From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 00:21:10 MDT
> Paul Grant commented:
>
> >
> > > And the same could be said of Saddam. However, Saddams
> moral goals,
> > > that of remaining a murderous dictators, are far more
> repugnant that
> > > the Coalitions moral goals. Do you agree?
> >
> > Hardly; both are seeking to maintain power.
>
> Is a dictator seeking to maintain power as legitimate as a
> democratic constitutional republic seeking to maintain power?
> (since you clearly assert they are both only attempting to
> maintain power)...
Thats correct, especially when you consider how said
governments wield that power...
> You are asserting, basically, that no form of government is
> any more legitimate than any other, and all are equally not
> legitimate.
There is of course, the classic theoretical example of a
benevolent dictator, as well as an negatively-influenced
representational democracy. I believe that the pursuit of power
in and of itself is an evil act, but that evil contained in establishing
dominance over others can be redeemed if and only if that power
is wielded to increase the common good, as judged largely
by the population that was recently put under its boot heel.
> Do you acknowledge that some forms are government are
> more legitimate than others?
Depends on what you, as a citizen, expect from your government,
and what you're willing to give in trade, and whether that trade takes
place. So no :) I don't think you can declare one form of governance
more legitimate than any other. Personally I prefer a true democracy,
in that given the choices of all other forms (representational democracy
as practiced in the U.S. and other countries included), I would rather
have
the right to directly influence policy, even though it may miniscule,
than rely
on another individual to represent my choice. Of course that choice may
not be a
good choice, depending on who your neighbors are, and the spirit of the
times you
live in.
> Or do you
> insist, as some libertarians do, that absolutely no state is
> legitimate unless it is perfect,
I would, ultimately, prefer a state that uses the minimum amount of
force necessary,
and successfully extends both the quality and length of both my life and
that of my
neighbors [speaking as one race of people] while pursuing the
accumulation of knowledge
and the education of said neighbors.
> or under no circumstances is
> any state legitmate, and thus all states are equally
> illigetmate? If that is the case, let me ask you this, would
> you perfer to live under a democratic consitutional republic
> or under Saddam Hussein? Why?
Could I be Saddam Hussein?
See my point? It really depends on your status within that government,
and by what criteria you judge it to be an effective form of government
given your needs versus the costs involved. For instance, I for one, do
NOT like security at the cost of civil liberties. As an educated
person,
I feel I am perfectly capable of making decisions for myself, and so
also
oppose the notion of forced government-run retirement plan. etc. Thus
every form of government has its benefits, hindrances and costs, and
thus
the value of any particular form of government lies in the value
judgements
of its citizenry. However, having said that, said approval does not
impart any
native (or supreme) legitimacy to any particular form of government.
> > I was planning on releasing this to the press Monday
> morning, but....
> >
> > "President Bush. It pleases me to inform you that you
> should abdicate
> > Your thron...OFFICE prior to the end of the week. If you do so you
> > will Ensure that there is "no senseless waste of time,
> energy, money,
> > goodwill, and ~288 million Americans would have been freed
> without one
> > drop of Blood being
> > shed. If you do not vacate your office immediately, I (and history)
> > will hold you morally culpabable."
>
> Is a dictatorship under you a form of goverment that is as
> legitiamte as the existing democratic constituional republic
> currently present? (no, it isnt, in case you are not sure)
<grin> thats your value judgement. Personally I'm glad saddam hussein
is out of power. I could pick out a dozen more arab leaders without
blinking an
eye; however, I thoroughly oppose the method by which it was done, the
reasoning why it was done (ostensible and otherwise), and of course,
the intended replacement for said regime, not to mention the
inevitable consequences involved in running over centuries old legal
concepts that were in fact, better than the (pursued) alternative
options.
> The fact the you designate this as an example illustrates the
> little time you have spent considering the validity of states
> and the implications of your ethical ideas. The onus of
> moral culpability lies on the presider of the least
> legitimate state.
Perhaps in a zero sum game of blame. But really, I think there's
more than enough blame for all of us to go around....
> A dictatorship is certainly the least
> legitimate there is, least extropic, and most immoral. I am
> surprised this even made it to the list as a 'counter'
> argument to my comments.
Oh the horror :) We disagree.
> He was
> > putting down a long-standing rebellion when the rebels invited in a
> > foreign power because they were scared of the consequences.
>
> I wonder what consequences they might have been scared of?
Retribution of course.
> Kuwait was internationally recognized and a member of the
> United Nations before Saddam took power in Iraq.
Not by Iraq my friend. So what the UN ratified them; its common
knowledge that the UN has acted as a rubber stamp for the US in
its pursuit of its interests. I would almost go so far to say that
until Powell's speech before the UN, and the subsequent sidestepping
of the UN in the rush to war, and the loss of the US on the seat of
the human rights commission, the UN was not "real"; it was just a
thinly veiled attempt to cover the real action with pseudo-legitimacy.
And just so you know, its not a particularly new or clever gambit
either.
There have been many cases were foreign powers rushed to recognize
weak nation-states of strategic interest to them, in order to cement
alliances
and force a "moral" war. And of course, after the war, they then stay
for
the "protection of the state from its enemies". Notice a pattern?
> This particular
> > scene
> > With foreign powers and psuedo independent states etc has
> been played
> > out Repeatedly through history. I can't technically fault
> the man for
> > his "invasion";
> > Kuwait would have expanded his capabilities. 'course he
> got his butt
> > spanked by
> > The US, but that's another story.
>
> Again, I am flabbergasted, please explain to me what right a
> dictator has to invade another country? Oh, yeah, thats
> right, he just need not recognize that country as a seperate
> one, and thus can do whatever he pleases!
Hell, Bush invaded Iraq and that already had sovereign status.
And no, its particularly relevant when the land in question is a
breakaway from a nation-state. I also note that I don't hear
you complaining about chechnya (sp?), which is also in a similar
situation.. I'm sure I could find others examples if thats not
good enough for you.
> Your statements do not seem to coincide with the idea of
> being an extropian.
Perhaps, like most people, I am a mixture of several philosophies,
and not just one. And to my pragmatic way of thinking, no philosophy
should consume your ability to independantly and critically examine
a situation from several frameworks. The results of said analysis
of this particular situation and how it affects and preserves or
increases
the beneficial qualities of our current global situation being the
meat of this subject.
> > > I am out of my mind? I have still yet to hear you say
> that no one
> > > has the right to be a dictator. As an extropian, can you
> not even
> > > acknowledge the basic moral premise that no one has the
> right to be
> > > a dictator?
> >
> > It *is* technically better than anarchy.
> > <grin>
>
> You did not answer the question, does anyone have the right
> to be a dictator, yes or no. Yet again, someone who evades
> the answer.
The phrase "It *is* technically better than anarchy" is a
perfectly clear answer to your question. In my opinion,
under my value system, yes, a dictator is better than pure
anarchy (at least considering the available examples of
pure anarchy to date). Whether that is "extropian" or not,
I do not know.... Give me a little time to read up on the
philosophy as it relates to political structures and I'll get
back to you on it.
omard-out
> Michael Dickey
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 00:30:06 MDT