Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:19:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1777 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> And they'd be right.
:-)
That can be interpreted in different ways... I'll go with the funny one.
> > 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").
>
> 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 I disagree
> with them) and those who do not are crazy (one way or another).
>
> > Even someone who is committing a crime in front of me may not think of
> > himself as a villain;
>
> And he may not be one. Crimes have nothing to do with right and wrong or good
> and bad.
They have to do with the law. The law is a sort of a commitment, it intends
to define good and bad so that we can act accordingly. It sometimes fails,
but heck, that is why we change laws over time.
> > 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.
>
> A crime is a violation of law. But not bad or wicked or evil.
Good point.
But read above my position about the law: it *intends* to show us the better
possible way, so by breaking it we are technically being "wrong" and perhaps
"evil". It is tough to judge (I'm quite glad I'm not a judge!).
> > 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?
>
> There may or may not be better choices. I would not question the morality of
> returning fire.
Nor I. But I'd rather run away than to shoot, and let the professionals
handle the situation. Even protecting myself, I'd still fell I'd be killing
someone. And that is just too sad.
> > Villainry (I dunno if the word exists, just pretend it does) is relative.
>
> I think we agree.
>
> > > 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.
>
> And that couldn't happen again? Obviously the EU won't permit those kinds of
> trade barriers, but what about those outside the EU? There are borders.
But there are other mechanisms: the enlargment is on its way (by 2010 there
will be 12 other countries in the EU, hopefully), the agreements with other
states are frequent (ACP, for instance - the "banana wars", remember?),...
And lets not forget that the majority of trade is *inside* the Union.
I'm pretty confident in the Future, it is unlikely that we will ever be
drawn back to the days of the "Nation".
> > 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".
>
> I didn't follow the whole thread, but then why are LEGO sets different prices
> in different EC nations?
LEGO is allowed to price the items in every country according to its will.
There is however a movement by the Comission to level prices among the
several states (see Volkswagen and BMW cases, for instance), but frequently
the differences are caused by *internal* tax systems (different from state
to state).
Equality in trade means no barriers when crossing borders. NOT in store
shelves... :-(
Note that the purpose of eliminating tariffs isn't to level prices
everywhere for the same product, it is to allow products from one place to
compete with products from another; the first intention must be achieved
gradually, even because there are massive differences in income within the
Union (see minimum wages, for instance: Portuguese is a third or so of the
French, but living cost is also smaller here)
Anyway, regarding LEGO, I think if we all make noise about it we can get
them to level prices; the downside is they can level by the up scale... :-/
> > 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".
>
> So now you can be nationalistic about all of Europe. :-)
Just you wait until the day when the EU will have only one Olympic team... ;-)
Now, really: there *are* advantages in the current situation, which we will
not let go easily - 15 seats in the UN, possibility of different positions
in foreign and Defense policy, priviliged relations with former colonies, 18
teams elible for qualification for the Football World Cup...
> > "My country is no longer better than yours, we are now stronger together" -
> > no competition, cooperation for the greater good.
>
> The greater good, as long as your economy is strong enough to join and you play
> by all the rules and so on and so forth.
In a word, yes. The greater good meant sacrifices for us in the early
eighties, and an economic boom in the mid nineties. Overall, quite positive.
> > 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.
>
> I'm hoping that the notion of countries will become outmoded long before that
> can happen. I guess we'll see.
Nah, unfortunately there are still too many nationalist people. All their
lives they were taught to believe in their own superiority, so it will be
rather difficult for them to change minds in a short time. We are still
generations away from the day we will all *feel* mere earthlings. :-(
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 26-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
|
|
|
|
