![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI thought that Gunslinger's link that he posted on my last OP was excellent.
It does tend to point out that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'.
Oh, sure, I'm English , therefore I have a right to know why I'm being arrested - if that that ever happens, the right to a fair trail by a jury of my peers, and even the right to remain silent. it's all there in the law book, most of it stemming from Magna Carta, a document dating back to 1215.
But all these 'rights' I have were fought for, and are dependent on other people doing something.
Liberarians talk about 'positive and negative rights', and make a distinction. "Nobody is obliged to provide you with an education" - that depends on others becoming teachers to get you this service.
Um , ok - but that means that nobody is entitled to 'due process of law' - for we are then obliged to others to become police officers, lawyers, judges, etc in order to work the system that we want. Hey - we even need people to volunteer to become farmers and greengrocers if we want to eat fruit! But, in the real world, you will find no shortage of people volunteering to be teachers, lawyers , or whatever. So , no more talk of what folks are or are not obliged to provide , please.
But let's remember that , just because someone shows up - for work, or for Jury Service, or whatever, lets not suppose that end there. Anyone seen the film ' 12 Angry Men' with Henry Fonda as the architect? Would any say that this was a good representation of the Jury system as we have it in the UK and US? Ok - I would want the guy in the white suit on the jury if I were on trial, but would anyone want any of the rest? And has anyone sat on a Jury and had to be Henry Fonda themselves? What I have seen happen in the Jury room does not incline me to trust the system , and i'm afraid that as we are not allowed to discuss specific cases out of court, then the chance of getting reform is plaugued with difficulties.
But the school classroom- that is different - isn't it?
I mean, teachers have no higher goal that teaching children , not only the facts of science, but also how to critique conflicting sources and interpret the evidence when a document may be biased. I mean, how many people died in the RAF bombing of Dresden in WW2? What do the official figures show?
A good student will say that the initial German estimate was over 200,000 - nearly a quarter of a million. But then , s/he may also point out that the German propaganda machine wanted to exaggerate those figures, and that later estimate indeed took the view that the German authorities stuck an extra nought on the end. So, who do you trust and why do we trust them?
And if you were to ask the teacher why the allies bombed Dresden in the first place - what would s/he say?
That Dresden was a city of art and culture, but thousands of refugees were pouring in to flee the fighting on the Eastern Front - but Churchill bombed Dresden in revenge for London and Coventry, catching thousands of innocent civilians in a dreadful firestorm?
Or would Teacher respond that the Red Army was certain to come pouring into the city on its way to Berlin, and Churchill was prepared to utterly ruin this beautiful and magnificent cultural centre, just to show the commies whathis airforce could do, because he knew that once Hitler was gone, stalin would be the next enemy that Britain would be up against?
Option 3 would be to tell the class that Dresden was a focus for a whole rail network. That trains went up the line from there, sending troops and supplies to the Eastern Front. That the British insisted at the time that it was purely for military reasons that Dresden was bombed and that once it was accomplished, that the whole policy of 'Area bombing' was abandoned.
I wonder how many teachers would say that Option 3 was 'the official version' but the first two are allegations that have actually been made. How many would set the homework of actualy asking the class to investigate the two allegations, to go look at the newspapers archives and stuff in the Local library and go see what it says? maybe even ask them what they thought about it themselves?
Maybe it would be easier to get an American class to do this - but in the UK, Churchill and 'Bomber' Harris were regarded as war heroes - men who beat Hitler. Even 'Uncle Joe' Stalin himself was much admired by the British left-wing newspapers.
But asking a group of American students to discuss Segregation, or American involvement the Veitnam War - this might be tricky.
For the record, I know of the three possible answers to the "Bombing of Dresden Question".
I can confirm that it was in fact of strategic importance, but I have to say that Ii don't know enough to rule out option 2 or even option 1. I am not saying I can prove it, but I would not be suprised if it turned out that these factors had some bearing on the decision.
But do we want our kids to go criticising National Heroes? Do we want our kids to go thinking of krauts, ragheads and gooks as human beings like ourselves? Or that its wrong to use those terms about other people? Most importantly, do we want our kids to grow up challenging the very system *we* created for them, the system that provides their 'free' education ?
Actually, we need to ask 'free of what?' Free of cost? Free of bias?
Winston Churchill went to Eton. It never cost him anything - his parents paid.
And the public paid for most people's education in the Uk whenI grew up, one way or the other.
And do we in the US and the UK pay taxes to educate our kids 'for their sakes', or do we pay to have our own quirks and prejudices passed on to the next generation?
Even if you believe in the 'pay for it yourself' free market ethic, you are not going to find Robin Williams type teachers telling them to 'sieze the day' at your kids school, any more than you will find a reasonable, articulate and analytical person on a jury.
Neither the Free Market nor the State Collective seem capable of delivering these things on demand. Just so you know.
It does tend to point out that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'.
Oh, sure, I'm English , therefore I have a right to know why I'm being arrested - if that that ever happens, the right to a fair trail by a jury of my peers, and even the right to remain silent. it's all there in the law book, most of it stemming from Magna Carta, a document dating back to 1215.
But all these 'rights' I have were fought for, and are dependent on other people doing something.
Liberarians talk about 'positive and negative rights', and make a distinction. "Nobody is obliged to provide you with an education" - that depends on others becoming teachers to get you this service.
Um , ok - but that means that nobody is entitled to 'due process of law' - for we are then obliged to others to become police officers, lawyers, judges, etc in order to work the system that we want. Hey - we even need people to volunteer to become farmers and greengrocers if we want to eat fruit! But, in the real world, you will find no shortage of people volunteering to be teachers, lawyers , or whatever. So , no more talk of what folks are or are not obliged to provide , please.
But let's remember that , just because someone shows up - for work, or for Jury Service, or whatever, lets not suppose that end there. Anyone seen the film ' 12 Angry Men' with Henry Fonda as the architect? Would any say that this was a good representation of the Jury system as we have it in the UK and US? Ok - I would want the guy in the white suit on the jury if I were on trial, but would anyone want any of the rest? And has anyone sat on a Jury and had to be Henry Fonda themselves? What I have seen happen in the Jury room does not incline me to trust the system , and i'm afraid that as we are not allowed to discuss specific cases out of court, then the chance of getting reform is plaugued with difficulties.
But the school classroom- that is different - isn't it?
I mean, teachers have no higher goal that teaching children , not only the facts of science, but also how to critique conflicting sources and interpret the evidence when a document may be biased. I mean, how many people died in the RAF bombing of Dresden in WW2? What do the official figures show?
A good student will say that the initial German estimate was over 200,000 - nearly a quarter of a million. But then , s/he may also point out that the German propaganda machine wanted to exaggerate those figures, and that later estimate indeed took the view that the German authorities stuck an extra nought on the end. So, who do you trust and why do we trust them?
And if you were to ask the teacher why the allies bombed Dresden in the first place - what would s/he say?
That Dresden was a city of art and culture, but thousands of refugees were pouring in to flee the fighting on the Eastern Front - but Churchill bombed Dresden in revenge for London and Coventry, catching thousands of innocent civilians in a dreadful firestorm?
Or would Teacher respond that the Red Army was certain to come pouring into the city on its way to Berlin, and Churchill was prepared to utterly ruin this beautiful and magnificent cultural centre, just to show the commies whathis airforce could do, because he knew that once Hitler was gone, stalin would be the next enemy that Britain would be up against?
Option 3 would be to tell the class that Dresden was a focus for a whole rail network. That trains went up the line from there, sending troops and supplies to the Eastern Front. That the British insisted at the time that it was purely for military reasons that Dresden was bombed and that once it was accomplished, that the whole policy of 'Area bombing' was abandoned.
I wonder how many teachers would say that Option 3 was 'the official version' but the first two are allegations that have actually been made. How many would set the homework of actualy asking the class to investigate the two allegations, to go look at the newspapers archives and stuff in the Local library and go see what it says? maybe even ask them what they thought about it themselves?
Maybe it would be easier to get an American class to do this - but in the UK, Churchill and 'Bomber' Harris were regarded as war heroes - men who beat Hitler. Even 'Uncle Joe' Stalin himself was much admired by the British left-wing newspapers.
But asking a group of American students to discuss Segregation, or American involvement the Veitnam War - this might be tricky.
For the record, I know of the three possible answers to the "Bombing of Dresden Question".
I can confirm that it was in fact of strategic importance, but I have to say that Ii don't know enough to rule out option 2 or even option 1. I am not saying I can prove it, but I would not be suprised if it turned out that these factors had some bearing on the decision.
But do we want our kids to go criticising National Heroes? Do we want our kids to go thinking of krauts, ragheads and gooks as human beings like ourselves? Or that its wrong to use those terms about other people? Most importantly, do we want our kids to grow up challenging the very system *we* created for them, the system that provides their 'free' education ?
Actually, we need to ask 'free of what?' Free of cost? Free of bias?
Winston Churchill went to Eton. It never cost him anything - his parents paid.
And the public paid for most people's education in the Uk whenI grew up, one way or the other.
And do we in the US and the UK pay taxes to educate our kids 'for their sakes', or do we pay to have our own quirks and prejudices passed on to the next generation?
Even if you believe in the 'pay for it yourself' free market ethic, you are not going to find Robin Williams type teachers telling them to 'sieze the day' at your kids school, any more than you will find a reasonable, articulate and analytical person on a jury.
Neither the Free Market nor the State Collective seem capable of delivering these things on demand. Just so you know.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 10:26 (UTC)erm *Cough, Sir, you seem to forget, a right cannot be removed, there's a chance (albeit slim) that some Somali Pirates may take over the country and remove these privilidges you (and many previous guvmints) seem to be passing off as "Rights"
As for the Fair Trial, Sure, Oy yez Oy yez, Chardonay Chav will be on trial today accused of stealing a loaf of bread, this will be a free and fair trial followed by a hanging in the town square.
and even the right to remain silent.
We've been through Rights, you have None, not even the right to breathe ;)
"The Law book"? We have a few more than just the one my friend, unfortunately it's poorly collated and pretty much doubles up as out constitution ;)
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 10:42 (UTC)There is historical precedent for rights being removed.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 10:46 (UTC)it also seems apparent that you also want a good bit of dosh these dyas to get your rights, as declared by magna carta.
Ok, the medieval barons had themselves inmind when they wrote it, not the starving peasants shivering in the cold outside their castle walls.
They had to fight and die at the Battle of Peterloo to get their fair share of this ' justice' stuff wot the Barons were so fond of.
Oh - as a decendant of a long and distunguised line of English peasants myself, I know what my rights are.
Whether or not some copper is going to respect them or smack me over the head while he hides his nuber from public view is another question!
but but but......
Date: 9/8/10 11:28 (UTC)If he is able to do that sir, then it is not a "Right" merely a privelidge, rights cannot be removed ;)
And yes, you get the best governance your money can buy, unfortunately this leads to waste, (Hell I'd wager I could save 50%+ on all government spending) but this would of course remove many backhanders, also removing many peoples "Right" to govern in a corrupt manner.
Now we've realised that we have no "Rights", I'd like all those BS statements removed from the dummy cards refering to such in an erronous way, but they'll not listen to me, I've a criminal record :(
Re: but but but......
Date: 9/8/10 11:48 (UTC)Oh, all this talk of rights and privileges is academic, I agree.
but the point is that we are granted certain rights by English Law.
But if you know your rights and try to enforce them , the cops find this irritating. So do certain bosses, I might add.
All I'm saying is that if you are in the Freemasons, or have turned up at the cop shop with a suit on and some ifluential freinds business cards in yr pocket, you tend to get a better standard of sevice from Her Majesties Custodians of the Law.
By the same token , if you are a poor kid from a sink estate who does not know their rights, you may be suprised to learn that police officers have been known to forget to point thse out to you and start acting like you don't have them.
Shockingly, they have even been known to 'fit up' people for things that they could not have possibly done , but still managed to stamp 'case closed' on the file.
You start talking like a scruffily dressed middle class bloke who knows his rights, and coppers back up in case you have a suit at home and an expensive brief on your payroll. i know , because I have seen it happen . To me.
On the other hand, if you are not aware of your rights , the cops will try anything on and exploit your ignorance of certain finer points of the law. Again , I have personal experience of coppers doing exactly that.
You do have rights - you just have to find out what they are and stick up for them - because cops and supervisors will not neccessarily do that for you, even though they should...
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 10:40 (UTC)If you look around any London Square you'll see bronze statues of war-criminals through the ages. Shakespeare paints Henry V as such. England and the other constituent parts of the UK have, like most other nation states, blood on their hands.
For all that he was an Harrovian, Churchill is still a hero.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 11:26 (UTC)ok, my bad. I sent him to the wrong Public school. He was a hero, though ,as you say . A hero in the truest sense of the word - although I do wonder how far we can clear him and 'Bomber' Harris of harbouring any malice against the Germans.
Did you know that 'bomber ' harris was known as ' Butcher' Harris by the RAF crews who actually saw the results of the missions he led? I did not myself until recently.
If you look around any London Square you'll see bronze statues of war-criminals through the ages. Shakespeare paints Henry V as such.
Er, no. Shakespeare did not mention the killing of the French prisoners at the Battle of Agincourt. I have seen the Kenneth Branagh production of the film , as well as going back to the 'Complete Works' for the original text. Shakespeare wrote that the French massacred the unarmed squires in the English camp at the rear - a complete travesty of what actually occurred. When the battle was stiill in doubt, Henry V ordered the slaughter of all the French knights taken prisoner, to prevent the possibility of them causing any trouble to his own hard pressed forces.
Henry could be termed a 'war criminal' if there had been any sort of Geneva Convention in force. He definetly broke with what we may term ' the code of chivalry'. It was not on for kings to slaughter unarmed men who had surrendered, but Shakespeare does not portray him in any way other than a war hero who did no wrong.
Although i accept that Churchill was key to overthrowing Hitler and forging the international alliance that overthrew him, I am prepared to admit that Churchill had his faults. He was a heavy drinker, andd most modernday doctors would have him down as an alcoholic.
I have to say that it would not suprise me if Secret papers were one day unearthed that showed that Churchill bombed Dresden,not just for its military significance, but also as a means to demonstrate his capabilities to the Russians, or that he acted in revenge for the attacks on Coventry and other British cities.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 11:30 (UTC)At no point through time can I recall History being written by the losers, even if it were, It'd be ridiculed by friends of the Victor.
How many years will it be before the Wests warcrimes in Afganistan and Iraq come to light?
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 11:58 (UTC)But a little research this morning has unearthed a bit of the truth.
'Bomber' Harris was known among RAF crews as 'Butcher' Harris - not out of his morality towards the Germans , but his willingness to accept high levels of losses among his own aircrews.
Churchill, apparently , was not so keen on carpet bombing as Harris was, and harris wanted to make it clear that the bombing of civilians and the destruction of civilian housing estates was not repugnant in any way to him. He wanted the War Office to make it clear that killing German civilians, as an end in itself, was quite ok, and not just an unfortunate byproduct of bombing factories.
It's not a veiw that Churchill shared by all accounts.
looking ahead to the post war world that was surely coming , Churchill said that he didn't wan the allies to take over a totally ruined and wasted land.
Harris had no such qualms.
I seem to have misunderestimated Mr. Churchills attitude to the Germans.
I wonder if he wasn't as keen to scare the reds as some have suggested he was.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 13:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 16:36 (UTC)OTOH, some 'extreme Socialists', like Stalin or Mao want the State to take over completely.
No centrally planned economy has ever survived.
For me, it is State regulation of private ownership that works.
Remove regulation from the market and you get BP blowouts, Sub prime mortgages causing Credit Crunches, lead in your paint and smog in the air.
I think it right to say that the Collective ( society) can *offer* people rights - if it can persuade people to perform it's services. In practice, society has no bother recruiting cops, lawyers, teachers, etc.
Now, can the 'Free market' put up quality and quantity on its own? we have to look at what it produces and take a look.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 13:31 (UTC)PC Simon Harwood should have faced charges of murder...manslaughter at the very least.
We can't even protest within a mile of parliament, as it's against the law.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 16:27 (UTC)Absolutely.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 14:15 (UTC)Just as communism fails to fully account for the predatory nature of humans, libertarianism fails to fully account for the human need of a collective. Most of us will noodle around the middle trying to optimize the extent of capitalism vs socialism on any given activity.
As to rights, most people forget the other side of the equation. We have both rights and responsibilities. Part of one's responsibilities is to pay ones fair share of taxes. The richer one is, the MORE one depends upon stable governance because ones monetary wealth is no less abstract than ones rights. You are only rich because the collective allows you to be rich, just like it allows you rights.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 16:25 (UTC)Is this a bit long for DQ?
well, I don't give a damn - no one else puts it so clearly.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 20:57 (UTC)Not true. It just fails to do so in a way you will accept/understand.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 21:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 23:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 10:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 15:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 01:33 (UTC)