I find your stated intent admirable, BB, to break down a complex axiom into simpler units, so that you can logically analyse it better. It's just a pity that you didn't then follow your own modus operandi.
What you have in fact done is to take a number of unsubstantiated statements, in many cases pejoratively presented, and then use these to support a basic (unclear) statement, i.e. Goverments wilfully decide on obscure causes and are capable of ignoring the rights and wishes of the individual citizenry; in fact, turning individual citizens into means to achieve their unclear (by the citizens unwanted) ends. This ignores many relevant facts. Often the ends publicly embraced by governments are shared (for whatever reasons) by a majority of the population. You used Vietnam as an example, ignoring the fact that (at least up to the time of the Tet offensive) majority passive support for the the war was still present in the US population. (That the general population had been worked into this mood by nearly 20 years of Cold War posturings and dire warnings of dominoes falling is another issue.) "Governments are ultimate authorities once they are established." This seems to be the basic postulate of your argument. It is not true - unless you decide to let it be. In the end, the ultimate authority is your own moral sense, your conscience if you like. This does not mean that it will be automatically accepted, you may have to endure a lot of suffering as a result of swimming against the stream, but you are still free to do so (as did many thousands of draft-avoiders in the 60s by burning their draft-cards, hopping over the border into Canada, etc.). To follow the Vietnam example through, it took years of passionate debate, the suffering and deaths of many thousands, but US policy finally did change. Democracies are imperfect, frustrating, as hard to steer as a supertanker in the Straits of Hormuz, but change is possible. There is, so it strikes me, an implicit shizophrenia in the immediate drawing of the divide between "us" and "them". In the end, "we" elect "them" to represent "us." The duality is frequently the easier way for us - in that we manage to project our fundamental responsiblities onto "them", and then proceed to criticise and blame "them" when they do something we, individually, don't like. What we forgt, in the process, is that "they" are, ultimately, "we." Democratically elected, liberal constitutional states always offer the option of consciencious objection - even if it is often made difficult, still, the fact that my objection may force me to (theoretically) break the law (by burning a draft card) and thus risk time in jail, does not materially change this. Despite all our imperfections, hypocrises, inconsistencies, etc., the USA is still not Egypt, nor can France or Germany be compared with the Peoples Republic of China. This is one of the major underlying messages of Guantanamo; despite all the juridicial manoevering of the Bush regime, the responsibility for Guantanamo and what goes on there is the responsibility of the US American people, despite all penny-ante twists concerning territorial jurisdiction, because it was put into place by the elected representatives of the American people, and the people have a responsibility and right to demand this accountability. "Sacrifice" is not the key word in socialism, "equality" is. I have commented here before that the clarion call of the French Revolution offers us the formula for getting it right. Liberty and equality will forever be in tension, because too much of one immediately limits the other. The key to balancing them lies in the third word, fraternity. Maybe that's the one we should be focussing on more. Francis On 30 Aug., 11:59, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > I am going to break this down into simple terms because that is the > way my mind works. I am going build my little choo-choo train of > logic here for you, and you are free to show me where it fails. > > Governments are ultimate authorities once they are established. And > any “cause” the government dreams up, well this becomes the “ends” > in effect, because the citizens of the country are rallied to “serve” > that cause, and once they commit to it, they are under obligation to > “serve their country.” Note that the individual citizens signed up to > serve their country not aware of what causes might arise. They may or > may not agree with all causes. > > Let me take wars for example. Any war will do, but Vietnam makes for > a great example. Some leader or members of the upper government > decide that there is a “cause” that must be dealt with and we will > “win” this cause. Men are drafted into “service” of their country. > They did not sign up for the cause itself, they are forced to accept > it , in the name of “their country” which shows the ultimate power > and authority of the government in my opening premise. I find this > concept hard to imagine yet it is taken for granted: men are forced to > murder total strangers they have nothing against, do not even know, in > the name of a cause they do not agree with or at least fully > understand. Men are killed in the name of whatever “cause” has been > dreamed up. The ends justify the means. This is the ultimate danger > of the “end over means” philosophy, but especially dangerous when > governments use it, and they all use it extensively. And you wonder > why I don’t trust governments. > > This is true in any other cause as well. In socialism for example > the cause is “we take care of those in need” and the key phrase is the > same as in any war, and that is the word “sacrifice.” Sacrifice must > be made for the cause. The cause is thus more powerful and more > “important” than the people themselves, for the people must sacrifice. > This is justified by “we ALL sacrifice” but in fact this is not true, > because the sacrifice varies. They often say they “choose” to do it, > which is fine and perhaps a vast majority, but if it is not chosen by > a citizen, those people are forced to sacrifice anyway and their > chosen life altered perhaps against their will, and all it takes is > the right cause. The means takes a back seat to a government cause. > If “we” need money we will get some and we don’t care where we get it > or who we get it from or if it is fair. We don’t care if we run out of > money either, the cause is more important than any trivial reality > that gets in the way. We will justify it. In other words it is merely > the means to the end. The people who would like to see everyone taken > care of do not care much about the means. This only shows they are > using the philosophy, as they only like to talk about the cause. The > people who believe money is evil? Their government requires it in > vast amounts for their own cause and they don’t even see the > contradiction. They cannot come up with a replacement for the money > concept perhaps because it is not important for them to do so, it is > merely a “means” which is not only secondary but not a consideration > compared to their cause. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
