Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:07:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
337 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > But is it in the best interest of the world as a whole for them to graduate
> > from being a third world country?
>
> Heh-- I brought that up in the other corner of the thread :) Threatening to
> the US? Potentially. Good(TM)? I dunno. Depends on who for, as usual :)
>
> > Someone has to produce raw goods. And we
> > don't have the global resources for everyone on the planet to sustain the
> > standard of living that the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia, etc. are
> > accustomed to.
I disagree. Every nation produces raw goods at some level. I'm more
worried about large corporations, such as Mansanto in Canada, monopolizing
those raw materials/goods just because they've created and patented the
means to produce artificial alternatives. So long as there is a profit to
be gained in producing raw goods, someone will find a way to do it and seek
control of it. I hope that Mansanto is an exception and not the future trend.
> Sad but true. I'm not against them producing raw goods, but it seems that:
>
> 1. "3rd world" countries resort to 'baser' "illegalities". I'd like to say
> more illegalities, or even more per capita. But that's not necessarily true.
> However, you'll see different types of law breaking. Essentially that
> terrorism is more likely to spring up from these countries than from places
> like the US. True? Not really. But that's the argument.
That all depends on what the 3rd world considers immoral/illegal. Our own
government does plenty of things that should be illegal, but since it
controls the authority...
> 2. Getting these countries on "our level" would reduce the amount of terrorism.
No. At "our level" we simply call terror, global policing.
> 3. In order to reduce terrorism, create more worldwide sloth, apathy, and
> comfortable living, as seen in the US.
Plenty of terrorism happens on U.S. soil daily, we just call it unlawfulness
and let the local authorities deal with it.
> So, from a terrorism perspective, maybe that solution works (I don't think
> I'd actually argue the point though.) From an overall perspective, one has
> to ask then, is a little terrorism enough of a price to pay to keep our
> "edge"? How much is a little? How much is too much?
Terrorism is still terrorism, no matter the level of terror. America just
covers it up with nice "spin words". Because of the very slothfulness you
propose above, the American People do nothing about it.
> I'm sure if we changed the the world overnight and made everyone live
> according to the US standard of living, it would be disasterous. But
> fortunately for capitalism, things like producing raw goods (food, etc)
> would go up in value as the ridiculous demand increased, and availability
> waned. Hence the system would (in theory) correct itself.
So far as I can see, capitalism is only helping those who control it.
Exactly how would it correct the disaster of conditioning the world to
Americanize?
> Problem being: humans HATE that idea. A system self-correction implies
> suffering, death, and the like. And that implies moral breakdown in society.
> We hate that idea. We want to grow and prosper, not simply be contented with
> steadyness and accept fate. Neitchze (sp?) kinda went into that. People have
> an idea of charity which inherently goes against natural selection. You see
> a starving child? You want to help him/her. And in so doing, bye-bye to
> natural selection. Which isn't to say, mind you, that the child is
> definitely inferior and "should" be de-selected, but that there *do* exist
> those who "should" be (according to the theory), who won't be via charity.
> Difficult dilemma to deal with. (Of course one could argue charity's way as
> a factor into the process as well, it's just less of a direct factor; and
> not one we're used to when discussing evolution, as it's currently
> happening, and difficult to study and predict)
>
> Anyway, enough rambling. I should stop.
>
> DaveE
Not sure what you are getting at with the last paragraph.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
