Privacy and the State

[MrGongGong]

I think so. As the arguments go in here, although a Taliban-condemned Afghanistan is a sad contemplation, to leave it alone to its fate will mean a lower quantity of 'violence in the world' than otherwise.

Is that the same "Taliban" who were the heroic "Mujahideen" freedom fighters against the Soviets by any chance ?
:sadface:

[teamsaint]

A quick look at the American state, as well as our own , might suggest that they are set up precisely to pursue their ends in a violent manner.
the US spends 20% of its Federal budget, ($650 Bn Dollars) on defence, and that is just the official figure. That's a lot of money for a country that is supposedly isolationist by tendency.

[Richard Barrett]

they are set up precisely to pursue their ends in a violent manner

... not only that, but some people make enormous amounts of money from that violence. From a 2005 article by Brian Foley:

Historically, war profiteering amounted to this: when there was a war, people tried to profit from it. A company making clothes might also start making uniforms and sell them to the army and make them as cheaply as possible and sell for the highest price possible. Now, though, companies are making war for profit. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Vinnell and Blackwater, such companies would not exist as we know them without war.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is basic corporate law. Corporations are set up to limit their owners’ risk of liability while the owners maximize profits. The directors and managers who run the company for the owners have a legal duty to maximize profits. The owners (shareholders) can sue the directors and managers if these employees don’t maximize profits in any given situation. These companies are not breaking the law by serving the US military and government. Indeed, they believe they are helping it. Look at their websites. They flaunt the companies’ connections to the US government. Old Glory and aggressive-looking eagles abound!

Forget "social responsibility," the idea that says a corporate manager may decide not to maximize profits if doing so would harm other "stakeholders" of the corporation, that is, individuals other than the company’s owners. Although many people can see how building weapons is detrimental to other stakeholders (read: everyone on our planet), what manager of a weapons company would ever decide to stop selling these products?

So, the weapons companies have a legal duty to make as many weapons as possible and as cheaply as possibly and sell as many of them as possible at the highest possible price. The only limitation is the market. And these companies will do whatever they can to capture the market and expand their markets (just as if they were making and selling diapers or cars). So they aim to sell as many as they can to the US government. And to foreign governments as well. If the rules prohibit US companies from selling weapons to foreign governments, or to particular foreign governments, these companies will try to have those rules rewritten.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Actually I do think it is "necessarily a better policy". How could it not be? What problems are solved by adding to the violence in the world? Your view of humanity is so impoverished it's unbelievable.

Barrett
Your posturing here is so much blustering froth. You're a blowhard.

My statement was worded like that because I didn't want to set another hare running - there are enough given that Hinton's on board. So I expressed no view either way.

[Richard Barrett]

Your posturing here is so much blustering froth. You're a blowhard.

That's the loveliest thing anyone's said to me all day. :loveblush:

[ahinton]

Barrett
Your posturing here is so much blustering froth. You're a blowhard.

My statement was worded like that because I didn't want to set another hare running - there are enough given that Hinton's on board. So I expressed no view either way.

Whatever the reason (if any) for your wording it the way that you did, the fact remains that your gratuitous insult to Mr Barrett has more than a whiff of "doth protest too much, methinks" about it, given that you accuse him of "posturing" and "blustering froth" (albeit without identifying why you assert this) in response to a post which is largely composed of a quote from an article by Brian Foley in the American magazine Counterpunch! Did you read it? If so, is it in fact its contents that strike you as "posturing" and "blustering froth"? If so, why not be honest and say so?

[ahinton]

That's the loveliest thing anyone's said to me all day. :loveblush:

Don't worry; the day is young yet!

Seriously, though, many thanks for your posts on this grave subject.

[Beef Oven]

Is that the same "Taliban" who were the heroic "Mujahideen" freedom fighters against the Soviets by any chance ?
:sadface:

No idea matey. Are they? If they are, they need to be more consistent.

Edit: So as not be misunderstood, groups like the Taliban and the more recent North-African freedom fighters, are neither 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. It's only when other countries stick their noses in, people tag them. I happen to believe that Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban, but it's actually none of my business. And if leaving them be means less violence in the world in general, then that's a bonus.

[french frank]

TWIMC: This is a serious subject. Please don't reduce it to levity and abuse. Thank you.

(One post which was deleted has, on second thoughts, been undeleted since on the whole it enables others to judge the quality of arguments ... Whereas abuse weakens arguments, joking is simply annoying.)

[amateur51]

Yeah, right on bruv - Pee needs to get real..............

First they came for the Gaperon-lovers,
and I didn't speak out because I don't like cheese.

Then they came for the Harry Nilsson lookalikes,
and I didn't speak out because I don't look like Harry Nilsson.

Then they came for the conductors that didn't use a baton,
and I didn't speak out because I like batons.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me.

Watch out Pee, there's a real fascist state out there! :laugh:

The dulcet tones of whiskey again? :erm:

[amateur51]

Barrett
Your posturing here is so much blustering froth. You're a blowhard.

My statement was worded like that because I didn't want to set another hare running - there are enough given that Hinton's on board. So I expressed no view either way.

House Rules

Please treat other members respectfully, even/especially if you disagree with what they are saying; and please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group.

[Beef Oven]

The dulcet tones of whiskey again? :erm:

What makes you say that?

[Beef Oven]

House Rules

Please treat other members respectfully, even/especially if you disagree with what they are saying; and please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group.

Roll-up roll up! Who's gonna have a go at topping that for the most hypocritical and condescending post for today!!?

Not a lot of emotional intelligence in NW2 :laugh:

[amateur51]

No idea matey. Are they? If they are, they need to be more consistent.

Edit: So as not be misunderstood, groups like the Taliban and the more recent North-African freedom fighters, are neither 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. It's only when other countries stick their noses in, people tag them. I happen to believe that Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban, but it's actually none of my business. And if leaving them be means less violence in the world in general, then that's a bonus.

Dave & Barack (and Tony) would challenge you on that Beefy - it is your business, because you have to make the world safe for citizens of the Western democracies which have interfered in their country for over a hundred years

[Beef Oven]

Dave & Barack (and Tony) would challenge you on that Beefy - it is your business, because you have to make the world safe for citizens of the Western democracies which have interfered in their country for over a hundred years

:laugh: Silly sausage! Of course it aint my business!!! I haven't interfered with anybody. Live and let live, me :laugh:

Aint there anyone else that you can wind up in here? Shall we get Mandy back for ya? :laugh: