Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I think there's a (sometimes fine) line between greed and desire for improvement. There is nothing wrong with working to better your financial condition. When you put finances ahead of family, the law, etc., you've crossed the line into greed.

Actually, some would argue that most, if not all, bad traits are merely corruptions of good traits. I don't agree 100%, but it's an interesting idea.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I'm with krsqk on this one. Greed channeled into a force for good is not greed. I don't know what the word is but it has a different name.

However capitalism does operate on a foundation of greed- of acquisition for the sake of acquisition, both at the individual level (hey kids, buy this! You don't need it, you don't want it, but you have to have it) and at the corporate level. (companies expanding for no reason other than to expand- who are they doing it for? Companies laying people off even though they are in profit- just not as much profit as Last year)

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Is self-interest the term you are looking for? You can find a different term for it other then greed if it makes you more comfortable. But's it's not really a different instinct, just a difference of degree.

It's not accquisition for the sake of accquisition. You always are accquiring things for some purpose. It may be just basic needs like food, shelter and clothing. It might be for wants, luxury items. Nobody really needs a fancy sports car. And for some accquisition may be simply for the power and status it gives you relative to your neighbor. Look how many zeros I have. But the accquisition is always a means to an end, never the end in and of itself. Even if the person is unaware of that conciously.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I would argue that capitalism isn't necessarily motivated by greed, though it is an easy vehicle for greed to use. I believe that societal morality is thoroughly intermingled into economics. A free economic system, like a free political system, presupposes that its participants understand and accept the responsibility that accompanies freedom--the responsibility to do right with their freedom (basically the Golden Rule). Because some take advantage of their freedom to wrong others, we have had to restrict those freedoms to some extent. That is one of the legitimate purposes of government--to protect its people, whether from outsiders or each other. IMO, this is still capitalism in a reasonably "pure" form (I put utopian capitalism in the same Category as utopian communism--utopian dreams rather than actual politico-economic systems). It is when government attempts to shape the economic direction and structure that it oversteps its bounds and moves away from capitalism.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

And that is the secret of advertising, make the customer need something even if he doesn't know what it's for.

Modern advertising exploits our subconscious reproductive circuits way too much, just take a look at how many ads there are with beautiful women, happy families or babies (at least that's what our advertising is like). I suspect all this consumerism came about because people were having less children - for those of us in our 30s, no children is becoming the standard - and had to compensate for it in some way.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I can't let the Fogel slide. Yes he has a nobel prize. But he is still an idiot. Having looked over his works and having given the math figures he uses to an accountant and asking the accountant what he thinks of this and having the accountant say if anyone ran their house this way they would be bankrupt... I can say that the slave system was not efficient despite what Fogel may say.

Fogel makes several key mistakes. First he uses only limited case samples of the very best top of the line self sufficient slave plantations in the south. This makes up less than about 1% of all of them. If I were to survey the top 1% in the United States and then draw conclusions on how efficient our modern economic system is I can assure you that it would be absolutly amazing. Ever met the man? If you attack his figures he doesn't defend them. He attacks you. One of the professors here at a seminar with Fogel where he was presenting his findings on the efficiencies of slavery questioned him on the use of the figures he used for the costs of operating the slave plantation. What did Fogel say? He called him a racist. The professor rightly got up and walked out as did several others. If you legitametly call someone on something in their research that seems to be in error and they can't defend themself except to call you a racist then their is something wrong.

I will admit to biase on my part against Fogel but that is all due to what I have seen of the slopiness or willfull blindness of his work and impressions on him himself. This is not a man I like and his work is slop, nobel prize or no.

You might say that his work is accepted in economic and historic circles, but that is certainly not the case. This is a case of someone who is good at self promotion and not the actual work. Several of his best known works have been heavily critisized by his peers and even discredited.

For me and many others any work that Fogel does is automatically tainted.

Oh yes... and those top 1% efficient slave works had a, according to Fogel, rate of profit just below that of the north at the same time. If you modify the figures based on historicaly proven data you get returns half that. For me the issue isn't what Fogels stance on how efficient slavery was. For me the issue is his methods and numbers. They just aren't credible.

[ May 16, 2003, 16:50: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Ok. Fogel is probably an idiot. I wasn't that familiar with his work and was merely trotting it out as an interesting aside. That said, he is not necessarily wrong. Just because one is an idiot and/or an ******* does not make them wrong on every issue.

The south had significantly less to work with than the north did. Thus anything even approaching parity would be a remarkable display of effeciency on their part. The argument (as explained to me by others) was not really that the south was actually an economic powerhouse, but that given what they had, they did remarkably well and probably better than if they had not adopted slavery. That said, I'm way out of my depth here... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cheers!

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The south worked on credit. If you look at the figures the south (later just before the civil war) imported large portions of their food from the north and manufactured goods.

To use a modern term the south was a bannana republic. They produced and sold cotton as an agriculture product and exported it to foreign markets. Most of it was sent to be processed into fabrics etc either in the north or most of it in England.

The economic collapse of the south was largely due not to the north or the loss of slavery but to the production of high quality cottons in Egypt and India by the British Empire which had been the largest buyer of southern cotton.

Regardless of the civil war or slavery etc the southern economy was on the very edge of collapse anyways, the above two just hastened it. In fact you can track the cost of cotton globally for the time period and see it decline as the English began production of it in their colonial holdings. They filled their own majority demand and that of many others at lower costs.

The southern economy was as efficient as any modern nation that specializes in a single export cash crop. The advantage the south had over todays modern nations was the fact that they weren't a nation specializing in it but rather half of a nation specializing while the other half was diversified (until the Civil War, then you can look at how efficient their single line economy was against the diversified economy of the north despite the south having the better military tradition and military commanders.)

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Enlightened self-interest?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Or, socially responsible self-interest?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Hmmmm.....

Maybe the difference is covetousnes.

I want a car. Two choices:
a) Take your car.
b) Earn the money to buy the car.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

c) lease the car. You never own it. your paying someone to borrow it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

d) Get into excessive debt to buy the car.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

e) embrace an ascetic life-style and understand that there is no car.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Greed is greed. Trying to paint it differently with a prettier name does not change the fact that humans are primarily motivated by greed (self-interest is greed). They have always been this way, and will always be this way.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nah, I don't have any greed for nothing even remotely related with economy or money.
If I'm that way, then i'm pretty sure there must be many others like me out there.
Any form of acumulation of wealth by an individual or group of individuals for personal profit is evil by itself.
Rich people are not nationalists, they don't give a **** about their countries. If something goes wrong, they just invest in another country. The middle class and the poor are the ones doomed to live or die with their countries, because they depend of jobs, they can't afford to lose a paycheck.
.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, rich people only want money, and therefore have no loyalty to their countries?

This is a great thing to say if you want to get the 'poor' people behind you, but it's just not rational.

That's about all I can say about that without getting unkind.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Rich people don't fight unless drafted, and even then, they try to serve in the National guard Air force.
Can you tell me one single case of a rich guy that didn't flee his country at the time of need?

Oh yeah, I know some, but they are few and far in between.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would be useless to try to give you examples, your mind is made up of course. But a lot depends on how you define "rich people".

First of all, most rich people are older, or they wouldn't have had time to get rich. I am assuming you are complaining about the kids of rich people as I for one would prefer not to have the military made up of a bunch of middle aged and older Mister Magoo's and Thurston Howell's. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And you are going to see fewer son's of rich people in the service then you will son's of non-rich people if for no other fact then there are more non-rich people then rich people.

So the question is are rich people's sons represented proptionally to the overall population. I don't know if they are or not. I don't have any stats on that. It wouldn't suprise me though if they weren't. Typically rich people have higher levels of education, and I have seen statistics that show non-college educated are more proportionally represented in the armed services. Although that may not be true anymore, at least in the US. Probably still is though, and it very likely is true in other countries.

But your comment is pretty ridiculous cause their have been numerous examples of sons and daughters of rich people in every war ever fought.

Geoschmo

[ May 19, 2003, 16:28: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I don't doubt it, but as you said, the thing is if they are represented proportionally.

Besides, my point is that they flee if the country crumbles, because their only loyalty is to their money.
And by the way, I see that in every country, not just in Israel and the US, but especially in 3rd world countries.

Its not a secret that the world richest have many interests in the US, but now that the US economy is fked they have moved on their money to Europe and some Asian countries, and have changed the dollars into Euros.
The same happened in Israel when the 2nd Intifada started, with far worst consecuences.
And I bet you are not gonna find any Argentinian rich in Argentine, nor a Venezuelan, or a [insert any nationality with economic problems]

And this is in a relative peace.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

UGH!!! Here I am, just woke up, barely finished my first cup of coffee and I read Aloofi's comment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I had to read it 3 times to get it through the cobwebs.

Aloofi, I can't help but think your just stirring the pot. Do your truely believe what you wrote?

And Fyron, you say self-interest is greed. In that sense, wouldn't greed be a neutral term? When I think of greed, I think of it as a negative/evil term. But if a person strives to earn a living so that his family lives comfortably (subjective) and that he will be able to retire without depending on the goverment, I don't see how that would be a negative form of greed.

Ok, off to get another cup of coffee

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Two questions and a point. First, what percentage of "rich" people are more loyal to their money than to their country? Second, is there an immoral quality to protecting your assets from avoidable loss, such as reinvesting them elsewhere? Third, most of the "rich" in third world countries are orders of magnitude richer than their average countrymen with no intervening classes--that is, there are the rich, and there are the impoverished, with no middle class--and many of those grew rich via corruption and crime, by the help of corrupt governments, and/or at the expense of their employees. I would think that already puts them into a different class of "rich" than a decent businessman.

[ May 19, 2003, 17:27: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In times of non-draft, they won't be because there is no need for a larger army and so the main reason for going into the armed forces is to get an income - which, pretty much by definition, the rich already have, and the poorer Groups don't. In times of draft, the rich will be under-represented at least partially because the government needs them to stay at home and help make guns, tanks, ships, uniforms, MREs, ammo, fuel, et cetera. In either case, it may be partially because the rich tend to live much softer lives and become much softer people as a result; thus becoming much less likely to make it through boot camp than one who has had a harder life.

Besides, how do you know there aren't any truly patriotic rich people? Many people cease to be patriotic when the chips are down; it's just that most can't do anything about it. However, it doesn't mean that there aren't any patriots in the ranks, it just means they are harder to come by when the chips are down.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

In sweden we have a conscript army. Everyone (males so far) go through the draft procedure, to check health, physics and mental tests.
So far those who have optioned not to participate go to prision, unless they do so out of religous or moral reasons, in wich case they have to serve in hospitals or kidnergartens etc with the same economic benefits as those in the military (Pretty lousy pay) or go to prison.
For women it's volountary to draft for the military but all able persons in the age 18-65 have a total-defence duty and if called into some branch must participate (civil defence etc).

So far it has worked well, but now we don't need such a big army, it costs to much and we can't see any enemies around us. So fewer and fewer are picked for military service.
The result of this seems to be that there are more "rich" and well educated that are picked as the military is changing to a high tech operation, needing computer programmers, engineers etc.
The prince and the crown-princess has done their military service too.

There is talk of switching to a regular salary based military.

[ May 19, 2003, 17:38: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by Krsqk:

Quote:

First, what percentage of "rich" people are more loyal to their money than to their country?.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All of them?
They are loyal to their country as long as this loyalty doesn't conflict with their loyalty to their money.
Some of them even manage to make money while being patriot. Wait and see what happens when that changes.

[quote]Originally posted by Krsqk:

Quote:

Second, is there an immoral quality to protecting your assets from avoidable loss, such as reinvesting them elsewhere? .

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is exactly my point. Their future is not tied to their countries. If their country goes down the drain, they will move over to somewhere else, and business will continue as usual.

So yes, there is an immoral quality to protect your assets if that protection means moving your assets to another country.

To give you an idea of how deep this is, consider the fact that most of you would think to be stupid to NOT take the money out of the country.

So the moment a person become rich, automaticly stops being inconditionally loyal to his country, and his loyalty exist as long as he doens't risk losing his wealth.

Think about it.

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Aloofi, what you are describing isn't patritoism or non-patriotism, it's simple self-preservaation. It has nothing to do with your financial level. How many times have we seen populations of refugees fleeing across national borders during a war? You telling me all these people are rich and are just following their money they transfered to the new country before the fighting started?

Being poor doesn't mean you are patriotic. It might mean you don't have the resources to go anywhere else when the crap hits the fan. But it doesn't mean you wouldn't want to. And if things get bad enough you hoof it.

Being rich doesn't mean you care more about your money then your country. You might, but you might not. A rich person might be even more patriotic as they have more of a vested interest in maintaining the exsisting political and economic systems that enabled them to become rich.

Geoschmo

[ May 19, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Rich people don't fight unless drafted, and even then, they try to serve in the National guard Air force.
Can you tell me one single case of a rich guy that didn't flee his country at the time of need?

