There are only two alternatives, the human race is civilised, or it dies out.

[a_unique_person]

Let's face it, in the end, with technological advances, the human race will be destroyed if it only relies on weapons technology to save itself. Weapons don't buy freedom, only a short moment of time.

The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

History has shown this to be true, time and again. That is, for short term results, you could trust in force, but in the long term, it is the use of peaceful means that endures.

And now that technology is still advancing, as it always does, to the point that a few individuals can cause mass destruction, it is more than ever a fact that my basic premise it true.

[Ed]

Nice thought. I think that you have it half right, violence can translate to peace. It seems to be sequential. Your contention assumes that everyone wants to play your game. If one entity does not and plays you for a fool you loose.

How well do you think Ghandi would have fared in the Third Reich?

[a_unique_person]

I am talking about the long term, in this case, tens of thousands of years. The rise of civilisation has been long and slow. For every step forward, a disastrous step back. However, the proof is there. It has been the cause of peace and education that has endured over the long term.

I recalled your quote from Harry Lime as I wrote this. WWII was a disaster for the human race, but it was only six years out of 1,00,00. Even if Adolph had won, he would have died in a few years. The cause of peace would have endured in the long run.

[Giz]

I like the sentiment AUP, but I'm not sure that history (other than the last century or two) supports you.

For the vast majority of history people/tribes/cultures/nations have been running amock behaving as if a genetic predisposition for aggressive expansionism was going out of fashion.

Two things have changed that:
1) Civilisation, but this is more of a catalyst, providing the necessary foundation for:
2) Technological advance, the rise in standand of living/longevity, education has seen a parrellel rise in humanism. After all, if you're uneducated, living on a subsistence level, with a life expectancy of hmmm, maybe a year, what value do you place on the next guy's existence? But with education, the chance to live out your three score years and ten, no longer in quite the same dog eat dog environment then empathy will start to get a look in.

The thing is - this is (historically speaking) recent. NOT the long view. Since the Industrial revolution we have experienced a historical discontinuity, before then there was no "cause of peace".

And Ed, Hitler did have a view on Ghandi, he told - either Chamberlain or Halifax - to just shoot him. Problem solved.

[Chaos]

I took AUP´s opening post to mean that "Whack them!" is not a suitable foundation for the survival of humanity.

There will always be different cultures on Earth. These differences lead to irritations (as in "Fundamentalist Islam vs. Western Culture", for example), which in turn might lead to outbreaks of violence (as in "9/11", for example) - not always, perhaps not even frequently, but it does happen. And with technological advances, both the frequency of contacts (and with it, the potential for irritation, and ultimately violence) and the potential cost in life and damages caused by the violence have drastically increased.

I can see that, if we do not find a way to stop/reverse any of that development, it will soon or later go "Boom!" big time, to put it bluntly.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am talking about the long term, in this case, tens of thousands of years. The rise of civilisation has been long and slow. For every step forward, a disastrous step back. However, the proof is there. It has been the cause of peace and education that has endured over the long term.

I recalled your quote from Harry Lime as I wrote this. WWII was a disaster for the human race, but it was only six years out of 1,00,00. Even if Adolph had won, he would have died in a few years. The cause of peace would have endured in the long run.

Gotcha. I sort of misunderstood.

Don't know how to respond, but true to the ethos of JREF, that will not stop me.:D

Seriously. I wonder how robust your notions are or whether they are simply a reflection of a local perturberaton in history.

The notion of one-man one vote is an oddity. The idea that women are more than chattels is likewise pretty darn new. That slavery is not a good thing is recent (I was thinking along the same lines as this, AUP, when I started that slavery thread.).

I guess that the point is that what we are experienceing now, today, does not necessarily represent an enduring trend. In fact, it seems to be highly informed by Victorian thinking. Not killing your neighbor is rather modern too (I am talking countries here, not individuals). 500 years from now, the idea that some wierd political philosophy should not be imposed by force might seem quaint.

If you want to muse on the future work the basics of human nature into the equation: Power, wealth and sex. Those things cannot be legislated away, nor outgrown.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Giz
And Ed, Hitler did have a view on Ghandi, he told - either Chamberlain or Halifax - to just shoot him. Problem solved.

I was thinking Nacht und Knebel. Same thing.

[Tricky]

I'm gonna take the opposite viewpoint from AUP here, just for the hell of it.

CiviliZation (damn snobby Brits and Aussies with their "sations") has lead to tremendous increases in the number of humans and the number of humans living in relative comfort. The last few hundred years have seen an incredible boom in population. Now this is all well and good (I certainly don't want to give it up), but I am unsure about the long-term benefit to the human race. We've made a horrible muck of the environment and drained the world of many of its resources in what is, historically speaking, the blink of an eye. We are living in a golden age which humanity will likely never see again. But the fall from grace will not wipe out humanity, I don't believe. It will severely curtail their activities, and almost certainly will create a very different kind of civilization, but it may be the only way that humans can expect to have a lengthy stay on this planet. Unless, of course, we evolve to be able to breathe carbon dioxide.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's face it, in the end, with technological advances, the human race will be destroyed if it only relies on weapons technology to save itself.

