43 year old military dictatorship hauls away protesting monks after raiding monestaries and quelling marches. Attempts to cut off internet. Expels all foreign journalists.

I expect to see alot of support for this Junta since so many posters seem to be enamored of the use of government force on the citizenry in their own home countries......

.....errr....wait. Perhaps those people choose to believe initiation of force is ok when it's for causes THEY agree with but not ok when it's done for causes OTHER people agree with.

Orange County Register

Excerpt below:
========================================
"Why don't the Americans come to help us? Why doesn't America save us?" said an onlooker. who didn't want to be identified for fear of reprisal from the junta.

In other spots, riot police chased smaller groups of die-hard activists, sometimes shooting their guns into the air.

"The military was out in force before they even gathered and moved quickly as small groups appeared, breaking them up with gunfire, tear gas and clubs," Shari Villarosa, the top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar, told The Associated Press.

"It's tragic. These were peaceful demonstrators, very well behaved," she said.

Authorities also shut off the country's two Internet service providers, although big companies and embassies hooked up to the Web by satellite remained online. The Internet has played a crucial role in getting news and images of the democracy protests to the outside world.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

R/B, sorry I don't have the time to answer to such a useless post more specific. You have proven in countless other posts, that you don't respect and tolerate other opinions then yours and I am sick of your "you are just jealous" attitude. So I will make this short - did it somehow cross your mind, that if an American reporter asks people it's usually "why does America...?" as well as "why does Germany / France" depending on the journalists nationality. Well, maybe it was also a bit of "We have oil here, too! Please invade us!". But China is, who dictates what happens in the region, anyways. No one really dares to mess with China anyways - not even the US.

R/B, sorry I don't have the time to answer to such a useless post more specific. You have proven in countless other posts, that you don't respect and tolerate other opinions then yours and I am sick of your "you are just jealous" attitude. So I will make this short - did it somehow cross your mind, that if an American reporter asks people it's usually "why does America...?" as well as "why does Germany / France" depending on the journalists nationality. Well, maybe it was also a bit of "We have oil here, too! Please invade us!". But China is, who dictates what happens in the region, anyways. No one really dares to mess with China anyways - not even the US.

If you developed a habit of relying upon facts, reason, and evidence perhaps you wouldn't have these emotional reactions that seem to do you no good service.

If the shoe fits where it. Bigotry never shows much reason....

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

R/B you may not have understood the point:
No unjust and inhuman action is acceptable, no matter who is acting. If a government acts human and just and SERVES the People, why not keeping it's ruling; but if a government acts inhuman or unjust, and only fills the own wallets of the rulers whilst suppressing the People, then it's not worth to be called government, then it's tyranny.

When people go protest on streets and places, they never do that on a whim. They always have a reason for it. And if the People feel their government is too tyrannic (and just hasn't managed to wash their brains yet) they would even confederate with the devil himself to get rid of it, trusting that their life couldn't get any worse. Mostly when they let a superpower intervene they just exchange one devil against the next, and nothing gets better.

---

Account frozen...

R/B you may not have understood the point:
No unjust and inhuman action is acceptable, no matter who is acting. If a government acts human and just and SERVES the People, why not keeping it's ruling; but if a government acts inhuman or unjust, and only fills the own wallets of the rulers whilst suppressing the People, then it's not worth to be called government, then it's tyranny.

Your definition of tyranny is a dictatorship that doesn't have enough support 'of the people'. The Myanmar military dictatorship does have plenty of support in the population. What's the difference? I think your from a country that had 2 seperate styles of dictatorships both of which 'served the people'. Of course that depends on who you talk to doesn't it? You think it's ok to violate people's rights as long as you get enough people to AGREE that the rights they're violating and the force the government is using is something they are in favor of. Oh, I 'get the point' alright.

You're not against dictatorships, just unpopular dictatorships. Minorities have no chance in hell in a system that you advocate. Let's not forget the individual is the smallest minority on earth. This is why they've got to build walls and use guns to keep people in line. They choose not to participate and have to be forced....but as long as they're being forced to 'serve the people' it's ok by you and people that support altruism like yours.

Bloody altruists.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

43 year old military dictatorship hauls away protesting monks after raiding monestaries and quelling marches. Attempts to cut off internet. Expels all foreign journalists.

I expect to see alot of support for this Junta since so many posters seem to be enamored of the use of government force on the citizenry in their own home countries......

.....errr....wait. Perhaps those people choose to believe initiation of force is ok when it's for causes THEY agree with but not ok when it's done for causes OTHER people agree with.

.. SNIP...

If I read what you are suggesting correctly 'R/B' then you are saying that we should not be so 'two faced'?

