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.

Why thank you Scytale, that made it so much easier to ignore. Er, I mean so much easier to read. You are allowed to get emotional in these forums I'm sure, and sometimes it's even a good thing. But please try to be careful of my eyesight.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2000/pr0037.htm Ah how idealistic we all were back then... so once the developed nations have eliminated greed, aggression, famine, war, jealousy, injustice, and human nature, the UN will have met its goal and eradicated poverty, worldwide. My point being, that I think we have the abillity but not the will to do these things. Although in some cases (like the UN, above) it is the will but not the ability. What I don't see is where the two can coincide - are there any true altruists left in the world (individual or collective)?

I agree, I think it's right that armed forces should obey commands (you have people dedicated to the task of command/intelligence/transportation etc for a reason - why get a mechanic to repair a hairdryer when you have an electrician?) but I think that human error should be respected. If the military follow orders BLINDLY it opens the door for incompetence and deliberate misdeed to be allowed. No member of the armed forces should follow orders without thinking, for more reasons than just this, but the degree of freedom allowed should be proportional to the amount of support and the type of mission, obviously. And if 'our' side isn't fighting by the same rules of engagement as itself, this leads to all sorts of things happening...

Or, to put it another way, teaching morality through fear of punishment simply teaches those who commit crimes to be more careful about hiding the crimes/evidence.

The Shadows Are Moving...

Hmm, as far as I'm concerned the idea of the current system is to have a smaller and smaller subdivision so that ultimiatly everyone's voice is passed up the chain. Look at it from the top down. In the British system, at least, the PM makes the decisions. BUT he is advised by MPs, who are elected by constituencies. The constituencies are formed of council zones, which are represented by councillors. These councillors are elected by the ordinary people of each smaller area within the council zones, and so on. So inversely, the common man puts his case to the councillor, who takes it to the council, who debate its place against the concerns of OTHER people, and that decision is taken to the next one up... The net effect of this is that everyone can have a say, but not every one of 12 million desires can be carried out. So even though it doesn't work that way, those matters which the common societies of a particular area deem important (by peer consent) are carried up the chain until they reach a level where they are debated (this can be up to the Prime Ministerial level) and a solution is put forward. I'm not saying it's perfect, but in theory every voice has the opportunity to be heard, and if what it is saying is agreed to be important, it is moved up the chain a bit more.

Over Kashmir? I gather they get pretty emotional about it.

The USA?

Just to enlighten you a little more. The current ruling party in the UK is not the Labour Party - it's New Labour. Semantics, you may argue, simple toying with words - but the decision to name themselves "New Labour" and not "the Labour Party" as in years before was that the old (ie, left-wing and socialist) Labour Party in the UK died even before John Smith did, and when this "new" Labour Party came out of the grotty woodwork, they wanted to differentiate their type of "Labour" policies from what people had been used to previously. Hence, "New Labour". Strange but true :O