That is why I advocate using weapons technology AND small, marshmellow peeps, together. With the addition of small, marshmellow peeps -- of various colors - your dichotomy falls.


The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

History has shown this to be true, time and again. That is, for short term results, you could trust in force, but in the long term, it is the use of peaceful means that endures.

As you are defining "long term" here as tens of thousands of years -- lets see some examples? Because History has shown this to be true time and time again, there should be no problem coming up with . . . say . . . five?


And now that technology is still advancing, as it always does, to the point that a few individuals can cause mass destruction, it is more than ever a fact that my basic premise it true.

Your basic premise is classic sales technique - boil it down to just two choices, then make people think they picked one.

I am also unclear on the connection between your first two paragraphs.

(1) A country that relies -only- on advancing weapons technology to save itself is doomed;

(2) We must therefore give up rights for peace and stability.


Can you make the connection between "only relying on weapons technology" and "givieng up rights" a little more explicit here?

N/A

[Michael Redman]

We will either be civilized, or we won't be civilized. I see no real threat that we'll go extinct. We may very well make our planet incapable of sustaining billions of humans, but even if our civilization collapses, humans will survive, and, eventually, propser again. We're just too well adapted to life on Earth's variable surface to die out all together.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
History has shown this to be true, time and again. That is, for short term results, you could trust in force, but in the long term, it is the use of peaceful means that endures.


My first instinct is to call this b*ll sh*t, but I'll certainly change my mind if you can site some actual historical examples to support what you're saying.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's face it, in the end, with technological advances, the human race will be destroyed if it only relies on weapons technology to save itself.

Well, then, it is a good thing the human race doesn't only rely on weapons technology, and has more than a couple tools in its toolbox.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ed

The notion of one-man one vote is an oddity.

Not really. The notion of universal suffrage, on the other hand, is.

The idea that women are more than chattels is likewise pretty darn new.

Cleopatra. Aggripina (sp?). Joan of Arc. I don't have my books nearby so I can tell you which one, but either Aristotle or Socrates promoted equality for women.

That slavery is not a good thing is recent (I was thinking along the same lines as this, AUP, when I started that slavery thread.).

Slavery was seen as a very bad thing for a thousand years before it was reintroduced in the New World. And I just read your slavery topic to see what you were talking about, and its initial premise is wrong. Slavery was never economically viable in the New World.

[Roadtoad]

Interesting idea, AUP, but I would question whether we're discussing a voluntary curtailment of rights or the acceptance of responsibilities necessary for the cooperation of others, which would thereby make civilization possible. I mean, seriously, common sense tells me that yes, I can pull into a local truck stop, find the biggest, meanest driver in the place, and tell him that his Freightliner is the ugliest piece of crap on the highway. Under the First Amendment, I have that right.

For that matter, under the First Amendment, he has the right to make snide remarks about my Kenworth.

More likely, he'll simply kick my @$$, and leave me bleeding in the parking lot.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Interesting idea, AUP, but I would question whether we're discussing a voluntary curtailment of rights or the acceptance of responsibilities necessary for the cooperation of others, which would thereby make civilization possible. I mean, seriously, common sense tells me that yes, I can pull into a local truck stop, find the biggest, meanest driver in the place, and tell him that his Freightliner is the ugliest piece of crap on the highway. Under the First Amendment, I have that right.

For that matter, under the First Amendment, he has the right to make snide remarks about my Kenworth.

More likely, he'll simply kick my @$$, and leave me bleeding in the parking lot.

But you'd survive. :D

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Luke T.


But you'd survive. :D

Maybe. I used to drive Freightshakers.

You have to be somewhat crazy to willingly drive a Freightshaker.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's face it, in the end, with technological advances, the human race will be destroyed if it only relies on weapons technology to save itself. Weapons don't buy freedom, only a short moment of time.

I find this conclusion difficult to understand. There is no mention of Israel or Palistine or Capitalism. :confused:

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I find this conclusion difficult to understand. There is no mention of Israel or Palistinine or Capitalism. :confused:

Give him time. His next step would be to suggest that world disarmament should begin with Israel.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Luke T.
But you'd survive. :D

That might depend on how the truck driver feels about his second amendment rights.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's face it, in the end, with technological advances, the human race will be destroyed if it only relies on weapons technology to save itself. Weapons don't buy freedom, only a short moment of time.

Relying on any one singular thing will not create, build or maintain civilization. Weapons buy freedom in some ways, if used properly. But even if you say they only buy time, it's up to the civilization to use that time to arrange things to save itself

The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

Civilization is what brought us wars, weapons technology and other things you dislike. I suggest we try as few restrictions as possible. Too many restrictions make civilized people unhappy.

History has shown this to be true, time and again. That is, for short term results, you could trust in force, but in the long term, it is the use of peaceful means that endures.

Yeah and history has also shown us that it's easier for people to be peaceful after force removed the severe restrictions and oppressive control first.

And now that technology is still advancing, as it always does, to the point that a few individuals can cause mass destruction, it is more than ever a fact that my basic premise it true.

But civilization is also advancing and we got people disarming on their own without a shot fired from even the most archaic of weapons.

[Supercharts]

This will probably make little sense to many participants (like most of my posts) but currently on the History Channel the network is running a series titled "The Barbarians".
Hitler, Stalin, Ghingus Khan, Tamerlane, Sadam Hussane, Osama Bin Laden etc.
It made me realize that what we have today as a global society could have delayed for many centuries democratic ideas. People throughout history at the subsistence level have always turned to despots to improve their lives at the expense of other, more advanced neighboring societies.
The move from a barbaric society to a stable, democratic society depended on fundamental ideas developed by the Greeks, the Church and Science. Wherever those ideas were unknown serfs and slaves existed, war was constant, and the ruling class was the man who could promise the most with the least effort. Of course there are exceptions but generally civilization was started by the Greeks, nurtured by the Church and fullfilled by science.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Supercharts
This will probably make little sense to many participants (like most of my posts) but currently on the History Channel the network is running a series titled "The Barbarians".
Hitler, Stalin, Ghingus Khan, Tamerlane, Sadam Hussane, Osama Bin Laden etc.
It made me realize that what we have today as a global society could have delayed for many centuries democratic ideas. People throughout history at the subsistence level have always turned to despots to improve their lives at the expense of other, more advanced neighboring societies.
The move from a barbaric society to a stable, democratic society depended on fundamental ideas developed by the Greeks, the Church and Science. Wherever those ideas were unknown serfs and slaves existed, war was constant, and the ruling class was the man who could promise the most with the least effort. Of course there are exceptions but generally civilization was started by the Greeks, nurtured by the Church and fullfilled by science.

I saw ten minutes of “The Barbarians” the other night. I did not realize it was a series. I wish I had. I only saw the last ten minutes of the one about the Goths. Excellent graphics of little armies crossing a map. :D

Anyway, I understand completely what you are saying. Democracies are notoriously fragile in the beginning and very susceptible to outside influences. The incubation period is fraught with perils. Inevitably, power becomes necessarily more and more centralized, and the acquiescence of the people toward this centralization becomes a habit whose momentum is hard to stop, never mind reverse.

[Ladewig]

I need a lot of clarification here

The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

Would you give us examples of which restrictions on rights we should voluntarily submit to in order to gain peace and stability?

And now that technology is still advancing, as it always does, to the point that a few individuals can cause mass destruction, it is more than ever a fact that my basic premise it true.

If it only takes a few individuals to cause mass destruction, how does "ciivilizing" 99.99999 percent of the human race prevent these few individuals from causing mass destruction (perhaps on an extinctionary level)?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Not really. The notion of universal suffrage, on the other hand, is.


That is what I meant, one man (person) one vote.


Cleopatra. Aggripina (sp?). Joan of Arc. I don't have my books nearby so I can tell you which one, but either Aristotle or Socrates promoted equality for women.

Right. They can be enumerated. I am not talking about the abberations, I am talking about the mass of humans. The notion of female rights as we know in western democracies is fairly unique in history. Sure there are exceptions but they are just that. We are living in a twitch in the historical fabric regarding females.


Slavery was seen as a very bad thing for a thousand years before it was reintroduced in the New World. And I just read your slavery topic to see what you were talking about, and its initial premise is wrong. Slavery was never economically viable in the New World.

The evils of slavery are analogous to "evils" of masturbation. It was a characteristic of many (I'd like to say most but I just ain't sure) societies that, in spite of it's "Evil" was present. It is also not clear that amerinds did not practice slavery. Who cares how people view things. The real truth is what they do

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ed
Who cares how people view things. The real truth is what they do

Exactly. Which is why I am predisposed to automatically respond to gloom and doomsayers with distemper. A glance at history shows progress over the great span of time. To fear some kind of darkness ahead is to be looking backwards and mistaking the distance for the future. I am an optimist precisely because I have history on my side.

[Dorian Gray]

There are only two alternatives, the human race is civilised, or it dies out. Bit of a false dichotomy, isn't it?

[Skeptic]

Weapons don't buy freedom, only a short moment of time.

Actually, AUP, weapons DO buy freedom. For instance, the only reason Europe is not communist or nazi today is the arms of the USA and Britain. The only reason Australia is prosperous today is because the same weapons defeated the japanese empire. Examples could be multiplied endlessly.

The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

Oh really? Benjamin Franklin said it best: "those who surrender their liberty to achieve some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

No, it's the other way around: it is those societies that PROTECT people's rights and freedoms, not those that demand that they be surrendered in the name of "peace and stability", that prosper.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Weapons don't buy freedom, only a short moment of time.