Oh yeah, I know some, but they are few and far in between.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here are a few off the top of my head (and certainly not an exhaustive list). I'm not sure of all of their financial situations at the time they entered service, but I know at least some were quite well off (apologies for any misspellings).

James Stewart
John F. Kennedy
Joe Foss
Lyndon Johnson
John McCain
Jimmy Doolittle
George Bush, Sr.
Ted Williams
Collin Powell
John Kerry
Theodore Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
George Patton
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Robert E. Lee
Andrew Jackson
George Washington (yes, it goes back to the beginning.)

Note that they come from both sides of the aisle politically, and most, if not all, entered service voluntarily.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No no, I'm not talking of progammers or engineers. I'm not talking of employees.
I was talking of employers, people that owns wealth, people that owns business and stocks.
I know that compared to a 3rd world country I'm rich, but I'm an employee, I depend of a paycheck, doesn't matter how big or small it is, I can't take my job with me if the country takes a dive, while rich people can sale their business, or trade their stocks, and even though they might lose some money, they will save most of their wealth.
Besides, rich people are rarely surprised by disasters. They usualy plan ahead.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's pretty good. The royalty should always be first in doing the right thing, and the first in defense of their country.
You see, the royalty have something to lose that other rich people doens't risk to lose, and that is their crown.
So you have found a kind of rich that will probably fight to the bitter end.

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can you also come up with the name sof the ones that didn't? Their names are not recorded, aren't they?

Some of them are loyal indeed.
But few of them fought for a losing cause.
My example is when the country seem to be lost, when there is little hope of winning, so the Founding Fathers do deserve our admiration.

Of course there are good people in the rich population group, but as I said before, they are few and far in between.

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I'm evolving my rich people theory as you post, so thanks for your inputs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ok, I agree that being poor doesn't make you a patriot.

Still, that doesn't make invalid the point that rich people are unpatriotic by default, and the ones that are patriotic should be considered the exection and not the rule.
The extent of a rich people's loyalty can only be tested when and if his country's economy takes the silver bullet. A war is not test enough, especially not a war on foreign territory.

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I think you should revise your statement to something like, "It's impossible to determine anyone's loyalty to their country until it's tested." Especially since you just acknowledged that poor people are not necessarily any more patriotic than rich people. One might even argue that most poor people (at least in the US) are unpatriotic, since they demand that the government (meaning all the other taxpayers) care for them, when most are able-bodied and capable of contributing to the country. Ergo,
</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Poor people who take government assistance are unpatriotic unless proven to be otherwise.

It's the same logic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, then we end up with the conclusion that the Middle class is the one the have to stick with the nation.
Poor people in the west would be non-professionals making minimum wage or/and living on welfare.
So, since these people doesn't have a good job to lose , or a house, or any of those "hard to sell in an emergency" kind of properties that the middle class have, then these poor people don't feel as attached to a country like the middle class do, and thus are less loyal to their country.

In conclusion:
1- Rich people transfer their money, undersale their propertires or in any case can affort to lose some property, but they will make it out.

2- Poor people don't have nothing to lose, nor property to sell. So they make it out probably as refugee crossing the borders.

3- Middle class, depend of a job, have small properties like houses to sell, which they can't afford to undersale, depend on employment that is avaliable if the national economy is doing well, have invested in mutal funds that will not cross the borders, and on 401k, national bonds, have checking and saving accounts in national banks that in case of recession will declare bankruptcy, etc.

So basicly, the middle class is the only one that by nature is patriotic.

Of course, there are exceptions in all cases.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

So if we eradicate the middle class there will be no more wars?
Are those who serve in the attacking force also doing that out of patriotism?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Patriotism is a double edged sword, that can and have been manipulated by skilled politicians unnumerable times, and my point was more along the line of loyalty to a country, economic loyalty if you will.

No, eradicating the middle class will not end wars because the middle class doesn't start the wars.

Now, do the rich class start the wars?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It depends of the attacking forces, I guess, and of the motive for war.

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Well, now we're putting loyalty and/or patriotism into the same Category as greed--it's all self-serving. If there is an option (the rich can relocate their assets; the poor have nothing to lose by fleeing), people ditch their "loyalty." If there is not an option (middle class has too much to leave behind and not enough to reinvest), people may as well support their country. I'm not saying that I believe this (it's all too cynical for me); I'm just trying to feel out the implications of your philosophy.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Too cynical or too radical?
I just want to know how things work.
And the truth might not be pretty.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, what you are doing is giving up your country instead of making it better. Countries are not a piece of land, but a group of people with a national identity living on a piece of land.

