Self Preservation and Irreversible Decline [was: Electronic Freedom Foundation selective in support of freedom]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 1/13/16, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:32:52 +0100
> coderman <coderman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "On the Moral Superiority"
>>  - http://www.gatchev.info/blog/?p=1017
>
> 	Browsed that. It mostly contains commonplace bullshit and
> 	cliches. What's your point?
> 	
> 	Just one sample : "Twenty  years ago, if you were an American in
> 	Berlin, you would be revered" Sure. And pigs fly.

I find that polemic to be very good - not for the cliches of course,
but for two things:

1) an insight from a non American of how America was viewed leading up
to the end of the cold war (originally just "us vs them, we can do it
cheaper" eventually "us evil vs them higher moral ground");
(This itself might be nothing more than a cliche, but I appreciate the
insight from a post- Communist block human)

2) a proscription for "saving" the United States of America - find the
moral high ground, "export" that moral high ground (in action, not in
propaganda words); [s/moral/ethical/ as you will]

I am a "Western" non-American (Australia) and when I read the "
founding fathers' " words of the USofA and of Australia, I actually
find some of them to be genuinely worthy to strive for, to hold as
worthy in general for future generations.

The overt corruption, blatant violation of foundation (constitutional)
principles and basic human rights by the various "Western" governments
is enough to draw out the cynic in the best intentioned individual and
send the rest to some beer and TV soma.

I agree with the proscription of this polemic of "live/ action the
higher moral ground".

That is clear, unambiguous, allows for the personal/ conscience (Juan,
I'm keeping a firm open mind to political anarchy :) , and thankfully
proscriptive. In a world where almost every proscription is shouted
from tall poppy hills and nearly every cry for sanity is met with
bottomless cynicism (the latter of which I am entirely guilty as
charged), this simple and dare I say unassailable "solution" might be
something we can work with (propagandise, educate about, demand from
our "elected authorities").

"Embrace your inner control freak - demand ethical government!" perhaps?

Short of a benevolent (ethical) dictator (head of government), perhaps
the only ethical government is No Government - just can't seem to
shake this thought these days... damn you Juan! ;)


> 	By the way, in what sense did russia lose the 'cold war'? I
> 	think they still have enough missiles to teach the americans a
> 	leason or fifty.

Yes they have the firepower to easily win a hot war. The cold war is
that war for the hearts and or minds of the people - and Russia did
not lose this war to America per se, they lost it due to their own
leadership ( / their manifestation of "communism") - even though, as
the apparently Russian cold-war experiencing blogger said "America won
because they had the higher moral ground".


>> On the Moral Superiority
>
> 	null pointer

Frankly re the current Subject: "Self Preservation and Irreversible
Decline", "Moral Superiority" is I say the most practical answer yet -
if we trust that in principle humans are basically righteous/ ethical/
moral/ good, this seems a solid foundation for justifying political
anarchism yes?

Likewise direct democracy.

Before anyone jumps in to ask "surely the same applies to
'democracy'", note that democracy devolves to power ultimately wielded
by a very small cadre of individuals, in the case of USA and executive
orders, just one individual it seems, which is particularly
problematic since sociopaths are by nature attracted to such positions
or to controlling i.e. compromising or puppeteering those in such
positions;
- whereas with direct democracy 'the people' only have themselves to
blame, since they vote for/against every single law and executive
order, and in political anarchy, well who knows since we haven't seen
a large anarchist community AFAICT - perhaps anarchy would be more
practical and or long lasting than 'western (two) party democracy',
perhaps it would devolve to a modern tribal type thing... I doubt any
system will achieve a long lasting utopianism given the average state
of consciousness of humans on our lovely blue planet.


Perhaps s/moral/ethical/ ?  I have never quite understood why people
get hung up on these terms - perhaps past experience of religionists
ramming "Godly morals" down the throat? - if so, take control of the
word and smite those who would blaspheme the one true definition of
"moral" according to the god of your own sensible mind! :)

("Smite" as in, use words to cut them and slice them to size.)
Z


A couple of definitions:

  Ethics \Eth"ics\ ([e^]th"[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. ['e]thique. See
     {Ethic}.]
     The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn
     from this science; a particular system of principles and
     rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of
     practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as,
     political or social ethics; medical ethics.
     [1913 Webster]

>From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (20 July 2014) [foldoc]:
  computer ethics
  ethics

     <philosophy> Ethics is the field of study that is concerned
     with questions of value, that is, judgments about what human
     behaviour is "good" or "bad".  Ethical judgments are no
     different in the area of computing from those in any other
     area.  Computers raise problems of privacy, ownership, theft,
     and power, to name but a few.

>From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
  ethics
      n 1: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: {ethical
           motive}, {ethics}, {morals}, {morality}]
      2: the philosophical study of moral values and rules [syn:
         {ethics}, {moral philosophy}]