Actually, AUP, weapons DO buy freedom. For instance, the only reason Europe is not communist or nazi today is the arms of the USA and Britain. The only reason Australia is prosperous today is because the same weapons defeated the japanese empire. Examples could be multiplied endlessly.



I am thinking of the whole course of history.



The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

Oh really? Benjamin Franklin said it best: "those who surrender their liberty to achieve some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".



I have seen this quoted many times. It is, however, a very ambiguous statement. By relying on arms for safety, is that not surrendering an important liberty? The right to live in peace without weapons and the constant threat of violence.



No, it's the other way around: it is those societies that PROTECT people's rights and freedoms, not those that demand that they be surrendered in the name of "peace and stability", that prosper.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am thinking of the whole course of history.


Then give us some examples from history that support your point.

[El Greco]

There is another alternative, humanity becomes subordinate to another species that gets past us in the evolution race (perhaps after severe climatological changes). A la "Planet of the Apes".

I like this idea :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by El Greco
There is another alternative, humanity becomes subordinate to another species that gets past us in the evolution race (perhaps after severe climatological changes). A la "Planet of the Apes".

I like this idea :D

Species or ...................... robots!

[uruk]

Th only way mankind will live together in peace is to make some big changes in human nature. I suggest lots of genetic manipulation.
We need to isolate the a**hole gene sequence and remove it once and for all. But that might slow human progress down abit.

It's usually the a**holes that provide the impetus for human development and advancement.

Think about it.
A-hole: WAAAA this food sucks!!!
us: Great! to shut this guy up, I gotta go find some spices.
Bada bing, bada boom: hey theres' a new world!!!

next example -

A-hole: I need elbow room!
Us: well there ain't none By the way, where are the Dershowitzs?
Really BIG BADA BOOM!!!!!

O.K. maybe that wasn't an advancement, but it kept us from going backward.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.


I agree. Thankfully, the supremely civilized good ol' United States is running the show, now!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


I agree. Thankfully, the supremely civilized good ol' United States is running the show, now!

Once again, I am thinking of the long term. The US empire will end one day. I seriously doubt it will last anything like as long as the Roman Empire.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The US empire will end one day. I seriously doubt it will last anything like as long as the Roman Empire.


What evidence do you have to support this?

[Skeptic]

Once again, I am thinking of the long term.

Quite true. Of course, the problem is that "long term thinkers" brought nothing but misery and horror to this world. Since they "know" the future course of history, and are so concerned about humanity in general, it is perfectly all right to have a "short term" catatrophe on the way, in order to kill off all those who disagree or oppose your noble long term goals.

The prime example of this is marxism. Marx "knew" that it is "inevitable" that a paradise of the workers is going to come true; so it was OK to create a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course, all that remained from the whole thing was the dictatorship. Fascism is another example. Hitler "knew" the superior Aryan race will eventually rule the world anyway, so if a few tens of millions of inferior beings must be "eliminated" for this high purpose, so be it. We know how that ended.

Same with your idea of "long term thinking": you "know" humanity will either be civilized or will die out; so, in order to avoid this "inevitable faith", you are all for disarmament and for giving away personal rights to the state, to "ensure security and peace". In the short-term (you know, 100-200 years or so), however, such actions will result either in a dictatorship (once the state starts taking rights from people to "ensure security", it usually goes on taking ALL their rights to ensure its survival) or annihiliation (when the "civilized" unarmed nation meets an uncivilized nation which was primitive and stupid enough to keep its arms).

By the time that will happen, nobody will know--or care--what the original "ideal" of "saving humanity" that got them into the idiotic disarmament and giving-away-rights mode of thought, just like nobody cares today what possessed the Bolshevisks to believe in Marx's nonsense in the first place. The sole result of your "long term planning", if ever put into effect, would be short-term disaster--like happened in all cases of such utopian thinking that were actually put into practice.

[Giz]

Don't derail him Skeptic, he was just about to provide examples!


Incidentally AUP, how does the Roman Empire fit your

"The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability."

Did it flourish economically and culturally as timeprogressed? Or did curruption, nepotism, and tyranny gradually leach away the vitality of what had been the Republic? Oh sure, Octavian gave them stability - at the cost of making them just another degenerating despotism.

Do you think if they'd followed your second point:

"History has shown this to be true, time and again. That is, for short term results, you could trust in force, but in the long term, it is the use of peaceful means that endures."

That Rome might not have fallen? I would say that history tells us - pretty damn explicitly - that sometimes you simply cannot reason with people. The Huns spring to mind. Who knows, perhaps OBL could count as well?

[Chaos]

Skeptic

The problem is not with "long term thinkers" versus "short term thinkers".

The problem is with people who "know" what will happen, as opposed to people who "speculate" or "propose" what might happen and then think "What can we do about that?".


