From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 7 Oct 92 09:13:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq In a message dated Tue 6 Oct 92 23:43, Gerald Del Campo wrote: GDC> In a message dated Mon 5 Oct 92 8:34, The Mule wrote: TM> As for the "brain wash" bit. I could easily say the same for you. Some TM> where, in some way, some one placed an incredilby large chip on your TM> shoulder. You refuse to see the opportunity this country provides TM> because your to wrapped up in the things that are wrong. GDC> What? I'm not suppossed to point out the many flaws in the system? GDC> I'm supposed to overlook obvious violations of constitutional rights GDC> because there are so many good other things? Now I can understand GDC> your views on gay rights: It does not effect you, or your sense of GDC> safety, so you find it very easy to shrug off as an unfortunate GDC> injustice, which can easily be overlooked because the issues which GDC> concern you are protected. Again, you're missing the point. I'm _not_ saying there are no problems, or for that matter, serious problems. Yet you have, repeatedly, used the existence of problems to prove that the system DOES NOT WORK. There's a big, cavernous difference between saying the system works, but has problems which we should try and correct and saying the system is completely fucked and we should throw it away. I don't necessarily mind (in some cases it's been enlightening) you pointing out problems. What's disturbing is the extrapolations you make, which, quite frankly, I think (IMHO) are eroneous. GDC> If you love this country, and see its potential you should GDC> constantly try to remove the policies which prevent it from being a GDC> haven for all Americans. If I did not care it would be very easy GDC> for me to believe as you do. In fact, I do love this country, and I _do_ constantly "try to remove the policies which prevent it from being a haven for all Americans." The thing is we have (at least it appears) some differences of opinions as to what we mean by "policies" "prevent" and "haven". Also, "caring" is in the eye of the beholder. What is the measure of caring? I'm positive that by the way I measure "caring" I've given more to this country than most people, including yourself. TM> Yet consider the alternative? Nazi Germany? Stalanist Russia? Maoist TM> China? Parlamentary Britain? GDC> Are these the only alternatives? or did you post those countries GDC> because the GDC> attrocities of the crimes they committed against their citizens GDC> closely match those commited here? How about some REAL GDC> alternatives? What is _your_ alternative? TM> It's real easy to blame my views on brainwashing, because any TM> consideration o the idea that my beliefs are based on a careful study of TM> history would be a threat. GDC> Yeah, if only it were so. It would be just as easy for me to GDC> "chose" historical data which would prove or validate my claims. This implies that I'm being disengenuou, that there is some sort of value I place on rhetorical competition such that I'll manipulate things to "win". It's not manipulation, its the way I see things. TM> The Dialectic is dead! (in fact it was stillborn, but it took a century TM> for us to realize it.) I find it interesting how many of your arguments TM> are based on the viability of the Dialectic (knowingly or unknowingly). GDC> You have a lot of nerve claiming that I have a chip on my shoulder, GDC> and in the same breath have the audacity to call me a Marxist. This GDC> conversation is coming to an end, as I will not allow myself to be GDC> insulted. Nerve has never been a problem with me, but sometimes courtesy is. I'm sorry for the Marxist bit. TM> I suggest you ought to take long look at inconsistencies in your own TM> beliefs before you accuse me of being brain washed. GDC> My inconsistencies are a result of my struggle to create or discover GDC> a system of government which is beyond curruption, hatred, bigotry, GDC> and favoritism. I refuse to waste time trying to defend a system GDC> which no longer serves its original purpose and intent. I guess these four lines are at the root of this whole thread. Several thoughts. There is a _fundamental_ concept which I keep hitting on that I can't get accross (or even an acknowledgment that you understand what I'm talking about). The idea that I'm trying to get across is this: There are no such thing as "Human Rights". Having said that, let me clarify some things: When I refer to "Human Rights" in this case, I'm not refering to moral principles or codes of conduct. For me, when we're dealing in this form of abstraction, there ARE fundamental "Human Rights" (e.g. the right to speak your mind or the right to be left alone). What I mean by there are no "Human Rights" is that "Human Rights" is a moral issue, and like all moral issues, their breadth and depth are entirely a function of collective consensus. That is the _reality_. I place no moral value on the collective consensus. It could be "right" or it could be "wrong", but ultimately, it _is_ this consensus that determines what is, and what is not, a "Human Right." The second thing I want to comment on is your struggle to free our system from "corruption, hatred, bigotry, and favoritism." It is my contention that this can not be done. The