Cogburn
04-21-2009, 08:25 PM
My take is a little different. I think Government is a bunch of wealthy elitists who "dupe" people into doing things that are against their best interests. They've got us convinced that our vote matters, even though we're given a choice between two filthy rich assholes, we still have to choose the lesser of two evils, whom are always, filthy rich... I view Government as the policy makers... If you work for the government, but are unable to have a hand in forming policy, you're a just Government employee.
I think you have it backwards. Wealthy elitists are those who are most interested in government, the view being they have the most to lose, therefore positions in government are mostly populated by wealthy elitists.
The field slants further once one factors in the ability for such personages to employ their wealth and influence to attain such positions. Those more qualified, with less resources, may be at a disadvantage based on the specific circumstances.
Only with rare exception are those that make policy those that are entrusted to seeing to its fulfillment. Our society lost something incredibly valuable when our leaders stopped leading from the front lines.
I don't like the victimization of the torturers... it seems a tad bit disingenuous. Sacrificing your morality for a paycheck is no excuse. In this instance, "just following orders" doesn't absolve moral responsibility. This is one of the problems with our society today. We do what we're told when we're told because not doing it would be uncomfortable.
Is being "comfortable" worth your morality?
It's not just the paycheck, I included that to be complete. The punishment for the crime of insubordination is the true motivational "stick" being employed.
I know you understand that the culture is not applicable to civilian morality. Lines are set and not to be crossed. Should such lines be crossed, penalties are incurred.
A soldier is then asked to equivocate their own personal freedom in comparison to one judged to be a potential enemy.
If that soldier is provided a certain level of reassurance of righteousness, on top of the standard esprit de corps, the ability for that soldier to perform actions that would otherwise be judged by that soldier as personally abhorrent.
"Here's what the President said about it. (Hands over document) Don't worry about it, son. It's OK. You are saving lives and your nation will thank you for the service you perform here today," said the Colonel to the Sergeant.
I don't think there's enough fingers and toes on all the members of this forum to count the number of times this has happened in the past 100 years in our nation's military.
That doesn't absolve personal responsibility, but merely my humble attempt at justifying how such things occur.
Yes, and No... We do all allow it to happen, but, we're also working against a system that is designed to isolate the population into individuals. There are probably only two ways that us, as average citizens can stop the government: Massive 1960's style activism, or violent overthrow... both "solutions" require a certain amount of organization and coordination... but with a population of "individuals", it is very difficult to achieve. 1 guy picketing might be noble, but its a piss poor way of affecting any sort of change.I'm going to nitpick a little bit, but with a greater point in mind.
While you're correct in your assertion, it was the creation of "others" and not "individuals" that defines your point.There's a difference between being an individual and seeing someone as a similar individual and being an individual and seeing someone as something other than yourself.
Chink. Slope. Zipper. Smilie. Charlie. Haji.
All terms employed by our armed forces to make the individual at the business end of a rifle easier to kill by making them different than the person pulling the trigger.
Racism. Sexism. Bigotry justified by religion.
That's how the same methodology is employed by TPTB to keep us self-segregating into small, easily manipulated groups unable to assert any amount of control over their own destiny.
I think you have it backwards. Wealthy elitists are those who are most interested in government, the view being they have the most to lose, therefore positions in government are mostly populated by wealthy elitists.
The field slants further once one factors in the ability for such personages to employ their wealth and influence to attain such positions. Those more qualified, with less resources, may be at a disadvantage based on the specific circumstances.
Only with rare exception are those that make policy those that are entrusted to seeing to its fulfillment. Our society lost something incredibly valuable when our leaders stopped leading from the front lines.
I don't like the victimization of the torturers... it seems a tad bit disingenuous. Sacrificing your morality for a paycheck is no excuse. In this instance, "just following orders" doesn't absolve moral responsibility. This is one of the problems with our society today. We do what we're told when we're told because not doing it would be uncomfortable.
Is being "comfortable" worth your morality?
It's not just the paycheck, I included that to be complete. The punishment for the crime of insubordination is the true motivational "stick" being employed.
I know you understand that the culture is not applicable to civilian morality. Lines are set and not to be crossed. Should such lines be crossed, penalties are incurred.
A soldier is then asked to equivocate their own personal freedom in comparison to one judged to be a potential enemy.
If that soldier is provided a certain level of reassurance of righteousness, on top of the standard esprit de corps, the ability for that soldier to perform actions that would otherwise be judged by that soldier as personally abhorrent.
"Here's what the President said about it. (Hands over document) Don't worry about it, son. It's OK. You are saving lives and your nation will thank you for the service you perform here today," said the Colonel to the Sergeant.
I don't think there's enough fingers and toes on all the members of this forum to count the number of times this has happened in the past 100 years in our nation's military.
That doesn't absolve personal responsibility, but merely my humble attempt at justifying how such things occur.
Yes, and No... We do all allow it to happen, but, we're also working against a system that is designed to isolate the population into individuals. There are probably only two ways that us, as average citizens can stop the government: Massive 1960's style activism, or violent overthrow... both "solutions" require a certain amount of organization and coordination... but with a population of "individuals", it is very difficult to achieve. 1 guy picketing might be noble, but its a piss poor way of affecting any sort of change.I'm going to nitpick a little bit, but with a greater point in mind.
While you're correct in your assertion, it was the creation of "others" and not "individuals" that defines your point.There's a difference between being an individual and seeing someone as a similar individual and being an individual and seeing someone as something other than yourself.
Chink. Slope. Zipper. Smilie. Charlie. Haji.
All terms employed by our armed forces to make the individual at the business end of a rifle easier to kill by making them different than the person pulling the trigger.
Racism. Sexism. Bigotry justified by religion.
That's how the same methodology is employed by TPTB to keep us self-segregating into small, easily manipulated groups unable to assert any amount of control over their own destiny.