Now, if you feel that your country is losing its values, then you have the moral debt to yourself of fighting to making it better.
Find out what's going wrong, and try to make it right. There are many ways in the west to oppouse a giving policy.
Keep in my mind that by fighting i don't mean war, cause nothing is more despicable than a civil war in which brother fights brother, and I truly belive that you should consider your fellow citizens to be your brothers, especially if they are not rich. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The world would be a much happier place if people considered their fellow humans to be their brothers instead of just their countrymen. IMHO love of one's nation is a very dangerous thing. It's too easy to use it to generate hatred, and it's ridiculous when you consider the arbitrary nature of nationality anyway (I love my country and hate yours because I happened to be born here.)

What I'm abut to say may sound like a contradiction but it's not: I love my country.

I love my country because it contains my lifestyle, my family, my friends and a great many wonderful places. I don't think any other country could ever be home to me in quite the same way.
I would go to war if I thought my country were genuinely threatened, and I do what I can day by day to make it better. Not for patriotism though, but for the sake of the human beings who live here and the continuation of my way of life.

Nonetheless, I would give my country up in an instant if it turned foul or if peace/ humanity as a whole was better served that way. For this reason I remain open-minded about greater European integration and things like that whereas others oppose it simply because they think it means "the end of great britain".

The line I'm trying to draw is very hard to define, and I'm struggling, but it's basically the difference between loving a country as a place (which I do) and loving it as an entity (which I don't).

When you think about it, a nation is an abstract anyway. The borders on the map are just lines on paper, it's only in our heads and in our books that nations actually exist. I think that to cling to one nation for the sake of "patriotism" is absurd. To kill and die for it is terrible.

Mind you, as an atheist I think it's just as absurd killing and dying for "God", but we'd better not get into that.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, come on Dogscoff, you know that loving your country doesn't mean hating somebody elses countries.
And you also know that universal brotherly love is an utopia at the moment, because you can't love who hate you. At best you may not hate them back, but you can't love somebody that wants to kill your family and destroy your way of life.
Besides, I don't see an unbridgable gap between national love and international love.
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, come on Dogscoff, you know that loving your country doesn't mean hating somebody elses countries.
And you also know that universal brotherly love is an utopia at the moment, because you can't love who hate you. At best you may not hate them back, but you can't love somebody that wants to kill your family and destroy your way of life.
Besides, I don't see an unbridgable gap between national love and international love.
People that profit from our divisions promote the idea of international brothehood as opouse to national brotherhood because they know that international brotherhood is impossible, and at the same time they take away from us our national brotherhood.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, are there not one on the other side who doesn't want to kill you and your family?
I don't think it's all that black and white, but then I'm not in the middle of it.
Why hate an entire people (Nation or psudonation) when there are some there who want's to kill you but some who don't, why not try to differentiate?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was thinking of an extreme case, that's why I said 'society' and not 'government'. Bad politicians come and go and you can always try to convince people not to vote for them again. But if the government starts to take on 'emergency powers', and most of the people genuinely support this move (think Palpatine in Ep II), I will definitely consider leaving the country as one of the options.

This is all hypothetical, BTW. I don't think any of that could happen here in the near future.

My views are quite similar to Dogscoff's. Scoff, tell your countrymen that Wales, England and Scotland have not ceased to exist after becoming Great Britain, so why should GB disappear after it integrates into Europe ?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Dogscoff..

I believe that Nationism is the root of all evil. Even more than Women.

I think I feel that way due to my upbringing. Irish in Ontario.

I see how it works in Northern Ireland and I see how it works in Quebec vs Canada and I see how it works with Canada vs USA.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Loving one's country does not mean you have to hate other countries. Love and hate are not opposites of each other. Apathy is the opposite to love, and apathy is the opposite to hatred. Love can exist without hatred, hatred can exist without love.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can you also come up with the name sof the ones that didn't? Their names are not recorded, aren't they?

Some of them are loyal indeed.
But few of them fought for a losing cause.
My example is when the country seem to be lost, when there is little hope of winning, so the Founding Fathers do deserve our admiration.

Of course there are good people in the rich population group, but as I said before, they are few and far in between.

.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I could come up with a list, with a little looking. Again, I believe they would come from both sides of the aisle politically. My point was that level of wealth and level of patriotism do not really correlate. I have met strong patriots at all income levels.