That we should not ask our society to fight for outsiders when we do not ask for change within our own countries.

If this is what you are saying then I agree with you.

However I believe I have every right to want other people to have at least the basic rights, oppourtunities and material benefits I have.

On this level I can accept my society is not perfect (far from it) but that we are all involved in social evolution.

I find no shame in wanting to raise other people's quality of life to at least my own.

On the other side of this or other world problems I would never want to send in the armed forces. (Our soldiers are there to protect us not to solve world problems.)

However I do think it a good thing that people stand up and be counted and make vocal their support for people without power.


As to:

Bloody altruists.

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

Cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

I doubt anyone is that selfless but our greatest people and our heros are made of such stuff.

I find no shame in wanting to raise other people's quality of life to at least my own.

The problem is that we have too many people and not enough resources to raise everyone up, and the people at the top refuse to come down... Of course, they don't mind stealing from some to enhance others, which only achieves a false perception of balance... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Your [thorin] definition of tyranny is a dictatorship that doesn't have enough support 'of the people'. The Myanmar military dictatorship does have plenty of support in the population.

It does? Who knew? Where are the polls? Is acquiescence the same thing as support?

I think your [thorin] from a country that had 2 seperate styles of dictatorships both of which 'served the people'.

So what? While the US may not have had one, it only exists because it's people rose up against the one that existed prior to the US's creation. Go back far enough and you can find a dictator governing almost every geougraphy.

You're [thorin] not against dictatorships, just unpopular dictatorships. Minorities have no chance in hell in a system that you advocate.

What system protects minorities? Unpopular dictatorships? What gives you that idea? Is is Hussein's Iraq, with the Sunni minority protected but the rights of the rest ignored? Are you saying such a system has merits?

You [thorin] think it's ok to violate people's rights as long as you get enough people to AGREE that the rights they're violating and the force the government is using is something they are in favor of.

Perhaps before making this suggestion you might consider that you and thorin disagree on what rights a person has, after all not everybody is an adherent to the Objectivist philosophy, and the truth of its view may not be apparent to all. I appreciate a discussion of rights is a little off topic, maybe a new thread is needed ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I find no shame in wanting to raise other people's quality of life to at least my own.

The problem is that we have too many people and not enough resources to raise everyone up, and the people at the top refuse to come down... Of course, they don't mind stealing from some to enhance others, which only achieves a false perception of balance... ;)

It is true that 10% of the world own 90% of the capital.

Yet it is also true that 99% of the produce of the world is made or extracted by the hands of that other disenfranchised 90%.

It doesn't require the people at the top to lower their usage of materials. In the west the people at the top actually use very few more resources.. (Most rich people don't eat any more meals than anyone else in the West..)

They own power and power like money is simply a collateral device.

If anything the people at the top need to give up their control and power over resources so those resources can be better targetted.

I don't know about the rest of the world but in the UK we have a population that is slowly diminishing. This is probably true across the western world.

Seems to me either that white european decendants are genetically on their way out or (and more likely) that western standards of living are better suited to control populations.

If populations are growing elsewhere in the world and we know ecconomic and civil freedom in our own societies create moderated birth rates there can only be one way to go.... Create more ecconomic success and political freedoms for all people around the world.

I agree those with wealth create a false sense of balance but it is like having a thorn in your side... It hurts but you press on.

I guess the situation in Burma and Zimbabwe (et al) tend to remind us on a personal level how powerless we are as individuals to help others.



(PS: I am not suggesting the Euro or US model is the standard but just that people have a right to feel safe, be fed and enjoy oppourtunity.)

I find no shame in wanting to raise other people's quality of life to at least my own.

The problem is that we have too many people and not enough resources to raise everyone up, and the people at the top refuse to come down... Of course, they don't mind stealing from some to enhance others, which only achieves a false perception of balance... ;)

It is true that 10% of the world own 90% of the capital.

Yet it is also true that 99% of the produce of the world is made or extracted by the hands of that other disenfranchised 90%.

It doesn't require the people at the top to lower their usage of materials. In the west the people at the top actually use very few more resources.. (Most rich people don't eat any more meals than anyone else in the West..)

They own power and power like money is simply a collateral device.

If anything the people at the top need to give up their control and power over resources so those resources can be better targetted.

I don't know about the rest of the world but in the UK we have a population that is slowly diminishing. This is probably true across the western world.

Seems to me either that white european decendants are genetically on their way out or (and more likely) that western standards of living are better suited to control populations.

If populations are growing elsewhere in the world and we know ecconomic and civil freedom in our own societies create moderated birth rates there can only be one way to go.... Create more ecconomic success and political freedoms for all people around the world.

