Ends and means

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, November 23, 2007 01:49
VIEWED: 9875
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:18 PM

The theme comes up over and over (and over, and over) in thread after thread: Do the ends justify the means? If we're fighting for freedom, does this allow buddying up to tyrants? If we're against callous disregard for sensitive feelings, are we right in calling the offenders inbred cretins? If we're defending liberty, does this mean clamping down on civil rights in the short run? Do we have to become Nazis to fight Nazis? If we want to make politics more representative, do we get there with back-room deals? Does it take big government to protect individual liberties? Should we protect life by executing murderers? Can a billionaire fight capitalism? Does every shortcut come back to bite you in the *ss?

I'm beginning to think that the ends almost never justify the means. Trite as it sounds, you may have to be the change that you wish to see in the world. What do you think?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:47 PM

Depends on the ends.
Depends on the means.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:50 PM

I agree completely with Sarge.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:42 PM

Sorry, that answer is a cop out.
=================================
Do they?

No, never.

Unless you can justify the means from the initial use of them, without regard to success, then you have no rationale whatsoever, despite what the intended ends are.

Old Proverb, not sure where it's from.
"If you do not KNOW the answer, then you must BE the answer."

It's one of my personal mottos, one might say, so as for your last statement, I guess I do believe that - and working with the up and coming generations most of mine is crapping on and selling out into lifelong debt, that change IS gonna be applied, all in good time... if we survive that long.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SERGEANTX

Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:07 PM

It is a copout.

It's a pretty vague proposition though. I certainly don't believe in 'emergency ethics'.

But I do believe that values will come into conflict. The key for me is that extreme measures are only justified in specific circumstances and should never be part of a 'policy'. People who feel like they need to step outside of the bounds of accepted behavior should do so if they are absolutely sure it's necessary, if it's clearly in preservation of some higher value. But they must be ready and willing to be held accountable for their 'exception'. They need to be able to make their case as an individual.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:12 PM

Excellent responses, all.

I'm with you. And you. And you Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 16, 2007 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The theme comes up over and over (and over, and over) in thread after thread: Do the ends justify the means? If we're fighting for freedom, does this allow buddying up to tyrants? If we're against callous disregard for sensitive feelings, are we right in calling the offenders inbred cretins? If we're defending liberty, does this mean clamping down on civil rights in the short run? Do we have to become Nazis to fight Nazis? If we want to make politics more representative, do we get there with back-room deals? Does it take big government to protect individual liberties? Should we protect life by executing murderers? Can a billionaire fight capitalism? Does every shortcut come back to bite you in the *ss?

I'm beginning to think that the ends almost never the means. Trite as it sounds, you may have to be the change that you wish to see in the world. What do you think?

The lies and exaggerations that we're giving up liberties and freedoms at the cost of doing in evil scum bags is a sad thing to view. Back when we were fighting WITH the Islamos against the Soviet Union, we knew from early on that not all the players on the Political game table were nice. It often came to our attention that we had to fight fire with fire, or in some cases, pit bad guys vs bad guys. We did it in WW2, using Stalin to defeat Hitler, and we sure as hell knew it while fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEADB

Friday, November 16, 2007 1:10 AM

The means you use should those for which you are prepared to pay the price. One should not use means which have costs that out weight the benefit. These are value judgments one should consider carefully before acting.

The world is shades of gray.

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

FREDGIBLET

Friday, November 16, 2007 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
The world is shades of gray.

Quoted For Truth

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:15 AM

I shouldn't have started in on this one...wrote a whole lot and then dumped it, saving like a paragraph...started like 40 minutes ago...guess I'm still feeling this one out.
..................

Maybe we can be a nation of people who sometimes justify the means by the ends, but we can't let the collective spirit of our nation be one that does the same.

I'm willing to accept that there are occasions where taking the law into one's own hands, or lying to the american people for the sake of national security, etc. etc. could be legitimate.

I'm also willing to bet that such conditions are rare, and that as Americans it is our responsibility to unqaulifyingly nail everybody to the wall who breaks the most esteemed laws of our land.

..............

I'm saying I can sympathize with a vigilante who actually got the right man, and still be willing to cast my vote to convict him.

And I'm saying that there's no way I'm going to support lawmakers who want to make it easier to torture, or to take personal responsibility off those who choose to torture under the cover of national security.

If a situation arises when a person truly can save a city if he pulls out a few fingernails, then so be it(though such tactics may not even be effective), but if we find out that somebody is pulling out fingernails, it does us as a nation no good to qualify it...we have to uphold the means over the ends.

And the less we tolerate such activity the less likely it will be abused. I have no doubt that given the right scenario, a President may have a legitimate reason to lie to the American people(national security, immediate safety issue...etc?) or that a situation might arise when a person feels like the only option is to take the law into his own hands. there are probably compelling examples for all of these things.

Those examples shouldn't stay our hand when we demand to be told the truth by our President, and when we demand that he be held accountable for any and all lies to the American people pertaining to his capacity as President. I see no problem here. If the reasons for lying are that compelling, then a responsible President will do it anyway, regardless of consequences down the line, and if the reasons are not so compelling, he'd better think long and hard about doing it just to grease the pockets of a few friends.

.............
Of course the real danger of all of these issues is the ends. The means to 'positive' Short term ends can result in more disasterous long-term ends, and I would contend that that is one reason why the means is so much more important.

VETERAN

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...It often came to our attention that we had to fight fire with fire, or in some cases, pit bad guys vs bad guys. We did it in WW2, using Stalin to defeat Hitler, and we sure as hell knew it while fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan....

Actually, Stalin didn't join up with the Allies unitl after Hilter attacked the USSR. It wasn't like he had much of a choice. It's not like the Allies devised some clever plot to pit Stalin against Hitler. The Allies did not use the USSR to defeat Hilter they joined the Allied effort after Hilter double crossed them.

