Re: Facist turd exposed...again [OT] was Re: (MGP) Battlefield Evolution - Previews and Releases

Okay, for the sake of trying to aid your understanding one last time
before I give up on stoking your ego with this, let's backtrack to one
of your (admittedly successful in this instance) efforts to rile me
and broaden the scope a little:

"You know, I figured that Australia and South East Asia would knock
some of the idealist nonsense out of Phillip. But obviouslly not."

One point to you: You're right that I'm an idealist.
Two points against you: You are implying that idealism is either
naivety or incompatible with being a realist, both of which are simply
false.

Five years ago I spent three months in the poorest region of a country
that three decades of communist misrule had reduced from one on the
cusp of removal from the list of Third World nations to one of the
world's poorest. I have relatives in Zimbabwe, and have followed the
abuses and deterioration of the country over the best part of the last
decade as it's happened. And yes, I've visited Phnom Penh's genocide
museum, seen the remains, the portraits and testimonies that are the
legacy of the Khmer Rouge era. I've met the guides there who force
themselves to recount the horrors to visitors over and over in the
hopes that among the disinterested package tourists with their eyes
firmly fixed on the next place to tick off their itinerary there might
actually be someone who cares enough about what happened to
communicate the message to a wider world that couldn't care less. I've
volunteered teaching English to kids in the foreknowledge that in a
country with 80% unemployment the only words they'll ever need to use
are "Where you go?" and "Wanna smoke?" while cluttering up the streets
of a city already crammed to bursting with the detritus of
desperation. I've been mugged in a city where the authorities charged
with maintaining law and order won't make the slightest effort to do
their jobs unless the person who's just had their money and credit
cards stolen pays them the equivalent of their monthly salary.

And I've also experienced reality from the other side, the First World
democracies whose governments bicker about how much funding to
allocate to healthcare or what to do about global warming or water
shortages instead of routinely accusing each other of having political
opponents murdered. The ones where the winner of an election doesn't
usually need to worry about being kidnapped. The ones where the
majority of the population consists of adults over 25 and where
there's very little chance that anyone you meet over 40 was
responsible for having their parents killed by the previous regime.
The ones that have working constitutions, Human Rights Acts and legal
constraints on government power while those in the developing world
invent ever more spurious excuses for delaying the passage of basic
anti-corruption legislation. Is it any wonder that against that
backdrop I can become angry at this pitiful discontent (and yes, I'm
aware of the irony that today's song insert comes from one of the most
hate-filled diatribes against a Western government ever set to music)?

So, then, this is reality: The system doesn't work. It fails a lot of
people in a lot of countries. But the fact that it doesn't work
doesn't mean there isn't a system, and it doesn't mean that we
shouldn't aspire to make it work or that progress is not being made -
to take one example the Cambodian government's atrocious, but it's far
better to have incompetent, corrupt officials than mass murdering
megalomaniacs. For another, Madagascar is beginning to find its feet
under a government that actually cares more for doing a good job than
subscribing to Soviet ideology.

So, this is where the idealism comes in: The ideal is good government,
and contrary to your spoutings pretty much everyone from the UN to
human rights groups to national governments themselves recognises that
there is a duty on governments to administer on behalf of their
citizens and to act within the rule of law, as enshrined in writing in
countless charters and constitutions, and even in the manifestos of
political ideologies ranging from fascism to communism through
everything inbetween.

The reality is that this ideal has yet to be achieved. But the reality
also is that progress is being made towards it in many parts of the
world, including the Western democracies. And the reality is that the
ideal is a realistic goal. The evidence for that is in the observance
by the world's better governments of the legal and constitutional
constraints on their role, those governments' provision of public
services that benefit their citizens, the increasing levels of social
and economic development good government promotes, the beginnings of
movement towards consensus-led politics in the Anglocentric world, the
introduction over the last century and a half of increasingly liberal
laws on personal rights and freedoms and the recognition by government
officials and leaders themselves - in their manifestos, in their
rhetoric, in their actions - that they are functionaries fulfilling a
job requirement to benefit the people they serve (and isn't it
interesting that we've long had the phrase of a government "serving"
its people, if this is such a radical idea as you seem to think?).

Now, look at my case again from the start: the job of government is to
administer society for the benefit of its citizens.

Yes now prove that it is the job of government to administer society for
the benefit of society. I've asked you about twelve times now.

Isolated examples of where governments have had a beneficial effect, and
I must point out, some times arguably accidental, are not proof.

I've provided examples - that places the burden on you to show that
they are isolated cases and not damaging to your argument. It's for
you to show that near-universal government provision of education,
healthcare, social security, public transport, road infrastructure,
industrial facilities, waste disposal, environmental protection and so
forth is either isolated or accidental - it may be arguable, but it's
for you to argue it.

Discriminatory
laws, human rights abuses, oppression - these contravene the purpose
of government in the most grevious and brazen ways.

They contravene how a civil society should act but a government does not
have any particular requirement to be a civil society. In fact the
largest funders of the UN often have some of the harshest criticism made
against them by watchdog organisations.

I've recently complained about this very thing elsewhere, especially
after seeing the recent inaction in Darfur. As in Rwanda and
Yugoslavia actively protectionist policies towards human rights
abusers by major members of the UN Security Council have hamstrung the
organisation. It's well past time to strip the archaic Security
Council veto system - all that has ever achieved is to dominate
decision-making with a clash of national interests that ensures
nothing ever gets done, and the very idea of a veto is incompatible
with the purpose of a voting system, which needs to have freedom to
reflect the will of the majority. Either that, or there needs to be a
new organisation to take action in this sort of situation, since the
UN as currently constructed is simply incompatible with its purpose to
police human rights.

But back to our point, yet again the point here is not one of actual
practice. You can throw down examples of actual governments abusing
their power until you're blue in the face, but none of it will ever
actually address my point that governments are empowered to serve only
a specific social function for the benefit of their citizens - you
can't even define *abusing* power until you know what *using* power
entails. The very fact that we do conventionally talk about an "abuse
of power" by bad governments only serves to support my case.

It is this abuse
of government power that warrants condemnation and the removal of the
government involved. Period. It's immaterial whether that government
also makes the trains run on time, whether it generates an economic
golden age, whatever. It is simply in violation of its basic function
as a government to oppress or abuse its people,
precisely because its
function is to act for their benefit.

It's not a violation of it's function. It's simply counter to the
principle that a civil society is desirable. And both nature and nuture
tell us that social constructs like government and civil society are
mutable things, not the immutable structure that you're claiming.

The form of government, and the form of society change. But they are
at root identifiable as governments and societies - that's the common
thread that links them. Just as disciplines of science are mutable and
change over time, but practitioners within those disciplines are
scientists nevertheless because their function is to follow the ground
rule of science - to make discoveries through the application of the
scientific method. Societies differ in structure, but all are
aggregations of people acting to some degree in concert with one
another. Likewise a government is, at root, the mechanism by which
society's activities are coordinated for mutual benefit. Now, someone
can be employed as a scientist but not work according to the
scientific method - they are therefore not performing their function.
What I've been saying all along that government is precisely
equivalent to this; it too is a job to which people are appointed by a
variety of means, and workers within that job may or may not be
performing the task they've been given.

I never even expected this to be contentious; this whole ridiculous
posting session has grown out of a passing comment I made in a reply
to Sam that was actually about political ideology. I'm not putting
forward some radical new notion, simply using the idea of government
as our use of language, politicians' own understanding of their
function, UN charters and national constitutions worldwide enshrine
it, and you'd have to be incredibly isolated from the world at large
to be unaware of that, leading me to conclude that you're just playing
the fool for the sake of contrariness.

And at this point I'd really like to know, who is it that is telling you
that a government has a single fixed function? Is it a book you were
given as a child? Do you belong to some cult which is the polar opposite
of JWs? Did you have some really bad drugs in SE Asia?

