From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 16:43:43 GMT
Hi all,
Here are some ideas Keith and I have been kicking around, submitted
here for comment by anyone interested.
msh said:
Well, more accurately, in the ways the USG is similar to the GF [God
Father], the USG is not a good guy. I'd be willing to argue that
they are not as dissimilar as you believe: both act to protect and
advance the interests of a favored few. But we can drop the GF
analogy.
keith said:
That's why I didn't like the analogy. To make it fair you've had to
qualify it, and in qualifying it we've managed to make it
meaningless. In the ways the USG is similar to Mother Teresa, the USG
is a very good guy...
msh says:
This is a little slippery. You've blanked out my statement that the
USG (and all states) and the GF are not as dissimilar as you believe,
in that they act in the interest of the powerful few. This doesn't
mean that their actions do not from time to time have some positive
trickle down effect on the majority of citizens.
But let's imagine the most ridiculous of worlds and say that States
are 90% benevolent. Does this mean we should simply accept the other
10% of their actions? Especially when these actions are performed in
our names and with our tax dollars? It seems to be that you are
trying to justify or ignore or downplay the bad by emphasizing the
good. I think the good is good, but we shouldn't spend a lot of time
patting ourselves on the back about it. What would be the point?
on another issue, msh said:
Uh, oh. I think Sam and I touched on the distinction between violent
imperialism and the occasional benevolent imperial deed, the later
never a successful apology for the former. This sort of argument can
be, and has been, used to justify slavery in the American south. You
know, "Look at all we've given these people: they have food,
clothing, a roof, plenty of work. Where would they be without us?"
Is this a valid justification for slavery? I trust you get the
point.
keith replied:
I get your point, but I don't think you got mine. My point was that
the Romans had a positive effect on the evolution of the human
species and improved the lives of a great many people, and laid in
place a legacy that we benefit from today - but that not everyone
would have felt that at the time. I suppose I was trying to pitch
forwards a couple of hundred years. What will the historians say
about the American Empire?
msh says:
Oh, I think I got your point. I can understand some stuff. I
disagree that whatever positive effects the Roman Empire had "on the
evolution of the species" would not have been possible without the
concomitant brutality against and enslavement of non-Romans.
As for waiting a couple hundred years to see if modern day brutality
will result in some benefit for some future folks, my guess is that
people on the receiving end of the boot may find this option less
palatable than others.
on another issue msh said:
The McDonalds come in AFTER the application of the sword. IOW, the
sword, whether military or economical hegemony, the violence in Iraq
or the subtler violence in NAFTA (imposed law backed by the sword),
clears the way for the corporations. In either case, it is certainly
not a matter of democratic nations wilfully choosing to be immersed
in advertising and essentially meaningless options, to have their
political decisions pre-empted by a corporate oligarchy. (See Ramsey
Clarke, above.)
Keith replied:
Well, my point is that there is a cultural invasion at work across
the world. There is a McDonalds in every major city across the world,
and that not all of them have been put there by tanks and cruise
missiles. I don't know that this is necessarily a good or bad thing.
msh says:
Your use of the term "cultural invasion" is apropos, as it suggests
an aggressive action against an unwilling population. What evidence
do we have that this cultural invasion of business interests is any
more welcome than any of the 40 or more USUK or USSR or Russian or
Chinese military invasions of various countries since the end of
WWII? Is there any reason to believe that people who did not want a
fast-food outlet on every corner had any more influence on the
decision-makers than the millions who protested the Iraqi Invasion?
Your view here seems to be "If it happens then that's what the people
want." To me, this axiom is not nearly so self-evident.
Best to all, and thanks for any comments,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 14 2005 - 16:50:33 GMT