Also, I don't think we had any idea of what kind of monster we created when we allowed the Mujahadeem to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. At the time the press portrayed them as freedom fighters. Ironically, bin Laden didn't declare the US as an enemy until we stationed troops in Saudia Arabia during the Gulf War.

I think you would have done better to advance your argument if you evoked Truman's use of the atomic bomb to end WWII.

CHRISISALL

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:43 AM

Righteous9, you validify that name you have- I'm with you all the way!

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
It's not like the Allies devised some clever plot to pit Stalin against Hitler.

Details, details...

Chrisisall

LEADB

Friday, November 16, 2007 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'm willing to accept that there are occasions where taking the law into one's own hands, or lying to the american people for the sake of national security, etc. etc. could be legitimate.

I'm also willing to bet that such conditions are rare, and that as Americans it is our responsibility to unqaulifyingly nail everybody to the wall who breaks the most esteemed laws of our land.

All well said, but this particular captured my attention. This is one of the prices one must be prepared to pay when choosing one's means.

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 16, 2007 7:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:

Also, I don't think we had any idea of what kind of monster we created when we allowed the Mujahadeem to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. At the time the press portrayed them as freedom fighters. Ironically, bin Laden didn't declare the US as an enemy until we stationed troops in Saudia Arabia during the Gulf War.

I think you would have done better to advance your argument if you evoked Truman's use of the atomic bomb to end WWII.

We knew what sort of scum the Mujahideen were, even back then. They were calling us the great satan, even as we were helping them defeat the other great satan. Go figure. The Press portraying them as 'freedom fighters' was only 1/2 the story. What we weren't told is the story of all the tribal factions , vying for power, after the Soviet withdrawal. What the press DIDN'T tell us wasn't what the policy makers and the intelligence folks did know.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, November 16, 2007 12:01 PM

*snort*

Hubris or not, imma requote it word for fekkin word from back then.

"You do know this is seriously going to come back and bite us in the ass one day ?"

I'd almost lay money on it that, although no one else seems to have raised or even thought of that possibility, that the Russians are having a little payback on us in much the same fashion right now - it would explain a whole hell of a lot about how things are going in Afghanistan right now.

Perhaps, just perhaps, folk might wanna LISTEN to those pesky naysayers... you know, like before we went into the pay-for-itself, locals-throwing-flowers debacle we're in now ?

The Iranian border is the point of no return, we cross that, and it's WW III for sure.

I hope to hell to never have to quote that one at someone after we've done it.

btw - thanks for the clarification, Sarge.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, November 16, 2007 12:26 PM

In my opinion the ends never justify the means...period.

The US under Bush has certainly made some mistakes, but I still honestly believe that America is fundamentally a great nation, with high morality and noble goals.

HERO

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The theme comes up over and over (and over, and over) in thread after thread: Do the ends justify the means?

Yes. No. If your goal is the extermination of Jews, then the use of death camps does not justify those means.

If your goal is the defeat of the Nazis, then attacks on civilian infrastructure is justified.

Its all relative.

If your goal is global Communist domination, then supporting communist tyrants is wrong.

If your goal is to prevent global Communist domination then supporting anti-communist dictators is ok.

So it depends on the ends and the means. Which was already said.

I note for the record that this makes the issue subjective.

H

SIGNYM

Friday, November 16, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
If your goal is to prevent global Communist domination then supporting anti-communist dictators is ok.

So OOC, how many people can we enslave while fighting communism, assuming that the ONLY problem is a non-capitalist economic structure, in an area otherwise becoming prosperous and stable?

How many people are we allowed to kill while fighting for freedom? 100? One million? Less than the tyrant would have killed? More?

Here's the thing: I DON'T think "its all relative". Killing people is killing people. The only reason to kill people is to save more lives than otherwise. Supporting horrific tyrannies to "fight communism" is just plain stupid, especially since some of the tyrannies we supported combined the worst of genocidal oppression, corruption, AND deliberate grinding poverty.

I think if we get caught up in "isms" we make the same mistake that the jihadists make, and we start viewing human lives and happiness as less important than our particular "ism".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, November 16, 2007 8:02 PM

"I think if we get caught up in "isms" we make the same mistake that the jihadists make, and we start viewing human lives and happiness as less important than our particular "ism"."

Including capital'ism'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, November 16, 2007 8:06 PM

Yep.

That's one big unexamined "ism".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HERO

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So OOC, how many people can we enslave while fighting communism...How many people are we allowed to kill while fighting for freedom? 100? One million? Less than the tyrant would have killed? More?

Your missing the whole of the point. It depends on the means AND the ends.

Slavery is wrong. But if you recall during WW2 we drafted striking coal miners because we needed the coal more then they needed their collective bargaining agreement.

Its all circumstancial and very subjective.

How many people are we allowed to kill fighting for freedom? Zero. The question is how many are we forced to kill in defense of freedom? That answer is not a number...its an ideal and that is 'as few as possible'.

H

RUE

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:10 PM

"how many are we forced to kill in defense of freedom"

She forced me to rape her. He made me murder him. Yeah, that flies.

***************************************************************
They made me do it !

SIGNYM

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:20 PM

Maybe there's a problem when we try to weigh "ends"- which ARE subjective because they involve intention- with "means", which are very concrete. It's like comparing empathy and oranges.

I think what you CAN compare is means and results. Did the means yield the right results?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:23 PM

Then, generally taking shortcuts tends to give poor results.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then, generally taking shortcuts tends to give poor results.

I take a shortcut home from work and it take five minutes instead of ten.

H

CHRISISALL

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I take a shortcut home from work and it take five minutes instead of ten.

I know, you're limiting you carbon-footprint....blah blah

You're such a greenie-weenie...Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, November 16, 2007 11:23 PM

HA HA HA HA HA HA - of all the things he's been called, I bet he's never been called that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I take a shortcut home from work and it take five minutes instead of ten.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

I know, you're limiting you carbon-footprint....blah blah

You're such a greenie-weenie...Chrisisall

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

VETERAN

Friday, November 16, 2007 11:48 PM

Quote:
rue wrote:
Friday, November 16, 2007 11:10
"how many are we forced to kill in defense of freedom"

She forced me to rape her. He made me murder him. Yeah, that flies.

***************************************************************
They made me do it !

Of course it doesn't fly. But we're not talking about rape and murder (are we?). Soldiers killing soldiers during a battle is not murder. If someone tries to liberate your purse and you turn around and groin him it's not assault.

I recall an Ethical Culture lecture where the speaker said he met an army colonel wearing a European theater ribbon. As they talked he found out that the colonel was Quaker. When he asked the colonel, how did you justify joining the Army. The colenel replied, "They were killing the Jews." This man led other men in battle and ordered them to kill, because he felt he was saving others and standing up for a cause. Was he wrong?

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 17, 2007 12:39 AM

Quote:
This man led other men in battle and ordered them to kill, because he felt he was saving others and standing up for a cause. Was he wrong?

I think that's a perfect example of means and results.

I'm surprised that no one has accused me of (gasp!) secularism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, November 17, 2007 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm surprised that no one has accused me of (gasp!) secularism.

Isn’t that like accusing the Pope of being Catholic?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Saturday, November 17, 2007 12:52 AM

He joined knowing he had a choice.

I just found Hero's desription of being forced into killing to be rather strained. B/c you can use that excuse to justify almost anything. The Jews forced the Nazis into exterminating them by not assimilating themselves. The US was forced into supporting Hussein against Iran.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:50 AM

quote by SargentX
"Depends on the ends.
Depends on the means."

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Sorry, that answer is a cop out.
=================================
Do they?

No, never.

Interesting concept. So the use of antibiotics to fight infection is a copout? WWII to fight against fascism was a copout?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, November 17, 2007 4:37 AM

"Unless you can justify the means from the initial use of them, without regard to success, then you have no rationale whatsoever, despite what the intended ends are."

You missed the line after that.

Whatever means you intend to use, one should be fully prepared to justify and stand behind them prior to ever using them, without regard to success or failure, or never apply them in the first place, period.

Unless you have justification up front, you don't have it at all, and anything else is just a rationalized self-delusion.

Even after the fact, even if it did work, you still don't have it, cause you never did.

Clear enough ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CHRISISALL

Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:29 PM

Yep.

Chrisisall

VETERAN

Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:14 PM

The Japanese forced Truman to use the atomic bomb?

ROCKETJOCK

Sunday, November 18, 2007 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
The Japanese forced Truman to use the atomic bomb?

In a very real sense, yes, at least as far as Nagasaki was concerned.

The Japanese Imperial government had two days to surrender. Two freaking days, with God's own bad example of what would happen to them if they did not.

They chose not to.

Which, to me, justifies Truman's decision to drop the Hiroshima bomb as well. He had correctly read the intractable nature of the military-dominated Japanese mindset of the time. To have done anything else would have been placing the Japanese population (which he was not beholden by his office to worry about) ahead of the lives of Allied military personnel (which he was.)

####

On the original subject, I'd like to point out that using the ends to justify the means definately fails if the means chosen do not achieve the ends. Which is why the current controversy over the use of tortures such as waterboarding confounds me so.

Putting it blankly, torture is an extrememly ineffective means of gathering reliable information!

Torture someone long enough, professionally enough, and they will either die, or they will tell you exactly what they think you want to hear.

Keep that in mind: what they think you want to hear , which is not necessarily congruent with the facts of the situation.

It's a dumb way to gather reliable facts, plain and simple. It's not just morally reprehensible, it's counter-productive. Which is why I don't understand why anyone can defend it.

"Gentlemen, let's face the real problem. We've got to get the stupid people out of intelligence." -- Steve Gerber

ANTHONYT

Sunday, November 18, 2007 4:25 PM

Hello,

I think about this question whenever I watch a show like '24' and the heroic government agent threatens to torture or actually tortures someone in order to quickly get important information that will save the world.

In that context, it seems as though almost any behavior is justified. The city/country/world hangs in the balance. Why, it almost feels as though it would be morally unjustified NOT to get this vital information through whatever means necessary.

What if my daughter was being held by kidnappers, and I had one of them in my custody? Would I not pull his spleen out through his bellybutton, inch by inch, if I thought that doing so would gain my daughter's location and a chance to rescue her? I might.

And that's why there need to be hard and fast rules about what means are allowed towards which ends. It is very human, a very real part of our nature, that we can rationalize to ourselves almost any inhuman action. So we need an infrastructure in place to keep us from doing what we are programmed to do by the lizard brain need for survival.

We are built to use any means to our ends. We need to create systems to rise above our natures.

Bad means are never justified. But it's oh so easy to justify them anyway. It's rough being human.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
In a very real sense, yes, at least as far as Nagasaki was concerned.

The Japanese Imperial government had two days to surrender. Two freaking days, with God's own bad example of what would happen to them if they did not.

They chose not to.

Which, to me, justifies Truman's decision to drop the Hiroshima bomb as well. He had correctly read the intractable nature of the military-dominated Japanese mindset of the time. To have done anything else would have been placing the Japanese population (which he was not beholden by his office to worry about) ahead of the lives of Allied military personnel (which he was.)

And it could be argued that Truman forced the Japanese not to surrender, by removing key safe guards for the emperor from the Potsdam proposal, that he was told by experts were absolutly necessarry for the Japanese to accept it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

VETERAN

Monday, November 19, 2007 3:45 AM

RocketJock:

I agree with your take on torture.

The reason I keep bringing up the use of the Atomic Bomb is I think it's one of the better examples of the question at hand.

According to estimates it would have cost the lives of up 1,000,000 soldiers to invade Japan. However, the bomb was caused such devastation and continued to kill indirectly for years after the explosion. Ironically Albert Einstein suggested that if Germany had developed the bomb first, used it on two Allied cities but still lost the war, we would have declared the dropping of such a weapon as a war crime.

GEEZER

Monday, November 19, 2007 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And that's why there need to be hard and fast rules about what means are allowed towards which ends. It is very human, a very real part of our nature, that we can rationalize to ourselves almost any inhuman action. So we need an infrastructure in place to keep us from doing what we are programmed to do by the lizard brain need for survival.

We are built to use any means to our ends. We need to create systems to rise above our natures.

Realize that if we do this, we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 19, 2007 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
And that's why there need to be hard and fast rules about what means are allowed towards which ends. It is very human, a very real part of our nature, that we can rationalize to ourselves almost any inhuman action. So we need an infrastructure in place to keep us from doing what we are programmed to do by the lizard brain need for survival.

We are built to use any means to our ends. We need to create systems to rise above our natures.

Realize that if we do this, we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Ah. I would submit that someone must be willing to undergo torture themselves before they can authorize it upon another. In that context, we are unlikely to have many votes in favor of the practice.

It's much easier to vote to violate someone else's rights than it is to vote for the violation of your own. If people believed that all the government's dirty tricks would be used against them, they'd never allow the government the power to employ them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, November 19, 2007 8:39 AM

"If people believed that all the government's dirty tricks would be used against them, they'd never allow the government the power to employ them."

Q.F.T.

Now get a hammer and try pounding that into the heads of those cheerleading the way for it.

-F

SIGNYM

Monday, November 19, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:
Realize that if we do this, we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.- Benjamin Franklin.

I guess the FF had it wrong then? Because they were willing to die for Liberty.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Monday, November 19, 2007 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Ah. I would submit that someone must be willing to undergo torture themselves before they can authorize it upon another. In that context, we are unlikely to have many votes in favor of the practice.

So you're also all right with innocent others getting killed because you won't do something against your morals, even if you knew it would save them?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, November 19, 2007 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.- Benjamin Franklin.

I guess the FF had it wrong then? Because they were willing to die for Liberty.

Cute, but hardly germaine. (BTW. Read a bit about the Revolutionary War in the South and then talk about ends and means and the FF.)

Somehow it doesn't comfort me that you to are willing to sacrifice the lives of others, possibly including myself, for your principles.

Sorry, guys, but ends and means works both ways. If you don't use certain means due to moral qualms, you have to be ready to take responsibility for the ends which that decision inflicts on folks in your care.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 19, 2007 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Ah. I would submit that someone must be willing to undergo torture themselves before they can authorize it upon another. In that context, we are unlikely to have many votes in favor of the practice.

So you're also all right with innocent others getting killed because you won't do something against your morals, even if you knew it would save them?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

That's a lot like asking, "Would you savagely rape and murder a five year old girl if it might somehow save the lives of thousands?"

And if I said no, then the retort would be, "How dare you inflict your morals upon the innocent multitudes?"

There may be short-term benefits to authorizing tyranny, but in the long-term I feel the negative impact of tyranny far exceeds its benefits. While I might very well be tempted to do something unwholesome to save lives, that is precisely why we need a system in place to protect against that impulse.

Tell me Geezer, would you sacrifice your little girl to be raped, tortured, and murdered in order to create a safer world for everyone?

Oh, I know she doesn't have any valuable intelligence, but there are inevitably some few innocents who suffer during the pursuit of our nation's enemies. If one innocent little girl must suffer and die so that we can all be safe, isn't it worth it, in the end?

Perhaps it's not your son or daughter that you would nobly sacrifice to the cause? Whose, then? Mine?

I think not.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Monday, November 19, 2007 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's a lot like asking, "Would you savagely rape and murder a five year old girl if it might somehow save the lives of thousands?"

And if I said no, then the retort would be, "How dare you inflict your morals upon the innocent multitudes?"

Sorry, but your mind reading is off today.

First, I'd make it clear-cut. If you take no action, this WILL happen.

I'd then ask if you were then willing to take responsibility for the deaths of those thousands. Apologize to their families. Support their children. Each action - or lack of action - has consequences. In the child vs. thousands scenario, someone dies either way.

Also interesting how you equate anything that doesn't agree with your principles with tyranny.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Monday, November 19, 2007 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Sorry, but your mind reading is off today.

First, I'd make it clear-cut. If you take no action, this WILL happen.

I'd then ask if you were then willing to take responsibility for the deaths of those thousands. Apologize to their families. Support their children. Each action - or lack of action - has consequences. In the child vs. thousands scenario, someone dies either way.

Also interesting how you equate anything that doesn't agree with your principles with tyranny.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hmm... Oppressive power exerted by government?

But then, what is oppressive? Perhaps it involves robbing people of their rights? Ah, but you may not value or recognize those rights. Perhaps the individual has no rights at all when the wellfare of society is taken into account.

In any event, let me join in on your absolutism.

If we do not authorize the torture and killing of subject individuals, people will absolutely die as a consequence. Thousands. Perhaps millions. The consequence may or may not be immediate. But somewhere along the line, the intelligence we fail to capture will result in horrible bloodshed.

If we authorize the torture and killing of subject individuals, people will absolutely die as a consequence. Thousands. Perhaps millions. The consequence may or may not be immediate. But somewhere along the line, the regime we authorize to overlook people's rights will cause horrible bloodshed.

So yes, Geezer. Someone WILL die. Without question.

Now, seeing as how I must apologize to victims either way, I think I'd rather apologize for following my good conscience.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Monday, November 19, 2007 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hmm... Oppressive power exerted by government?

And the government which has never exerted opressive power is???

Quote:
But then, what is oppressive? Perhaps it involves robbing people of their rights?

I'm a safe driver and safe shooter. The government won't let me drive 150MPH on the freeway or shoot deer in my back yard. Help! I'm being oppressed!

Quote:
In any event, let me join in on your absolutism.

If we do not authorize the torture and killing of subject individuals, people will absolutely die as a consequence. Thousands. Perhaps millions. The consequence may or may not be immediate. But somewhere along the line, the intelligence we fail to capture will result in horrible bloodshed.

