[Qingu]

Back to the original comparison -- are you now reading Thucydides? What did you think of Pericles' funeral oration? I see a lot of similarities between that ideology and Bush's. It's okay that your family died because they died in the service of (insert ideal here: Athenian hegemony or American hegemony = "freedom").

I think the Athenians and the Americans today are both ideology driven and see death and violence as a necessary mean to that end, rather than an end to be avoided at all costs. I also think in both cases it is incredibly ironic how fleeting and ultimately hypocritical that ideology turns out to be.

[guitarczar]

Originally Posted by OneHope

I'm not trying to play games here, but was does liberty mean. Also, if this is the idea of freedom (which I think its a good one) then you don't actually need a democracy to be free. I would be completely satisfied with a dictator if he protected my life, liberty and property.

Locke believed that the right to liberty stated that you could make your own choices as long as they didn't violate the law of nature. The law of nature was considered to be the law (use) of reason and God's will. This all existed in the "State of Nature." Actually, according to Locke, we were all our own personal dictators (he wouldn't use that word), in the sense that we all had executive power in the "State of Nature" and could punish anyone who violated the Laws of Nature. However, because of partiality and violence men agreed to shift their own natural executive powers to a larger group by means of a social contract. They did this so they could have 3 things.

1) An established law
2) A judge to make decisions according to that law.
3) The power of government to enforce the law.

So essentially the point is that men created government to protect their natural rights (life, liberty, property) and they gave up their own executive power to "better preserve themselves."

Reference to:

Laslett, Peter, Ed. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Locke, Two Treatise of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Back to the original comparison -- are you now reading Thucydides?

No, I don't have the time unfortunately but I am taking a first year Classical Studies course and my prof is a greek literary researcher so we spent a lot of time on Thucydides.

Originally Posted by Qingu

What did you think of Pericles' funeral oration? I see a lot of similarities between that ideology and Bush's. It's okay that your family died because they died in the service of (insert ideal here: Athenian hegemony or American hegemony = "freedom").

Yeah, I agree with you; I could picture Bush making that speech.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I think the Athenians and the Americans today are both ideology driven and see death and violence as a necessary mean to that end, rather than an end to be avoided at all costs. I also think in both cases it is incredibly ironic how fleeting and ultimately hypocritical that ideology turns out to be.

I personally think that there are some ideologies worth dying for. For example, I think fighting against Hitler and his ideals would be worth dying for. I think William Wallace (although my knowledge is from Braveheart ) fighting for freedom from the tyranny of King Edward was something worth dying for. I think though that nowadays, the beautiful ideals that people once thought worth dying for are now empty. George Bush spouts off 'freedom' whenever he has a chance. But the ideal of freedom in North America does not exist and people are seeing that now as we hear about rigged elections, censored science, lack of ethnic rights, etc. What is there to die for anymore? Nothing. I'm not dying so that George Bush can increase his empire or oil reserves. I think the last great war that was actually worth fighting was World War 2. The ideal of love was destroyed by the increase of the sex culture; I am called a prude and laughed at because I decided to hold out on sex for true love. I walk through a mall and all I see is materialism to the max. What is there that is worth dying for anymore? Nothing, and in for the same reason, there is nothing worth living for anymore in our society. Nobody lives for anything worthwhile anymore; everyone just lives for themselves and their pleasures. If you do live for something you are considered a fool, a bigot, a prude, a loser, etc. Gone are the days when someone could wave the flag of your country and you could actually feel pride for the ideals for which it stood. Gone are the days when you could be proud to be fighting for God, King and country.

Well, that was more of a rant about how I've been feeling lately about the emptiness of North American culture.

[Qingu]

Eh ... I think you're being a little too harsh on modern society. Would you ever have died for God, King and Country? That idea is just as absurd today as it was 200 years ago in Britain. I am personally glad to be free of such artificial duties.

I'd also like to clarify: there are many ideals (and people) that I would die for. There are far, far fewer ideals, if any, that I would kill for.

[OneHope]

yeah, I was feeling a little frustrated with society when I wrote that.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Would you ever have died for God, King and Country?

For God, yes. For King, definitly not today but maybe had I lived a while ago. For country, if it were world war 2, I would have fought for my country (which is Canada, btw) but nowadays, not a chance.

Basically, the days where fighting was fought over ideals is over and now we just fight for money and for egotistical leaders.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'd also like to clarify: there are many ideals (and people) that I would die for. There are far, far fewer ideals, if any, that I would kill for.

True, true. Although, I believe that it was just to fight the Nazis in world war 2. Diplomacy which I believe should always be tried first didn't work so war was the last resort.

That being said; I wholeheartedly do not agree with what George Bush is doing in Iraq.

[jfahler03]

Thanks for summing up Locke guitarczar... welcome to the boards by the way. My limited study of political philosophy really doesn't cut it, but I believe the basics of abstract ideas like democracy, freedom, liberty, etc. are very important before we talk about them being spread. Strange (opinion-driven rant here, Bush enforces and upholds the Patriot Act...but he talks about spreading freedom? Very strange.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Does this mean you'll eat your words when the religiously conservative Shi'ite leader they elect turns Iraq into a dictatorship again?

I agree with Qingu... just think: In 1932 in post WWI Germany, a new idealist was elected by the German people to bring the Fatherland out of its economic and political depression and restore it to its previous glory. Then in 1945 he killed himself after he set the world ablaze.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by OneHope

For country, if it were world war 2, I would have fought for my country (which is Canada, btw) ...

I hate to go off topic but this interested me. I think it's important to realize that even World War II seemed like a silly war for most people... especially with different worldviews regarding the Jews and other minorities - note that no one knew of the actual holocaust - other than the "participants".

While you are Canadian, and my history of Canada in WWII is limited, I have interviewed plenty of American GI's... which are painted as young patriotic sons of liberty in today's media... and in many cases they seem to HATE the notion of patriotism. Many weren't there for their country, let along a bunch of Frenchmen and Brits, but because they were drafted... and in turn many didn't keep fighting for Constitution and Country, but for each other.

Likewise, many young German men weren't members of the Nazi party... although many were brainwashed and capable of horrible things (which only a minority carried out). They were there for the same reasons... because the government knocked at their door, gave them a rifle, and put a uniform on them.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that while I firmly believe there are things worth dying... and killing for... in my life, I have to say that many times they are blurred in the action. For example, many 150 years ago would say that killing Indians is the right thing to do...that was the norm, they were less human. To what extent is a war just? While it's necessary in human events... isn't it a rather nasty means to any form of ends?

Just rambling off as I put my thoughts on here.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by OneHope

Basically, the days where fighting was fought over ideals is over and now we just fight for money and for egotistical leaders.

I don't know ... haven't money and ego always been a part of war? Especially the nationalist wars, up to and including WW1, which in turn caused WW2.

True, true. Although, I believe that it was just to fight the Nazis in world war 2. Diplomacy which I believe should always be tried first didn't work so war was the last resort.

I honestly don't know what to think about WW2 sometimes. LIke another poster said, the German army were not Nazis; many of them were sheep being led by a gang of extremist ideologues. And many of the Nazis were not even idealogues, they were just greedy. I probably would have fought, especially if I knew about the HC, but I would definitely have had mixed feelings.

That being said; I wholeheartedly do not agree with what George Bush is doing in Iraq.

Man, Ican't wait to move to your country. I would die for the Maple Leaf!

[guitarczar]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Thanks for summing up Locke guitarczar.

You're welcome, I wrote an essay on John Locke for a scholarship anyway.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I honestly don't know what to think about WW2 sometimes. LIke another poster said, the German army were not Nazis; many of them were sheep being led by a gang of extremist ideologues. And many of the Nazis were not even idealogues, they were just greedy. I probably would have fought, especially if I knew about the HC, but I would definitely have had mixed feelings.

I don't know, I just feel like there is nothing to fight for anymore. Maybe I've just been called a bigot and arrogant too many times for having ideals about truth and things like that.

Originally Posted by qingu

Man, Ican't wait to move to your country. I would die for the Maple Leaf!

yeah, I don't think I would though. Or maybe I would, I would fight for my family and friends though, not the flag.

[jc-16]

any way i'm just happy saddam is out of our way though we still have more work to be done

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by jc-15

any way i'm just happy saddam is out of our way though we still have more work to be done

Out of our way? Although Saddam is "out of our way", the insurgency and guerilla fighting isn't anything close to being over. Iraq was a giant mistake, and I'll be the first to turn this discussion off topic

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by jc-15

any way i'm just happy saddam is out of our way though we still have more work to be done

Hey, now George Bush dictates over there so I guess everything is better .

Maybe the French were onto something when they said it was a bad idea to attack.