Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2001 10:41:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1105 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Read it carefully. No where in there does it talk about protecting America.
> > So who is distorting?
>
> Distortion or logical assumption? Why else would AMERICA put a defense
> system up there unless it was to protect AMERICA?
I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a
space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from
Iraq-launched Scuds. There are numerous reasons to build such a defense
including: protecting our homeland, protecting our allies, generating new
allies, developing a hugely valuable new technology, etc.
> Are we putting it up there
> to exclusively protect other countries, your so-called intercept service?
I happen to think that's a fine idea if there is a successful profit model
behind it. But if we then broker wars simply to siphon money out of foreign
nations by stopping their missiles, that would be bad.
> > > Really, are we at war with China?
> >
> > We are not, at the moment, in a hot war with the PRC but to think that China
> > is our best friend and wishes us nothing but the best is not exactly
> > realistic.
>
> Fine, and I never said anything to imply otherwise. I'm just questioning
> your choice of words and the lack of equity regarding who is or has been
> belligerent.
The fact that China is clearly a belligerent in general isn't changed by your
question. They just are. Ask their neighbors. Larry didn't include any lack
of equity in his statement. His claims in no way suggested that anyone aside
from China either is or is not "a belligerent." Farther down you seem to base
your hostility to the notion of China as a belligerent on the fact that the US
is too. Fine, the US is every bit as much of a belligerent as China. Frankly,
I'm much more afraid of the US government than of the Chinese. So what? It
doesn't change the fact that China is reasonably considered a belligerent.
I think this is the kind of thing that Larry means when telling you to read
what is written. You simply _can't_ plausibly claim that Larry's statement
calling China a belligerent is wrong. Yet you take exception because you
assume (why?) that Larry is somehow placing the US above them on that ladder.
You put words in his mouth. He made no claim about the role of the US as a
belligerent.
> > > No, warmongering is the angle of charging other nations for missile
> > > intercept services.
> >
> > How so? Please explain.
>
> Because we'd be cashing in on warring nations, rather than taking the role
> of the peace broker.
Actually, we might be brokering peace and being compensated for our
technological and ifrastructure costs. I think that's fair. Like Larry
pointed out, it was fair for us to receive payment from Japan and others for
our role in the liberation of Kuwait.
> I say having the system would then
> perpetuate the ongoing need for rivalries and enemies so we can sustain our
> profits.
But only if we put profits ahead of right and wrong. And we don't have to.
For instance, I assume you have a job, and thus make money. We all basically
need that in today's world. But just because we make money doesn't make us
unconcerned with morality. We can provide a service morally. We can even
establish organizations that are attempting to work themselves out of
existence.
> I say hold off before we get
> in over our heads and instead make a better effort at solving our world's
> problems. Sounds far-fetched but more worthy of effort than the alternative
> of more wars.
I think that "more wars" is the status quo. If we do nothing there will be
more wars. If we build a global missle shield, those wars might be more costly
and less lethal. That sounds like a win to me.
Note: I'm coming off like an advocate of the space-based interception system
and I really don't know the engineering issues well enough to know if it is a
good idea. But if it is, then I am sure that it could be used to better the
world, and not just fatten our pocketbook.
> I feel we are making a big mistake with our sanctions against Iraq.
Oh, me too. We should have, and still should, assassinate Sadam and lead those
people into a libertopian government. Failing that a representative democracy
would be OK. Either way, they could be the shining star of the Arab world.
> What is this nonsense? As I recall, you took the story out of context (you
> even admitted this to me) and started a needless debate over it.
Are all debates needless? What specifically about that debate was it that you
didn't like?
> stood by and allowed people to further distort the intent of my story. I
> wasn't even on LUGNET yet so I could at least defend myself. Out of respect
You had a net connection right? So you could have gotten involved any time you
wanted to. Defend yourself or not, we didn't care. For one thing, no one was
attacking you, so you would have had a tough time defending. People had a
conversation...that's all.
> and the realization that Brickshelf was not my personal website, I agreed
> that the JarJar scene was inappropriate AND changed the story AND publicly
> offered my sincere apology to those who took offense AND offered an
> explanation of the satire's context. Instead of commending me, you
> questioned my "convictions as an artist" for not "standing by my work."
How can you agree that it's inappropriate if you didn't really believe that it
was? I thought and continue to think that if you thought it was OK, you should
have left it as is, and to hell with the rest of us having a discussion on a
forum in which you don't even participate. What would you have done if
following your change, a hot discussion broke out on one of the SW sites
complaining that you changed it? You gotta do what you think is right.
> You complain about something. Then when someone tries to fix it,
> you complain again.
Not so. He questioned the reason for the change...that's all.
> > Some nation has to lead. Some society has to set an example.
> Yes, we should set a better example but keep in mind that leadership is an
> instrument of the people and no society should be so conceited as to say
> they are morally fit to lead over others. America does not fit the profile
> by many standards.
I'm confused. Are you saying that no people have the right to lead others, or
are you saying that the US isn't nice enough to deserve that role of
leadership. It seems that you're implying both, but of course they aren't
inclusive of one another.
For the record, I don't think that people should lead by force except when
protecting basic rights. I think, for instance, that conquoring much of the
world in order to stop torture would be OK if there is no other way to
accomplish that end. But for those not stomping on others, we have no business
dicating to them.
> Greed is never a higher moral issue to me.
I would have thought from your notes that it was. That the removal, or at
least control, of greed from our public policy decisions was a significan moral
issue. I do like some of what each of you is saying in this, but I think the
communication isn't entirely clear.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
