General

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

BrianAnderson — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:58:07 GMT

The fact that settlers tended to be violent towards Indians might have influenced who was willing to come over from England, for instance. Further, people grow up in a culture. If they see people of their parents' generation, whether their parents are participating or not, engaged in slaughter, this influences their thinking and development. If you live in a culture of military parades or where people who kill a lot of people are regarded as folk heroes, yes, this might tend to make your thinking more violent.

This is the part with which I fundamentally disagree. If parents during that time were engaged in slaughter, it doesn't mean that the children will be involved in that activity whatsoever. I grew up around a middle school and high school with kids drinking and doing drugs and having sex at an incredibly young age. The thought never came into my mind that I should be like them. I saw it was wrong, and it made me want to never drink and do any of that stuff because it showed me the importance of being a kid. So, yes, some kids might follow their parents' bad behaviors, but it's definitely not the case for everyone. That's just how society progresses. And I don't mean to speak for children of continual war, but I feel like all they'd want is peace.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

JAlanKatz — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:05:45 GMT

3. In any case I was not talking about ALL people living under big government, and not claiming that they were responsible for all government actions. I was merely making a comment about the tolerance of - and indeed desire for - government aggression amongst individuals living in different parts of the world, and that it seems to me that this is lower in the USA than in certain countries.

But what makes it seem that way? As far as I can tell, the US government is more aggressive than most. Do you mean that most of the violence committed by the US government is done outside the borders, whereas other governments commit more inside? First, that's rapidly changing. Second, no one thinks "wouldn't it be great if the government committed violence against me?" Everyone wants that violence to be committed against others. This is true whether it's being tolerated against other citizens, or other outsiders.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

JAlanKatz — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:02:59 GMT

That is so untrue. How can you back this up? I know you said you were responding to someone, but you still said this, and it has no meaning.

When someone says "how can you explain A except by B" and I offer reason C, it means I do believe that C is true, but not necessarily that A is true. I answer people on their premises. I believe we have a violent founding and violent past. Even a mainstream history book will show you that; a good history book will show it more effectively. I don't know that we're particularly violent as a people.

As opposed to now where we have the government's issuance of eminent domain.

Also a terribly statist program, and one that should be ended. What's the contradiction?

Are you kidding me? You're resorting to emotion and racism in order to try to prove your point. As I said, land ownership means not messing with other people's property. That also means no government deciding a race of people can be deemed slaves. All of the actions you listed were performed by individuals, not a collective group. With your logic, the 9/11 attacks really should be blamed on the population living in the Middle East.

So when the government of England decided a race of people should be slaves, that was wrong. Yes, of course actions are performed by individuals. That's Austrian 101. Nonetheless, those actions, by individuals, influence future developments. The fact that settlers tended to be violent towards Indians might have influenced who was willing to come over from England, for instance. Further, people grow up in a culture. If they see people of their parents' generation, whether their parents are participating or not, engaged in slaughter, this influences their thinking and development. If you live in a culture of military parades or where people who kill a lot of people are regarded as folk heroes, yes, this might tend to make your thinking more violent. As far as land ownership, I was referring to what types of actions qualify as Lockean homesteading. It seems to work out nicely that the kinds of things white men tend to do make this land ownership happen, but the kinds of things Indians tend to do with land do not give them ownership, but at best a sort of right of way.

It's an absolute joke that you're acting as if we all have a say regarding what the government, military, and CIA do on a daily basis.

I wasn't the one who went down that path. The claim I was responding to was that Americans might be less violent than other people since our government is less aggressive. It seems relevant to point out that it is not, and in fact engages in more aggression than most other governments.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

Aristippus — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:49:18 GMT

If you're talking about the US government in the 19th century then what you're saying makes more sense, since public opinion was somewhat influential at that time. If you went back, however, you'd see that if we were talking about any government (which wasn't necessarily the case) it was that of Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries, since my opponent claimed that the inhabitants of the newly established USA lived on stolen land and had brutalised the Indians.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

Marko — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:40:49 GMT

I was merely making a comment about the tolerance of - and indeed desire for - government aggression amongst individuals living in different parts of the world, and that it seems to me that this is lower in the USA than in certain countries.

So you merely feel the tolerance of - and indeed desire for - US government aggression against the Indians which JAlan was talking about was less objectionable that the tolerance and desire for government aggression in many places elsewhere.

That is great, but as it is something that can not be objectively judged isn't saying much.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

Aristippus — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:28:07 GMT

"While refusing to fault your people for the activity of their government, you fault other peoples for the activity of their governments."

