Recently walked away from a long discussion in another forum, where one of the opposing spokespersons simply would not hear my basic argument -- namely, that people in Maine and other rural areas don't want national regulation on a particular controversy. We don't have a problem on that issue, don't see why regulations that may be necessary in, say, Miami, have to affect us.
And the spokesperson doesn't seem to understand that Maine folks have reason to believe that national regulations may be hostile to our daily life, such as the recent threats by Homeland Security to disallow Maine driver's licenses as ID for flying or entering federal buildings, because they don't comply with new "Real ID" standards. Such as recent changes in the border regulations, requiring passports for border crossings that are a daily or many-times daily fact of life in cross-border communities.
This goes back as far as Jefferson's Embargo. The good ol' Virginia slaveholder didn't realize that international trade was necessary for New England life...
Utilitarian philosophy would allow slavery. As long as 51% of the population benefits, the other 49% can just go hang. Which was ironic in this particular argument, as the person involved expresses great offense at the current national administration taking a similar attitude.
"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"
And the spokesperson doesn't seem to understand that Maine folks have reason to believe that national regulations may be hostile to our daily life, such as the recent threats by Homeland Security to disallow Maine driver's licenses as ID for flying or entering federal buildings, because they don't comply with new "Real ID" standards. Such as recent changes in the border regulations, requiring passports for border crossings that are a daily or many-times daily fact of life in cross-border communities.
This goes back as far as Jefferson's Embargo. The good ol' Virginia slaveholder didn't realize that international trade was necessary for New England life...
Utilitarian philosophy would allow slavery. As long as 51% of the population benefits, the other 49% can just go hang. Which was ironic in this particular argument, as the person involved expresses great offense at the current national administration taking a similar attitude.
"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"
no subject
Date: 2008-07-07 05:42 pm (UTC)Secondly, the true irony of the slavery issue is that it doesn't even benefit 51% of a given population; at best, it benefits the proportion that's wealthy enough to own slaves in the first place. Finally, slavery presents a long-term political liability (revolts, protests and suppression) and social degradation (witnessed in all slave-owning cultures, from Egypt to Rome to southern America to Qatar) that ultimately benefits no one. Long-view utilitarianism actually examines all factors, and historically slavery has presented more long-term disadvantages than benefits.
Plus, it's really kinda fucked up, too. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-07 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-07 07:16 pm (UTC)