Perspectives on National Laws

[bobdohse]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 02:01:13 +00 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IF... the US followed their own Constitution...
> You made it very clear the US don't follow their Constitution and
> consequently don't follow international law either.
> 
> Should this assure the rest of the planet?
> 
> Bastiaan
> 


Hi Bastiaan (and others),

To add some balance ...

I recall a story in the Netherlands (from the late 1980s, I believe) of
an American (US Air Force) serviceman who murdered his Turkish wife.
After beating her to death, he cut her into little pieces and spread the
pieces throughout the countryside.

He was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment by a Dutch court. The
American and Turkish governments (and many citizens) were outraged,
because they felt the crime deserved the death penalty (which is
prohibited by NL and EU laws).

Not to debate the relative pro-and-con issues of a death penalty, but I
will point out that many other governments (including all the Arab world)
sided with the USA on this issue. So this was not a USA-vs-The-World
issue, but an issue of different perspectives.

Without a universal standard of 'right and wrong', every issue will boil
down to how the majority of the local people view each particular issue
and what they believe is 'right and wrong'. Pertaining to internal
issues, that has been the universally accepted right of sovereign states
since the Treaties of Westphalia.

Might I point out that those sovereign rights were - until the most
recent decades - applied exclusively by western European states as
interpreted by western European states. (The UN is based upon, and exists
because of, the principles of the Treaties of Westphalia.)

I am speaking, of course, of colonialism - motivated and empowered by the
economic schemes of the powerful against the weak. In this race for
domination, the NLs played a prominent role. My friends in Indonesia are
still testifying to that fact.

None of this means that any one position has more virtue than another. We
all have different histories, from which different perspectives
developed. I suggest that it is most helpful and most progressive to
understand those differing perspectives and work together, as friends,
toward some common goals. The alternatives are condemnation and conflict,
each seeking to impose its values on the other.

It is unrealistic for Europeans to impose internal European values on the
USA, as our different histories have led us to different (current)
positions. What is most productive is to identify some positions of
common ground upon which to stand, and then to work from there to offer
(not impose) to others an opportunity to join us (if they are so
inclined), as friends, to work together for the common good.

I suggest that would "assure the rest of the planet" better than force
(military, economic, or any other).

Maybe that might also be a position toward which the Arachne list might
move. Since we all value the freedom of information (and free access to
information), then perhaps we might help each other to identify
progressive ways to share information (and the freedom of information)
among those who lack such an opportunity.

However much we may debate various issues, the majority of the world's
population have no opportunity to read what you and I write. 

I would suggest that this is a bigger problem than gun ownership. 

If I (the christian humanitarian) can agree with some issues suggested by
Bart (the communist activist), then perhaps there is hope for all of us.

Peace (???),

Bob


-


Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

Perspectives

[bobdohse]

[ original thread - Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:):
the US andthe human rights ]

-

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 Bart Buitinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear friend,
> 
> Are you suggesting this 18th century
> constitutional reasoning is tricking
> you to believe that the US population
> would stand a chance against the US
> army if ever...???  Sorry to say but I
> think you're tragically wrong there. 

There is a huge difference between (1) winning a war with
overwhelming military might and (2) occupying the land.
Consider the history of Afghanistan, for example. An
occupying force cannot maintain a presence over time
when the local people are opposed to the presence. The
native population must either be assimilated, displaced, or
eliminated.


 
> What will help are a good social system to
> improve the position of the poor, equal chances
> in education for their children and another
> president because this one would be your
> dictator if only he had the guts to disobey his
> father. This may all sound a little hostile, which
> is not intended. I just hope to make very sure
> the Americans get to read what's really happening.
 

A system that provides opportunities for the underdogs
will always do better at promoting peace and understanding
than will a system that maintains injustice and power at
the expense of poor and powerless. Information and
obtainable education is power to the little people.

Simply put, complete poverty is the lack of opportunity.

In view of history, Bart, I submit that in the last century
capitalism - with all it's problems and potential flaws -
has done a much better job at providing opportunities
for people than has either communism or socialism.

The theory of equally shared wealth has some appeal,
but it lacks evidence of practicality. Over the long term,
with very few exceptions, the shared wealth communities
have all disintegrated. The poor are motivated to join 
to obtain more wealth, but leave once they reach the point
of giving more than they receive.

I once heard this argument between a communist activist
and a christian missionary. The communist said, "You 
should be one of us. You care for the poor and oppose
injustice just like a communist."  The missionary answered,
"There is one major difference in our actions. You say 
'What YOU have is MINE' and I say 'What I have is YOURS."

It is the GIVING, and not the TAKING, which is the source
of strength that fosters cooperation and peace.

I think the same reasoning applied to military force. A nation
can offer help and be warmly welcomed as friends, or it can
project its force where it is not welcomed and be rejected
and despised. Same force - different outcome.

Applied to Arachne, I choose to use the program to offer some
help to the underdogs who want opportunities for information.
They choose where the road will take them. If I were to dictate
the process and the application, I would choose Win-doze as
a model.

I added the last paragraph to make a suggested point. We
can spend a lot of time and bandwidth arguing political
perspectives and accomplish little, if anything. Or, we can
take what we have (as a group, our knowledge of Arachne tricks)
and offer it to somebody somewhere for the purpose of giving
them opportunities for information and knowledge.

You (Bart, a communist) might perhaps want to consider joining 
me (Bob, a christian) in some wild adventure to share with some
poor villagers the advantages of digital technology and information.
That's where the rubber meets the road - in the application of the
principle. I sometimes quote a bible verse that says, "Faith, 
without works, is dead". (James chapter 2, verse 17)

I care very little that your beliefs differ from mine. I think it is your
freedom to choose what you want. It does bother me somewhat
that few people (from all sectors) practice little of what they profess.

Perhaps you, Bart, might be the guy to write the code I need for
the HTML-DGI-DBMS scheme. Wouldn't that be a blast, a communist
and a christian cooperating to fight against poverty and injustice 
and to work together for world peace.

But, whatever you're doing, do it well. And, if it involves Arachne,
then share your knowledge with the rest of us so that we, too, 
can benefit. As a communist, it's your duty. 

Butyl Bob (the organic radical)


-


Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com