1. I'm not American (or British for that matter).

2. Demanding and voting for more government aggression is quite different to the happenstance of being a subject of the British monarchy and aristocracy.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

Marko — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:16:57 GMT

In any case I hardly think the American ethos is any more violent than that of any other peoples. What is the evidence for this? In fact many other peoples have a far greater belief in violence - especially when using the government to carry it out (the evidence for this is of course the relative sizes of government).

A double standard.

While refusing to fault your people for the activity of their government, you fault other peoples for the activity of their governments.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

krazy kaju — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 06:17:18 GMT

Alright, I believe your claims Valject. (:

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

BrianAnderson — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 05:56:22 GMT

I claim that, in part, the American ethos tends towards violence because of a violent past and founding.

That is so untrue. How can you back this up? I know you said you were responding to someone, but you still said this, and it has no meaning.

to a game of "sign this treaty and give up these acres and we promise to protect your remaining land claims from attacks" only to be renegotiated the next month, or in some cases, within days.

As opposed to now where we have the government's issuance of eminent domain.

The Romans slaughtered the entire population of Carthage - damn violent Italians!

Exactly.

So the definition of land ownership allows that white men behavior give ownership, but Indian behaviors don't. That works out nicely. In any case, what's under discussion is not white men also chasing the buffalo, but slaughtering any Indian who comes across 'their' land, going on killing sprees, insisting that native inhabitants become their slaves, purposefully and knowingly providing 'gifts' of blankets infected with smallpox, and so on.

Because their governments invade so many more countries than the American government does? Because they have larger spy organizations than CIA, carry out more clandestine operations...

It's an absolute joke that you're acting as if we all have a say regarding what the government, military, and CIA do on a daily basis.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

JAlanKatz — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 05:06:01 GMT

'They' did this, 'they' did that. Not all settlers were unjust. Not all settlement was unjust. Where injustice occured, it was unjust. What's your point? The Romans slaughtered the entire population of Carthage - damn violent Italians!

It's a historical point. It's the history of what happened on this continent. As I said, there were just settlers - mostly the French, who for that very reason found themselves at war with the British.

In any case I hardly think the American ethos is any more violent than that of any other peoples. What is the evidence for this?

I was responding to a poster who claimed it was caused by our open gun laws. When engaging in an argument, I find it most effective to accept their premise and show that their conclusion fails even by their logic. So, rather than challenging the claim that Americans are violent, I offered an alternative hypothesis.

In fact many other peoples have a far greater belief in violence - especially when using the government to carry it out (the evidence for this is of course the relative sizes of government).

Because their governments invade so many more countries than the American government does? Because they have larger spy organizations than CIA, carry out more clandestine operations...

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

Aristippus — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:46:12 GMT

In any case I hardly think the American ethos is any more violent than that of any other peoples. What is the evidence for this? In fact many other peoples have a far greater belief in violence - especially when using the government to carry it out (the evidence for this is of course the relative sizes of government).

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

JAlanKatz — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:28:00 GMT

The question was not about moral dessert. The question was about violence in the present-day United States. I claim that, in part, the American ethos tends towards violence because of a violent past and founding.

To address your post directly, though, throwing around accusations of racism does nothing to change the fact that there was a civilization already present when settlers landed with letters from the King telling them that they owned this land, and could consider all inhabitants as slaves. They proceeded to blithely slaughter people they came in contact with (but not before seeking their hospitality and food when they found they didn't know how to live here.) They set up their own cities and societies, and considered people who had been living here to be pesky interlopers. One set of settlers stands out as exceptions - and so the British went to war with them and drove them from the continent, then sought peace with the inhabitants - only to then offer them blankets infected with smallpox. After the colonists who had received the most land from the British cut off ties with the British government, the official policy ranged from outright slaughter, to herding people into camps, to ill-executed plans to require them to be farmers, to a game of "sign this treaty and give up these acres and we promise to protect your remaining land claims from attacks" only to be renegotiated the next month, or in some cases, within days.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

Aristippus — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:05:05 GMT

Some white people may have committed unjust acts, some Indians may have committed unjust acts. That one white man is a criminal does not mean that all people who happen to have white skin are criminals. Likewise that one Indian has settled an area of land does not by itself mean that that one Indian - or indeed every 'Indian' - owns all land to which it is connected. How often do collectivism and its subset racism rear their ugly heads.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

jay — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:57:25 GMT

The Indians weren't entirely peaceful.

Re: Thoughts on the Arizona shooting

JAlanKatz — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:00:03 GMT

So the definition of land ownership allows that white men behavior give ownership, but Indian behaviors don't. That works out nicely. In any case, what's under discussion is not white men also chasing the buffalo, but slaughtering any Indian who comes across 'their' land, going on killing sprees, insisting that native inhabitants become their slaves, purposefully and knowingly providing 'gifts' of blankets infected with smallpox, and so on.