For a start we can use part of the preamble to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights - you can read the rest yourself, but it
goes into specifics about the duties to protect individuals' rights
and the right to education, among other services governments are
charged with providing:

"Now therefore,

The General Assembly

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education
to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive
measures, national and international, to secure their universal and
effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of member
States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction."

And it's this that enables me to acknowledge that "in all but the most
extreme dictatorships the government administers public works,
education, economic development, healthcare and other aspects of the
society which benefit that society compared with not having a
government to provide them" without doing anything to threaten or
obviate my condemnation of abusive governments - a good government
will also provide all of those things and will do so without
persecuting its people.

And it's this that enables me to acknowledge that you've snipped out all
the examples I gave you of how administration is not morally good as you
claim.

You gave only examples of actual cases of abuse of power - as you
continue to ignore, and as I've reiterated above in several places,
these are at worst irrelevant and at best support my case precisely
because they are examples of a government abusing its power rather
than using it in the manner with which it has been charged; in fact
the examples you gave had nothing to do with administration at all,
further bolstering my point that these abuses are such because they
fall outside the remit of what the government is entitled to do.
Moreover, where did this "morally" sneak in? I've commented only on
the purpose of a government to fulfil a particular job description.

By the way Phillip, Mousillini didn't make the trains run on time.

I'm aware of this, and I'm also aware that if you want to criticise
someone for being ignorant of history, it helps if you don't
consistently misspell "Mussolini".

Oh another AD disguised as a spelling flame. How very mature.

This isn't life-and-death, Rob. There is a place for such a thing as
"humour" - read some of my commentaries on this thread to Erik. I was
simply pointing out an irony in what I found to be an amusing way.

And I'm seeing the same here with human rights. You appear to take it
personally that you're not the only one here with an interest in or
knowledge of the subject; I'm stepping on your turf and threatening
the pedestal of self-righteousness you're placing yourself on. So out
come the Vandeman tactics - Burmese junta, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Fidel
Castro, doesn't really matter who, just random shots in the dark
hoping to tar me with the brush of being in league with the bad guys.
Anything but face the possibility that we might be on the same side
but with different approaches - how dare I combine championing human
rights with championing good government. The very fact that I don't
agree with your perspective is just ammunition for you to try and
regain that pedestal of self-righteousness, a weapon to put you back
on top as the One True Human Rights Activist.

Phillip you're absolutely wrong.

Okay. All I can do is give my impressions. I can't say you've done
anything to change them so far, but I know that people often don't
come across the way they mean to. All I can say is that this is the
impression I have from you.

I'll admit I talk a lot of *** on
Usent and other forums. I start arguments about how Americans are stupid
and why Canada isn't a real country, but when I'm discussing a serious
subject and I have a point to make, I always always do my audience the
courtesy of substantiating my argument with reputible sources or
examples.

So far you've used no sources or examples. Argument isn't a one-way
reactive thing, Rob. You don't wait for someone else to present their
full case with a ream of references and then attack it. You present
your case with your support, the other side presents their case with
their support. Then both sides have fun attacking the other. If they
don't provide that support it's legitimate to call them on it, but it
is not legitimate to stand about hollering that they need to support
their argument and refusing to support yours until they do.

I often use an analogy comparing debate with chess, and the more I do
the more I like it and the more apposite it seems. This is a case in
point. In chess, both players start with their pieces on the board and
proceed to play against one another from there. One player doesn't
wait to put his pieces down until the other has made a move. Until
both players' pieces are on the board, we stay stuck firmly in the set-
up phase.

And really, this is not a serious issue here, any more than the sci-fi
thing was. We are both on the same side - we both believe people
should be free from government oppression and discrimination. We both
recognise that in reality this isn't the case, and I imagine we'd both
agree that it ought to be. The difference we're getting hung up over
here is incredibly trivial, a simple point of principle that makes no
difference in the practical scheme of things - I see an obligation for
governments to govern in the interests of their people, you see a non-
binding desire for everyone to form into civil societies. I see
tyrannical governments as abusing power, you see them as just being
governments acting as bullies because there's no obligation on them
not to. But it's a different perspective on exactly the same
phenomenon rather than anything serious to get worked up over.

And this is the thing I use the chess analogy for: a debate is a game,
just like chess. You set out a strategy - your argument - and your
moves - individual points - fall within that. Your opponent does his
best to counter those moves, and you do the same for his. And as with
chess losing a game is not the end of the world - as I say, this isn't
life and death. At the end of the day we aren't policymakers; no one
has any reason to give a toss if one of us is "right" or not. And
losing a game doesn't make you "wrong" - it means you came up against
someone with a better strategy. You don't need to change your belief,
just change your approach - learn where the gaps in your defences are,
spot the weaknesses you might have exploited in your opponent's, and
make a better argument next time. But if you don't realise what the
game is, you don't do this and you don't learn - which is what I meant
about you still seeming an amateur chess player. And if you don't
realise you're playing a game you just stressed, frustrated or
agitated over a simple, inconsequential intellectual exercise. It's
just a matter of knowing the rules and working to them. In our
metaphorical sense, I'm a good chess player - simple as that; I make
no bones about it. I've been trained as a philosopher, a lawyer, a
scientist - I know how to construct an argument and present a case.
I've engaged in so many debates with you and others that I've learned
the common strategies and developed my responses.

I've asked you to do one thing. Substantiate the claim that you made
that "the job of government is to administer society for the benefit of
its citizens". Forget everything else you may think this thread or
argument is about, do that one thing. Forget what you think my motives
are, do that one thing.

I've moved the knight as my first move and you're insisting it's still
in the starting square. Look at the responses I've made to you; just
those, forget your preconceptions, forget whether you think what I've
said stands as good evidence or not, just look at the content. Points
were made, I responded to those points. You challenged me to provide
evidence of beneficial government services that proved the government
acted as though it had a job requirement to administer society fotr
the benefit of its citizens. I pointed to a range of examples
including healthcare, education, waste disposal... Whatever you think
of that response, it was, simply, a response to the point being made
and requires reasoned deconstruction on your part if you disagree. I
provided reasoning from the anthropological development of social
structures. Again, agree with it or don't agree with it, it qualifies
as substantiation for the claim and that puts the burden on you to
show why it fails as such. You have yet to respond with your rebuttal
at all, even in a catchphrase.

You have made a claim that a *social* construct that has existed since
before homo sapiens sapiens was even a distinct species, before speech
existed, has one immutable purpose.

This may be where you're going wrong. A complex society is not just a
tribe writ large; the government of that society is not just the
latest incarnation of the chief. There is a reason that when I've
talked about "government" in a historical and anthropological context,
I have confined it to applying to the administration of complex
societies.

Government, in the sense I'm using it, is not something that "has
existed since before Homo sapiens sapiens was even a distinct
species". It is a social construct that emerged when societies reached
a level of complexity that required a centralised form of
administration to coordinate resource distribution. I've noted the cut-
off point from my background in archaeology as being early
Mesopotamian cities. Before that, government didn't exist, in the same
way that before the wheel was invented, wheelwrights didn't exist.
Government was a new function that came into existence when societies
found they needed it. Just as tribal communities don't have scientists
or lawyers, they don't have governments. They have *leaders*, but as
I've also said government is not equivalent to leadership.

It might make more sense in these terms: "Government", as I'm using
the term, is broadly equivalent to what we generally call the civil
service - it's the system that actively manages resource distribution,
public works and the like. Government as you seem to be thinking of
it, the visible political leadership, is simply an outgrowth of that
administrative structure, the part of it whose purpose is to determine
the policies the rest of the government administers. So, basically,
all I'm saying is that politicians are just another type of civil
servant. Does this make the issue less contentious? Or would you argue
that the civil service doesn't have a job description?

Hopefully the very simple point that just because you say or believe
something doesn't make it true has managed to sink through

It's not a point I've had a problem with - quite the reverse, I've
been doing my best to encourage you to actually present your own case
and criticising you for responding to my points with catchphrases
along the lines of "exceptions don't prove the rule" that you
apparently expect to be taken as self-evidently true because you've
said them.

Phil

.

Loading