Regarding the last example in the article, there IS a big difference between pulling the feeding tube from the patient, and feeding him the killer drug. In the first situation we have a built-in guarantee the patient gets some benefit from dying, since he was not able to survive independently of medicine. The second situation opens up many more possibilities for murder. Applied broadly it would be more harmful society, thus the law is correct to view it differently.
This is a complex logic that probably wouldn't have occurred to the law makers, same way it failed the author of the article. But emotion guided the law makers correctly.
I could give a similar logical explanation to the "don't kill a baby" scenario. Again it would be too convoluted (however correct it might be) for fast decision making, again emotions would have guided correctly.
A lot of replies but nobody has explained the "embarassing" to parent. It's so *easy* to parallelize correctly, it would be *embarassing* to miss it and not take advantage.
We know how much you like to kill people -- just ask Koreans from *either* side -- but you were too busy running and evacuating from Chinese. You would be as bad as the French, except it would be like running away from the Poles!
America does some pretty hot shit, but none of it has to do with pink faced monkeys like you. You just eat burgers, drink beer, and lynch blacks. Most of your kind is going jobless, thanks to us. Next time I see you hold out your pan, I'll give you a fortune cookie.
You just go on hoping for the hopeless. With USA backing India has sent all their graduates to answer calls by whiny americans, or to fix your bad software. India can't launch, fly, shoot anything for shit. They can't even handle Chinese light infantry on *their* side of the Himalaya! lol Dalai Lama appears weird on tv and he's going to die in India, reincarnate as some Hindu scammer.
I'm glad you find humor in my country. We think Ross Perot types like you are just as funny. You loudly espouse dumb views, while getting rejected by your own people. Three gorges supplies more electricity than all the nuclear power you've built in the last 30 years. The next hydro frontier happens to be Tibet -- lots of water, lots of mountains. We're going to dam up the whole place and pipe power east. So suck it down and drink neo-con piss!
And here is my belated reply..
China should devote some serious resources to public relations, too.
A few years back, before 9/11, China did hire a western PR firm to run TV ads. Probably in the end it was wasted money. To Chinese, Americans are still in mammoth hunting mode -- they see threats everyone, and overreact in destructive ways (see Iraq). Chinese send many signals that we're "standing down"--for example in Korea we initially held back, and today in our nuclear posture. This is always lost on Americans who think it is weakness. They see Mao's frame on Tiananmen and just want to pick up their M16's.
China does not like American occupation of Iraq and will not offer help. Personally though I think China should. We need the practice to interact with complex, foreign situations, and it will be our huge moral victory over USA.
it goes to people's basic perspective on the relationship between themselves as individuals, and the stat
In the USA the feds will hunt you down if you violently oppose federal power. Most Americans know this limit and do not cross it. In China, beijing will do the above, plus it will seriously intimidate you if you express the desire to organize against the government. Most Chinese know *that* limit, do not cross it, and accept it. Chinese are just as comfortable with that system, which has been the basis of our continuity for two thousand years, as Americans are with theirs.
In terms of local versus central power, for the most part Beijing is too busy to mind. However it may arbitrarily choose to intervene at any time. Its ultimately authority is simply accepted as the natural perogative of the state. It should be noted Chinese associate higher authority with higher quality of governance. If we have a grievance we'll take it up as high as we can go. It's similar to European respect for monarchy.
It is never hard to find dissidents infatuated with the total package of American ideals. This was true in the Soviet Union, this was true of Iraqis who predicted "kisses and flowers" for US troops. In neither case did they see positive end results for their country.
You've mostly already said it for me. Keep a sense of humility about our own rightness, and don't force change in places of the world we don't quite understand.
It's actually an important matter to me personally. I am a Chinese national. From my perspective, "democracy or evil" colors about half of all American interaction with China. It's very hard to raise these issues with Americans since I get a knee jerk reaction from them.
Chinese do not go to other countries to tell them we have a solution for their problems, and that they'd be foolish to not adopt them. We have worked meticulously in our own country to develop a system that is in many ways based on scientific principles. For example there is an experimentation phase for almost every major policy -- this is something unknown to the West. Compared to the economic and social catastrophe of Russia, Chinese have made great leaps out of two centuries of backwardness. This has been no accident. It is the culmination of half a century of intellectual and social work under the Chinese Communist Party. Today, the direction of our country is in many ways aligned with the desires of the common people, which are the sense of peace, the sense of achievement, and the sense of potential. It is not something conscientious Chinese will let go of lightly.
We have used this step by step approach with many of our neighbors and partners in Asia and Africa. We have gone from aid recipient to one of world's biggest donors in a single decade. Our ideas of respect for local cultural patterns have been well received. We are today one of the biggest builders in Africa.
Why then, after all diplomatic pleasantries, we are still the red evil, coddling corrupt dictators to advance our oppressive instincts? Is our system, supported by the majority of the people (no less self-evident than Putin's 80%), developed and run by our best and most dedicated, so intolerable in your vision, you cannot share the world with us? This stance is in fact so threatening to China, it is the chief motivation for us to advance our conventional and other forces, at the expense of solving society's many pressing problems.
*end rant*
This thread started for me as appreciation for a very eloquent defense of the relevance of socialism, even in today's world. I further appreciate the intelligent comments from you and a few others. America is overwhelmingly targeted because it is overwhelmingly present, and active, and mostly trying to do something good. So don't take all my comments too seriously. =)
It might be different if there were some evidence of this slave-owning mindset It really isn't so hard to find, I'm surprised you need to get it from me. They are 20th century's biggest slavers. They are also communism's most fervent enemy. They are the German nazi's.
"The same thing could be said to be a goal of democracy"
That is fair to say. But I want to ask, can democracy advocates also differentiate between "abstract merits" from "practicality or possibility of a perfect implementation"?
I'll make a claim which seems right to me--but I'm open to receive evidence to the contrary. ***The creation of open electoral systems in the last 50 years have hurt a greater number of people than it has helped***.
My anecdotal evidence include the deterioration of Russia and other post soviet states, the continuing deterioration of Africa--where elections are widespread, and the chaos, violence, and poverty of India and Latin America. Altogether this amounts to about 2.5 billion people who have not been helped, and arguably even hurt by electoral democracy--the most stark example being Iraq itself. The evidence against include Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and a number of eastern european and south-east asian states.
I'll say again about the need to differentiate abstract merits from practice. I've heard all the "but democracy didn't do that! (idiots did..)" OR "but that's not real democracy! (why can't you learn it the right way?)" arguments I need hear. The point is, political systems derived from electoral processes have presided over an enormous amount of human suffering -- a hard to dispute piece of our current world which the western media abjectly ignores.
ShieldW0lf did not appear to me as wanting to squash any argument. He had the grace and intellectual honesty to admit it was "perfectly fair and reasonable" to argue socialism can be no more than an impractical fantasy. You won't find any similar honesty in the "kill Al Qaeda! deter Russia! strangle China! make the world in our democratic image!" ideologues.
He used a dramatic statement to make the point that socialism is after something quite, quite good, that its most fervent detractors are not very much interested in those aspects at all. In that sense the reference to slave owning really isn't so far off the field. Considering the fairly recent history of slavery in America and Western Europe, why should it surprise anyone the slave-seeking blood still flows around?
Concepts like "social justice" are political concepts that can only be arrived at by social consensus.
..which is exactly the abstract goal of socialism!
The OP's original line "anyone who argues against..is secretly yearning to make you his slave and wants a system that will allow him to try" really isn't that much of a hyperbole. The economic freedom of capitalism boils down to giving you a chance to better those who would otherwise be your equals. To paraphrase the OP, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to argue whether such a system should be the natural state of man, but anyone who votes for it is NOT interested in "social consensus" or "a better world" as far as the major part of humanity is concerned. He just wants to be better than you are.
How is that any different from "be a democrat, or you're evil"?
I can think of a difference actually. While "democracy or evil" is tyrannical about the choice of the means to a better world, "abstract merits of social justice" pretty much just means a better world. I have much less of a problem with tyranny of the second idea.
Young pretty Russian girl, marries off to rich fat usa during a difficult time in her native country, now wanting to come back as a foreigner? Unpleasant treatment was the least she could have gotten!
I would agree with parts of your comments, then add, comparing the state of Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia, can we say capitalism models the Russian spirit poorly?
Is it your fault to start a war against overwhelming world opinion, to invade another sovereign nation for a self-serving reason! Yes, and yes!
Every American is sorry for the mess; does any American *take responsibility* for your having created it? Do you know what it means to lose 100,000 people in a country of 23 million? Do you know what it means that one in ten persons in your country has become a refugee? No Americans will not think about what they have done. Instead they blame Iraqis for not being good enough to benefit from their awesome system. Americans will continue on their lovefest about themselves -- we are free! we are great! our ideas need to lord over the universe!
You didn't foresee a proud people will not like being occupied by foreigners. You didn't know the baath party was their unique system for keeping a contentious country together. Honestly, tell me, if you had suspected these things, Would You Have Cared?
You're wasting your breath on crusader Americans. If they can't discredit the reality of Putin's popular support, they'll put down the intelligence/priority/human worthiness of his supporters. They've decided to not like your system, and will not stop disliking you until you bark under the American tree.
All the hostility to your thoughtful comments just confirms my dislike for many Americans. Get over yourself USA. Sit quiet a moment to think about 100,000 iraqi dead!
ever lived in mafia-run russia? ever been a bosnian in a serbian camp? ever lived in usa occupied iraq, in daily fear for your head? have some perspective. not everything is life is about hoping to drive a bmw. try to have something to say other than hostility and anger.
It has a lot to do with the relative comparison. Since we, and you, live with much worse things in the world, "anti-competitive software practices" perhaps doesn't deserve all the moral outrage you give to it.
Morality is absolutely relative. If you view moral enforcement as a limited resource in society, we are obliged to distribute it proportional to its need. By giving disproportionate mindshare to "software monopolists are bad", we'd be ignoring murder, starvation, slavery and rape, and that would be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding the last example in the article, there IS a big difference between pulling the feeding tube from the patient, and feeding him the killer drug. In the first situation we have a built-in guarantee the patient gets some benefit from dying, since he was not able to survive independently of medicine. The second situation opens up many more possibilities for murder. Applied broadly it would be more harmful society, thus the law is correct to view it differently.
This is a complex logic that probably wouldn't have occurred to the law makers, same way it failed the author of the article. But emotion guided the law makers correctly.
I could give a similar logical explanation to the "don't kill a baby" scenario. Again it would be too convoluted (however correct it might be) for fast decision making, again emotions would have guided correctly.
A lot of replies but nobody has explained the "embarassing" to parent. It's so *easy* to parallelize correctly, it would be *embarassing* to miss it and not take advantage.
America does some pretty hot shit, but none of it has to do with pink faced monkeys like you. You just eat burgers, drink beer, and lynch blacks. Most of your kind is going jobless, thanks to us. Next time I see you hold out your pan, I'll give you a fortune cookie.
I'm glad you find humor in my country. We think Ross Perot types like you are just as funny. You loudly espouse dumb views, while getting rejected by your own people. Three gorges supplies more electricity than all the nuclear power you've built in the last 30 years. The next hydro frontier happens to be Tibet -- lots of water, lots of mountains. We're going to dam up the whole place and pipe power east. So suck it down and drink neo-con piss!
Hmm, world's highest rail road over permafost, world's biggest hydro electric dam.. we show the money where money counts for something.
A few years back, before 9/11, China did hire a western PR firm to run TV ads. Probably in the end it was wasted money. To Chinese, Americans are still in mammoth hunting mode -- they see threats everyone, and overreact in destructive ways (see Iraq). Chinese send many signals that we're "standing down"--for example in Korea we initially held back, and today in our nuclear posture. This is always lost on Americans who think it is weakness. They see Mao's frame on Tiananmen and just want to pick up their M16's.
China does not like American occupation of Iraq and will not offer help. Personally though I think China should. We need the practice to interact with complex, foreign situations, and it will be our huge moral victory over USA.
it goes to people's basic perspective on the relationship between themselves as individuals, and the statIn the USA the feds will hunt you down if you violently oppose federal power. Most Americans know this limit and do not cross it. In China, beijing will do the above, plus it will seriously intimidate you if you express the desire to organize against the government. Most Chinese know *that* limit, do not cross it, and accept it. Chinese are just as comfortable with that system, which has been the basis of our continuity for two thousand years, as Americans are with theirs.
In terms of local versus central power, for the most part Beijing is too busy to mind. However it may arbitrarily choose to intervene at any time. Its ultimately authority is simply accepted as the natural perogative of the state. It should be noted Chinese associate higher authority with higher quality of governance. If we have a grievance we'll take it up as high as we can go. It's similar to European respect for monarchy.
It is never hard to find dissidents infatuated with the total package of American ideals. This was true in the Soviet Union, this was true of Iraqis who predicted "kisses and flowers" for US troops. In neither case did they see positive end results for their country.
It's actually an important matter to me personally. I am a Chinese national. From my perspective, "democracy or evil" colors about half of all American interaction with China. It's very hard to raise these issues with Americans since I get a knee jerk reaction from them.
Chinese do not go to other countries to tell them we have a solution for their problems, and that they'd be foolish to not adopt them. We have worked meticulously in our own country to develop a system that is in many ways based on scientific principles. For example there is an experimentation phase for almost every major policy -- this is something unknown to the West. Compared to the economic and social catastrophe of Russia, Chinese have made great leaps out of two centuries of backwardness. This has been no accident. It is the culmination of half a century of intellectual and social work under the Chinese Communist Party. Today, the direction of our country is in many ways aligned with the desires of the common people, which are the sense of peace, the sense of achievement, and the sense of potential. It is not something conscientious Chinese will let go of lightly.
We have used this step by step approach with many of our neighbors and partners in Asia and Africa. We have gone from aid recipient to one of world's biggest donors in a single decade. Our ideas of respect for local cultural patterns have been well received. We are today one of the biggest builders in Africa.
Why then, after all diplomatic pleasantries, we are still the red evil, coddling corrupt dictators to advance our oppressive instincts? Is our system, supported by the majority of the people (no less self-evident than Putin's 80%), developed and run by our best and most dedicated, so intolerable in your vision, you cannot share the world with us? This stance is in fact so threatening to China, it is the chief motivation for us to advance our conventional and other forces, at the expense of solving society's many pressing problems.
*end rant*
This thread started for me as appreciation for a very eloquent defense of the relevance of socialism, even in today's world. I further appreciate the intelligent comments from you and a few others. America is overwhelmingly targeted because it is overwhelmingly present, and active, and mostly trying to do something good. So don't take all my comments too seriously. =)
I wouldn't have noticed, because he actually does spell it with a 0 (zero). =)
That is fair to say. But I want to ask, can democracy advocates also differentiate between "abstract merits" from "practicality or possibility of a perfect implementation"?
I'll make a claim which seems right to me--but I'm open to receive evidence to the contrary. ***The creation of open electoral systems in the last 50 years have hurt a greater number of people than it has helped***.
My anecdotal evidence include the deterioration of Russia and other post soviet states, the continuing deterioration of Africa--where elections are widespread, and the chaos, violence, and poverty of India and Latin America. Altogether this amounts to about 2.5 billion people who have not been helped, and arguably even hurt by electoral democracy--the most stark example being Iraq itself. The evidence against include Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and a number of eastern european and south-east asian states.
I'll say again about the need to differentiate abstract merits from practice. I've heard all the "but democracy didn't do that! (idiots did..)" OR "but that's not real democracy! (why can't you learn it the right way?)" arguments I need hear. The point is, political systems derived from electoral processes have presided over an enormous amount of human suffering -- a hard to dispute piece of our current world which the western media abjectly ignores.
He used a dramatic statement to make the point that socialism is after something quite, quite good, that its most fervent detractors are not very much interested in those aspects at all. In that sense the reference to slave owning really isn't so far off the field. Considering the fairly recent history of slavery in America and Western Europe, why should it surprise anyone the slave-seeking blood still flows around?
The OP's original line "anyone who argues against..is secretly yearning to make you his slave and wants a system that will allow him to try" really isn't that much of a hyperbole. The economic freedom of capitalism boils down to giving you a chance to better those who would otherwise be your equals. To paraphrase the OP, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to argue whether such a system should be the natural state of man, but anyone who votes for it is NOT interested in "social consensus" or "a better world" as far as the major part of humanity is concerned. He just wants to be better than you are.
I can think of a difference actually. While "democracy or evil" is tyrannical about the choice of the means to a better world, "abstract merits of social justice" pretty much just means a better world. I have much less of a problem with tyranny of the second idea.
Young pretty Russian girl, marries off to rich fat usa during a difficult time in her native country, now wanting to come back as a foreigner? Unpleasant treatment was the least she could have gotten!
I would agree with parts of your comments, then add, comparing the state of Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia, can we say capitalism models the Russian spirit poorly?
Every American is sorry for the mess; does any American *take responsibility* for your having created it? Do you know what it means to lose 100,000 people in a country of 23 million? Do you know what it means that one in ten persons in your country has become a refugee? No Americans will not think about what they have done. Instead they blame Iraqis for not being good enough to benefit from their awesome system. Americans will continue on their lovefest about themselves -- we are free! we are great! our ideas need to lord over the universe!
You didn't foresee a proud people will not like being occupied by foreigners. You didn't know the baath party was their unique system for keeping a contentious country together. Honestly, tell me, if you had suspected these things, Would You Have Cared?
take that up with The Hague Tribunal "Bosnian rape camp trial opens" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/683846.stm
and here we are wasting our energy preparing to give you a good fight..
You're wasting your breath on crusader Americans. If they can't discredit the reality of Putin's popular support, they'll put down the intelligence/priority/human worthiness of his supporters. They've decided to not like your system, and will not stop disliking you until you bark under the American tree.
All the hostility to your thoughtful comments just confirms my dislike for many Americans. Get over yourself USA. Sit quiet a moment to think about 100,000 iraqi dead!
ever lived in mafia-run russia? ever been a bosnian in a serbian camp? ever lived in usa occupied iraq, in daily fear for your head? have some perspective. not everything is life is about hoping to drive a bmw. try to have something to say other than hostility and anger.
Thank you. This is the most eloquent argument about socialism I have seen anywhere.
what happens when power goes out? just ask indians or iraqis. they seem to survive fine.
It has a lot to do with the relative comparison. Since we, and you, live with much worse things in the world, "anti-competitive software practices" perhaps doesn't deserve all the moral outrage you give to it. Morality is absolutely relative. If you view moral enforcement as a limited resource in society, we are obliged to distribute it proportional to its need. By giving disproportionate mindshare to "software monopolists are bad", we'd be ignoring murder, starvation, slavery and rape, and that would be wrong.
I think you confusing promiscuity with fighting racism