|
Post by Galadon on Aug 2, 2004 11:29:34 GMT -5
The lady in Korea washing her clothes through a hole in the ice was in 1983. In was out in the countryside. The reason I know this is because I was one of the guys telling the 2nd Lt. to stop staring.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 2, 2004 23:44:16 GMT -5
Y'know, it's hard to believe, but yeah, it's true, the country did change amazingly quickly. Went from what you're talking about to a very modern country in a couple of decades. I do believe that though. Although, you must have been way up near the DMZ for there to be that much ice. I lived further south, so pretty much rarely saw any snow, let alone frozen rivers.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 3, 2004 14:22:21 GMT -5
LOL. Since when is America a system based on oppression? One of the freest systems on the planet, heavily backed by its constitution. To try and slam the American system in this manner is just not productive. I suppose the American system is not necessarily based on opression exactly, but I think any system where power and authority aren't distributed one hundred percent evenly has opressive qualities. So basically anything other than true democracy, anarchy, and true communism is somewhat opressive. That would include the democratic republic, the communist dictatorship, and the constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy. America may be the freest country currently in existence, but why stop at good? Why not press on to greatness? And complaining about British taxation policies regaridng the colonies during the 1770s was probably seen as "just not productive" by many. My goal is to be the next revolution's Thomas Paine.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 4, 2004 6:32:46 GMT -5
But, Kyron, you forget that all relationships, from the simplest, to the most complex are based in power. Who has the power, and how that power is applied. Because power is the tool by which politics is applied, there must be a heirarchical structure. It simply doesn't work to devolve power equally to every person.
For example, it is beyond most people's grasp to understand the nuances of an Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Most people have neither the time nor the educational background to make an informed decision about an ABM treaty. In a world as complex as ours, it is illogical to think that we could make everyone 100% participatory in governmental decisions. While governments may make mistakes, at least they have access to more information and time with which to make those decisions.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 4, 2004 15:47:03 GMT -5
But, Kyron, you forget that all relationships, from the simplest, to the most complex are based in power. Who has the power, and how that power is applied. Because power is the tool by which politics is applied, there must be a heirarchical structure. It simply doesn't work to devolve power equally to every person. For example, it is beyond most people's grasp to understand the nuances of an Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Most people have neither the time nor the educational background to make an informed decision about an ABM treaty. In a world as complex as ours, it is illogical to think that we could make everyone 100% participatory in governmental decisions. While governments may make mistakes, at least they have access to more information and time with which to make those decisions. Most relationships are based on power, for example: public official-constituent, teacher-student, parent-child, clergy-parishioner, and law enforcement officer-civilian. I can think of one relationship that isn't: friend-friend. I suppose my goal as a pacifist anarchist is to encourage people to abandon other relationships and just be friends. One thing friends do is ask for the advice of friends who are smarter than themselves in a particular area. That's the solution to your ABM treaty dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 4, 2004 16:16:19 GMT -5
I have come across a few who like anarchy. Most of them are genneral in high school or just got out. They basically have the mind set living at home with the parents who tell them what to do all the time. I would give them something to think about. How about try this for a while, live on your own, pay your own bill, buy your own food and clothes. do this for about 5 years. Strange things happen, thoughts of anarchy and democratic dreams disappear. In a place were anarchy is the way of life I could beat you to a plup and take anything you have. The only person who can prevent this is you. Anarchy is survival of the strongest. In a true democratic country the majority controls things. This could only lead to chaos. On anarchy: I'm sure Mikhail Bakunin, Piere Joseph Proudhon, and Emma Goldman were all high schoolers living at home with their parents. I am however basically in the situation you describe. I live with my parents. I graduated high school a mere four years ago, and until recently I was unemployed (I got hired in, but haven't started work yet [my first day should be sometime after Saturday]). Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think once I'm out on my own I'll come to hate my landlord, if I rent, or the bank I got my mortgage from and the government I pay property taxes to, if I buy a home and my anarchist feelings will only increase. Yes in anarchy, theoretically anyone can beat anyone up, but what social advantage does it confer upon you to be known as a beater of pacifistic hippy types? I think, after some adjustment, everyone capable of rational decision making will adopt a sort of only fight if you are personally threatened model of behavior simply because no one likes a bully and as such bullies will be ostracized. on true democracy: Yeah, imagine the chaos that would happen if every man of draftable age and every parent of boys of draftable age had an equal say in whether or not a war would be launched.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 4, 2004 18:03:23 GMT -5
Yes in anarchy, theoretically anyone can beat anyone up, but what social advantage does it confer upon you to be known as a beater of pacifistic hippy types? Not a clue but enought people seem to see one in beating up the peaceful no aggressive types. Though in this case your food, clothes and any other useful items that are nolonger avaliable will be an advantage in itself I think, after some adjustment, everyone capable of rational decision making will adopt a sort of only fight if you are personally threatened model of behavior simply because no one likes a bully and as such bullies will be ostracized Ok two problems here First not everyone is capable of rational decision. Not all human beings are gifted with that sort of intelligence. Or more correctly I should say their rationality doesn't match mine. Beating up a bunch of kids is not my idea of rational. But it could be radionalised that doing so to claim the spot as toughest kid on the block would have its advantages thus to a certain sort of rational dispossition it is in fact a rational decision and cource of action. Secondly not everyone hates bullies or you would never get groups of bullies. Bullies see the advantage of organisation and use it very effectively. They may be hated but they will also be kings as the rest of the population, unable to organise (anarchy remember), have the choice of being beaten/killed or working for them. Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 4, 2004 19:57:08 GMT -5
Also, even in friend-friend relationships there are still power games being played. One friend may be more dominant in one area than in another. It's the nature of all relationships that power is being exercised constantly by all people within the relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on Aug 5, 2004 15:09:28 GMT -5
The problem is we simply accept this behaviour of domineering instead of trying to change it.
