4 ms·

Your thought experiment is powerful because it forces the reader to see the situation from a new perspective. But it fails to model the power dynamics, and thi

by panarky 16y ago

Your thought experiment is powerful because it forces the reader to see the situation from a new perspective. But it fails to model the power dynamics, and this is critical. If you found sensitive documents from Saudia Arabia, your conclusions make sense. Saudi Arabia isn't a global power, so you have good choices. You can give the documents to your government. And if your government isn't responsive, you lobby your government, or you become a citizen of another nation. But in my speculative version, as in the real-life situation, you don't have good choices. Your adversary isn't just a regional player, it's the primary global power. If you're a citizen of Kansaslahoma (or Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, the UK, Argentina, etc.), your government will not act against the global hegemon due to the power imbalance. So you can't just go citizenship shopping. If you believe there's a great injustice that must be resolved, your only real options are to do nothing, or to make a direct appeal to the people.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I'm not sure, but I believe instead of replying to my point, you just tossed it out without consideration. There's a long history in western civilization of what to do in just the situation you suppose. Where would you like to begin? John Locke? Hobbes? Confucius? Jefferson? MLK? Mandela? No matter where we start this journey we end up with individuals making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own actions. There is a fundamental difference between working to change a system by selectively exposing injustices and attacking the system itself. Now you might effectively come up with some sort of scenario where the only recourse is for the individual to choose war, but all you're doing then is picking option 3 from my list, and we haven't gotten anywhere that we weren't before.
- panarky 16y ago
  I hear you arguing that it's better to selectively expose injustices rather than attack the system itself. What I'm saying is that if you believe the system itself is the problem, then nonviolent resistance all by yourself may not be effective. And if those injustices are perpetrated by a global power, appealing to your small nation's leadership may not be effective. Many times real change only happens when an individual attacks the system, and usually that individual pays the ultimate price for their convictions. Take Guy Fawkes for example. He found the situation in 1605 England so dire and intolerable that he tried to blow up the House of Lords and assassinate King James. I'm not saying it's moral or ethical, but it's how things change. Guy Fawkes was drawn and quartered, but every year there's a holiday and fireworks for him in the UK. Only history will tell if Julian Assange is a hero or a villian.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    What I'm saying is that if you believe the system itself is the problem, then nonviolent resistance all by yourself may not be effective. I believe you are arguing that the individual should take various forms of action based on his/her best guess as to what the outcome might be. My point was that this is an individual choice based on internal criteria: going around guessing what outcome might happen from this, that, or the other action is not a basis for the choice to take action itself (although it might be a great basis for choosing the type of action) I don't decide to attack an intruder in my home based on some assessment of the possibilities of the various legal options I might have: I attack an intruder because I believe my life is in jeopardy. At the extremes the decision to act in such a blanket manner is an internal choice. Let's hang it up here. Thanks for the conversation! I hear us both agreeing that the thought experiment was worthwhile. I plan on using that the next time the topic comes up. Maybe we can make more progress then.

by panarky 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I'm not sure, but I believe instead of replying to my point, you just tossed it out without consideration. There's a long history in western civilization of what to do in just the situation you suppose. Where would you like to begin? John Locke? Hobbes? Confucius? Jefferson? MLK? Mandela? No matter where we start this journey we end up with individuals making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own actions. There is a fundamental difference between working to change a system by selectively exposing injustices and attacking the system itself. Now you might effectively come up with some sort of scenario where the only recourse is for the individual to choose war, but all you're doing then is picking option 3 from my list, and we haven't gotten anywhere that we weren't before.

panarky 16y ago
I hear you arguing that it's better to selectively expose injustices rather than attack the system itself. What I'm saying is that if you believe the system itself is the problem, then nonviolent resistance all by yourself may not be effective. And if those injustices are perpetrated by a global power, appealing to your small nation's leadership may not be effective. Many times real change only happens when an individual attacks the system, and usually that individual pays the ultimate price for their convictions. Take Guy Fawkes for example. He found the situation in 1605 England so dire and intolerable that he tried to blow up the House of Lords and assassinate King James. I'm not saying it's moral or ethical, but it's how things change. Guy Fawkes was drawn and quartered, but every year there's a holiday and fireworks for him in the UK. Only history will tell if Julian Assange is a hero or a villian.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  What I'm saying is that if you believe the system itself is the problem, then nonviolent resistance all by yourself may not be effective. I believe you are arguing that the individual should take various forms of action based on his/her best guess as to what the outcome might be. My point was that this is an individual choice based on internal criteria: going around guessing what outcome might happen from this, that, or the other action is not a basis for the choice to take action itself (although it might be a great basis for choosing the type of action) I don't decide to attack an intruder in my home based on some assessment of the possibilities of the various legal options I might have: I attack an intruder because I believe my life is in jeopardy. At the extremes the decision to act in such a blanket manner is an internal choice. Let's hang it up here. Thanks for the conversation! I hear us both agreeing that the thought experiment was worthwhile. I plan on using that the next time the topic comes up. Maybe we can make more progress then.