The policy of "let´s do what seems best right now, and not give a d@mn about the long term" is stupid and ultimately suicidal. As is the policy "I know what will happen, so I do what I always wanted, knowing that my perfect future will come true".

What you obviously do not see is that there ARE problems that can been foreseen IF you take the pain to NOT imply that everything will come out exactly as you plan it to. Just because approximately 99% of all conservatives (yourself included) don´t believe in that, is not any less true.

[Ed]

What is the "long term"? If the Roman Empire dosen't count then I really can't think up any examples that could be brought to bear either pro or con regarding the initial contention. If that is so the question is unaddressable and falls in the area of philosophy. And whenever I hear the term "philosophy" I reach for my Browning. I wasn't always like that, I got it from Ian.

AUP, what exactly would you be willing to give up for the "common good"? For a calm environment that "enables" humankind and is as riskless as some might desire, I could see giving up things like reproductive rights, rights of assembly and the press and speech, certainly weapons, religion, we'd also need one common language. This the kinda stuff?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Chaos
Skeptic



The policy of "let´s do what seems best right now, and not give a d@mn about the long term" is stupid and ultimately suicidal.

Palpably wrong. It depends on the circumstances.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ed


Palpably wrong. It depends on the circumstances.

I can think of two circumstances in which it might be wrong:

(1) everything is so fine that whatever screwing up you can do is not enough to foul things up so far that it hurts

(2) someone else puts the things you screwed up back in order


Neither is very likely, if at all possible. And without these circumstance, "just do what you like" is, at best, Russian Roulette.

[Ladewig]

Take number two:
I need a lot of clarification here


The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

Would you give us examples of which restrictions on rights we should voluntarily submit to in order to gain peace and stability?

And now that technology is still advancing, as it always does, to the point that a few individuals can cause mass destruction, it is more than ever a fact that my basic premise it true.

If it only takes a few individuals to cause mass destruction, how does "civilizing" 99.99999 percent of the human race prevent these few individuals from causing mass destruction (perhaps on an extinctionary level)?

[TillEulenspiegel]

I've said it before and will probably say it again, We are nothing but apes with car keys. Maybe it's just typical homo-hubris that makes us believe we're the best thing since bipedalism. Nature spent millions of years on dinosaurs and flushed them down the 'ole evolutionary toilet, perhaps we're not the end all and be all that we think we are. Maybe we're just one more experiment. A lot can happen in a few billion years.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am talking about the long term, in this case, tens of thousands of years. The rise of civilisation has been long and slow. For every step forward, a disastrous step back. However, the proof is there. It has been the cause of peace and education that has endured over the long term.

I recalled your quote from Harry Lime as I wrote this. WWII was a disaster for the human race, but it was only six years out of 1,00,00. Even if Adolph had won, he would have died in a few years. The cause of peace would have endured in the long run.

I'm sure there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue, but you might be swayed if you give this excellent book a read:

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/BOOKS/Porter.gif



WAR AND THE RISE OF THE STATE
The Military Foundations of Modern Politics
by Bruce D. Porter



"Clausewitz noted that war is just politics carried on by other means. What is less often remarked is that politics is just war carried on by other means. Bruce Porter, a distinguished scholar and an engaging writer, shows how the state makes war and war makes the state. Anyone concerned to understand how governments grow and rulers justify higher taxes, more coercive powers, and less individual liberty will want to read this highly readable book. War and the Rise of the State is perfect summer reading: it has battles, intrigue, clear-headed economics, history, and a moral: limiting war and limiting the state are the same thing."
—Tom G. Palmer, Cato Institute

"In War and the Rise of the State, Bruce Porter teaches us that, contrary to the views of most hawks and doves, the most important effects of war may not be who wins, loses, or suffers. Rather, war's deeper consequences concern its long-term impact on the very type of society we live in, consequences that are felt generations after the guns have ceased firing. A broad, thoughtful, and elaborately researched treatment of an underappreciated issue."
—Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History and the Last Man

"A profoundly original work that will forever change how historians, policy-makers and the American people view present and past worlds."
—Steve Forbes

"Neither a 'profoundly original book' nor an attack on the state, Porter's book is an intelligent and incisive investigation of the simple truth--long known to sophisticated military and political historians but seemingly a revelation to many modern academics--that the origin of the modern state and of modern politics lies in the overwhelming need for societies to exercise some control over the endemic internal and external violence that is inherent in human nature."
—Christopher Bassford

[renata]

For those of you who wanted examples- I thought AUP already gave one, with


WWII was a disaster for the human race, but it was only six years out of 1,00,00. Even if Adolph had won, he would have died in a few years. The cause of peace would have endured in the long run.

So those who want to know exactly what he would sacrifice for hope of peace and civilization in the "long term"- you now know. Europe and existance of a few races.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by renata
So those who want to know exactly what he would sacrifice for hope of peace and civilization in the "long term"- you now know. Europe and existance of a few races.

Too true. I chilling fictional account of exactly what you're talking about can be found in the novel "Fatherland" (I even think a TV movie was made based on the book starring Rutger Hauer...).

