Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:12:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1529 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > > > > I can't believe you insinuated that the Native Americans had an equal • chance
> > > > > just because they had a few rifles and bows.
> > > >
> > > > They were armed. It is you who think that arms can protect you against a
> > > > well trained force - I'm not so sure.
> > >
> > > The difference is that in any plausible (which I know is the point of
> > > contention) revolutionary scenario, The People would not be outnumbered by • the
> > > villains. The Native Americans were.
> >
> > The Villains are part of The People. How can you tell one from the other?
>
> Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're
> doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting.
OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her
lifestyle. PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but
cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e.,
"I'm right because I think I am, so you must be wrong").
Even someone who is committing a crime in front of me may not think of
himself as a villain; take Argentina, where people had to steal food in
Xmas. Technically, they were stealing, in front of armed officers. So a
crime may be "not seen" as a crime.
The same applies to the shooting situation. Assuming someone ill can take
possession of a gun, and starts shooting at you, should you kill that person?
Villainry (I dunno if the word exists, just pretend it does) is relative.
> > > > You mean France? They are welcome to invade, I love their cuisine. But it is
> > > > just not going to happen. If I were a paranoid fantasist I might worry about
> > > > it. But I am not, so I don’t. How about you?
> > >
> > > Because it was so long ago that one European powerhouse invaded another?
> >
> > I guess not. The truth is such an invasion is no longer needed, since no
> > benefits would be felt: the markets are already open, the people have free
> > movements, the laws tend to be equalized... generally countries invaded each
> > other expecting to profit from it, and right now no positive outcome would
> > be possible for either parties involved - therefore, any invasion is
> > pointless.
>
> So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that WWII
> happened because Germany was trying to break into Polish, French, or
> Austrian market economies. They wanted to take their stuff (foremost of
> which (I guess) was productive capacity). It was simple thuggery. How has the
> EC changed that?
Different context: after the depression, Germany was faced with many trade
barriers lifted by other states, and was suffering with it. Since they had
no negotial power, the response was war.
Hitler reached power because he had the support of the Industry Tycoons who
were left without markets after '29. All the "Lebensraum" rhetoric was
facade, a very convenient one to galvanize the masses.
Had Germany won the war, they would have been faced with a big problem:
economy "KO", after all the pillage and bombing (much like the US). The
difference was that the US saw the oppotunity AND were able to respond,
helping others while helping themselves (Marshall plan was a great boost for
american industry after the war, for instance).
The EC (now EU) meant "no barriers". In fact, it means no tariffs when
passing borders (and no passports within Schengen Space), making the goods
produced in "A" more competitive with those produced in "B". The Common
Market, everyone is in equal condition to trade (except for transport costs,
but that is fairly obvious - that is why periferal states receive aid, mine
included).
One of the most important things about the EU is idealistic: the old
nationalisms were put to death for the sake of the "european conscience".
"My country is no longer better than yours, we are now stronger together" -
no competition, cooperation for the greater good. I like that idea. Who
knows, if one day we can convince the Brits to feel "Europeans from
Britain"... ;-) If that is possible, we can then walk towards the Earth
becoming *one* country. That old dream of all emperors, maybe possible
without bloodshed after all - but then again, that is purely a dream for now.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) And they'd be right. (...) No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) chance (...) the (...) Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting. (...) So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 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
|
|
|
|
