Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:54:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
433 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > > 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.
Disagree that the US "doesn't" produce raw goods? Or disagree that there
isn't enough for the planet to share the US/Canada/Aus/Euro/etc standard of
living?
> Every nation produces raw goods at some level.
Maggie's point being (I think) that the US doesn't produce enough to sustain
itself. IE per its population, it should be making more. If all countries
had our ratios of bankers to data anylists to telemarketers to farmers, we
wouldn't have enough raw goods to maintain the standard, I think was the
point. Or, at least, that's the point I'll defend.
> > 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...
Exactly. Our government's brand of terrorism is very different in nature
from that which we advertise as terrorism.
> > 2. Getting these countries on "our level" would reduce the amount of
> terrorism.
>
> No. At "our level" we simply call terror, global policing.
Again, exactly. But that's not the point, really. The point is the "baser"
terrorism, not that it's any the less troubling.
> > 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.
Well, again, look percentage-wise. I don't have the data to back that up,
sadly for my own case, but I'd say the degree of "lawfulness" in the US per
person ("lawfulness" being as equally compared to those in other countries)
is less than in a third world country. Dang. I still don't know how to word
what I'm saying. Also, consider that the US is a *target*, and not
necessarily the instigator (and yes, I'm fully aware that we can play the
blame game on us, and rightfully so for some cases).
> > 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'd say stupidity, gullibility, sloth and fear. Some just don't get it and
won't, even if they had it explained. Others COULD "get it", but are shown
well-designed half-truths and the like such that they don't see it. Some
don't think they'd be able to make a difference, and just quietly hope that
it'll work itself out for the better. And some fear that their involvement
will make themselves a victim, and would rather protect their own intrests
rather than attempt to become a martyr.
I'd like to consider myself a cross between the latter 3. Although when it
comes down to a system dynamics level, I'll intentionally put myself into a
bit of crossover into the 1st category-- mostly because my own laziness
insists that though I could learn it at that level, I'm enough beyond the
norm that it would do me little good to learn.
> 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?
Presume 1st off that we instantly changed the existing world's populace to
fit that of the US/Canada/Euro/Aus/etc's norms in terms of raw materials
production and food/goods consumation. Suddenly, you don't have gobs of 3rd
world countries producing things like beef or what-have-you at ridiculously
cheap rates. Raw goods thus become more rare and increase in value.
Meanwhile, basic goods cost more, so the worldwide standard of living
decreases (see starvation, etc). Next, J. Random lawyer/systems analyst/etc
now figures he can make more money by competing in the raw goods market
instead, and it begins to balance out.
> Not sure what you are getting at with the last paragraph.
Rambling. Humans do not like the idea that others should starve or live at
lesser standards of living than themselves. We naturally want to help
increase 3rd world countries' standards of living to our own, because it
reduces suffering, which we, as humans, are opposed to. However, by
magically raising the standard of living, we indirectly force more suffering
by reducing raw materials production, and increasing their cost.
Hence, either way you slice it, there's suffering. And either way, people
hate that fact. The only real way to fix the problem is to either remove a
human's natural desire for charity towards others (IE be content with others
misery), or to remove the opposition to suffering altogether (see Bhuddism).
Both are pretty unlikely, and perhaps neither is desireable.
Anyway, I want to ramble more, and into natural selection and evolution and
the like, but I also want to stop. Let that be a lesson: never encourage me
to ramble! :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
