On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Thaths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these >> conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? > Well, perhaps it's a question of being on a time-line. That all > conflicts tend to progress but not necessarily while the conflict is > ongoing. There's something about systems in chaos tend to order or > some such?
Of what comfort is this to the populations stuck in the middle of these conflicts? If conflict is a precondition to Progress, one should consider the question if amputations, rape, murder, mutilations, torture and worse are acceptable prices to pay for said Progress. Also, I do not buy the time-line argument. Give any situation enough time and it is bound to change. In some cases, it changes for the better, and in some it changes for the worse (and possibly for the better at a later date). To assume that the change for the better happened because of the conflict itself is to ignore the cases where the change happens for the worse. >> BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ >> :-) ]. Step back! > Please explain? I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Libertarianism as an abyss and pleaded for you to step back from it. S. -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