I for one do try to change it, and for the most part it has worked (nothing's perfect after all). I give most if not all of the control I have to other people. Some of it unwillingly, some of it willingly. For example in my relationship with Lynn it's always been her descision how far we go with it - and I respect that. I'm only human, sometimes it's difficult to accept her descisions and sometimes it takes me time to do so - but I always have in the end.
That for me has been the key to success in our relationship. Weve had our problems, but empowering Lynn like that, giving her the choice like that, has always made both of us happy with what we have, neither of us would give it up, and most of all it's WORKED.
Now some of you may say that this is merely subordinating myself to her, which wouldnt neccesarily be a bad thing, but it would defeat the equality of the matter, and is not the case. I always have said what I think in a matter, sometimes very strongly (ask her if you dont believe me) - yet, I always have left the choice to her, once all is said and done.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 5, 2004 15:33:49 GMT -5
Ok you've landed on the prime objection just fine. You've failed to argue convincingly that it is invalid however.
If the decision is Lynn's to make it doesn't matter that you are free to give your point of view she still has control over your relationship. There fore you just proved Hussar's point. In one area (your relationship) she is dominant.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 5, 2004 15:38:09 GMT -5
The problem is we simply accept this behaviour of domineering instead of trying to change it. Ok taken to extremes I see your point over why this is a problem. However idealogy asside why do you find this a problem. (ie why is it wrong for someone to take the lead in anything?) Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 5, 2004 20:04:28 GMT -5
The other problem is the assumption that anarchy is somehow more "natural" than other governmental systems. As if man in nature is inherently more free. This is patently false however.
Look at primates. Every primate lives in a highly structured system with a single dominant male at the top. Mankind in nature lived in exactly the same sort of system. Primate politics is what we practiced for about fifty thousand years on the Serengetti plains. There was never a period in history where mankind lived without some sort of power structure guiding actions. To try to argue that anarchy is somehow preferable is to ignore our roots.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 5, 2004 22:44:46 GMT -5
With human beings, there is ALWAYS a pecking order. Okay, "always" is a very strong word, but usually when a relationship is completely equal it happens as a result of some artificially created circumstance rather than how things naturally happen. I have never seen a completely equal relationship, though I'd be willing to listen to examples to the contrary, if you can find any.
People fall into one of two categories: A-types and B-types. Most of you have probably heard of these. A-type people are confident, leaderly types. They're dominant people. B-types are quiet followers. They're submissive people. I'm a B-type. I find it very hard to tell people what to do. I make suggestions, but I'm better at following orders than giving them. In fact, I'm so extremely B that it even manifests in how I walk. In a group I tend to walk to the back, and if I ever find myself in front of someone I inevitably have to keep checking behind me to see if they're still there. It makes me uncomfortable to walk in front of people, and even walking beside them can be hard. I walked behind my sister EVERYWHERE. She's a B-type as well, but less so than me and she's always been the dominant one in our relationship. I have to make a conscious effort to walk next to her, rather than a step behind her shoulder. Next time you're in a group of people walking somewhere, take a look around and see who walks where. The B-types will gravitate towards the back and the A-types will head to the front. If this is a group of people that often walks together you may even be able to make out a distinct pecking order, just by looking at the order you walk in.
Now, pecking orders aren't always constant. Depending on the circumstances the order may shift. In two-people relationships, usually the healthiest ones are ones where the power shifts often, giving each partner an equal chance to be alpha. If you average it out over time, then you can probably say that the power is split equally, but at any particular time there is an inequality, with one member being dominant over the other. This is just the way people work. You can't eliminate power. It's not a bad thing. It can be a bad thing when it is abused, but power itself isn't evil.
|
|