I agree those with wealth create a false sense of balance but it is like having a thorn in your side... It hurts but you press on.

I guess the situation in Burma and Zimbabwe (et al) tend to remind us on a personal level how powerless we are as individuals to help others.



(PS: I am not suggesting the Euro or US model is the standard but just that people have a right to feel safe, be fed and enjoy oppourtunity.)

Nicely stated, cRunchy.

I stuffed up the quotation thing somehow once it got 'treed'. I just edited in 'R/B SAYS' to make it clearer.

43 year old military dictatorship hauls away protesting monks after raiding monestaries and quelling marches. Attempts to cut off internet. Expels all foreign journalists.

I expect to see alot of support for this Junta since so many posters seem to be enamored of the use of government force on the citizenry in their own home countries......

.....errr....wait. Perhaps those people choose to believe initiation of force is ok when it's for causes THEY agree with but not ok when it's done for causes OTHER people agree with.

.. SNIP...

If I read what you are suggesting correctly 'R/B' then you are saying that we should not be so 'two faced'?

That we should not ask our society to fight for outsiders when we do not ask for change within our own countries.

If this is what you are saying then I agree with you.

R/B SAYS: No, I wasn't saying that at all so I'm afraid we'll have to find something else to agree about.

However I believe I have every right to want other people to have at least the basic rights, oppourtunities and material benefits I have.
...I find no shame in wanting to raise other people's quality of life to at least my own.

R/B SAYS: I agree. You have every right to want whatever it is you fancy. Wanting and taking or forcing others to provide you with your wants is another matter.

On the other side of this or other world problems I would never want to send in the armed forces. (Our soldiers are there to protect us not to solve world problems.)

However I do think it a good thing that people stand up and be counted and make vocal their support for people without power.

R/B SAYS: This is a statement without a moral context. People 'without power' does not equate to 'the good'. Plenty of murderous dictatorships are formed by those that had no power one day and all of it the next.

As to:
[quote]Bloody altruists.

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

Cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

I doubt anyone is that selfless but our greatest people and our heros are made of such stuff.

Altruism doesn't really mean 'concern for others'. It does contain the element of 'selflessness' though. I'm speaking from the point of view of altruism vs egoism as a philsophic/ethical basis for discussion.

I couldn't disagree more with your definition of hero. I've never met, heard of, or can even imagine ANY hero being 'selfless'. Not in a million years. Those that are capable of being heroic in ANY fashion or field of endeavor must possess certain rational selfish characteristics within their soul. A totally 'selfless' person is one that you might find in the morgue somewhere. He has no concern for himself, no values, no ambitions, no thoughts, no ideals, no goals, nothing.

Perhaps you'd like to visit my 'Have you been a HERO today' thread I created about a week ago for more on how my definition of a hero differs from yours? Clearly we're not on the same page...and probably not in the same book either. I enjoy the convo though.

I stuffed up the quotation thing somehow once it got 'treed'. I just edited in 'R/B SAYS' to make it clearer.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Clearly we're not on the same page...and probably not in the same book either.

hero:

My definition - A man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength; someone who fights for a cause.

Your definition - A large sandwich made of a long crusty roll split lengthwise and filled with meats and cheese (and tomato and onion and lettuce and condiments)

Same page, same book... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

... SNIP ...
Altruism doesn't really mean 'concern for others'. It does contain the element of 'selflessness' though. I'm speaking from the point of view of altruism vs egoism as a philsophic/ethical basis for discussion.

I couldn't disagree more with your definition of hero. I've never met, heard of, or can even imagine ANY hero being 'selfless'. Not in a million years. Those that are capable of being heroic in ANY fashion or field of endeavor must possess certain rational selfish characteristics within their soul. A totally 'selfless' person is one that you might find in the morgue somewhere. He has no concern for himself, no values, no ambitions, no thoughts, no ideals, no goals, nothing.

No human is selfless but if you ran out to save a child who walked in front of a car you too would be selfless as an individual - you would forget yourself.

A hero is not someone we honour but someone that simply acts within their own self. (It is a completely self owned moment and totally selfish yet at that moment selfless.)

My heroes and heroins do not have to be famous. They are just people who risked or gave of themselves and benefited others.

We can all read Nietzsche or philosophise forever no doubt but philosophy is just fasion and not life.

Perhaps you'd like to visit my 'Have you been a HERO today' thread I created about a week ago for more on how my definition of a hero differs from yours? Clearly we're not on the same page...and probably not in the same book either. I enjoy the convo though.

It's your thread.

