Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Berkeley and the Marines
negative creep:
--- Quote from: supersheep on 19 Feb 2008, 05:33 ---
--- Quote from: JazzyJoe on 18 Feb 2008, 19:15 ---The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others.
--- End quote ---
There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.
--- End quote ---
Also, I can't get quite rid of the feeling that YOUR government is keeping certain demographics poor on purpose to always have enough people desperate enough to enlist.
One more thing before I leave this thread: I firmly believe that militaries will be necessary as long as people believe them to be. Once they stop, we won't need them anymore.
JazzyJoe:
--- Quote ---You say it like it's a bad thing that people think it is more important to protest something wrong than sit at home and watch TV...
--- End quote ---
Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.
--- Quote ---There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.
--- End quote ---
So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...
--- Quote ---I'd love to, but there isn't a world handy without governments and their armed forces. If you find one let me know, I'll be off like a shot. Until then, the right to protest is one of the few bits of a truly democratic society that exist around the world so yes, I'd say it is a cornerstone of any decent society.
--- End quote ---
Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.
--- Quote ---Also, I can't get quite rid of the feeling that YOUR government is keeping certain demographics poor on purpose to always have enough people desperate enough to enlist.
--- End quote ---
No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong.
Alex C:
Well, looking at the Federalist papers and the way our system of government was structured, it's kind of hard to argue that the United States didn't limit the power of the poor by design, just like every other country of the day. The founding fathers were generally rather open with their stance that the middle class was too ignorant to govern, that the rich cannot be trusted and that giving suffrage to the poor would be even worse and could result in the popular vote forcing a redistribution of wealth. Much like capitalism, the the entire US system is based in large part on the idea that no one group is capable of looking out for anyone but themselves. Besides, this is Berkeley we're talking about here; many of the people who are protesting there do not believe "like normal" is acceptable to begin with. Don't you find it a little naive to believe that the government isn't capable of stacking the deck against various social classes? Governments have been doing that for hundreds of years; you could easily make the argument that the entire function of government is to dilineate whose rights will be deferred to at any given time. I like the United States and don't think it's near as bad as the loudest protesters make it out to be, but I'm perfectly okay with a little protest keeping discussion alive.
Sox:
Edit: I took a while to type this, Whipstitch got in there first. He says what I say at the end of this post far more eloquently.
The only time a protest is 'useless' is when nobody listens, thankyou. Things might be 'normal' but that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is wrong either. It's just what you're used to. If a person is okay with being treated poorly because it's 'normal' then that's entirely up to them. Personally, I'd like to see improvement on many subjects than be content with their current state because it's "normal". Sitting around and watching TV is "normal", but I don't think that's healthy. Minimum wage is "normal" but I think it's far too little. Racism, sexism, all forms of prejudice are "normal", but they HAVE to stop in order for us to progress as a species.
The economic draft is, I believe, bullshit. It's taking advantage of people who can't afford anything else, people who have given up hope on finding another way out. The government should be providing alternative ways of dealing with poverty in it's country. Signing the poor over the military is a horrible and unfair practice. The alternative, however, is 'stay poor'.
There is currently no nation that successfully reached 'utopia' because no nation has ever made a real effort. Nobody is willing to take the first step. a country such as the US announcing plans to get rid of all it's nuclear weapons would be a great first step, but it'll never happen because people don't trust people. Whenever a person comes along and suggest such things, they're dismissed as a fool.
JazzJoe, suggesting that a government doesn't have the power to keep certain demographics poor is incredibly naive. Haven't you ever wondered why the majority of the world's wealth is owned by a relatively small number of people? Surely, if taxes work like they're supposed to, things like this wouldn't be such an issue. Unfortunately, a single mother on minimum wage pays more in taxes than a millionaire businessman in the US, and the only reason this is possible is because of laws and loopholes that the government put in place.
The poorest people in the worst living conditions in the US are primarily black. Why? It's not a genetic trait that makes a person predisposed to being poor. It's the same thing again. Black communities receiving less 'special attention' from their government than the privileged rich white people.
Why would a government do this? Well, in the particular examples I brought up, it's all about money and racism. When your government makes promises, always check the fine print. For example, all those tax cuts that were made? Read about them carefully. Who really benefit the most? The poor black community, or the rich white men?
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: JazzyJoe on 19 Feb 2008, 12:24 ---Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.
--- End quote ---
Things running like normal is wrong. Even if you disagree with that, wouldn't you agree that the right to and existence of protesting is necessary to any healthy democracy? Not that I'm saying the US is a healthy democracy, but it's something at least.
--- Quote ---So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...
--- End quote ---
Nobody suggested that, but the military isn't a particularly effective tool for getting people out of poverty so arguing in favour of it because it sometimes has that effect doesn't hold up very well. High quality free education and healthcare would be a much better use of the funds put into the military if getting people out of poverty was the concern.
--- Quote ---Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.
--- End quote ---
No it isn't, a utopia is a perfect world. A world without governments and their armed forces would not necessarily be utopian. It also isn't impossible, the idea that humans are incapable of changing their societies just doesn't hold up. We aren't burning people for witchcraft and many countries have moved on from monarchies and feudalism. Why should we assume nation-states and standing armies are inevitable?
However, I am unable to look at countries who went for the ideal of ridding themselves of their governments and armed forces since their aren't any I can think of. For example, the elements who were urging this in the Spanish and Russian revolutions were wiped out by various elements in the former and the Bolsheviks in the second, so in neither instance could the country be described as following that route. In fact, to go for it I would argue disregarding the idea of individual countries separated by strictly controlled borders would be a necessity, so no country as an entity would be able to pursue that ideal.
--- Quote ---No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong.
--- End quote ---
It doesn't give them much encouragement to do anything about poverty if it provides them with the human resources for their armed forces which they rely upon though. I would agree with you that the power of elected officials is often minimal, but given that allowing them large armed forces at their beck and call seems an ever more ill-advised idea since in reality they'll act in the interests of the larger power that controls the government.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version