 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Politics and Propaganda In Sci-Fi... |
|
Page 9 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mark Reichert... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:09 pm, trag <t... at (no spam) io.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 7:51 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:
Studies have confirmed that we don't want too many choices.
So we irrationally [1] eliminate a boatload of them to make the choice
easier. At least, that's what I do when confronted with hundreds of TV
channels, some of which are probably showing something more entertaining
than the Scrubs rerun I eventaully choose.
It's easier just to stop subscribing to cable. That eliminates all
the channels except the ones you can pick up on broadcast and saves
you boatloads of money which you can spend on season DVDs of the few
shows only on cable which were worth watching...
[/quote]
Problem is I like some of the educational shows. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric S. Harris... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
darwinist wrote:
[quote]Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?
If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?
[/quote]
I don't know to what degree "Rule Golden" by Damon Knight influenced me,
but when I re-read it after my politics underwent a change, I noticed it
made points that fit well with my new perspective.
The first time I read it, the broader ramifications didn't sink it; it
was just a good read. ("Just". Ha!) -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric S. Harris... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don Aitken wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:21:18 -0800 (PST), 23vl <2389vbl at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:43 am, darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?
If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?
Yes,I think that I turned into something of a rational anarchist after
reading "The Moon is a harsh Mistress"
I've never understood people (and there seem to be a lot of them) who
take their politics from "Moon". Do they just not notice that it is a
satire, the point of which is that the Loonies are *less* free after
their revolution than they were before, when they were convicts?
[/quote]
A couple of points regarding "convicts" and "less free".
Not all Loonies were convicts, or even ex-cons who had served their
time, probably not even most. (It's been a while since I last read it.)
Mannie and much of his family were Luna-born, never convicts.
Of the various Loonies I can think of by name, the only ones I know who
were born on earth are Prof, Wyoh, Stuart and Mimi Mum. Stuart was not
(officially) transported, and Wyoh was transported as a minor dependent
of convicts, not as a convict. Oh, nearly forgot Warden Morton ("Mort
the Wart") Hobart was transported for political crimes of some sort.
(... if you count the Warden as a Loonie, which most Loonies probably
would not.) Maybe Finn Neilson (Neilsen?) or Judge Brody, too, but I
don't think so.
The Loonies who were no longer convicts or never were were in Luna due
to physiology and/or a lack of valuta for the trip back and/or a lack of
desire to leave.
The impression I got was it took a while (some decades) before things
deteriorated to the point that Loonies were worse off (if indeed they
were) than they were under Lunar Authority. Call it 40 years.
If Manny was about 50 at the time of the Revolution (very much a guess,
based only on the comment "I've been married longer than that" and that
guess might be low) and he was not (quite) 100 at the time of the Luna
City Council passing an ordinance to license, regulate and tax food
vendors operating within municipal pressure.
That and other government burdens borne by Loonies was possibly more
than the Warden (and Lunar Authority) imposed, but hardly the chicken
guano government that Manny saw when taking training Earthside. It's
less than what Americans endure today.
Frankly, if I could trade the creature in Washington DC and Jefferson
City and Clayton MO for King George III and a Royal Governor, I'd do it
in a heartbeat, from what I hear. They didn't take much and they didn't
boss much, much like Mort the Wart and Luna Authority.
So I see MiaHM as not so much a satire as a commentary on a familiar
pattern: government over time increasingly harms people until it gets
intolerable and people throw it off or leave it behind, at which point
the ramp-up cycle starts again. Loonies got rid of Lunar Authority to
avoid food riots (and far worse) when carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and such
became scarcer due to exporting grain. Manny apparently plans to leave
Luna for a place without so much pesky government.
Another view is that the depletion of Luna's biomass in MiaHM is meant
to correspond to mercantilism's depletion of currency from the 13
British colonies. Sounds plausible, and it's not incompatible with the
view in the preceding paragraph. Or the satire interpretation, for that
matter. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric S. Harris... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mark Reichert wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 12:43 am, darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?
If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings, this
inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have the best
political ideas that you've seen?
Well, I particularly like Bujold's "People before principle."
[/quote]
I don't know the story so I may be misinterpreting the phrase due to
lack of context, but it seems to me that if your principles end up
harming people more than helping people, you've got the wrong
principles, or you're applying them badly.
I've given the whole "conflict between principle and X" some thought for
reasons which don't involve Bujold or SF.
The Libertarians I've encountered who get all perturbed and hostile over
any proposal to remove the "oath" requirement for membership in the
national Libertarian Party don't seem to much upset by the fact that the
Libertarian Party HAS NOT MADE ANY PROGRESS towards the party's alleged
goal of reducing the size and power and centralization of government in
the United States.
I say "alleged" because apparently to many Libertarians feeling morally
superior ("principled") is more important than actually reducing
government. Not all, obviously, but enough that the organization
continues to exist and get their support, despite its ongoing failure
and lack of progress towards even the first milestones on the path to
success at that alleged goal.
If a symbolic expression of your principles is more important than your
actual success at promoting those principles in the real world, maybe
it's time to either adjust your principles or learn to apply them
better. Eliminate the symbolic in favor of accomplishment, f'rinstance.
-Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dan Goodman... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eric S. Harris wrote:
[quote]Mark Reichert wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:43 am, darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?
If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings,
this inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have
the best political ideas that you've seen?
Well, I particularly like Bujold's "People before principle."
I don't know the story so I may be misinterpreting the phrase due to
lack of context, but it seems to me that if your principles end up
harming people more than helping people, you've got the wrong
principles, or you're applying them badly.
I've given the whole "conflict between principle and X" some thought
for reasons which don't involve Bujold or SF.
The Libertarians I've encountered who get all perturbed and hostile
over any proposal to remove the "oath" requirement for membership in
the national Libertarian Party don't seem to much upset by the fact
that the Libertarian Party HAS NOT MADE ANY PROGRESS towards the
party's alleged goal of reducing the size and power and
centralization of government in the United States.
[/quote]
The United States has a political party, considerably older than the
Libertarian Party, whose goals include the total abolition of
government. It's true that the Communist Party USA hasn't made much
progress in that direction, but....
And I suspect the CPUSA's membership includes a higher percentage of
capitalists than the Libertarian Party's does....
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric S. Harris... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan Goodman wrote:
[quote]Eric S. Harris wrote:
Mark Reichert wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:43 am, darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about political
issues, due to reading a story?
If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new settings,
this inevitably includes politics. Which stories or writers have
the best political ideas that you've seen?
Well, I particularly like Bujold's "People before principle."
I don't know the story so I may be misinterpreting the phrase due to
lack of context, but it seems to me that if your principles end up
harming people more than helping people, you've got the wrong
principles, or you're applying them badly.
I've given the whole "conflict between principle and X" some thought
for reasons which don't involve Bujold or SF.
The Libertarians I've encountered who get all perturbed and hostile
over any proposal to remove the "oath" requirement for membership in
the national Libertarian Party don't seem to much upset by the fact
that the Libertarian Party HAS NOT MADE ANY PROGRESS towards the
party's alleged goal of reducing the size and power and
centralization of government in the United States.
The United States has a political party, considerably older than the
Libertarian Party, whose goals include the total abolition of
government. It's true that the Communist Party USA hasn't made much
progress in that direction, but....
[/quote]
Really? The Communist Parties of other countries (at least where they
have gained control of the government) have been in favor of lots of
government. Totalitarianism, actually.
Perhaps the Communist Parties of Italy and France and such we not so
much into that, but I find it more than a little incongruous to think
they would be in favor of the total abolition of government. Perhaps in
the sweet by and by they would want and insist the state whither away,
but in the short term my hunch is they would want lots of it.
If it turns out that's not the case, I'd love to see evidence in support
of it. Marxists are such intriguing people -- as long as they don't
have political power.
At one point, the Communist Party of the United States was funded at
least in part by its Kremlin counterpart, and followed its lead. This
was especially obvious when the party line regarding Hitler switched at
the start and the end of the German-Soviet anti-aggression treaty.
[quote]And I suspect the CPUSA's membership includes a higher percentage of
capitalists than the Libertarian Party's does....
[/quote]
That's an interesting conjecture. Perhaps my understanding of the
Communist Party USA is very obsolete, or we're using different
definitions of "capitalist". -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dan Goodman... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eric S. Harris wrote:
[quote]Dan Goodman wrote:
Eric S. Harris wrote:
Mark Reichert wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:43 am, darwinist <darwin... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Have you ever had your mind changed (or made up) about
political issues, due to reading a story?
If we can say that Sci-fi examines human nature in new
settings, this inevitably includes politics. Which stories or
writers have the best political ideas that you've seen?
Well, I particularly like Bujold's "People before principle."
I don't know the story so I may be misinterpreting the phrase due
to lack of context, but it seems to me that if your principles
end up harming people more than helping people, you've got the
wrong principles, or you're applying them badly.
I've given the whole "conflict between principle and X" some
thought for reasons which don't involve Bujold or SF.
The Libertarians I've encountered who get all perturbed and
hostile over any proposal to remove the "oath" requirement for
membership in the national Libertarian Party don't seem to much
upset by the fact that the Libertarian Party HAS NOT MADE ANY
PROGRESS towards the party's alleged goal of reducing the size
and power and centralization of government in the United States.
The United States has a political party, considerably older than the
Libertarian Party, whose goals include the total abolition of
government. It's true that the Communist Party USA hasn't made much
progress in that direction, but....
Really? The Communist Parties of other countries (at least where
they have gained control of the government) have been in favor of
lots of government. Totalitarianism, actually.
[/quote]
During an interim period, the dictatorship of the proletariat is
required. But eventually will come the withering away of the state.
About the same time countries which declare themselves to be Christian,
Islamic, Jewish, etc. completely follow the principles of their
official religions....
I sometimes refer to Communism as the Church of Marx, Scientist.
[quote]Perhaps the Communist Parties of Italy and France and such we not so
much into that, but I find it more than a little incongruous to think
they would be in favor of the total abolition of government. Perhaps
in the sweet by and by they would want and insist the state whither
away, but in the short term my hunch is they would want lots of it.
[/quote]
And my hunch is that if Libertarians controlled the White House and
Congress, they would be the same way.
[quote]If it turns out that's not the case, I'd love to see evidence in
support of it. Marxists are such intriguing people -- as long as
they don't have political power.
[/quote]
Keep in mind that Communism is only one variety of Marxism. Socialists
have come to power in various countries, and in some cases have
governed quite well; in the Scandinavian countries, for example.
[quote]At one point, the Communist Party of the United States was funded at
least in part by its Kremlin counterpart, and followed its lead.
This was especially obvious when the party line regarding Hitler
switched at the start and the end of the German-Soviet
anti-aggression treaty.
[/quote]
That's part of my family history. My mother's parents were Communists.
My mother was in her teens when the Hitler-Stalin Pact came about, and
she broke with the family faith.
[quote]And I suspect the CPUSA's membership includes a higher percentage of
capitalists than the Libertarian Party's does....
That's an interesting conjecture. Perhaps my understanding of the
Communist Party USA is very obsolete, or we're using different
definitions of "capitalist". -Eric
[/quote]
I don't know the percentage; but a fair number of American Communists
went into business because they were blacklisted from jobs, and they
had to make a living somehow. Some of them became prosperous.
Libertarians haven't had the same problem, as far as I know.
In a world in which people adhered to their proclaimed principles,
things would be different. And conservatives, liberals, Communists,
and Libertarians would all behave quite differently.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William December Starr... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <GMOdnaXKMO5SpZ3WnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com>,
"Eric S. Harris" <eric_harris_76 at (no spam) wahoo.com> said:
[quote]Mark Reichert wrote:
Well, I particularly like Bujold's "People before principle."
I don't know the story so I may be misinterpreting the phrase due
to lack of context, but it seems to me that if your principles end
up harming people more than helping people, you've got the wrong
principles, or you're applying them badly.
[/quote]
The question is, on what scale, what level of granularity, do you
apply "people before principle" (which by the way is itself a
principle, ooh paradox). That is, do you waive the principle
_every_ time its application would result in harm to a person, or
only when its application results in more harm than good to people
over the long run?
For example, in the United States we have principles regarding how
people accused of crimes are tried for those crimes -- extremely
generally stated, "The accused must be given a fair trial" -- and
sometimes their application results in awful people going free even
though it's a near-certainty that, upon their release, they'll harm
people. Should "the state must prove the accused's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt," or "the accused is entitled to confront witnesses
against him" be waived when the accused is a really bad man whose
freedom would endanger people (but left in place when he's just a
mild-mannered accountant who embezzled twenty thousand dollars and
almost certainly will never be in a position to do it again)?
Sorry Lois (or Cordelia, or whoever), but I say no.
-- wds |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Howard Brazee... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 16 Nov 2009 05:29:00 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsgood at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
[quote]During an interim period, the dictatorship of the proletariat is
required. But eventually will come the withering away of the state.
[/quote]
In original theory, but I have seen zero evidence of this in practice,
and I don't see anything in theory that leads me to believe in this
path.
....
[quote]And my hunch is that if Libertarians controlled the White House and
Congress, they would be the same way.
[/quote]
Libertarianism can't exist once it takes power - it will become
corrupted by it.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Louann Miller... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Howard Brazee <howard at (no spam) brazee.net> wrote in
news:iqi2g5l7gi92moav753jd4jf1lb2cti6om at (no spam) 4ax.com:
[quote]And my hunch is that if Libertarians controlled the White House and
Congress, they would be the same way.
Libertarianism can't exist once it takes power - it will become
corrupted by it.
[/quote]
Heck, I don't think libertarianism could survive being corrupted by any
realistic POSSIBILITY of ever getting any power. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dan Goodman... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Louann Miller wrote:
[quote]Howard Brazee <howard at (no spam) brazee.net> wrote in
news:iqi2g5l7gi92moav753jd4jf1lb2cti6om at (no spam) 4ax.com:
And my hunch is that if Libertarians controlled the White House
and Congress, they would be the same way.
Libertarianism can't exist once it takes power - it will become
corrupted by it.
Heck, I don't think libertarianism could survive being corrupted by
any realistic POSSIBILITY of ever getting any power.
[/quote]
I'm told that the Libertarian Party has already been corrupted by the
unrealistic possibility of getting into power.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Walter Bushell... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4b00e31c$0$42841$804603d3 at (no spam) auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
"Dan Goodman" <dsgood at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
[quote]And my hunch is that if Libertarians controlled the White House and
Congress, they would be the same way.
[/quote]
Like the Republicans who ran on a platform of one term. Surprise!
surprise! They ran again, of course. The perks are just too good to give
up.^S One term is not enough to finish the job.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Walter Bushell... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4b00e31c$0$42841$804603d3 at (no spam) auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
"Dan Goodman" <dsgood at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
[quote]I don't know the percentage; but a fair number of American Communists
went into business because they were blacklisted from jobs, and they
had to make a living somehow. Some of them became prosperous.
[/quote]
Ha, and they probably got an advantage from their ideology. That is Marx
told them how to maximize profit.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Walter Bushell... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4b00e31c$0$42841$804603d3 at (no spam) auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
"Dan Goodman" <dsgood at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
[quote]In a world in which people adhered to their proclaimed principles,
things would be different. And conservatives, liberals, Communists,
and Libertarians would all behave quite differently.
[/quote]
Not to mention Christians.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Walter Bushell... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hdr4t3$d3u$1 at (no spam) panix2.panix.com>,
wdstarr at (no spam) panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
[quote]In article <GMOdnaXKMO5SpZ3WnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com>,
"Eric S. Harris" <eric_harris_76 at (no spam) wahoo.com> said:
Mark Reichert wrote:
Well, I particularly like Bujold's "People before principle."
I don't know the story so I may be misinterpreting the phrase due
to lack of context, but it seems to me that if your principles end
up harming people more than helping people, you've got the wrong
principles, or you're applying them badly.
The question is, on what scale, what level of granularity, do you
apply "people before principle" (which by the way is itself a
principle, ooh paradox). That is, do you waive the principle
_every_ time its application would result in harm to a person, or
only when its application results in more harm than good to people
over the long run?
For example, in the United States we have principles regarding how
people accused of crimes are tried for those crimes -- extremely
generally stated, "The accused must be given a fair trial" -- and
sometimes their application results in awful people going free even
though it's a near-certainty that, upon their release, they'll harm
people. Should "the state must prove the accused's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt," or "the accused is entitled to confront witnesses
against him" be waived when the accused is a really bad man whose
freedom would endanger people (but left in place when he's just a
mild-mannered accountant who embezzled twenty thousand dollars and
almost certainly will never be in a position to do it again)?
Sorry Lois (or Cordelia, or whoever), but I say no.
-- wds
[/quote]
You realize that Barayarr had a completely different system, where
personal loyalty was the glue of government?
In the US it's law in theory and money in practice.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:12 am
|
|