Neanderthal :) Also their society was
centered around books written by an Elron Hu :)
But back to racemixers, I have thought about starting a Satirical
political movement called Racemixers Supremisists, who view that
Aryans and Anglos are overbred, and this has made them ugly and
stupid and that government should only allow people of different
races (which will strengthen the gene pool by breeding out white
supremisists, as well as curve the overpopulation problem). Also
that government should view bisexuality as normal and natural, and
that discriminating on the basis of sex is a psychological disorder....
(and maybe propose stuff found in Brave New World and other fascist
policies that mimic Racists and similar ilk, but in reverse :)
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! Richard Crew in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: Where is it....hmmmmmm.....lessseeee.........
:
: Ahh! here we are: King Solomon: "And he had seven hundred wives,
: princesses, and three hundred concubines" (I Kings 11:3). Whatta guy.
:
: It was this passage and others that were used by Joseph Smith and Brigham
: Young to justify polygamy. Yes sir, the Bible can be used to justify all
: *sorts* of beliefs.
:
: Personally I think that 300 concubines is a bit much. What was the man
: trying to prove? Brigham Young was rather restrained, in comparison.
*sigh* So, you believe that the personal behavior of every person
mentioned in the Bible was condoned by God?
The fact that Solomon did it is not proof that God condoned it. Please
don't use that argument again. It's not full of holes. It -is- a hole.
--Gurk
--
Andrew "I love Canadians. They can talk about politics all they want
S. and no matter how liberal they are I just can't bring myself
Damick to care." --Jaffo, alt.politics.jaffo ----------gu...@ncsu.edu
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! Ben Weiner in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: And BTW, there are massive differences between "breeds" of dogs.
: Dalmatians, for example, are rather dumb (though pretty). You would
: never want to use a Dalmatian to herd sheep. This is another thing
: that seems to be inapplicable to the notion of human "races" - their
: members seem to all have pretty much the same abilities to swim,
: write poetry, do nuclear physics, whatever. (OK, the short ones
: will have a harder time making it in the NBA, but that's pretty
: clearly an extreme case.)
An interesting question, then, would be: What if we were to systemize the
breeding of humans in similar manner to that of dogs? Would differences
begin to delineate themselves more clearly? I, of course, don't know, and
none of us are likely to know, as I imagine that such an experiment would
be well beyond the acceptable moral views of most persons on this planet,
myself included.
--Gurk
--
"Herfh" has no meaning, Andy. - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - --
g u r k @ n c s u . e d u Andrew S. Damick, Literal Prophet of Smerp
-- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - "Herfh" has all meaning, you.
bev
In article <323409e8...@news.onramp.net>,
E.Holmes <eho...@onramp.net> wrote:
> And frankly, those Mardi Gras pix are the best promo shots
> we could ask for.
Hmmmm.
I wonder if I can take a few of these this year.
--
<bev white> <b...@olivier.dementia.org> <http://www.tezcat.com/~wednsday>
you think that you're someone. now you've thought us away into a prison of
form. call it the norm. we want to be real. we want to be pure. we don't
want our vices and we don't want the cure. -- leanne haze
Carlos May
bev (b...@olivier.pc.cs.cmu.edu) wrote:
: E.Holmes <eho...@onramp.net> wrote:
: > And frankly, those Mardi Gras pix are the best promo shots
: > we could ask for.
: Hmmmm.
: I wonder if I can take a few of these this year.
You're invited. As long as you intend to participate in, not just
observe, our local customs.
-- F.
* Fro...@neosoft.com * "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] *
"HEATHEN!!!!!! Pants! OFF! NOW!" -- w e d n e s d a y @ tezcat.com
* "Don't just say Ribbit... Live it!!" -- Kerokerokeroppi * Kermit. *
Two great tastes that taste great together: alt.sex.hello-kitty/alt.fan.tito
E.Holmes
On 14 Sep 1996 01:19:34 GMT, in alt.politics.jaffo,
fro...@praline.no.neosoft.com (Carlos May) remarks:
/bev (b...@olivier.pc.cs.cmu.edu) wrote:
/: E.Holmes <eho...@onramp.net> wrote:
/: > And frankly, those Mardi Gras pix are the best promo shots
/: > we could ask for.
/
/: Hmmmm.
/
/: I wonder if I can take a few of these this year.
/
/You're invited. As long as you intend to participate in, not just
/observe, our local customs.
<snicker>
E.(I have lots of Mardi Gras beads)Holmes
E.Holmes
On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:24:41 GMT, in alt.politics.jaffo, eho...@onramp.net
(E.Holmes) remarks:
/On 14 Sep 1996 01:19:34 GMT, in alt.politics.jaffo,
/fro...@praline.no.neosoft.com (Carlos May) remarks:
/
//bev (b...@olivier.pc.cs.cmu.edu) wrote:
//: E.Holmes <eho...@onramp.net> wrote:
//: > And frankly, those Mardi Gras pix are the best promo shots
//: > we could ask for.
//
//: Hmmmm.
//
//: I wonder if I can take a few of these this year.
//
//You're invited. As long as you intend to participate in, not just
//observe, our local customs.
/
/ <snicker>
/
/E.(I have lots of Mardi Gras beads)Holmes
/
Which is fine, cuz I've no intention of ever running for office,
either. <heh>
Carlos May
E.Holmes (eho...@onramp.net) wrote:
: It's rather simple. War is when people paid to fight go and fight
: other people who are paid to fight. "Paid" can be used loosely,
: in the sense that some group, either a governing or citizen group
: is providing subsistence to the fighters. Willingly.
Hm. Well, historically many or most combatants were coerced into fighting.
For example, in Honduras (at least as of a decade ago) the army
will periodically make sweeps to pick up young men to "serve".
One tactic is that they will surround a movie house while a film
is playing, and forcably take the young men away. Their relatives
may have no idea what happened to them for weeks, until they get
a letter saying they're now in the army.
Other countries have "drafts" involving much more paperwork, but the
underlying concept is the same: that the government owns it's citizens,
and can dispose of them as it sees fit.
--
C.M. fro...@neosoft.com
Carlos May
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick (asda...@unity.ncsu.edu) herfhed up:
: Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: : I'd say war is a subset of violence. Hm. I guess it's a ritual
: : use of violence by governments to attain political ends. Amoung it's
: : distinguishing characteristics is that it is usally declared by
: : governmental leaders supposedly against eachother, but is practiced
: : by governments commanding their own citizens to kill citizens of
: : another state. IMO this seems to tie back to ancient ideas of
: : government such as a semi-divine ruler who owns the lives of
: : his expendible peon citizenry.
: The difficulty is abolishing this type of violence is that Everyone,
: Everywhere, must do it all at once.
I disagree with this assumption.
: If every nation on the planet
: agrees to end war except one, that one will necessarily be able to
: destroy and rule the planet,
("Bwahaha! Those fools didn't even see that we of the Grand Duchy of
Fenwick didn't sign the anti-war treaties! Global Domination is within
our grasp!!")
: assuming that the pacifist nations don't
: break the pact. What are the defenders to do?
There seem to be two unstated sub-assumptions within your arguement
that I do not agree with:
1) That transition from the status quo to total peace must be
acomplished in one similtanious step.
2) That any local oposition to a pacificist trend must of necessity
derail the entire process.
Let me mention a few suggestions that have been made. I do not
say that what follows are the only possibilities, nor the best
possible stratigies. I mention them only in an attempt to illustrate
that progress towards abolition of war is not as absurd a notion as
you wish to portray it.
One step in this direction could be governments adopting a policy
of not going to war unless attacked. A few states (eg, Japan)
already have this set up. I believe the Swiss Confederation has
had some success with this over time.
Possibly, if such a set up could work for a generation or so and
many people began to see war as a terror of the past, any leader
who suggested starting an agressive war might be met with the same
shock and outrage that would greet a leader who proposed the
reinstitution of slavery today.
Some thoughts on ending war as currently practiced involve having leaders
take more responsibility for their actions.
It has been suggested that we rethink the assumption that the
life of a leader/president/king is inherently more valueable than
the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens. Some have suggested
assasination of opposing leaders replace the indirect approach of
conventional war.
Other proposals advocate passing more military control to international
organizations, such as the United Nations or something similar.
Any agressor would of declared principal meet with the full force
of all other member states against it.
The above are just a few of some of the things I've heard or read.
Again, I do not say these are the only nor the best solution.
They are simply illustrations that solutions are concievable.
I again point to the analogy of slavery as a once nearly universal
custom which came to be opposed... and eliminated from civilization.
One can certainly point out that alas the practice has not entirely
disappeared for all time, but when it breaks out on a small scale
in some troubled locale the international reaction is of shock and
disgust, not a stampede to general return to the practice.
(BTW, to anticipate anyone who feels a need to point out that in
the USA the end to slavery only came with a bloody civil war,
I wish to point out the counter example of it's elimination by
political means in the British Empire.)
Perhaps the pacifists of today find themselves in a situation similar
to the early abolitionists of say the 1820s: the practice we
object to has roots older than history, and seems so tied in to the
economic and political status quo that all the details of how it
can be destroyed can not be clear. (Again in both cases, there
were/are people who point to the Bible to alledge that the practice
has Divine sanction.) None the less, in the face of such a clearly
monstorous and destructive custom, some people feel that objecting
to it is not only an option, but a moral necessity.
--
C.M. fro...@neosoft.com
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
Herfh! Carlos May in alt.politics.jaffo spake thusly:
: I again point to the analogy of slavery as a once nearly universal
: custom which came to be opposed... and eliminated from civilization.
The main difficulty though with this analogy is that those still
practicing it did not stand to wipe out those who did not merely
by the fact of their practice. If everyone dismantles his armies
except one lone jerk, that jerk could cause massive destruction.
This, of course, doesn't disprove your suggestions about gradual
disarming, but I think that it shows the analogy to be somewhat
lacking concerning this specific aspect of the question.
--Gurk
--
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/aftb/ ===== HOOOOO-HAAAAA!! ===
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick = = The best looking net.god on USENET
=== HOOOOO-HAAAAA!! ============ alt.fan.the-bob: Memorize it.
E.Holmes
In alt.politics.jaffo Carlos May wrote:
/E.Holmes (eho...@onramp.net) wrote:
/
/: It's rather simple. War is when people paid to fight go and fight
/: other people who are paid to fight. "Paid" can be used loosely,
/: in the sense that some group, either a governing or citizen group
/: is providing subsistence to the fighters. Willingly.
/
/Hm. Well, historically many or most combatants were coerced into fighting.
I meant that subsistence was paid willingly, not that the combatants
were volunteers. Even in this country, as free as it is, when the
draft was in effect many were not willing. Many died in Vietnam
that were not willing, but went anyway because they really didn't
have any choice (exile isn't for everyone :-)
[...]
/Other countries have "drafts" involving much more paperwork, but the
/underlying concept is the same: that the government owns it's citizens,
/and can dispose of them as it sees fit.
Well, I don't think it can be equated to govt ownership, really.
(though I would have embraced the idea fully when I was a hippie :-)
Contracts, spoken and otherwise, can involve levels other than
ownership of citizen's lives, and drafts are the basic contract
of a govt which is supposed to provide armed security/protection
to its citizens, and the citizens who have to provide the manpower
for that protection. In other words, the govt provides the
organization & makes all the citizens pay for it, but the
citizens themselves provide the armed force.
I am glad that our culture has evolved away from the high-handed
tactics still used in some parts of the world. There will come a
day when no one will accept that type of cruelty.
E.(I try to be optimistic about the evolution of mankind)Holmes
Carlos May
E.Holmes (eho...@onramp.net) wrote:
: In alt.politics.jaffo Carlos May wrote:
: /
: /Hm. Well, historically many or most combatants were coerced into fighting.
: I meant that subsistence was paid willingly, not that the combatants
: were volunteers. Even in this country, as free as it is, when the
: draft was in effect many were not willing. Many died in Vietnam
: that were not willing, but went anyway because they really didn't
: have any choice (exile isn't for everyone :-)
[ Mention of draft in some countries consisting of forcibly grabbing
people off the street snipped ]
: /Other countries have "drafts" involving much more paperwork, but the
: /underlying concept is the same: that the government owns it's citizens,
: /and can dispose of them as it sees fit.
: Well, I don't think it can be equated to govt ownership, really.
: (though I would have embraced the idea fully when I was a hippie :-)
Well then, I guess we disagree. IMO, if a government can take law
abiding citizens away from their home, jobs, and family by force,
and send them to do things they may have moral objections to doing,
including being put in fatal situations, such as foreign wars or
invasions that the citizens never had a chance to vote on nor
(in many cases of combat situations in USA history) their elected
representatives never voted on either, it seems to me that this
is based on a philosophy that the government can dispose of it's
citizens however it sees fit.
: Contracts, spoken and otherwise, can involve levels other than
: ownership of citizen's lives, and drafts are the basic contract
: of a govt which is supposed to provide armed security/protection
: to its citizens, and the citizens who have to provide the manpower
: for that protection. In other words, the govt provides the
: organization & makes all the citizens pay for it, but the
: citizens themselves provide the armed force.
Interesting arguement. However, I don't see that of necessity it
follows that this gives the government the power to put individuals
into combat against their wills. I don't see anything in the
USA constitution giving the government this power. Though I did
see something about not allowing involuntary servitude of law
abiding citizens.
IMO, no draft is needed to defend the USA against foreign agression.
I think that there would be no shortage of citizens who would
volunteer to defend the country against any real threat. I think
that forced draft is only necessary for fighting special interest
wars that many citizens don't see a need for and may object to
anyway. Maybe I'm being over optimistic, but that's how I see it.
: I am glad that our culture has evolved away from the high-handed
: tactics still used in some parts of the world. There will come a
: day when no one will accept that type of cruelty.
: E.(I try to be optimistic about the evolution of mankind)Holmes
Agree.
( It's good to see we're establishing some of the differing opinions
within the branches of the Frogressive Party now. :-) Next maybe
we should examine how to face the kitten eating issue.)
--F.
***********************************************************
* fro...@neosoft.com "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] *
***********************************************************