Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
Thanks Tree23Thanks

Thread: A Crucial Fault

  1. #31
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,683
    Thanks
    32775

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Providing there's adequate means for distribution. If you live in the desert, you're likely to experience water and food shortages because of the climate. Not really anyone's fault.
    Sure, but methods of distribution can be devised. Or people can be moved, whichever is cheaper ... we have lots of uninhabited non-desert areas in the world. And after all:

    Thanks from libertariat720

  2. #32
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,644
    Thanks
    7673

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Providing there's adequate means for distribution. If you live in the desert, you're likely to experience water and food shortages because of the climate. Not really anyone's fault.
    Example: Germany fishing small shrimp in the northern sea.. shipping them to Africa , where they get peeled, then ship them back to Germany to sell them.

    And that ordeal is still economical sane compared to pay proper wages for peeling directly at the source in Germany.

    We could easily distribute needed resources to any place in the world, if we wanted to.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  3. #33
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    315

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    What was UNTRUE about my statement? You are free to LABEL that statement as anything you wish. My question is how is it inaccurate or untrue?
    The premise of marxist dialectics is that all human conflict is the dialectics of opposite classes. This class war is drawn between those who possess private property -- land or territory as well as those things that necessarily follow from their ownership (which you have summarized here). To simplify, it is a conflict between the haves and the have nots and that the exercise of any political power is merely a way by which one protects what he has (for the haves) or to get what one doesn't have (for the have nots). This conflict is irreconcilable since the existence of the haves depends on the existence of the have nots and vice-versa. The only way forward through this impasse is for one to destroy the other -- hence violent conflict.

    My only objection to this is that territory claimed by a people to the exclusion of all others is necessary to form a nation.

    So, unless everyone is ready to peaceably co-exist in this planet without national or ethnic borders, there will always be conflict. But that is easier said than done since, an individual's identity includes a national or ethnic identity in the first place.

  4. #34
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    315

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    The scientific cause of conflict is limited resources. This works exactly the same from single atoms to the entire universe.
    Not necessarily. If you look at how human societies produce goods and services, there really is enough to go around the entire planet. The problem is profit and how the idea of making more of it is at the heart of why people produce goods and services in the first place. At some point, everyone needs to realize that the capitalist way of doing things will one day become untenable.

  5. #35
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    315

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Greed is the cause.
    Well yes, if you want to over-simplify the problem.

    Other people may disagree on the grounds that the technological leaps that we have made so far were possible only if large amounts of capital were concentrated in the hands of a few (visionary?) individuals.

    So we are back to the impasse.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70,427
    Thanks
    34283

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    The premise of marxist dialectics is that all human conflict is the dialectics of opposite classes. This class war is drawn between those who possess private property -- land or territory as well as those things that necessarily follow from their ownership (which you have summarized here). To simplify, it is a conflict between the haves and the have nots and that the exercise of any political power is merely a way by which one protects what he has (for the haves) or to get what one doesn't have (for the have nots). This conflict is irreconcilable since the existence of the haves depends on the existence of the have nots and vice-versa. The only way forward through this impasse is for one to destroy the other -- hence violent conflict.

    My only objection to this is that territory claimed by a people to the exclusion of all others is necessary to form a nation.

    So, unless everyone is ready to peaceably co-exist in this planet without national or ethnic borders, there will always be conflict. But that is easier said than done since, an individual's identity includes a national or ethnic identity in the first place.
    So what? I repeat, what was untrue about my post?

  7. #37
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    315

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    So what? I repeat, what was untrue about my post?
    You can't help acting boorish even if one agrees with you, I see.

    As I said, while I agree with you, certain well-established principles in political theory, (like the idea declarationalism and nationhood) disagrees.

  8. #38
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,281
    Thanks
    1220

    From
    Maryland USA
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    I'd like to open a discussion on a thought I had and have heard others talk about.

    When people disagree with each other, they tend to believe that the other side is not only wrong, but evil. And that notion is a major cause in a lot of the conflicts we see today. It is a crucial fault and also is universal across cultures it seems. For example, the wars in the Middle East, with the different factions of Muslims (Shia and Sunni). Each side is killing the other because they think they are fighting evil. People who follow the exact same religion are literally killing each other because of their different beliefs within that religion. That sounds insane to me.

    Do you agree that this flaw in reasoning is a main cause of a lot of the violence going on today? Is there anything we can do to work on it? And where does this all stem from?
    I would agree that disagreement morphing into evil and hatred is an international problem but a domestic one as well.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11th December 2014, 03:50 AM
  2. Obamacare and Latinos: why a crucial constituency is wary of signing up
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 25th January 2014, 03:18 PM
  3. Not Obama's fault? Then whose fault is it???
    By Taylor2012 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27th July 2013, 10:33 AM
  4. How to avoid a repeat, and why it's crucial to do so.
    By Truth Detector in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2nd January 2007, 10:53 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed