Subject:
|
Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 May 1999 19:39:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
485 times
|
| |
|
|
Sproaticus wrote in message <3740B628.A7E4BADA@geocities.com>...
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Sproaticus wrote:
> > > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > > The US is not the world's policeman.
> > > Ah, but we are. As a nation with the economic, military and • technological
> > > capability, it is our responsibility as a nation to do what we can to
> > > preserve peace. (1)
> > Disagree. We are not our brother's keeper. Not as people, not as a
> > nation.
>
> That's an interesting stance. All I've learned -- from my faith and
> otherwise -- indicates that we are our brother's keeper; e.g. we're
> responsible to do what we can for others. Is your "hands-off" approach a
> tenet of Libertarianism, or have you learned it from other sources?
Larry can do a better job than I of explaining this stance. All you have
learned from faith and otherwise *does* very likely indicate that you are
your brother's keeper. However, myself, Larry and at least two others find
those teachings flawed and reprehensible. Speaking for myself, I feel my
only duty or obligation is to myself, and not to my brother or anyone else.
To protect and provide for myself. Out of love, caring or kindness I am
free to help others, but I have no moral obligation to do so. My morality
says that any man I deal with must act in accordance with my own moral or I
don't deal with him, which means he can not expect any thing from me which
he has not earned; I owe him nothing simply for the sake that he exists. He
can not force me to do any act by physical force or by psychological
manipulation.
If you are still reading...
My "faith" is not a religion, but only a faith in myself - that I will do
that which is in my own best interest. For me, supporting a system that
enables people not to earn their own living is not in my best interest. I
believe I have to work to live (and I live to work) although others believe
they should live without working. I do not willingly support those who can
live without working by taking from me. That is the fallacy behind the
brother's keeper philosophy (pushed by religions and liberals these days) -
the doctrine which "entitles" people to certain things in life; I am
adamantly opposed to entitlements. If it is difficult for you to see this
correlation, I would be glad to explain, but I am trying to conserve
bandwidth (for selfish reasons, of course).
Anyway, my stance on US involvement in world affairs. You said we are
obligated to act in this situation because of our tremendous power
(economically, militarily and technologically). I suppose your rationale is
that we are obligated because the United States is the only country capable
of "helping" and thus it is our "duty." While it might be true we are the
only country capable (but I seriously doubt it), I don't think that is the
correct reason for us to be involved. In my view the only reason we should
be involved is if the whole affair will bring an outcome that is desirable
to us. I don't see how the outcome makes any difference to us, so I don't
think we should be there! In fact, I can only see this leading into
something much worse, so if those who are for it want a bigger war, then by
all means, go for it. That will be the result of our (leaders') actions.
Now, if we are going to get a lot of money for spending billions on bombs or
if we could guarantee peace in that region (which is a preposterous thought)
it could be worth it.
> > 1 - Our entry in WW2 was justified(2). Way late, in fact, Germany almost
> > got the bomb. Should not have stopped at the Rhine, either, Patton was
> > right, we could have saved a lot of treasure if we had put an end to
> > Soviet evil while we had the chance.
> I was under the impression that our entry into WW2 was mostly motivated by
> conflict our allies (mainly Britan) were currently having. Justifying our
> actions afterhand is nice, but we had few clues about the effects of • nuclear
> weapons before we entered the war.
I thought we were worried about Germany occupying most of Europe and
Africa in less than a couple of years, and worse, then eventually developing
a superweapon and attacking the United States? All while Japan did the same
thing to the other side of the world? I thought we were looking out for #1
and responded well. In the case of Kosovo, however, I do not see the same
potential threat even with their mad-man leader.
> > 2- OTOH, some argue that WW2 would never have happened if we had not
> > entered WW1, since WW1 would have ended in a draw and Germany would
> > never have been raped by Versailles and thus Hitler would never have
> > risen. There were no clear good guys in WW1 by that analysis. But that's
> > alternate history, who knows for sure.
>
> Scary thing is, is that we're *still* raping nations via international
> treaty all the time...
That seems to be the nature of man kind (to steal, kill, rape, etc.), not
surprising or scary to me. But are we creating more formidable enemies?
That would be scary.
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
--
Have fun!
John ( ig88888888@stlnet.com ) remove NOSPAM:
John's Lego Web Trade Page:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA[cl,bf,cr,fm,bk+++ wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035)
SW,TR,old(456)+++ TO++ PI,SP+ DU--
#+++++ S LS¼ Hy? M+ A+++ LM-- IC12m
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
| (...) Does this include how you relate to your literal brother or sister (assuming you're not an only child)? How about parents, spouse, children, cousins, cow-orkers, strangers on the street, mass murderers, presidential candidates, parents-in-law, (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 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
|
|
|
|
