h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

all i know is that Ghandi would be very disappointed in us all ... and the "Enemy" would probably accuse us of starting the wreckign crews first. It just reminds of a M A D situation too much - sooner or later somebody gets hurt, and by that time no one can say who threw the first punch, and it scarcely matters anyway.

I always thought being the good guys was about having a higher moral code than the bad guys ....

... otherwise, you might as well just be an American

Who cares what the enemy would accuse us of doing. We could accuse them of much worse, for example their ‘legal’ way of getting around electioneering rules (eg employers federation ads and oggi billboards). Actually I think defacing is more worthwhile and effective than displacing, but what are you going to do? Let everyone fight a “fair” (who is it fair for?) fight until the richest people come up tops anyway? And it may be a small insignificant thing to do but it shows that people care enough to bother. Where does your “high” moral code come from? Christian tags ain’t gonna help now. If you were a sado-masochist and wanted to be tied up, whipped and beaten, would you think it was ok to do that to other people even if they don't want you to? Where’s your moral code then? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a fallible line of reasoning and is based only on conventional codes of practice. Why don’t you critically assess your moral viewpoints and examine where they come from and why you hold them? Do you hold them because everyone else does or because of an established and conventional understanding of what morality is? Regardless the ‘bad’ people aren’t bad per se. they just exist in a different set of circumstances that lead them to believe in certain things we don’t believe in. You see, if we all agreed on a simple code of morality, your maxim would make sense, but as we do not…
(perhaps this is too harsh – I mean, in our personal relationships with people we kind of create agreements about what our moral standpoints are...)
raving, again, sorry.

um, firstly - have i done something to piss you off, 'cause you're coming on quite strong here and it's just a little aggressive. If you didn't mean it that way then fine, but otherwise ...

I guess part of my philosophy is based on the idea that fighting nose-to-nose with someone is a bad idea - unless you're bigger than them, and then it feels uncomfortably like bullying. Okay, okay, so I'm just projecting my inherent non-confrontationality onto my philosophy but that's life - we all do it, why worry ...

Fighting people always brings to mind the whole Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory; that basically each side keeps on upping the ante until either one side is exhausted, or they're both dead (or at stasis point where aggression by one would mean death for both). Putting this into an everyday format may seem weird but I think it works - in real life we don't ever get to the full metaphorical MAD scenario because exhaustion sets in way before ....

Society has evolved a way of stopping people beating each other to death and it's called democracy. Democracy is not about doing the right thing so much as doing something that most people aren't wildly dissatisfied with. In essence I'm a democrat who yearns to be an idealist, who in turn secretly lusts to be a revolutionary, but realises he would have to kill people to get shit done and possibly get killed too, and isn't too happy about either of those things. My philosophy is based mainly on some sort of instinctual sense of what seems right - okay, okay, it's follow whichever philosopher who seems cool, you know, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Yoda, that sorta thing.

Getting back to the subject ... one of the essential tenets and hardest to follow or put into meaningful practise because there always seem to be worthwhile clauses - is that if you define something that someone else does to you as "bad", then if you do it back to them, you probably are falling into the realms of "badness" too. Sometimes of course you may have to lapse into "badness" in an effort to prevent worse "bad" (ugh, probably by some utilitarian calculation, ugh), but i think the general idea is that you try to minimise that - you don't "destroy the village to save it" and other such nonsense. If nothing else, by using similar tactics to your opposition, to the disinterested opposition (or uninformed public) you become indistinguishable from your opposition. Essentially, your cause becomes easier to twist in a propaganda sense. Students protesting for rights and a future become a rowdy bunch of delinquents - which helps no one. If you're using dodgy tactics and your opposition use "legal" tactics, then you're the one who gets caned by public opinion usually - it doesn't matter if the playing field isn't level, that won't be the discussion that everyone hears. That doesn't mean that i don't advocate breaking the law, or going against the status quo, but you have to go there knowing that you will make a positive change - that it's going to work and you will create a new status quo.

I also think the methods you use come in time to corrupt what you're doing in the first place - if you use violence, violence will consume you and muddy your message - look at the IRA, the PLO, etc. In trying to achieve a just cause all too often you have "collateral damage". Collateral damage isn't just confined to the Yanks - every cause, worthwhile or not, that embraces violence will inevitably have it's own version. In the end you've caused more harm than if you'd just stayed a slave.