[Skeptic]

So those who want to know exactly what he would sacrifice for hope of peace and civilization in the "long term"- you now know. Europe and existance of a few races.

Yup. But you have to remember, AUP is thinking about the "long term". After all, all those annoying holocaust victims and opressed Europeans would have died eventually anyway.

Why risk militarism and evil non-peacful armament, just to save such temporary and short-term things like PEOPLE, when our concern should be the permanent and long-term utopia of CIVILIZATION?

AUP loves humanity. It's people he can't stand.

[NoZed Avenger]

More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Woody Allen

[Roadtoad]

Uh, NoZed, this is from the same guy who said he only believed in Sex and Death. Except after the former, you're not so nauseous.

As to an earlier point, AUP isn't too far off the mark. After all, let's consider Rome for a moment. The nepotism. The corruption. The evil. The selling of the Imperial throne.

You know, sometimes, that sounds an awful lot like the Bush Administration at times. Only, without the Secret Service and the cool cars we can drive today.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am talking about the long term, in this case, tens of thousands of years. The rise of civilisation has been long and slow. For every step forward, a disastrous step back. However, the proof is there. It has been the cause of peace and education that has endured over the long term.

I recalled your quote from Harry Lime as I wrote this. WWII was a disaster for the human race, but it was only six years out of 1,00,00. Even if Adolph had won, he would have died in a few years. The cause of peace would have endured in the long run.

I read this two or three times and had an epiphany:

AUP is right! We, as a species must become civilized!

The only problem is there is no way to convince the billions living on this planet to voluntarily do anything, so the only thing to to do make our species civilized is to kill all the uncivilized people. As an added benefit, reducing the population of the Earth to 19th century levels will ease the strain on the biosphere, and provide the remainder with a abundance of resources.

And we could all live in Berkley.

@@

[Skeptic]

I read this two or three times and had an epiphany:

AUP is right! We, as a species must become civilized!

Hitler (to name one) tried that one before, didn't he? Only problem was, to reach the utopia of superior planet-wide Aryan civilization, a few billions of inferior, temporary people needed to be, er, removed.

But, then again, he was thinking of the long term--so what does it matter if a few temporary people get whacked?

[Chaos]

Skeptic

I think Mycroft was being sarcastic.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Chaos
Skeptic

I think Mycroft was being sarcastic.

I think I was being sarcastic, too.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic


I think I was being sarcastic, too.

It was very hard to tell, considering the...well...special nature of your usual posts in the Politics forum.

(BTW: This was not sarcastic)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Chaos Skeptic

I think Mycroft was being sarcastic.

Yeah, I was, but even sarcasm can have a grain of truth. This thread reminds me of something I saw at despair.com, a web business that makes parodies of motivational posters.

http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1771_4428490

It's funny because there is truth to it. In business, this is often how you improve morale. They won't phrase it so bluntly, they will talk about needing people who are "team players" who "share a common vision" but in practice it comes down to firing the people who are unhappy and replacing them.

Take the same concept and apply it to international politics, and you can argue that war is a method of persuasion where you kill the people that don't agree with you. When you have killed enough that the rest of them are willing to change their minds, you can have peace.

AUP suggests we need to embrace some vague standard of civilization, where we voluntarily agree to give up some rights for the greater good. I see this as just a variation on “we could have peace if only everyone would agree to share our vision” where “our vision” could be anything from the correct way to worship God, the correct political ideology or even the correct definition of what a good society is.

The problem is that the world is populated with a lot of different people with different traditions and values. To get them to share a common vision, whatever that may be, would require the very same annihilation you seek to avoid.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I read this two or three times and had an epiphany:

AUP is right! We, as a species must become civilized!

The only problem is there is no way to convince the billions living on this planet to voluntarily do anything, so the only thing to to do make our species civilized is to kill all the uncivilized people. As an added benefit, reducing the population of the Earth to 19th century levels will ease the strain on the biosphere, and provide the remainder with a abundance of resources.

And we could all live in Berkley.

@@

I will be reprting this strawman to the moderators so your account can be terminated.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I read this two or three times and had an epiphany:

AUP is right! We, as a species must become civilized!

The only problem is there is no way to convince the billions living on this planet to voluntarily do anything, so the only thing to to do make our species civilized is to kill all the uncivilized people. As an added benefit, reducing the population of the Earth to 19th century levels will ease the strain on the biosphere, and provide the remainder with a abundance of resources.

And we could all live in Berkley.

@@

Living in Berkeley. A sure sign there's no hope for civilization.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I will be reprting this strawman to the moderators so your account can be terminated.

Oh please confine such jokes to your straw man thread. It’s funny there, but only distracting if you spread it to the rest of the forum.

If you believe I don’t understand your position well enough, you could respond by clarifying it. Such clarification might include:

1) Citing historical examples that support your thesis. You’ve claimed a couple times that it’s based on “history” yet have been really vague on how.

2) Giving an actual listing of rights you think should be voluntarily given up. You’ve been asked a couple times but have not answered.

3) State your position more clearly. You do have a tendency to be vague.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Oh please confine such jokes to your straw man thread. It’s funny there, but only distracting if you spread it to the rest of the forum.


Strawman, strawman, strawman.

[Skeptic]

I will be reprting this strawman to the moderators

Be my guest. Report me, too, while you're at it.

so your account can be terminated.

Yeah, right.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed

AUP, what exactly would you be willing to give up for the "common good"? For a calm environment that "enables" humankind and is as riskless as some might desire, I could see giving up things like reproductive rights, rights of assembly and the press and speech, certainly weapons, religion, we'd also need one common language. This the kinda stuff?

Still sorta curious about what AUP thinks about this.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Still sorta curious about what AUP thinks about this.

Mostly just civilised approaches to stuff, rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly. Just not resorting to brute force for stupid reasons. And have that as a part of the culture.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Mostly just civilised approaches to stuff, rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly. Just not resorting to brute force for stupid reasons. And have that as a part of the culture.

Interesting, because if you really read the Constitution, that was sort of the idea behind the United States. We've drifted away from that, sadly, mainly because most Americans are too frigging lazy to pick up a copy of the same, (or read it for that matter), not to mention too lazy to read The Federalist Papers or any other book which discusses the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Instead, what we wind up with is people willing to do the damnable for the desireable, forgetting there were reasons behind the notion of keeping our nation to a limited government. A limited government does not have the resources to engage in the sort of skullduggery that we've gotten ourselves into.

(Kind of irks me that Hal has decided he shouldn't post, due to his role as Administrator. Given his knowledge of Alexander Hamilton, his input would be most welcome here.)

[Chaos]

I agree with Roadtoad wholeheartedly. Yours is the oldest democracy of the world. You have achieved a lot of good things at a very early point in history and kept it remarkably stable for a long time.

It is really, really sad that you are willingly giving it all up. You should open a history book and read it very carefully. There have been democracies before that ended...well...involuntarily, to put it in a diplomatic way. Find out how that could happen - and let that be a lesson for yourself, and your country. Contrary to what some people might think, I (and other "anti-american terrorist supporters", or whatever the current label is) do not want to see America destroyed or on its knees. We want a stable, healthy democracy.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Interesting, because if you really read the Constitution, that was sort of the idea behind the United States. We've drifted away from that, sadly, mainly because most Americans are too frigging lazy to pick up a copy of the same, (or read it for that matter), not to mention too lazy to read The Federalist Papers or any other book which discusses the intent of the Founding Fathers.



The constitution was fine for a horse and cart society with a limited franchise. But if you want the amenities of a modern complex world I think legal complexity and ambiguity are part of the package.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Mostly just civilised approaches to stuff, rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly. Just not resorting to brute force for stupid reasons. And have that as a part of the culture.

A world order based on the "rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly" would certainly be enlightened and civilized, but wouldn't it also be unspeakably boring?
The problem is that we enjoy 'resorting to brute force for stupid reasons' just a little too much.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Nikk


The constitution was fine for a horse and cart society with a limited franchise. But if you want the amenities of a modern complex world I think legal complexity and ambiguity are part of the package.

I wouldn't think so, but if you could post and example, I think I'd understand your point a little better.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I wouldn't think so, but if you could post and example, I think I'd understand your point a little better.

In your post you say.....

.............."Instead, what we wind up with is people willing to do the damnable for the desireable, forgetting there were reasons behind the notion of keeping our nation to a limited government. A limited government does not have the resources to engage in the sort of skullduggery that we've gotten ourselves into. ".........................

Its the consequences of a reversion to a more limited government that interest me.

Back in the 18thC the state didn't need to do much. Defend the borders, oversee the running of the simple legal system, handle a few foreign treaties and collect a few taxes. I oversimplify, but not a great deal. But at the same time life for many was nasty, brutish and short.

Our comfort and wealth today is the result of the operation a global economic system requiring vast resources and which, like it or not, requires big government. This has been accompanied by a rise in the awareness of individual rights way beyond the dreams of the 18thC ( duties are much less popular ). Like it or not we have to learn to manage this machine and I think that a 5000 word document which is a recipe for small government is not much help. Phrases like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or "liberté, egalité, fraternite' are fine rallying cries, but once the troops have been rallied they need to be organised!

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Nikk


In your post you say.....

.............."Instead, what we wind up with is people willing to do the damnable for the desireable, forgetting there were reasons behind the notion of keeping our nation to a limited government. A limited government does not have the resources to engage in the sort of skullduggery that we've gotten ourselves into. ".........................

Its the consequences of a reversion to a more limited government that interest me.

Back in the 18thC the state didn't need to do much. Defend the borders, oversee the running of the simple legal system, handle a few foreign treaties and collect a few taxes. I oversimplify, but not a great deal. But at the same time life for many was nasty, brutish and short.

Our comfort and wealth today is the result of the operation a global economic system requiring vast resources and which, like it or not, requires big government. This has been accompanied by a rise in the awareness of individual rights way beyond the dreams of the 18thC ( duties are much less popular ). Like it or not we have to learn to manage this machine and I think that a 5000 word document which is a recipe for small government is not much help. Phrases like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or "liberté, egalité, fraternite' are fine rallying cries, but once the troops have been rallied they need to be organised!

Good point. A global economy does require some management. While I couldn't see businesses regulating themselves to the betterment of local communities, or even, as we've seen of late, to their own benefit, in theory, that ought to be the desired goal. Since it isn't, you have what Paine described as the necessary evil of government. And since we can't count on businesses working well in their own communities, there's little chance of them helping someone a world away.

But the question remains: what is it you ask a government to do? I don't really expect them to provide me a pension in my old age, (and frankly, I don't think they should), simply because they've demonstrated that they can't be trusted with the task. The Social Security system isn't a borderline disaster, the train wreck has already occured, and the only thing left is to clear the tracks, bury the dead, and try to figure out a better way. By the time I hit 70, there's not going to be anything left, and you can guess that it's my kids who will be stuck paying for the disaster brought about by decades of fiscal abuse.

Consider this as well: It was the U.S. who installed the Shah of Iran. Granted, he was better than the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, but that's not saying a hell of a lot. He ran a secret police that was a close second in its brutality to the KGB and GRU. He opressed and brutalized the Iranian population. In the end, it all blew up in our face. Perhaps a more limited approach to the situation would have yielded a better result. I don't know.

But I do know that our government is taking on more and more, but doing worse at the core tasks: (1.) Defend the country, (2.) Deliver the mail, and (3.) Get out of the people's way. (George Will) Your thoughts?

[corplinx]

The most civilized behavior I get from other humans is after they see my gun permit when I pay for purchases with my credit/debit card and they ask to see my ID.

Who says weapons mean people are less civilized necessarily? Perhaps we should lop the hands off the schoolyard bully since they are to blame for his uncivilized behavior.

What's that whole causation vs. correlation fallacy thing again?

[renata]

Mycroft- are you banned yet?

Any multiple examples of historical proof yet?

[Kodiak]

*shove* (bump...whatever)




a_u_p, care to respond?

[Skeptic]

The constitution was fine for a horse and cart society with a limited franchise. But if you want the amenities of a modern complex world I think legal complexity and ambiguity are part of the package.

You have a point, but I would like to point out that this is perhaps THE most common misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is a great document NOT because it understood horses and buggies; it is a great documents because it understood HUMAN NATURE very, very well.

They were, above all, aware of its weaknesses, especially those that--experience showed--corrupted other governments. Thet limited governments, seperated its branches, put the bill of rights in place, and so on, to stop someone from ever gaining so much power to create a dictatorship. They realized that power corrupts, and that even if those who want the government to have a lot of power really DO want it to be so to help the citizenry, this very power will lead to curruption.

(How different, by the way, was the founding fathers' "pessimistic" view of human nature than those of the idealistic idiots who "believe in human goodness" or "believe in humanity's inevitable progeess"! How different their results--the freest, richest, most powerful nation in human history, on the one hand; gulags and death camps on the other.)

Human nature doesn't change (at least not on human scales--presumably it could change in, say, 50,000 or 1,000,000 years...). It is just the same today as it was during Plato's time, which is why reading him is still interesting, and just the same today as it was during the founding father's time. It is due to their understading of human nature, NOT of future technology which they couldn't have imagined in their wildest dreams, that the founding fathers' constitution still holds today and still works that well.

Yes, it is true that a bigger government with more intrusive powers would be more efficient in running the modern world than a limited one--in the short run. But this was ever thus--a big government could have run a horse-and-buggy society better, too, in theory; Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler built a marvelous autobahn system. But what the founding fathers--like Plato--understood was that the price one pays in temporary government efficiency by giving it too much power (in "fighting terror" or whatever) is, experience shows, a degeneration into opression, AND ineffficiency (due to monopolgy), in the medium and long run.

[hawkins_anderson]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's face it, in the end, with technological advances, the human race will be destroyed if it only relies on weapons technology to save itself. Weapons don't buy freedom, only a short moment of time.

The only solution is civilisation. The civil society that voluntarily submits to restrictions on it's rights, but in return gains peace and stability.

History has shown this to be true, time and again. That is, for short term results, you could trust in force, but in the long term, it is the use of peaceful means that endures.

And now that technology is still advancing, as it always does, to the point that a few individuals can cause mass destruction, it is more than ever a fact that my basic premise it true.

1.
To what characteristics are you referring as defined by you on how you define what it means for an individual to be considered "civilized"?

2.
Whose history?

3.
Humanity does not need the use of technology to cause mass destruction. All it needs is anger and confusion.