From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 03:25:45 MDT
Extropes,
--- matus@matus1976.com wrote:
> Coming from the man who said "the good guys won"
> about Vietnam. 4 million deaths and 30 million
enslaved people later, you still think 'the good guys
won'.
Your "facts" are the invention of your ideology. An
exaggeration of a fabrication. This is your
dishonesty which insults others and violates the
principles of good faith discussion. Lies, like the
"Hue Massacre" and the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident";
lies, pure and simple.
The truth? Three million deaths caused by the French,
the Americans, and their respective puppets. No
"enslavement" by the communists, just a different form
of government facing the difficult task of rebuilding
a country savaged by 124 years of foreign
dictatorships, and made all the more difficult by the
opposition of the political elite of the world's
richest and most powerful country. An elite filled
with hostility by their defeat at the hands of a
people with the brains, discipline, and courage to pay
the enormous price required to "refuse" the tyranny of
foreign dictators. And since you're so fond of the
question when it suits your purpose--childish as it
is--both your question and your purpose--"What gave
THEM the right to be dictators?!"
> I note on the extropian principles 3.0 that it
> states:
>
> "Supporting social orders that foster freedom of
> speech, freedom of action,
> and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social
> control and favoring the
> rule of law and decentralization of power."
>
> Since the opposite of what this particular entry in
> the extropian principles
> is an accurate description of the current communist
> government in Vietnam,
Again, a fabrication of your ideology. A lie which
begs the question.
To dishonesty, add incoherent logic. Your premises
must be based on fact. Then, your conclusions must
follow from your premises. No fact, no premise. No
premise, no conclusion. The noisy emptiness of
ideological fantasy --dishonesty really, as you
willfully refuse the obligation--the moral obligation,
the ethical obligation--of truthfulness.
> I
> wonder how you can both consider yourself an
> extropian and have considered
> the 'good guys' to have won in that conflict.
As you rightly note no one has the RIGHT to be a
dictator. No one has the right to take massive
military forces halfway around the globe to be the
dictator over people who want to rule themselves.
> Perhaps you do not consider
> yourself an extropian?
I was an extropian/transhumanist before there were
extropians/transhumanists. But that is no matter.
> Or, another option, perhaps
> you do feel that the
> Vietnam communist government fosters free speech and
> opposes authoritarian social control?
All governments have laws for the maintenance of
social order. Freedom of speech has its limitations.
I may not cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, nor
advocate the violent overthrow of the US government.
Communists (and their subsequent governments), under
siege by the capitalists from before the ink was dry
on the "Manifesto", feel the need to protect
themselves from foreign subversion--
"Make the Chilean economy scream." said Nixon to
Kissinger, before ordering him to destroy their
democracy in favor of a brutal DICTATORSHIP. As the
Dulles boys had done before them to Iran and Guatemala
and countless others. And again, your question: WHAT
GAVE THEM THE RIGHT?!
--by suppressing dissent and political competition.
Not the American tradition, for sure, but neither
uncommon nor necessarily the demon evil that your
ideological psychosis screams in your head and out
into the world. It is easy to pass judgment on
others. But that judgment, informed only by the
passionate animus of ideological fantasy is a
"twisted" cartoon of genuine, thoughtful ethical
practice.
> If you can not defend your political viewpoints to
> criticisms, either dont
> make them, or dont attack those who feel they
> deserve criticism. Opposing
> points of view deserve an audience.
"Arf, arf" says my dog. But he's a dog, what's your
excuse? Puleeese.
> Additionally, I have made contributions
> non-political to the extropy list,
> but even if I had not, so what? Politics only
> discussers are not forbidden,
> and there is no quota of non-politcal discussions
> required, nor any criteria
> required to meet. Do you suggest that matters of
> politics not important to
> extropian interests? I would argue that they are
> far more important than
> 90% of what is discussed on this list
I certainly agree that political discussions are valid
and important, and I'd like to explore, both as
contributor and listener, a variety of political
questions. But not with you. You're just not
qualified. You refuse the discipline, effort,
responsibility, and you lack the skill--and it seems
the inclination--to track down information and
evaluate it to extract fact, to distinguish truth from
lies.
(e.g. what
> would you ask god if you
> saw him) And when people of this list endorse
> ethical principles that are
> certainly NOT extropian, or consider governments
> that could not be any more
> anti-extropian as 'good guys' I feel it vitally
> important to make my
> political points.
You HAVE no political points to make. You think you
do, but you are misinformed. You have no capacity or
inclination to distinguish fact from fantasy. You
have no logical coherence with which to process the
non-inventory of facts (or inventory of non-facts).
> Interesting to note that those who tend to disagree
> with you are the ones
> you draw the analogy to a dog barking loudly on all
> fours. Coincidence?
John Clark disagrees with me, and I with him, but his
name is not mentioned in my "dog" list. Lee Corbin
disagrees with me, and I with him, but his name ain't
there either. You accused Damien B and Harvey N of
"twisted ethics", and did it stupidly. That put you
over the top.
> Further, Jeff, I wonder if you consider anyone to
> have the *right* to be a
> dictator. I suspect you, just like everyone else,
> will refuse to answer.
I've already answered it. I don't know why others
haven't jumped on it before now. Perhaps they're
embarrassed. Embarrassed because it's a stupid
question. Embarrassed that you're such a simpleton to
ask it. Of course, no one has the **right** to be a
dictator. But so what! There's no rhetorical trap
here. You make no great--or small--point. No one is
thinking, "Oh wow! Michael Dikey's got me good now.
Ouch, I'm busted."
No one has the right to be a Dictator.
So the fuck what. Setting aside contextually relevant
(and quite interesting) issues regarding the nature of
rights, and the freedom of action of sovereign
geopolitical actors compared to ordinary folks (who
are compelled to live within systems where there are
laws and "rights", and authorities to enforce and
protect these, respectively, and with varying degrees
of fidelity)---setting these aside, one can guess that
you're getting at something---one has to guess,
because you don't say it bluntly. I think it is this:
No one has the right to be a dictator, Saddam is a
dictator, therefore George Bush has the right (if not
the duty) to make war on Saddam to end his
dictatorship.
Hogwash! This fatuous "logic" reduces the entire
issue of the legitimacy of war to: if someone is a
brutal Dictator, then whoever might happen to feel
like it, or feels ethically compelled to do so, has
the right to go to war, presumably against the
military, the regime, and, if they resist, the entire
country of the Dictator.
Michael, the issue is vastly more complex than that.
There are waves of implications that spread out across
the planet, threatening dire consequences for everyone
on the planet. History clearly shows the enormous
suffering that can result. Mature, decent,
clear-headed, serious people know that. IT IS FOR THAT
REASON that the rest of the world objected to the war.
IT IS FOR THAT REASON that the rest of the world is
scared shitless. The most powerful military machine
the world has ever seen, is in the hands of a regime
that feels free to make endless preemptive war, led by
an intellectually-challenged, decisive (read: cowboy),
lipless, ex-drunk and his war-is-the-answer cabal, who
think everyone in the world should comply with
American "guidance".
We may have avoided disaster this time. May have.
Getting rid of Saddam is certainly a good thing.
Hoorah! I don't think anyone disputes that. But what
about next time? Or the time after that?
------------------------
Write what you will, Michael. The list is free and
open. As for me, I'm trying real hard to exercise a
certain discipline. The discipline to refrain from
responding to you until such time as you get much
better at thinking about such matters.
Good luck.
Best, Jeff Davis
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do
as you damn well please. And with it comes the only
basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
P.J. O'Rourke
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 03:37:55 MDT