my solution to the world's problems
regardless of who is in office there would be a relatively equal amount of and severity of problems. bush is shitty, but that doesn't mean that kerry wouldn't be. for fuck's sake they aren't that far removed from eachother. bush is slightly to the right and kerry slightly to the left--the same is true of their respective parties. both kerry and
( Read more... )
the makeup of every state, every nation, every chiefdom to have ever existed has been built on a heirarchy that supports the elevation of the rich and the degradation of the poor, the elevation of the government and the degradation of those places around it. NO STATE has been or will ever be fair or equal. NO STATE has or will ever put the concerns of aids viruses and oil corruptions and other such things (especially when they only affect other places) over the interest of the state--not bush, not kerry, not clinton, not ancient Egypt, not the Greco-Roman empires, not China, no government and no ruler.
Reply
Reply
Reply
All rulers and countries throughout history might suck, but that doesn't mean one can't be better (more fair and equal or more caring about others) than another. Saddam Hussien or President Bush, both can kiss my ass, but I'd rather be living under Bush any day. And like you said, early hunter-gatherer (and even current hunter-gatherer) or 'band' societies were pretty damn fair.
You know that I believe that the human condition CAN be changed. But assuming it can't, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and that some (liberals, in my opinion) would be more condusive to trying than others. Just because women will never be equal doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to vote. Just because I'll never be a perfect Muslim doesn't mean I should go have lots of sex while smoking hash, although perhaps then you'd not have to listen to my political rants so much.
Under the assumption that all countries work in their self-interest, Bush isn't doing so hot. bin Laden said that any state voting for Kerry would be okay-not that we should listen to the guy, but Bush is SO making more terrorists daily. This is bad for our country and our interests, not that I even need to say that. I don't see how oil or bad environment or bad health care or tax cuts for the rich or taking away my civil liberties or not working for an Israeli\Palestinian peace process or imprisoning people without lawyers or racial profiling or taking away affirmative action or killing endangered species or being scary are remotely good for this country. This, however, is mostly a basic difference in ideology. And if that's the fundamental case here (I'm a liberal and you're a realist), we are, or I am atleast, arguing the wrong points. I think sometimes it all boils down to the Judeo-Christian\Western view that people are inherently evil, and my view that we're not.
Most everyone here agrees with me (except for the Palestine thing- go figure?), so all the Shelby County kids end up hearing it from me.
Reply
as far as the inherent evil of people: while band societies are definitely more ideal, they are so because they have no real concept of ownership due to the nomadic lifestyle, they are comprised of smaller groups of people, they have no need of a head or officials due to the size, etc. further, people at times are overly selfish and are often ejected from the group and cannot survive if they are not absorbed into another group. affects and actions of such selfishness are minimal people are small in number and no position of control (aka office and money) exists to be coveted. they aren't more ideal because the people are any less corruptable. it would be impossible for a state to do this. everything in a state relies on and/or wishes for power (money, position, control, etc).
Reply
Reply
Realism defines international relations as a struggle for more power. Idealists, on the other hand, think we're all working towards a happy world order. Bush is definatley a realist-anything to secure interests. Kerry, sadly, isn't an idealist-that would be political suicide. He's a neoliberal, believing that promoting international cooperation (human rights, environments, and all that fun stuff) are the best way to acheive and keep power. Both want to continue our lavish and decadent American lifestyle, like me keeping my SUV. I think, like Kerry does, that the best way to let us continue consuming beyond reason is to make sure the rest of the world is happy. Bush doesn't. Ideally, which sadly isn't how most people work because they assume idealism is stupid, we wouldn't push for any of our interests that hurt others in the process, but at the present, it's not going to happen that way. This is why I think Kerry is better, he may definately be continuing everything that sucks, but in a nicer way. And that counts for something. He probably won't push for oil revenue to get into the hands of poor Arabs so they'd stop killing us, but that's a problem with Middle Eastern rulers.
I think we can do better, but that's another arguement that we've had.
One person has to start to make change before the many pick up on it.
Sometimes, we're stuck haveing to change, because consumption at the rate we're doing it will result in either everything running out or even more of the global south killing us. A neoliberal international policy would hold that off for maybe until after I die.
Reply
we agreed on the problems, however, we disagree on their root and possibility of their reconciliation.
Reply
Now I'm stuck having to write the best paper ever and don't have time to think and respond to what you just said. Your last sentence sums it up quite well though.
Love ya!!
I hate the frats.
Reply
we should do this again
love
ian
Reply
he doesn't read it- it'd make him mad, since he doesn't think FUCK is a worthwhile word.
<3
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment