Guest guest Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 " It includes a conclusion which states that these monsters are a good thing because it shows us how NOT to rule countries. " I have heard of similar sentiments before, such as some saying that evil and people like Hitler and such like are necessary so that we know what good is and what evil is. It is curious, because do we really? or at least do we need to continue to have bad/evil things? I question if it is really a case of balance or more as you have suggested a case of people not learning - also I guess those that choose to be bad are obviously getting something out of it, or maybe they do not consider what they are doing to be bad. > > > Thugs by Micah D. Halpern > > A look at various thugs, demons, and benevolent dictators through history > across several areas of the world. Its basically a collection of short > biographies on them, and some are better than others. It includes a conclusion > which states that these monsters are a good thing because it shows us how > NOT to rule countries. I suppose that would be good IF people bothered to > learn from history so that history wouldn't be repeating itself again in > Europe and the US, not to mention the many such nations that currently exist. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 My general philosophy is that when bad things happen, one of the best memorials to the victims is to learn from what has happened. There is a saying in aviation that "regulations are written in blood," because the regulations tend not to be written until there is a tragic accident that could have been prevented or minimized had the regulations been in place. Case in point, the HMS Titanic made for advancements in maritime safety. The cynic in me agrees with . After the Holocaust, many said "this will never be allowed to happen again." The only things that differentiate the Holocaust from other genocides was the location in a developed "modern" country, how systematic it was, the scale, and the fact that most people know it existed, unlike many other genocides. Genocide has occurred repeatedly around the world since then. The cheerful part of me does not know what to say, unfortunately. --Zoe "It includes a conclusion which states that these monsters are a good thing because it shows us how NOT to rule countries." I have heard of similar sentiments before, such as some saying that evil and people like Hitler and such like are necessary so that we know what good is and what evil is. It is curious, because do we really? or at least do we need to continue to have bad/evil things? I question if it is really a case of balance or more as you have suggested a case of people not learning - also I guess those that choose to be bad are obviously getting something out of it, or maybe they do not consider what they are doing to be bad. > > > Thugs by Micah D. Halpern > > A look at various thugs, demons, and benevolent dictators through history > across several areas of the world. Its basically a collection of short > biographies on them, and some are better than others. It includes a conclusion > which states that these monsters are a good thing because it shows us how > NOT to rule countries. I suppose that would be good IF people bothered to > learn from history so that history wouldn't be repeating itself again in > Europe and the US, not to mention the many such nations that currently exist. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 I think the problem is that, for the most part, good people don't seek power. Perhaps it never occurs to many to try to rule save for maybe to accept leadership of small groups or local government, while others don't want to bother with the media and others hounding them all the time. Perhaps others still are too disgusted by the system and don't want to soil themselves with it or lose their sanity trying. Instead is it those with diseased egos, control freaks, and maniacal monsters who seek power. Certainly not all of them are genocidal or warmongers. The majority are simply corrupt who willingly serve those more bestial than themselves if it means a little more money or a little more power. So, because of this, we keep seeing the same mistakes made over and over again. Then there are also just the incompetent idiots. Mostly these are limited to the bureaucracy, but when elections are simply popularity contests, a charismatic dolt can by held up by skilled managers and they get elected. Once in power they do what they are told, or maybe they follow their own will, which is based on incompetence very poor understanding of things like economics. So they too cause a great deal of harm. Perhaps if more good people ran for office or if personality and brain scans were required for all candidates, the bad ones could be prevented from getting into power in the first place. It is curious, because do we really? or at least do we need to continue to have bad/evil things? I question if it is really a case of balance or more as you have suggested a case of people not learning - also I guess those that choose to be bad are obviously getting something out of it, or maybe they do not consider what they are doing to be bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Unfortunately Hilter's was only one of several genocides in roughly the same period of time. Prior to WWII, the Turks killed over 100,000 Armenian Christians. When the League of Nations did nothing, it encouraged Hitler in his plans against the Jews. Before Hitler got started, Stalin was in the process of murdering 20 million civilians for refusing to go along with this collectivization schemes and otherwise opposing him. In the East, the Japanese were killing Chinese and Koreans, though not on the epic scale of Stalin. After the war, Mao killed between 40 and 70 million Chinese partly through direct murder but also through incompetent ideas that lead to mass starvation. Pol Pot murdered a third of his country's population in no small part by emptying the cities and forcing everyone into rice growing collective farms. That's not even counting what went in on Africa right up to the present day from Rwanda to Sudan or the continuing attempts to run Christians out of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Beyond that people fail to learn economic mistakes. Some nations manage to muddle up a solution, which some reports say the "magic solution" is roughly 70% spending cuts and 30% tax increases. Varying from that on the tax side gives you the problems in Greece: the old problems hang on while the economy plummets. Getting it right gives you Finland a few decades ago and Chile. The US doesn't seem to have figured this out yet and we seem to be going the high tax no real cutting of spending route, which will be rather bad. Its just a matter of the leaders being more concerned with power and looting wealth, while the masses aren't properly educated in history and economics so most don't understand what is going on. My general philosophy is that when bad things happen, one of the best memorials to the victims is to learn from what has happened. There is a saying in aviation that "regulations are written in blood," because the regulations tend not to be written until there is a tragic accident that could have been prevented or minimized had the regulations been in place. Case in point, the HMS Titanic made for advancements in maritime safety.The cynic in me agrees with . After the Holocaust, many said "this will never be allowed to happen again." The only things that differentiate the Holocaust from other genocides was the location in a developed "modern" country, how systematic it was, the scale, and the fact that most people know it existed, unlike many other genocides. Genocide has occurred repeatedly around the world since then.The cheerful part of me does not know what to say, unfortunately.--Zoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 My thinking is that people seek power in many different ways but generally go for the most easily attainable types of power and stop when they realize where their abilities and capabilities end. People who want a comfortable income will seek a higher paying job. Usually the highher the pay, the more responsibility the job entails. The more responsibility you have, the more power you have (theoretically). I do feel, however, that many of those who seek a political position MUST be looking for power. Getting an elected position is half effort and half crapshoot. It is like staking everything you have on one card. You first have to raise money to campaign, and then you have to campaign hard. You compete against a series of candidates for one hard to attain position. The fact that that position is hard to attain means you work harder to keep it, whether you are honest or not, always assuming that your goal is to change policy for the better (as you see it). The words " as you see it " are the qualifying words. A political position is not a corporate position. Most of the actions taken while in office involving doing what one thinks is best, and doing what one thinks is best may not be what is financially, morally, or even legally responsible. My feeling is that there is a great degree of egotism involved in politics. Those of us who don't go into politics are fond of saying " There oughta be a law about that " but when we make such a statement, it is usually in terms of what that law can do for us, and we make that statement knowing full well that there cannot be such a law if that law will negatively affect others more than it will positvely affect them. But I think a lot of politicians will pass laws that are in their interest, or in the interest of the people who nominated and sponsored them, and that is one of the reasons why we have the problems we do today. Administrator I think the problem is that, for the most part, good people don't seek power. Perhaps it never occurs to many to try to rule save for maybe to accept leadership of small groups or local government, while others don't want to bother with the media and others hounding them all the time. Perhaps others still are too disgusted by the system and don't want to soil themselves with it or lose their sanity trying. Instead is it those with diseased egos, control freaks, and maniacal monsters who seek power. Certainly not all of them are genocidal or warmongers. The majority are simply corrupt who willingly serve those more bestial than themselves if it means a little more money or a little more power. So, because of this, we keep seeing the same mistakes made over and over again. Then there are also just the incompetent idiots. Mostly these are limited to the bureaucracy, but when elections are simply popularity contests, a charismatic dolt can by held up by skilled managers and they get elected. Once in power they do what they are told, or maybe they follow their own will, which is based on incompetence very poor understanding of things like economics. So they too cause a great deal of harm. Perhaps if more good people ran for office or if personality and brain scans were required for all candidates, the bad ones could be prevented from getting into power in the first place. In a message dated 1/1/2011 5:34:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes: It is curious, because do we really? or at least do we need to continue to have bad/evil things? I question if it is really a case of balance or more as you have suggested a case of people not learning - also I guess those that choose to be bad are obviously getting something out of it, or maybe they do not consider what they are doing to be bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Just touching on the point of laws. You are right that politicians will pass laws that favor their backers and also certain political pressure groups that helped them get elected. Part of this was what was once called the spoils system, but that was banned some time back, even though it has pretty much come back into play since then. The reason both the law and taxes are so messed up is because of the constant addition of new laws and tinkering with the tax code to favor the backers and pay back favors. California is a good example in that 725 new laws went into effect January first ( http://lamesa.patch.com/articles/there-outta-be-a-law-californians-getting-725-new-ones-in-2011 ). Just looking at the ones listed in the article, you can see how many of them pay back supporters at the expense of the health of the state. In a message dated 1/2/2011 12:42:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes: My feeling is that there is a great degree of egotism involved in politics. Those of us who don't go into politics are fond of saying "There oughta be a law about that" but when we make such a statement, it is usually in terms of what that law can do for us, and we make that statement knowing full well that there cannot be such a law if that law will negatively affect others more than it will positvely affect them. But I think a lot of politicians will pass laws that are in their interest, or in the interest of the people who nominated and sponsored them, and that is one of the reasons why we have the problems we do today.Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.