71–80 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amish are strapped. They have lots of guns. They also have a lot of abuse that they sweep under the rug.
Citation needed. Pacifism is one of their basic tenets (actually rejection of violence is).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amish are strapped. They have lots of guns. They also have a lot of abuse that they sweep under the rug.
Citation needed. Pacifism is one of their basic tenets (actually rejection of violence is).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“[Pacifism] is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.” -- George Orwell In other words, you can be as “committed” to pacifism as you want, but your life and freedom, and your indulgence in your pacifist philosophy, is made possible by other people’s commitment to the defense against violence with violence, and, often, to their sacrifice.
That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an Amish Nation fare as well?
In history there's a handful of cases where there have been what are viewed as probably warless societies. Honestly I wouldn't say they fared any worse than warring states. Indus Valley Civilization, Rapa Nui Civilization, Early Sumeria... I'm sure there's countless others in reality but those are what I recall off the top of my head.
I find it difficult to actually piece together a narrative where war is actually a necessity. Empire itself, abstracted, is really just the displacement of toil which isn't a "necessary evil" by any means. And by far and large that is what virtually all war has been predicated on up to World War 2 which justified itself with teleological underpinnings like Marxism and Fascist ideologies; perhaps a few exceptions being outright hostilities triggered by emotional kings.
Ultimately it's survivorship bias, but the surviving population is selecting for all the worst conceivable parameters, which in turn has perverted our whole understanding of civilization. It's made it seem as if war is necessary, that defense strategies and assets must be in place, etc... I don't think this is really the case, but creating a policy system that is totally forbidding of the powers necessary to conjure the public force is a difficulty in and of itself.
I do also suspect that people who do tow the line of government aren't self-contained individuals, they do themselves require laws, governance, and espouse things like inevitable war are exactly those predisposed to causing it, and they're projecting themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our legal system is what protects their land and property from just being taken by other Americans. It also allows them to maintain a lifestyle with minimal interaction with the state.
One of the fundamental purposes of any legal system is to protect people's land and property from being taken by others. Furthermore, allowing people to maintain their lifestyle with minimal interaction with the state is probably the best possible use of the state in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are places where owning a car is a burden. I have lived in such a place and I didn't like it. There are pther places where owning a car is pretty much essential. I'd give up computers and the internet entirely before I gave up my car.
Really curious what those places are. Because for me it's the other way around. I live in a Dutch city where you can get around easily by walking, biking or public transport. And for those rare occasions I need a car, I use a car sharing service. Don't know if you live in car-dependent suburbia(most people do), but that doesn't sound appealing at all.
Zoom in on Houston or Dallas, Texas for cities heavily reliant on autos. Or just about any place not in a major coastal city in the United States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Committed pacifists may not feel as much need for the military.
“[Pacifism] is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.” -- George Orwell In other words, you can be as “committed” to pacifism as you want, but your life and freedom, and your indulgence in your pacifist philosophy, is made possible by other people’s commitment to the defense against violence with violence, and, often, to their sacrifice.
But I would disagree with the notion that one society should only adopt a belief if it generalizes to the entire planet. That's not really a useful yardstick to judge feasibility in a world that requires heterogeneity and in which different groups have different pressures. Universalism is a bigger lie than pacifism.
So what role does pacifism play? Let's reinterpret the Orwell quote -- those who have money and guns can be Pacifists. I would say yes. If they were militarists, it would end badly as you would get powerful warmongering states. So a bias towards pacifism among those who strong and in no danger makes sense, just as a bias towards militarism among those who are weaker and in danger makes a lot of sense. Then we can look at the other aspect. If you are a radically different subgroup embedded in a larger population, you want to keep your head down. You don't want to be seen as a threat. So the Amish, famously apolitical and non-militaristic, are more tolerated by the rest of society.
I live outside of Pennsylvania Dutch country and two weeks ago driving in that area I was shocked to see many horse and buggy drivers distracted by their iPhones.
I think this articles attributes intent and wisdom where it is not due and as such should be at best considered a romanticization of their culture. Even tough it seems they understand the choice they are making regarding some technology and even tough in many case with hindsight it appears that they made some judicious choices for their society wellbeing, I argue they do not have the tools to make those choices in an…
> I argue they do not have the tools to make those choices in an unbiased manner as those tought experiments are also technological byproducts. I wonder if the rest of us use technology in an unbiased experimental manner without regard to the consequences? As the decades go by we become increasingly stressed having to deal with commutes and corporations and bureaucracies and living in a world of phone zombies, mass m…
All technology is the product of people with beliefs about prevailing conditions and beliefs of what is valuable. As the articles says, technology is not some isolated, abstract thing. It is embedded in a much larger reality that is indeed value-laden, thus making technology itself value-laden.