If I don't understand you then either I am impossible or you used a 'subject' that did not comply with your underlying meaning.

I see the subject of 'Burma' yet the original post looked like an attack on anyone that might want to join in on the topical meaning of the thread.



(For me being anarchistic does not mean being exclusive.)

I find no shame in wanting to raise other people's quality of life to at least my own.

The problem is that we have too many people and not enough resources to raise everyone up, and the people at the top refuse to come down... Of course, they don't mind stealing from some to enhance others, which only achieves a false perception of balance... ;)

There are enough resources - most of them are just owned and kept or exploited by the rich, who don't care if there are thousands of people dying, as long as their own already huge amount of money is still growing.

---

Account frozen...

Hm, Thorin - to some degree you are probably right, but sharing won't solve the problems (which we mostly have caused in the era of kolonization). So even if you might want to do the right thing you would be responsible for the death of no longer millions but maybe billions of people, once the resources won't be enough for a fast increasing world population be it 10 or 20 billion people.

It's best to help people to help themselves. Short term help has always to go on par with longterm improvements, else next time simply more people die. We also face huge problems because everybody would love to have a car and a better life standard with drastic impact on the environment and so on.

There is a lot of work ahead...

---

Seems the protests were indeed crushed. Well IMHO peaceful protest usually works best, when there is a broad public (gandhi) that can be influenced and has some power. That's not the case here - politicians just think about the economy harmed because China would for sure not accept meddling into their sphere. And the generals there would only change something if they would be in danger to have to face trials for acts vs humanity.

There are enough resources - most of them are just owned and kept or exploited by the rich, who don't care if there are thousands of people dying, as long as their own already huge amount of money is still growing.

If you can understand why you haven't sold your computer and used the money to save a few lives, you can understand why those with assets greater than yours come to the same conclusion.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

R/B you may not have understood the point:
No unjust and inhuman action is acceptable, no matter who is acting. If a government acts human and just and SERVES the People, why not keeping it's ruling; but if a government acts inhuman or unjust, and only fills the own wallets of the rulers whilst suppressing the People, then it's not worth to be called government, then it's tyranny.

Your definition of tyranny is a dictatorship that doesn't have enough support 'of the people'.

No. My definition of tyranny is any government which rules by suppression.

The Myanmar military dictatorship does have plenty of support in the population.

Do you know that for sure? Who sez so? the official Myanmar media? They are controlled by the government. They can't say otherwise even if knowing better.

What's the difference? I think your from a country that had 2 seperate styles of dictatorships both of which 'served the people'.

No. None of the governments I've been living under has really served the people. They served their own agendas, claiming to serve their party.

Of course that depends on who you talk to doesn't it? You think it's ok to violate people's rights as long as you get enough people to AGREE that the rights they're violating and the force the government is using is something they are in favor of. Oh, I 'get the point' alright.

And you are wrong again.

You're not against dictatorships, just unpopular dictatorships.

As I said I'm against each governmental injustice. Each individual has human rights, and each human should be treated equal and have equal chances and rights. In most countries it's not like that, there some people are "more equal than the others".

Minorities have no chance in hell in a system that you advocate. Let's not forget the individual is the smallest minority on earth. This is why they've got to build walls and use guns to keep people in line. They choose not to participate and have to be forced....but as long as they're being forced to 'serve the people' it's ok by you and people that support altruism like yours.

I've got the impression that you misunderstand me intentionally. I never said that I advocate such thing. I said the only "force" should be a moral one, that people should be willing, driven by their own moral standards, to participate - or be ignored by the community if they don't do.

Bloody altruists.

Well... That's a topic of another thread.

---

Account frozen...

Clearly we're not on the same page...and probably not in the same book either.

hero:

My definition - A man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength; someone who fights for a cause.

Your definition - A large sandwich made of a long crusty roll split lengthwise and filled with meats and cheese (and tomato and onion and lettuce and condiments)

Same page, same book... ;)

I guess that same book is the rule.

I don't ascribe to his Sharia law that he wishes for the rest of you......pick one. egoism where your life is your own or the life under Sharia law. LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

If you can understand why you haven't sold your computer and used the money to save a few lives, you can understand why those with assets greater than yours come to the same conclusion.

Nope, I can not... Asking someone to give the shirt off their back is not the same thing as asking the owner of Old Navy to donate a few items of clothing to the needy... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Nope, I can not... Asking someone to give the shirt off their back is not the same thing as asking the owner of Old Navy to donate a few items of clothing to the needy... ;)

You can't really understand much of anything, which is why I didn't ask you.

While you may have decided for others what they cannot afford or not, that's not really an issue because they are free to decide for themselves, just as you are.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...