LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
B) My view that we don't need threats of violence for security. Diplomacy and understanding are the tools we need - these are sufficient to settle the differences which are, ultimately, a result of conditioning rather than human nature.
What about the following hypothetical world:
You give me the benefit of any doubt you have and I'll give you my word you can trust me. I have no wish to get in your face and I don't expect you in mine, but we can learn and benefit from each other through co-operation. It's ridiculous to be suspicious of each other's intentions as we only stand to gain by sharing the fruits/synergy of our human endeavour, and we will simply be expressing who we really are i.e. companions (as opposed to adversaries)......free from the constraints of conditioning primarily serving exploitation. As we're companions, I won't consider you to be a madman needing threats of violence to keep at bay, and you'll do me the courtesy of reciprocating this sentiment. Relax......we can achieve our natural, common, human aims because there are enough resources to go 'round in this world, we don't need to fight over them......and where's the sense in spoiling life through threats of violence only serving to piss off the next door neighbour, who in turn retreats into his shell and becomes hositile to the bloke 'round the corner who becomes......and so on.....setting us down the road of aggression and hostility and, ultimately, leading to aggressive and hostile governments? Is the opportunity to co-operate, learn and benefit worth spoiling because of the threat of a madman somewhere?......if so, is this principle any different to the establishment's bogey man designed to keep everyone in a state of fear?.......bogeyman/madman - where's the difference?....if we dig deep enough, won't we find that both of these concepts are being forced upon the people by the policies of an establishment bent on divide and conquer?
Sadly though NG, our experience over centuries has shown us that not everyone is a reasonable person with whom diplomacy and understanding is effective.
Naturally, most of us seek diplomacy, understanding and partnership to get what we want in our interactions with others on a quid pro quo basis.
But when this is not possible, then where do we go from there? One cannot negotiate with a man like Hitler, or for that matter a yob on the street - it is fruitless, one is seen as weak and his willingness to proceed to violence can only be met by equal or greater force in return.
Why do people obey the law? Most law abiding folk follow the law from the basis of an understanding of the greater good - these would find a ready home in your scenario. Then there is another large group who are either disinterested in the common good and only out for themselves, or who are simply ignorant of the common good; these obey the law out of fear for the penalties applicable to its breach, yet will take advantage of any situation where they feel no penalty is likely.
And what is the nature of those penalties? Do we give law breakers a good talking to to make them see the error of their ways? We could try it, but of course these are hardly reasonable people in the first place so its unlikely to be effective and has proven so time and again. Instead we use physical force to restrain and incarcerate these people, for in the end it is only physical force which denotes authority and the ability to apply law, and encourage reasonable behaviour.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
RE: Effective Gun Control in England - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread