Dear davidf,

A question that I think worth reflecting on is why our states act to take us to war when the often vast majority of us would wish otherwise.

While cries of 'the elite or powerful always act against the wishes of the majority' might be relevant in dictatorships I would have thought it much less so in democracies such as ours.

Why do we continue to elect people who are prepared to allow, order, encourage, our state do things we personally would be repelled by?

Locking children behind razor wire? Enforcing brutal sanction regimes against populations. Bombing residential compounds of leaders and killing 'grandchildren'? Torture? Assassinations?

You asked “Do some of us really want war to give meaning to our lives? How many wars have our leaders deliberately put us into? Can we act rationally to attack the causes of war? Do we want to?”

An examination of the relationship between the Individual and the State might yield some answers. Why is the killing of an unarmed man lawful when done by an instrument of the State that derives its legitimacy from our support, but considered evil by us all when done by an individual?

What mechanism is at play that allows us to be happy, consciously or sub-consciously, abrogating such power?

squeers
i loved john as much as i possably could
he was my working class hero
but then what with the joko

well nough sad

and the marx brothers mate their just sick
beating up the fat bald guy..

nope mate we will have to agree to diss-agree
anyhow of the names i put up..most of them you must agree with

we will agree to diss agree on marks and lemon

on the other thing
re god being real...mate i knew there was no god for over 30 years
then things happend..wierd things but good things..and i began looking
soon saw good in everything

met god believers in many strange places
but the kicker was getting speared by a drugged out and drunk dude
and comming away with only a blister on my left hip

that scabbed up and fell off in two days

a full blown charge with a spear
[on good friday..2002]

my only though was at last this insanity [life]
is over..closed my eyes..threw up my hands[didnt want them speared]
and waited to open my eyes..to frontup to god in person

[ie put love into my heart]
loved the guy spearing me and then nothing
i opend my eyes..holding the spear..and the guy running away like the devil was on his tail screaming[he thought he had killed me

so to the two people what witnessed it
it should be on the ol parlement security cams

anyhow
i know god is real
couldnt care less what others chose to believe

and i still dont talk about the 'wierd stuff'
thats between him an me

Dear Poirot,

We are discussing things with each other. In discussing things with each other I believe we should maintain civility and not attack the other person as a person no matter how much we object to that person’s ideas if we want to keep the conversation going. That does not apply to public or historical figures we discuss. I think Marx was a vile bigot. Whatever he was, like Hitler, he is dead. whatever I say can’t hurt him. Yes, I think there is a great of difference in talking to a living person and trying to maintain a civil discourse with that person and talking about a historical or public personage. Both Marx and Hitler are dead, and both to my way of thinking cast a malevolent presence over the world.

Some revere Marx, and some revere Hitler. Why should I hide my feelings about either? Expressing my feelings about either may lead to enmity. If that risks enmity sobeit.

I am specifically concerned in being mutually civil with the person with whom I am holding a conversation.

Dear Squeers,

Although I didn’t ask for it I greatly appreciate your post of 4 May 2011 11:05:26 AM

Technically Marx was a Jew hater, but not an antisemite. Antisemitism was a word coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then. Marx wrote his essay "On the Jewish Question" in 1843 predating the invention of the word.

Probably oug meant V. I. Lenin not John Lennon. I think it is his idiosyncratic spelling.

I do not feel comfortable discussing anti-Semitism on an olo list. However, I would be willing to discuss the matter with Poirot and you offline. I think it is possible to have a reasonable discussion with both of you. I don’t think it possible to have a reasonable conversation w some people on the list.

OUG,
Marx was a philosopher-sociologist-political economist who offered a compelling critique of the capitalist system that is more relevant now than it was then; he dreamed of a better, fairer world. I think he overestimated the human drive for fulfilment. It seems we're mostly lambs and scavengers. Marx didn't kill anyone, willingly lived a miserable life for his convictions and has lived on in infamous infamy ever since. He doesn't belong in that company any more than Lennon does.

Thanks for telling me a bit more about your life and experience, and I respect your conviction however weird the premises. I've had some "weird" experiences of my own, as I suspect most people do. There's no doubt this rationalist age inhibits people from revealing the weird stuff for fear of ridicule. So good on you for leaving the closet, unfortunately it doesn't help the rest of us.

davidf,
I'm aware OUG meant Lenin.
You utter Marx's name in the same breath as Hitler's three times in your last. I only wish Marx was here to put you in your place, though I doubt he'd bother. Please feel free to demonise Marx to your heart's content on OLO, but unless I see some solid argument or evidence behind your vitriol I shall be as brutal with you as you are with him--though I shall endeavour to be just.

csteele,
you make some excellent points. I think the reason the State is able to get away with actions that do not have majority support is because they are kept as sacred cows. The military is the perfect example; it is so shrouded in medals, machismo, ceremony, solemnity and allround bullsh!t that it's tantamount to blasphemy to utter a word in dissent. I was struck by the fact that Bin Laden was "dead" or "deceased" rather than "killed" or "summarily executed", and that this was an "accomplishment". But any doubts I had were dispelled by the comforting images of the celebrants at ground zero.

Dear csteele,

I think there is one form of government in the world. No single person can rule alone, and no mechanism can insure that the masses of people control their government. All governments are oligarchies. What differs is how the oligarchy is formed. In the capitalistic democracies the oligarchies are generally formed by the moneyed who finance the election. Then the legislatures generally do their bidding.

In Australia corporate money goes to both Labor and Liberal Parties. It is not given to express conviction for the policies of either but to gain access. Approximately 80% of the bills passed by the legislature are backed by both parties. There are some variants. The Catholic Church has more influence in the Libs due to Abbott’s connection with Cardinal Pell. The labor union oligarchy (not to be confused with the workers) has more influence in Labor.

There is a significant difference between the US and Australia. Due to party discipline Labor and Liberal vote as a bloc. In the US politicians are not compelled to follow the dictates of their party. In Australia the corporations give directly to the party. In the US the corporations give directly to the individual candidates. In Australia they are for sale wholesale – in the US retail.

In Fascist states the oligarchies consist of influential party members, industrialists and land owners.

In Marxist states the oligarchies consist of influential party members.

In Libya apparently the oligarchy has consisted of the most influential members of Gaddafi’s tribe.

In Iran the oligarchy is composed of the most influential Shiite clergy.

In Israel the parties are financed much as they are in the USA and Australia, and the oligarchy is similar.

It doesn’t matter what the people want. The wishes of the respective oligarchies are what count.

Dear Squeers,

I coupled Hitler and Marx because apparently Poirot thought I wasn't giving sufficient respect to the memory of Marx. Does that also apply to Hitler? Any historical figure should be fair game.

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/tikkuns-spiritual-response-to-the-assassination-of-osama-bin-laden is a site which comments on the rejoicing at the assassination of bin Laden.

David f.,

Excuse me if I'm somewhat bemused by your logic on the subject of personal criticism.

This is pertinent to the thread subject as well as it demonstrates a splendid example of why mankind is seemingly incapable of overcoming his indignation to rise above his animus.

In a situation where two or more parties are expressing views, your belief seems to be that any one party should be permitted the luxury to inflict provocation at will - as long as it doesn't include personal insults.

Knowing that people identify with their beliefs and those of their mentors - in effect taking psychological ownership of these entities - it seems that such a willful barrage of provocation is designed to evoke an act of hostility in response.

Provocation comes in many forms, and is not restricted to the realm of personal insult to an individual or group.

To deliberately set out to provoke an outburst, and then to display indignation at the predictable response does seem a trite disingenuous.