If we authorize the torture and killing of subject individuals, people will absolutely die as a consequence. Thousands. Perhaps millions. The consequence may or may not be immediate. But somewhere along the line, the regime we authorize to overlook people's rights will cause horrible bloodshed.

Now, seeing as how I must apologize to victims either way, I think I'd rather apologize for following my good conscience.

Sure. If there's no difference in the outcomes, no matter what you decide, choose the one that makes you feel better. How about if it's 'agressive' but not life-threatening interrogation (extreme enough that you personally would consider it torture) of one suspect against the lives of, say, all the passengers in an airliner?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

LEADB

Monday, November 19, 2007 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Sure. If there's no difference in the outcomes, no matter what you decide, choose the one that makes you feel better. How about if it's 'agressive' but not life-threatening interrogation (extreme enough that you personally would consider it torture) of one suspect against the lives of, say, all the passengers in an airliner?

And... if the suspect is you, Geezer, and they don't believe you when you say you know nothing?

GEEZER

Monday, November 19, 2007 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
How about if it's 'agressive' but not life-threatening interrogation (extreme enough that you personally would consider it torture) of one suspect against the lives of, say, all the passengers in an airliner?
And... if the suspect is you, Geezer, and they don't believe you when you say you know nothing?

Then I suffer some pain and the passengers still die?

But that's not the point here. SignyM and Anthony seem to think that they can oppose 'means' they believe unjustified, and not be responsible for the 'ends' which may occur if those means are not to be used. Yet they won't come right out and say that their principles are worth more than other people's lives.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AGENTROUKA

Monday, November 19, 2007 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
How about if it's 'agressive' but not life-threatening interrogation (extreme enough that you personally would consider it torture) of one suspect against the lives of, say, all the passengers in an airliner?
And... if the suspect is you, Geezer, and they don't believe you when you say you know nothing?

Then I suffer some pain and the passengers still die?

But that's not the point here. SignyM and Anthony seem to think that they can oppose 'means' they believe unjustified, and not be responsible for the 'ends' which may occur if those means are not to be used. Yet they won't come right out and say that their principles are worth more than other people's lives.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

But that pain you - or, say, someone in your family, someone whose pain matters to you, if your own doesn't - suffer is irrelevant in that equation?

If I said that I do not want to be tortured even if it would save lives, does that make me selfish? Do I have the death of thousands on MY conscience if I remove the option of me being tortured?

Because, I think that sucks. I don't want to be tortured, I don't want that option to exist.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:20 AM

Yes, Geezer, I think I finally understand what you're getting at.

I believe that my rights and liberties are worth more than your life.

You believe that your life is worth more than my rights and liberties.

I would absolutely, positively let you die, Geezer, before surrendering my rights and liberties. And you would absolutely, positively rob be of my rights and liberties in order to preserve your life.

We've been speaking in absolutes, of course.

In reality there is some abridgement to my liberties that I am willing to tolerate. I am willing to maintain laws that prevent people from driving 150 MPH on a road constructed for 50MPH travel. Roads are constructed with banking that takes into account the speed and weight of the vehicles travelling upon it. Exceeding those perameters will lead to accidents, deaths, and the spending of public dollars to clean up the mess.

I am willing to see enforcement of laws that say you can not discharge a firearm where the projectiles of that firearm are likely to penetrate your neighbor's property.

I am willing to submit to screening and security measures before boarding an airplane, because such measures, while inconvenient, help ensure everyone's safety.

These are all limitations on my liberties that I am willing to tolerate for the common good.

I'm not willing to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even if it will save lives. I'd probably change my mind in a moment of crisis, but that kind of flexibility is dangerous. It's a slippery slope. My principles of freedom are absolutely worth your life, Geezer. I would absolutely live and let die to preserve them.

I'm sorry that I didn't make that unequivocal and clear statement earlier.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

LEADB

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But that's not the point here. SignyM and Anthony seem to think that they can oppose 'means' they believe unjustified, and not be responsible for the 'ends' which may occur if those means are not to be used. Yet they won't come right out and say that their principles are worth more than other people's lives.

ok. I must have 'missed something' along the line, I didn't realize that was where you were driving; and I see Anthony has replied, so I'll just merrily step out of the way. But thanks for clarifying.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:07 AM

Quote:
But that's not the point here. SignyM and Anthony seem to think that they can oppose 'means' they believe unjustified, and not be responsible for the 'ends' which may occur if those means are not to be used. Yet they won't come right out and say that their principles are worth more than other people's lives.

The reason why I won't say that is because that's not what I meant. In fact, it seems opposite of my point. I would not give up people's lives for an "ism" like "pacifism". But I'll have to take some time to read back thru the thread and see how the conversation evolved because right now I'm only responding to this last post. I may be missing some nuance here.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I think if we get caught up in "isms" we make the same mistake that the jihadists make, and we start viewing human lives and happiness as less important than our particular "ism"."

Including capital'ism'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Don't you own Gold? What for?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:37 AM

speculation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:46 PM

Geezer, your point is not even worth debating. I read thru the posts and you did your usual fine job of misrepresenting what other people - includng me- said.

---------------------------------
Call me if anyone interesting shows up.

RUE

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Don't you own Gold? What for?

Because I like it ? BTW, since you seems not to know what a capitalist is, here's a definition - a person who owns the means of production. NOT a person who owns private property.

Or, in terms you may be able to understand (taken from "the Cosby Show") - "we work for our money. Rich people have their money work for them."

I work for my money. I am not a capitalist. Get it ?

Oh ---- and, do you have a point ?

***************************************************************
Do you ever have a point ?

GEEZER

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If I said that I do not want to be tortured even if it would save lives, does that make me selfish?

Wrong question.

If you are able to prevent all torture, or wiretapping, or photometric IDing, or your tyranny of choice - even if you know that preventing such torture, etc. will cost lives - does that make you in some way responsible for those lives which will be lost?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not willing to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even if it will save lives.

That's been pretty clear all along, but it's not the question I raised.

Would you be willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked or partially drowned to save lives?