As far as serving in a losing cause, remember that for at least until June of 1942 it looked like the U.S. would lose to the Japanese in WWII. The issue could even have been considered in doubt well into 1943. Further, men like John Kennedy and George Bush, Sr. nearly died in combat. Fast forwarding to Vietnam, John McCain's service and imprisonment can hardly be considered a cake walk.

Don't get me wrong, there have been some real bad apples in the upper income brackets lately. Those who are convicted of criminal activity should be severely punished, regardless of politics. However, catagorizing a person as unpatriotic based on income level is as invalid as categorizing them based on race or religion.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you consider it immoral to move to any other country ? Even if it's a country where the system and values are similar to your original country ? I believe you would consider it immoral if someone moved their investments, say, from the US to Pakistan. But would moving them to Canada or the UK be just as immoral, according to your theory ?

For my part, I have no loyalty towards a piece of land, I am loyal to people and values. If the society I live in loses its values I will seriously consider moving elsewhere (I consider myself to be middle class, if it helps any).

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That made no sense at all. Clarify please.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wow Fyron, at Last we agree on something. I knew there was some good left in you.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That made no sense at all. Clarify please.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What I meant is that some people use humanism (love the whole human race) to disqualify nationalism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm aware of how evil nationalism can be. But this evil nationalism is not truly nationalism, but usualy a racist-oportunist dictactorial ideology that takes cover behind nationalism.
Nationalism in its purest concept move people to work towards the commum goal of national prosperity, it eliminates crime, because nobody steals from his brother, it eliminates all kind of social problems, and it doesn't tolerates the exploitation of the poorest sector of the society.
Nationalism is not racist, because a nation involve all the etnic Groups that forms it, national identity is defined by all of its members.

Now, back to international humanism as opouse to Nationalism, you have to see that only a determined society can impouse on itself the values of brotherhood, no nation can impouse that to the world, but a nation can impouse that on itself.
Universal Brotherly love is doomed at this period in history because we are a divide planet, a divide race if you will, since the term race can only be aplied to the whole of human race and not to an individual etnic group. So we first need to create an Political/economic unity, cause is unrealistic to expect hungry man in afrika to feel love for you.
So Nationalism is the only viable option right now.
Besides, nationalistic love doesn't opouse universal love. You do love your parents, your brothers, your wife and your kids if you have them. All these are diferent kinds of love, but you don't have to chose between them, so why should I chose between nationalism and universalism?

In my opinion, those people that promote universalism as opouse to nationalism are promoting something that they know doesn't work and at the same time eliminating one that works. They are perpetuating crime, etnic hate, poverty.
They are dividing us, so they can exploit us better.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh come on, I was being hypotetical, I don't know everybody, and was not talking of an especific "other side".
Are you taking cheap shots on me? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like you to cite an example of Nationalism that worked like that.

Because, in the end, Nationalism works off the human desire to belong to something larger, to conform. A very important, in fact essential, part of belonging is excluding others. Tragically, the bonds of a group are directly proportional to how strongly they exclude others from their group.

You can see this facet of human nature in the way a group, when it has no opposition, will turn on itself. This occurred when the Democratic Republican Party drove the Whigs out of the U.S. political system. If you want to make a group strong and coherent, you must give them something to oppose or they will fight among themselves.

This is also a problem with inter-departmental cooperation in large bureaucracies such as corporations or government. The separate departments will have more trouble working together when they do not have something to work against, to oppose, together. Make a friendly, loving, we don't need to compete with anyone environment and you will have a divisive, cliquish, and back-stabbing hoard. Give people something to hate and they will stick together like glue.

(Better still, give your people something to hate and put them through some common hardship. I have never felt so close to my coworkers as I did while we were working an innovative, insane, abusive, stressful, and ultimately doomed program called "Customer Conferencing" (one technician 'helped' four or five at-home end-Users with vaguely similar problems, at once, in a conference call, for ten hours a day).)

True 'nationalism' or even 'patriotism' cannot exist without something to oppose. And it cannot be strong, cannot be powerful without something very real to hate. This power comes at a price, as hate brings with it a whole host of darker things. While there is a time for this sort of thing it is at best a necessary evil, to be used with caution and certainly not to be glorified. Nationalism requires hate. Hate is never, ever just a tool, it is a weapon and must be handled carefully and with respect for the destruction is causes in both its user and its target.