filecore

Looking at (so far) the only real replies to this thread, it's nice to get a little away from Politics and Religion and into more pure Philosophy... there should be more on this board, only I can't think of much at the moment. Anyway, regarding the quote: I only agree if you're referring to the so-called communism of the USSR and China et al, which isn't really communism at all (as debated to death in other threads). However, I think that a move towards a more communist/socialist world should be possible... it's not an unachievable goal although PURE theoretical socialism might be, but getting halfway between there and here might not be... so maybe it's not so silly after all. I just think that people ought not to be so paranoid about each other. It's this lack of trust which is the single greatest weapon working against the EU and similar ventures. However, I think that the day will come when we finally either have a damned war or agree on something. Like the heat before a big storm, it's unavoidable. I just wonder which way we will go when the storm finally arrives...

As far as I understand it, he seems to be saying that provided government is needed to enforce taxation, we can see no way in which the NEED for government will fade in time. Ie, as long as government has a legitimate function, it will remain. Only when it is no longer needed, will it fade away.

Totally. I think NATO is a bad idea. And like was mentioned, this ERDF (iirc that was the name, European Rapid Defence Force?) will stand as a direct alternative, if it ever gets off the ground, although I have my doubts about that too. Anyway NATO membership is a big debate in Finland where about two-thirds don't want to join, but the politicians are a little closer split and of course they make the decisions. Yes, I have a lot of friends from Czech Republic and some from Slovakia, and I hear things about those times... I don't think there should be a dominating organisation with that sort of military strength coupled with an imperialistic streak, be it USSR (RIP) or USA. I think multilateral organisations like the UN are a better choice, and having a ERDF made up of bits of all the European countries (and others?) would help to stop any single country doing something silly, whether by design or by accident. Of course, there's still the old oppositions within Europe and between EU/USA to contend with but, if France and Germany can forget their recent pasts and work together, why can't the rest of us? "The only difference between a NUclear war and an UNclear war is the way you use the UN" ;)

In which case, this example of the genre failed miserably, by evidence of overwhelming opinion. On the up side, did you hear about the little Egyptian boy who was confused, because his daddy was a mummy? ;D

I seem to recall reading in a historical article about angels, that only for the last 1000 years have angels been depicted having wings, and only for the last 500 years have they been depicted as being female.

Just thinking of how that never stopped anyone... Belgium was rolled over in the first world war already by German troops. Ypres anyone? Anyway... Of course. True story (but I forget the source): police chase a suspect, catch him and a few punches are exchanged. There is a small mention in the local newspaper. Nothing much happens. A week later, police chase a suspect, catch him and a few punches are exchanged. There is a huge social uproar and the police are condemned in the media. The difference? The first one was a white man. No problems. The second one was black. It was "institutional racism" in the police and he was chased and arrested (and beaten up) simply "because" he was black. Get real. Perhaps this happens (I'm not denying the existence of racism) but I think that "positive discrimination" and advocating one groun over another is just as bad bias as the original. How much of which happens with Jews happens because they are Jewish, and how much happens despite it or regardless of that fact? But it remains a truth that if anyone else is attacked, it's an attack. If it happens to be a Jew, it's anti-Semitism and we're behaving like Nazis. I'm not belittling or denying anything that happens, I'm just saying to get some perspective.

Nope, I have to go with Gunwounds and the rest here, and ask you to defend this comment. How can this be so, when the employer charges the CONSUMER more than the value of the item in order to get his profit? Maybe this was true in the factories of 19th century Europe but I don't think it will be any more. This is why, in times of economic 'crisis' when cash supply runs short and people can't afford to pay so much for goods, prices rise - because the manufacturers can't afford to buy raw materials. But rather than keeping the prices steady and paying the workers LESS, they raise their PRICES for the consumer and still pay the worker a fair rate (this is of course a generalisation). So defend your statement which you so kindly hightlighted for us in bold ::)

A bit off topic, but call me a pedant if you want - why would it be such that we would have trouble believing that George Orwell was a communist? I mean, even if you haven't read 1984 for example, it's still not so surprising. And I can't think of many less anti-authoritarian works than 1984. Why then the stated assumption that your statement would be disbelieved?

Yes, but surely if consequence-based ethical reasoning is weak then the whole judaeo-christian system which Western policy is largely based on falls apart - weren't the ten commandments (including other sections of the bible too) all about "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" - ie, consequence-based? Now I agree with you, this is wrong, but you can't simply undo such a massive system which has dominated for a thousand years in Europe and in the minds of those who emigrated. Give perhaps a more practical solution - oh wait, you already did. Good plan. Would you care to tell me how?

Yup, I like to think I agree with that, but then there are some who don't learn from their mistakes and just sit and be bitter about getting caught, and wait until they can get back out into the cruel, cruel world...

Agreed. Agreed. The thing is, not just about cutting America off as "punishment" but also disassociating the rest of the world from the USA (not totally, maybe, but a bit at least) so that we don't become/remain so dependant upon US trade or defence. I think there should be a balance and having one country dominate over a cluster of others is obviously NOT a balanced state of affairs.

Fair enough ???

So what's your solution? Just keep letting them in until your social system breaks down, there are not enough jobs and your economy collapses? Oh yeah, good plan.