If not, and your decision was the final say, do you think you're in any way responsible for the lives lost?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, your point is not even worth debating. I read thru the posts and you did your usual fine job of misrepresenting what other people - includng me- said.

OK. Let's get back to the original question, before it got all fuzzed up with raping children and me wanting to take everyone's rights away (find any evidence of that in this thread, if you can) and other bizarre offtrack excursions.

If you are able to prevent all torture, or wiretapping, or photometric IDing, or your tyranny of choice - even if you know that preventing such torture, etc. will cost lives - does that make you in some way responsible for those lives which will be lost?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If I said that I do not want to be tortured even if it would save lives, does that make me selfish?

Wrong question.

If you are able to prevent all torture, or wiretapping, or photometric IDing, or your tyranny of choice - even if you know that preventing such torture, etc. will cost lives - does that make you in some way responsible for those lives which will be lost?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I don't think it's the wrong question. It's two sides of the same coin. My question merely already contained its own answer.

If I don't want to be tortured, it kind of follows that I would make all torture illegal, really.

So... I do not want to be tortured in the name of saving people. Nor my family or loved ones or complete strangers.

If I had to choose between condemning my sister to torture and knowing my sister died because I prevented all torture, it'd be really difficult, obviously.
But I would prefer the latter.

I'd not blame anyone for not torturing people in order to save her, even if her death would devastate me.
But I would, absolutely, blame people for torturing her, no matter if lives were in the balance or not.

I know I'm willing to grant the possibility of my own death or disfigurement for the price of outlawing torture.

If this is a question of responsibility, I do think it depends on whether you consider torture a valid action to begin with.

If you have to choose between saving two, are you responsible for the death of the one person you didn't choose?
That's sort of where I am coming from. The principle of human dignity is one I value very highly and to disregard it, to me, creates the choice of why bother saving people at all. Just bodies, after all.

Death is the end of pain, while pain is.. agony. One could argue that preventing torture might be more important, if one were so inclined.

ETA: I am in no way fixed in my position on this. It's the way I'm leaning, nothing more. I know there are holes and grey areas not covered by my thoughts here, just to say this upfront and prevent any annoyance at my wishy-washiness that may occur.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:04 PM

Quote:
If you are able to prevent all torture, or wiretapping, or photometric IDing, or your tyranny of choice - even if you know that preventing such torture, etc. will cost lives - does that make you in some way responsible for those lives which will be lost?

How many lives lost? How many people tortured?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The principle of human dignity is one I value very highly and to disregard it, to me, creates the choice of why bother saving people at all.

Very well put, AgentRouka, very well put indeed!

What he said Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:27 PM

It shouldn't matter. It's a statement of principle. Are you willing to give up on torture even if the result is more lost lives.

I answer yes and I'm willing to live with the consequences of that (in)action. I believe that once you are willing to accept something as valid in some circumstances it can have a corrosive effect that makes it more likely to be used in other circumstances too.

So yes I'm a heartless bastard, I'm against torturing anyone.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:36 PM

It's the whole "principle" thing that I think I'm against. "Principles" have a tendency to be nebulous, untethered from consequences.

I guess I'd have to rephrase my question to Do the ends justify the means when they conflict?" Because when that happens, the "ends" start to look like rationalizations or manias.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

So yes I'm a heartless bastard, I'm against torturing anyone.

HEARTLESS BASTARDS UNITE!

Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not willing to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even if it will save lives.

That's been pretty clear all along, but it's not the question I raised.

Would you be willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked or partially drowned to save lives?

If not, and your decision was the final say, do you think you're in any way responsible for the lives lost?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

So then, it could be argued that lives would be saved if every firearm in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the gun-related deaths?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:47 PM

This whole concept makes about as much sense as defending a fortress by burning it to the ground.

Or rescuing a hostage by shooting them in the head.

If you are going to destroy what you are defending with your means, why bother with the action of defending it at all ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So then, it could be argued that lives would be saved if every firearm in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the gun-related deaths?

It could also be argued that lives would be saved if every vehicle in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the vehicle related deaths?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, your point is not even worth debating. I read thru the posts and you did your usual fine job of misrepresenting what other people - includng me- said. Call me if anyone interesting shows up.

Questions for you Signy.
Was this thread started to illicit honest opinions to your stated question or for like minded people to agree with each other?
If your stated 'end' in RWED is to learn from others, including other peoples motivations and perceptions and how they differ from yours, how do you justify the 'means' in which you go about it?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:18 PM

Quote:
Was this thread started to illicit honest opinions to your stated question or for like minded people to agree with each other?
If your stated 'end' in RWED is to learn from others, including other peoples motivations and perceptions and how they differ from yours, how do you justify the 'means' in which you go about it?

It is an honest question. However, I choose not to discuss issues with people who discuss dishonestly because nothing can be learned from that pursuit. I've had many discussions with Geezer before, and experience has led me to realize that he turns every discussion into a no-holds barred battle. When he kept saying Signy said... when I said no such thing... and in fact due to time constraints I had said very little... I realized he was just creating straw man arguments. When Geezer decides to discuss with an open mind then I'll be happy to respond. And that will be progress towards learning from each other.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:34 PM

I see it as 'words' justifying 'results' rather than 'ends' justifying 'means'. And personally I don't give much credit to words. You can use any words you like. You'll probably even pick the words that sound best.

Ultimately - and this is over the long run when the choices made have had a chance for a few iterations - one sees what the real intentions are by the results.

For example - let's say my choice is to do the best possible job I can to raise my children. I decide they should eat nothing but fruits and vegetables and have a severe mistrust in supplements and 'official' nutrition. But my children fail to thrive - are born with spina bifida, small and failing to grow, mentally behind, subject to every illness that comes around. If my real intention is for them to thrive, I will try various other things including supplementation or a change in diet until I can see by results that my children are indeed thriving. If my real intention is to insure my children have my notion of purity - thriving not a consideration - I'll continue on. *

Real intentions always out by results.

So to say that the US fought for freedom (ends) by supporting the Muhjadeen (means) is clearly false. We need to get past the propaganda words to better discuss this.

* (BTW CTS - this is NOT you. I picked this b/c it's a real situation I know something about.)
***************************************************************
And past Geezer running his disinfo tactics.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Because I like it ? BTW, since you seems not to know what a capitalist is, here's a definition - a person who owns the means of production. NOT a person who owns private property.

Not exactly, a capitalist is someone who uses money to make money. Capitalism is a system where Capital is a resource in and of itself, and where the people who invest do so to get a return, not necessarily in order to make what ever they're investing in.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Don't you own Gold? What for?
Because I like it ? BTW, since you seems not to know what a capitalist is, here's a definition - a person who owns the means of production. NOT a person who owns private property.

Or, in terms you may be able to understand (taken from "the Cosby Show") - "we work for our money. Rich people have their money work for them."

I work for my money. I am not a capitalist. Get it ?

Oh ---- and, do you have a point ?

***************************************************************
Do you ever have a point ?

Who pays you your money? My guess....a capitalist...thank him tomorrow.

RUE

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:05 AM

"Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all or mostly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy."

However there are economies without money where goods and services are exchanged (through barter) in a market economy to benefit the people in the exchange (profit). So I don't necessarily think the presence of a market economy, or even the existence of a profit is a hallmark of capitalism.

Another example, during the Middle Ages there was trade over long distances for large amounts of gain - but that system was called 'mercantilism' not 'capitalism'.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is indeed private ownership of the means of production.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KANEMAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:09 AM

The Ruse wrote...."However there are economies without money where goods and services are exchanged (through barter) in a market economy to benefit the people in the exchange "

Kaneman replies..."Then quit your job, sell your gold and move to New Guinea....make sure to bring lots of trinkets....And do not eat anyone you may aquire Kuru.....Well, it's true............

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:10 AM

Quote:
Who pays you your money? My guess....a capitalist...thank him tomorrow

And who MAKES the stuff that the capitalist sells? The employee. So that capitalist should thank his employees, because w/o them he'd be nothing.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Who pays you your money? My guess....a capitalist...thank him tomorrow
And who MAKES the stuff that the capitalist sells? The employee. So that capitalist should thank his employees, because w/o them he'd be nothing.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Round and round we go.......Next dance?

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The defining characteristic of capitalism is indeed private ownership of the means of production.

There's man systems with private ownership of production. The defining characteristic of capitalism is that Capital is a resource in itself. Previously, people would invest in a private buisness in order to make or control the product. Now it is done in order to generate capital.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is that production is no longer the end, capital is, and production is the means. It is, in fact, a reversal of the system that came before. Private ownership of production has been the norm through history, but prior to Capitalism, capital was the means to the end of production, Capitalism reverses that relationship.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:19 AM

Poor Kanmeman. Nothing to contribute but dying to be noticed.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KANEMAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:21 AM

Who pays you your money? My guess....a capitalist...thank him tomorrow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And who MAKES the stuff that the capitalist sells? The employee. So that capitalist should thank his employees, because w/o them he'd be nothing.

Simple. The Capitalist, Whether or not he has employees or works SOLO, has the INVESTED stake in an idea OR product that MAYBE in demand to someone....HE takes a chance! That DEMAND is a CUNSUMER. That CONSUMER maybe someone else's employee or another CAPATAILIST...Without the initial gamble there would be nothing! No markets(Actually there will always be a market for MORE and BETTER...it's human nature)....fucking communists....well, it's true.......

RUE

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:22 AM

Citizen

You say there are many systems in which the means of production are privately owned but that aren't capitalist. If you could provide me (and Kaneman) with some examples I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:37 AM

Well, most of them. Feudalism had privately owned production, Mercantalism (from which Capitalism developed) and so on, off the top of my head I can't think of many systems that don't have private ownership of production. I can't see an option between private ownership and public ownership, and public ownership is largely a factor in Socialism and Communism, and not much else besides.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Citizen

You say there are many systems in which the means of production are privately owned but that aren't capitalist. If you could provide me (and Kaneman) with some examples I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

"me and kaneman"

Don't bring me in to your stupid assed question.

I have posted many times that the SIMPILIST transfers of wealth(childcare, Restaurants, yard work..etc) lead to capital investments....usually for the GOOD of mankind...the Internet for example.......Well, it's true....

FLETCH2

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

The defining characteristic of capitalism is indeed private ownership of the means of production.

Humm I think Citizen is right, otherwise every tradesman for the last 2000 years would have been a capitalist. If you think about it the medieval silversmith maintained a workshop, employed labourers, day workers and apprentices to work for him and had his name on the shingle. If that was the crucial definition of capitalism then the world has always been capitalist because those kind of businesses have always existed.

The definition Citizen gave is the one we are taught as part of British economic history. It runs something like this.

Before enclosure most people worked in agriculture tilling commonland. Each family typically had a number of acres they cultivated and being tenant farmers gave a percentage of this harvest to the land owner as rent.

When the system of enclosure happened in the early 1700's the common land was subdivided by the land owner into fields, the people that worked this land lost their family plot and worse their jobs because modern agriculture was more efficient and needed fewer people. This meant that two things happened.

1) The land owners, using their new agricultural techniques made a lot of money, money they could not immediately use in agriculture.

2)various industrial techniques had been developed that could use the suddenly displaced labour in centralised "manufacturaries."

As previously stated in form and operation the new factories only differ from traditional craftsmen's workshop in scale. Both are privately owned means of production where an owner employs others to work for him. The innovation as Cit says is what happens next ie the extra money that was made by land owners was invested in these new industries as a way of making a profit on this CAPITAL.

The silversmith in his workshop was interested in making silverware. It was his living but it was also what he did, his vocation. Even the early factory owners had an interest in the business that they were in-- Mathew Bolton had interests in the technology of ironmaking and factory production it wasnt just his job. But the investor, the guy with the capital was only interested in getting the best return on his investment. He might chose a pottery over an ironworks because he saw better money there not because he was more interested in making pots than making pans.

