I've thought about that myself on occasion. I can't really imagine what a difficult choice it would be for military personnel: Follow my orders and fight this 'Domestic Insurgence', turn and walk away because I really don't want to fight my countrymen (even the ones I don't like), or join the mob (whose views I happen to agree with). If you fight on either side, you better hope you picked the side that ends up winning, and if you chose not to fight you better hope the whole thing results in a new government.
I'm not one for making big descisions, so I'd probably end up flipping a coin.
I read these comments a lot for entertainment, but this is the first time I'm posting. And for the record, I'm not really that smart. It seems to me that if you're going to separate things into 'politics' and 'economics' then war, taxes, and religion would fall under politics more than economics. With the Easter Island example I would think that the harvesting of the trees to move the statues (and possibly the creation of the statues themselves?) would have been driven by political factors and not economic. So (simply because I haven't seen anyone suggest it so far in my reading) it could be said that Easter Island's avalanche of failure was started politically.
I'd also like to propose a new word: "Zincstinction". Because it sounds like it'd be fun to use in a conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
I've thought about that myself on occasion. I can't really imagine what a difficult choice it would be for military personnel: Follow my orders and fight this 'Domestic Insurgence', turn and walk away because I really don't want to fight my countrymen (even the ones I don't like), or join the mob (whose views I happen to agree with). If you fight on either side, you better hope you picked the side that ends up winning, and if you chose not to fight you better hope the whole thing results in a new government. I'm not one for making big descisions, so I'd probably end up flipping a coin.
I read these comments a lot for entertainment, but this is the first time I'm posting. And for the record, I'm not really that smart.
It seems to me that if you're going to separate things into 'politics' and 'economics' then war, taxes, and religion would fall under politics more than economics. With the Easter Island example I would think that the harvesting of the trees to move the statues (and possibly the creation of the statues themselves?) would have been driven by political factors and not economic.
So (simply because I haven't seen anyone suggest it so far in my reading) it could be said that Easter Island's avalanche of failure was started politically.
I'd also like to propose a new word: "Zincstinction". Because it sounds like it'd be fun to use in a conversation.