This is all a mish-mash of ideas, but i'm trying to give you an idea of the confusion in my head that is my moral code. Getting back to the issue - defacing of election material:

1. We have more to lose than they do. They have more money and sneaky tricks to replace their stuff than we do to replace theirs. Therefore we have more incentive not to start an ante-upping war.
2. It's basically just getting up their noses, rather than changing voters minds which is ultimately what we want (although the stickers are more practical).
3. It may have the opposite effect - bad press for the people whose billboards aren't defaced. They become the "underdogs", even though they palpably aren't.
4. Vandalism just has an aura of juvinality about it. It strikes me as just as an expression of impotent rage; i.e. i'm feeling powerless so i'll take my anger out on billboards. What's more i think it attracts the wrong kind of people - the people who are excited by doing "bad" things or being "radical" rather than working towards a cause. I've seen plenty of those in my time.

lastly, while "do unto others" is mainly a christian viewpoint it is echoed by a number of other philosophies around the world, which gives it a bit more legitimacy i think. I actually think most people would agree with this simple maxim -that isn't the problem. the problem is that it's a bit too woolly to mean much concrete. Regardless, i think if one believes in "society", then one has to believe that we need to live more or less harmoniously. I think the only way we can do this is if we all try at least to take into account the basic ideas/desires/needs of others in order to minimise conflict. Maybe i'm skewing "do unto others" into "walk a mile in their shoes", but i think the relationship between the two maxims is closer than we think.

Sorry, it wasn’t s’posed to be confrontational so much as thought provoking, but either way, it’s good to know what other people think…

Re projecting inherent instincts (are you sure they’re inherent?) onto your life’s philosophy - Why worry? You know what eg Christianity (and I don’t mean to be harping on about it, but&#8230 has done to this world because some people projected their ‘instinctual’ ideas into other people’s everyday lives… and yes, it is just bullying if it’s for no real reason other than to assert your power. That’s why we rely on critical thought and debates…I don’t really want to emphasise the violence part too much (and I wouldn’t really call getting rid of a few bits of advertising violence, but I see your point – where do you stop?&#8230 I guess my main concern is that with the election campaign, stuff like putting up posters, reorganising the information that’s already out there, may in fact draw attention to the ways in which the fight is being fought (and point out what’s wrong with the status quo in this arena).
Lets get away from the notion of billboard vandalising – ‘cos to be honest that constitutes but a small part of my activities…

I value democracy as much as you so (almost&#8230 but you also know as well as I do that people cannot make informed decisions in a climate that is so restrictive of their access to the knowledge required to do so. How do people know they don’t like what’s going on if they are never exposed to the alternatives – ok, that’s a sweeping statement, but (to use a tired example)…why are we such a freakishly sports-mad country and why do we assume that the arts are of less importance? Because to an extent that’s all most of the population has ever been exposed to…it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy

Re…”if you do something to someone else that you would class as bad if it were done to you”…same argument as before. It’s not always right to do or not do to other people what you would have done to you…sure if you discuss it with them and draw up a list of what is and is not acceptable behaviour within your interactions, it makes perfect sense. And you are right, there are always exceptions to that kind of maxim, therefore why would you want to claim it as a general rule. Why don’t you state that what one really does is categorise the kind of person one is dealing with and treat them accordingly? Without discussion these assumptions occur and this is what leads to a great number of the inequalities in our society.

If there is no chance of working within the system to achieve your aims, why do it? To be less extreme, you use the options you have but you try to create new ones…don’t you? To change the status quo I don’t think you do have to know that your alternative will be some foolproof, utopian dream – nothing is that predictable – I don’t think it can be done. On a slightly different note, but for example, do you think that the ACT party really believes that they’re going to have a positive impact on those earning the least in our society? No. Their policies are dependent on the gap between the highest and lowest earners in the country.

I think that maybe your political experiences have made you a conservative – you want to “make power gentle and obedience liberal” (as Burke would say) and work within a capitalist ideology to try to make everyone happy – are you a market socialist or a libertarian? When does it become morally legitimate to address a situation? Sometimes, to achieve anything the ends do justify the means. When you say that we need to take into account the basic ideas/desires/needs of others, the problem is that no one can agree on exactly what these are.
this is just a discussion - remember that - fundamentally we agree on most things, it's just the little bits that need to be clarified...


'The future's there for anyone to change,
still you know it seems, that its easier sometimes to change the past."
- Jackson Browne "Fountain of Sorrow"

You just sounded a little harsh, that's all, so i thought i'd said something wrong. You sound much happier today

Reading what you written i find it hard to disagree with most things (i'm blaming this on tiredness, not stupidity .... just yet), but i'll do my best.

.... I guess i don't object to billboard vandalism just because i think it's "bad", but because it's "bad", *and* i don't think it has much effect other than p*****g people off (and consequently making other people happy). If i thought there were a corresponding good that outweighed the bad then i might be more amenable. There are probably better ways to get action on the way Act and associates get more advertising space than is strictly fair - i don't know what they are, but if we get a centre-left govt it might be a good time to write a few letters to local MP's. Sorry, that's my mother talking.

.... By inherent i mean that i'm just naturally non-confrontational - i.e. I''ve been that way ever since i can remember - in fact basically I'm a pretty shy guy, which explains a lot. We can argue over why that is, and whether that could change, but i'm sticking to it just *is* for the moment.

.... by general rule i think i mean that it will hold true more than 50% of the time for more than 50% of the people .... or something like that. But i think you're probably right and i'm wrong about the "do unto ..." rule, although I'd like to think that it's advisable when you have next to no information about another person. And as a general injunction against hypocrisy too, but i have a feeling you're going to shoot me down there as well .... Just out of interest, could you articulate your own general moral code of conduct?

.... i think my point about changing the status quo was along the lines of "you have to know that what you're going to replace the status quo with is worth the possible casualties (metaphorical as well as real)". Basically i think anything that involves killing people or depriving them of fundamental human rights probably needs a pretty high justification, and if you're going to go out doing dodgy s**t you should at least have a very well thought out bunch of ideas.
I'm someone who is happiest working within the system, but you're right - I'm a conservative. I don't begrudge others the opportunity of working outside the system, but they've got to be willing to undergo a higher standard of proof - depending upon what they're doing. Getting back to democracy - in the end everything you're doing depends on harnessing people, and if going outside the system means you lose the faith of the people, or turns them against you, whether it's your fault or not (media/govt) - then it makes sense to stay with the system and try for incremental change.
In some senses working outside the system is easier - less frustration, you don't have to take into account what the rest of the world tthinks, etc, you don't have to follow rules ... but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

.... you'll probably have to define what you mean by "market socialist" and "libertarian". In the realm of an individual's own life i think I'm mainly libertarian. However, as soon as you approach the area where what you do affects others (esp economics) then i favour broad social control. I don't necessarily see the "market" as a bad thing, i'm just not stupid enough to think that the market is inherently good or can achieve fair or good results. The market has to be tolerated until a good alternative is found i guess. While we have it, though, all you can hope for is a small change in inequalities - but that's true of the whole sorry system, consumerism, etc

.... i have a horrible feeling that most ACT and National folk do believe that their policies are the best thing for people - esp. poor people. The human mind has an amazing ability to create plausible justications for inexcusable actions. Hell, i can do it, i'm sure Act voters have the same hard-wiring. Although i'd say a few are just in it for the money ....

.... I'm sure there are a million examples of when the ends do justify the means, but you still have to be careful ... at what point do you just become as bad as the person you're fighting? And can you always completely trust your comrades in metaphorical arms not to take it too far? When you start saying that the ends justify the means i just shudder - because that's what they said before every idiot war or revolution - just before they sent a bunch of young idiots to die for whatever end happened to get good press that day.

.... i still believe that there is broad agreement on certain things that unite us as human beings - we may rank them slightly differently, or call them different things, but hell we all need food, water, sleep, sex, etc? There must be common ground - otherwise we're really f****d, and quite frankly we might as well be libertarians for all the good it will do us.

.... goddamn it takes a long time to repy to these things ....

hi,

I don't really want to go through this point by point - we can discuss this and possibly it doesn't make for riviting reading for other people...but just a couple of things...
Your objection to billboard vandalism seems to be on the grounds that you think it's silly rather than that it's bad. I know it's only a small part of the larger fight against an ideology and in that way it's probably more symbolic than anything else. it may not have a discernable effect, but including other strategies is effective - eg posters explaining the outlook of the 'enemy' can only be good, along with petitions which in their way assess the support of the general public.

Meanwhile, I can't really understand your interst in trying to reform a system which has little to no redeemable features. Why 'put up with it' until something better comes along? If you take that attitude, nothing better will ever come along. Working outside of a system does not necessitate losing the faith of the people, (is that not what the current system already does?), in fact I would say it means the exact opposite - making people realise that they have something to fight for and pointing out that a country is supposed to belong to the people who live in it.

Articulating my 'code of moral conduct' is an impossible task as well as being futile. I don't have a set of hard and fast rules which i invoke whenever a certain situation arises. I think that to have such a code would make for a rather inauthentic existence (not necessarily in Heideggerian terms, but again, I won't go into that for fear of alienating anyone further).

You're right about there being a lot of common ground in terms of basic rights/needs (though the pope might disagree with you about the last one). the differences occur when the way these things are controlled, ordered and thought about is at stake. I think that your ideals conflict in this respect.

anyways, having this dialogue properly and with red wine would be advisable i think,
so that's it for now.

you're probably right that we should answer this later, but i never could resist a challenge ... and i'm thinking clearly at the moment so i probably shouldn't waste it ....

billboard vandelism is silly AND bad. It's silly 'cause it achieves little except a little physical release and it's bad because ....
a) if they vandelise their billboards first, then we say - "you utter bastards, you're fighting dirty, you're being unfair, you're being BAD!" Okay, not those exact words, but we feel hard done by, we feel as though an injustice has been committed against. So what do we do, we ....
b) go and vandelise their billboards. Does that mean: i) if they do it, it's okay for us to do it; ii) a similar action is good or bad depending upon what political party you support, and has nothing to do with the nature of the action itself; or iii) as soon as an election occurs everyone says "bollocks to morals". iii) would have been a philosophical point, but i ran out. sorry.

but i agree that posters are good .... and vandalism can be fun, even if morally dubious.

the major problem with capitalism is that when 1/3 of the population is feeling pretty nifty, it's because the other 2/3 are working 20 hur days in sweat-shops. 90% of the 1/3 also work pretty long hours too, but get a moderately good deal out of it (compared to the 2/3). I'm torn over whether capitalism has to be completely torn down or whether it can be modified over a long period of time to achieve some sort of quality-of-life equality. The other consideration is how much trauma and damage you have to do in destroying capitalism, and whether it's worth it in the end - which is why i asked what we would replace it with. Given the difficulty of removing capitalism i think it wise that we're sure we have something better to put in it's place.

I for one don't actually have a better solution. I know there's never been a proper socialist state set up, at least one free from interference, but i'm still not convinced socialism is the answer - especially having met some of it's most fervent proponents and finding them to be lazy prats - in fact even more lazy and pratty then me, which takes a lot of effort.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that without a clear idea of where we're going, all we will replace capitalism with is chaos - and i don't think it would be an inprovement. Instead it is most likely to lead to some sort of capitalist-fascist utopia for Andrew Bates. [shudder]

i don't think i understand your last two points, you might have to elaborate with the bottle of red wine - unless you're planning to beat me into submission with it ....

i haven't been fully following all this, but i'd just like to say that irritating them is all good - in fact it's been most of my life for the past three weeks, and it sure is fun

but it's more than just irritation - it's challenging them, saying that their policies are not ok (i'm thinking more of act rather than national) - they are bigoted and as such are dangerous to the rights and safety of too many people

span
in brief, and having not read the totality of all your posts yet

bugger (to coin a national phrase) i wrote a long response to you mr the... and then my computer had a fit...
main points: 1) action is symbolic of larger struggle and is a catalyst for change 2) better to do something than nothing at all 3)defeatist attitudes won't get you anywhere - eg, what should delineate the terms of the struggle? whether the opposition can do something more effectively than us? whether they have more campaign money? (i said this more coherently before...damn...) but... where are your principles? (and why would we feel bad if they vandalised other people's billboards? - they should, they're just having their say in the same way that we're having ours...why is it 'morally bad'? you still haven't explained this).
4) how can you hope for a different society and still want to live with capitalism (and its rules) which deals in opressing the masses? - it aint gonna even out society because the people wot run it don't want it to...it DEPENDS on this...

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious... you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels... to indicate to the people who run it,... that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! "

(Mario Savio, Berkeley Free Speech Movement student leader)

i'll give up and leave you with that not totally suitable quote because i can't be bothered retyping the whole thing...
sorry if this seems short and harsh, it was elegantly phrased in its original form i assure you...