From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 21:24:04 MST
Ron writes
> phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu writes:
> > When they think we'll look out for own interests without consideration
> > of anyone else, yes, that is frightening. We have words for people who
> > think only about their own interests and have much more power than others.
> > "Sociopaths". "Brutal dictators". "Saddam Hussein".
>
> George Bush through his staff and cabinet officers have been talking
> to everyone on the face of the globe. Even while in the middle of
> this threat they have had time to notice what is going on in Africa
> with the Aids epidemic, to chart a course and report to our country
> that we should participate in the response to that epidemic in a big way.
The deeper question is why. The only degree to which human nature
appears to have changed in the last 40,000 years is that memes and
traditions have changed. One hundred years ago Great Britain did
pretty much as it pleased in the Middle East or anywhere else.
If it paid any attention to what anyone else thought, e.g. France,
then it was only because the French were probably after exploiting
the same resource, and it might be necessary to "share" to avoid
hostilities.
The only possible explanation is that the motives of the governments
in power have changed. Why did the British Empire seek to abolish
slavery? What was their economic motivation? So far as I know, it
was merely that they wished to appease public opinion, so as to
increase the chance that their party remained in power. This is
the only mechanism I know of whereby the moral inhibitions of every-
day people begin to affect national policy. (Well, that's a minor
exaggeration---rulers have always used ethnic hatred and national
envy to their in pursuit of their national goals.)
> So how can you respond in the fashion you just have? If you didn't
> intend that comment to apply to the US you sure haven't indicated so. If you
> did intend for your comment to apply to the US you certainly haven't
> justified your position given what we see happening in the real world. Uncle
> Sugar is still right out there listening to people, helping when he can and
> full of good will at all times.
At all times? ;-) Well, we mustn't exaggerate. If in my earlier lists
of the possible motivations of an American administration
(A) getting re-elected
(B) increasing U.S. prestige and power
(C) making the Democrats look bad
(D) the reasons 1-6 on the [next] list
are accurate, then in addition to my list of reasons to
attack Iraq (below) we could see via (A) and (B) that
helping out African AIDS victims would also be highly
motivated as well. This only slightly resembles your
characterization of "being full of good will at all
times", which more properly describes a person, not
a nation, and only certain people at that.
But the above *motives* can lead to actions and effects
that some people on this list approve of.
(1) non-proliferation of WMD
(2) diminishing support for terrorists
(3) breaking monopolistic control of oil
(4) punishing the abrogation of treaties and agreements
(5) giving the evil and murderous Iraqi regime what
it richly deserves
(6) instilling fear in small dictatorships in general, and
also respect for the West's values on human rights
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:04 MST