reason is clear. "Bigotry" "Hatred" "Corruption" and "Favoritism" are all _subjective_. You may, in fact, free the system of this evils, as you percieve them, but there WILL ALWAYS BE others who have different perception of the same things, and inevitably their perceptions will be mutually exclusive of yours. Keep in mind, that as of yet I haven't placed _my own_ judgements on this struggle of yours. I'm simply stating that you have to recognize that, however laudable your struggle may be, your insight as to the nature of Human Rights is simply, and ultimately, nothing more than a value judgement. Which again brings me full circle. Since "Human Rights" is subjective, and there may be (and probably is) conflicts in subjectivity, the only thing that ultimately matters is the collective consensus. TM> You're still not getting the point. You have your "law". This "law" TM> has certain tenents. Great! Wonderful! Super! _BUT IRRELEVANT_!!!! TM> In any society, it's not the specific tenents that matter. What matters TM> is how those tenents fit in. How "popular" the beliefs are, or how TM> "inoffensive" they are, _that's_ what matters. GDC> So, by your definition, the effectiveness of a system/idea is to be GDC> determined by how popular it is? Think about what you have said; GDC> and see if you can realize why I think it is so absurd. When you use "effectiveness" you're twisting the concept to fit your views. I didn't say popular=effective. I said popular=relevancy. "Popularity" (i.e. collective consensus) is the only thing that _matters_ when we're dealing in subjective issues. "Popularity" may not be (and there's more than a reasonable chance that it isn't) effective. It may, in fact, be counter-productive or kramically damaging. But it's THE ONLY THING THAT IS RELEVANT. GDC> You miss my point: I could care less what other people think. It GDC> SHOULD not enter the equation. But it does, because others want to GDC> control the way I live my life... get it? I don't care HOW other GDC> people want to live their lives, it is their right, and they will be GDC> held responsible for their own actions. I want to be responsible GDC> for mine. Great! But not necessarily relevant to collective action. Your views are subjective, and may in fact be laudable. Yet if they are in conflict with other views (which you don't seem to acknowledge as being possible) then you have no more individual relevancy than I do. TM> ou're trying to focus on the beliefs, and how you are right, and TM> others are wrong. What I was trying to do is show you that "right and TM> wrong" are not relevant, because everyone's definition of right and wrong TM> is different. What is relevant is how well you can get others to think TM> like you. GDC> I don't think that is relevant. I am only concerned with my rights. GDC> I have a right to believe what I want, just as you what you do. My GDC> problem is the OTHERS are deciding what is good for ME. People GDC> should do what they feel is "right" for them. They have no right to GDC> interfere with my life because THEY think it is "wrong" for ME. I'm going to keep pounding this point. From a purely subjective viewpoint, the concept "I am only concerned with my rights" is no better or no worse than the concept "I need to force someone else to think like me". THEY ARE BOTH _BELIEFS_! _Beliefs_ have no intrinsic moral value when dealing outside the realm of personal experiences. In a collective sense (i.e. when dealing outside the realm of personal experience) the only thing that matters is how your beleifs "fit it" with everyone elses. GDC> The only thing I understand is that we tote this "Freedom" flag to GDC> impress others, and we are not trully "free". I am not enlightened, GDC> nor do I have an understanding of things; in fact, you don't have GDC> to be enlightened, you only have to have eyes and ears. I can only GDC> say what is "true" for me. No one has the right to define Truth for GDC> ANYONE but THEMSELVES. No one has the "right" to define Truth for someone else because Truth is entirely a personal experience. Yet when Truth extends beyond the bounds of individual experience (e.g. speaking, acting, etc.) then Truth becomes subjective and is subject to collective consensus. GDC> It is irrevelandt because those beliefs have not interfered with GDC> YOUR beliefs. But when they do, then what? No. No. No. No. Things are not irrelevant because they don't interfere with my beliefs, they're irrelevant because they a_beliefs_. Period. In some case they do interfere, and my hot buttons are pushed. But its just me. In order for things to be relevant beyond me, there must be some form of collective consensus. GDC> This is utter bullshit, and frankly I am surprised that you would GDC> say such a thing. No one is challenging their beliefs any more than GDC> they are challenging mine. I am not obligated to believe anything GDC> you believe, and vise versa. TM> It is not bullshit. You _are_ challenging their beliefs. Your lack TM> of understanding in this matter is single biggest flaw in your whole TM> argument. GDC> The biggest flaw in YOUR argument is that you think the "majority" GDC> has a monopoly on the way we should ALL live. It's not a flaw, nor is it a strength. It's _reality_. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718