So I think Cit is right.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well, most of them. Feudalism had privately owned production, Mercantalism (from which Capitalism developed) and so on, off the top of my head I can't think of many systems that don't have private ownership of production. I can't see an option between private ownership and public ownership, and public ownership is largely a factor in Socialism and Communism, and not much else besides.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

"I can't see an option between private ownership and public ownership,"

Ask Hugo!

VETERAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
.....
If you are going to destroy what you are defending with your means, why bother with the action of defending it at all ?

-Frem

It think you've gotten to the crux of the matter. If one uses murder and torture to prevent terrorism, one eventually becomes a terrorist. This is not to say one cant't track, detain, interrorgate, or even punish terrorists and their conspirators, it's just that one doesn't want to use their methods. We want to be the ones who get warrants, who honor civil liberties and the sancatity of life, who have the moral higher ground, because it's what we want to be.

.... on the otherhand, A friend of mine was an Army Lt. in Viet Nam, he said once while his patrol was near the Cambodian border they saw 5 Kyhmer Rouge pass by, some of his men wanted to open fire but he told them no they're not fighting us....as he tells me this he shakes his head looks down at the floor heaves a sigh and asks, "I wonder how many lives we might have saved if we shot those bastards?"

STORYMARK

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So then, it could be argued that lives would be saved if every firearm in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the gun-related deaths?

It could also be argued that lives would be saved if every vehicle in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the vehicle related deaths?

Yes, in as much as I'm willing to accept that the do and will happen. Just as I am willing to accept that people may die if we do not tortue (though the chance of dying from a terrorist attack is still much, much smaller than dying in a car).

I notice you address my question, without having the nerve to answer it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:41 AM

Quote:
Simple. The Capitalist, Whether or not he has employees or works SOLO, has the INVESTED stake in an idea OR product that MAYBE in demand to someone....HE takes a chance! That DEMAND is a CUNSUMER. That CONSUMER maybe someone else's employee or another CAPATAILIST...Without the initial gamble there would be nothing! No markets(Actually there will always be a market for MORE and BETTER...it's human nature)....

Taking the discussion a little off-track. If the "capitalist" works solo then she's not only the investor but also the worker. Without the work, there would be no product. I think it fair to say the capitalism is the ownership of the means of production by people other than the workers. If a group of workers own the means of production it's called a cooperative. I can't believe that such smart people as you failed to make the obvious distinction... or preferred to obfuscate the discussion, however your prefer to look at it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:41 AM

Sorry to take so long - and I really don't want to sidetrack this thread. But just b/c a person owns a digging stick doesn't make her (or him) a capitalist. OTOH he might be a capitalist if he owned the digging stick and extracted value from others b/c of it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:55 AM

To get back to my original question... I guess my question is as much a practical one as it is a quesiton of principal. Actually, it's prolly more like two or three questions, which is why it's so hard to get a grip on it.

ONE of my questions is.... Do shortcuts always come back to bite us in the *ss? Let's assume that we have sterling goals, but we use techniques or principles that seem to contradict what we're aiming at. Does that inevitably undercut our goal?

Here are some examples:

Reducing violence through a punitive justice system.

Promoting democracy by supporting dictators.

Ensuring equality though affirmative action.

Defending freedom by limiting civil rights.

I can name dozens of instances in which taking the low road boomeranged back in about 15-25 years. Can anyone think of any instance in which using techniques counter to your goal was successful?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:04 AM

Hello Geezer,

As to your question:

Quote:
"Would you be willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked or partially drowned to save lives?

If not, and your decision was the final say, do you think you're in any way responsible for the lives lost?"

No, I am not willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even to save lives.

I am absolutely responsible for any lives lost due to this policy.

I want to be explicitly clear: I would be overjoyed to be responsible for the loss of countless lives due to the preservation of civil liberties.

This is not because I do not fully understand the consequences.

This is because I would similarly be overjoyed to be responsible for saving the lives that I perceive to be saved under such a policy. I would also be overjoyed to be preserving the quality of life for a nation of people... A quality of life not to be measured purely in posessions, but also in freedoms.

Apologies in advance if preserving your liberties shortens your life. I take full responsibility.

--Anthony

P.S. I feel it is always disingenuous to ask, 'Would you be willing to subject OTHER people to X, Y, Z, inhumane treatment?' This is because there is always the possibility of becoming the 'Other guy.' I have vague recollections of a poem from my youth. I think it referenced the Holocaust. It went something like, "They came for the Baker and took him away, but I said nothing because they did not come for me. They came for the Butcher and took him away, but I said nothing because they did not come for me. They came for my neighbor and took him away, but I said nothing because they did not come for me. When they came for me, there was no one left to object." I paraphrase, because I heard this a long time ago, but I think you get the gist. We shouldn't authorize any behavior that we would not want levied against our selves.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:08 AM

This is where I'd say it's words v results, for example "Promoting democracy by supporting dictators."

If someone is really interested in promoting democracy and not just mouthing words, simple feedback over time would make them realize that democracy was decreasing at the hands of the dictators, rather than increasing. They would therefore choose different means. If they keep on doing the same thing, then their actions speak louder than their words.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:27 AM

In response, Anthony's comments.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

First time I've seen you come off harsh, Anthony, but believe me, I agree.

You might find these thoughts useful and interesting.
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I notice you address my question, without having the nerve to answer it.

I guess if the 'end' of this thread was to answer your question you could dictate the 'means' used to address it.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:44 AM

Thanks, Frem. Apologies for the excitement in my tone. I suppose this issue is dear to me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KANEMAN

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I notice you address my question, without having the nerve to answer it.

I guess if the 'end' of this thread was to answer your question you could dictate the 'means' used to address it.

This person is the Greatest B coat...ever..seriously..ever..

Love always kaneman http://www.myspace.com/kanemankane

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE