[Peace-discuss] Will I.P. elect McCain?

[John W.]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:25 PM, LAURIE <LAURIE at advancenet.net> wrote:

> Societal rules, like segregation, do take a long time to reverse. And
> > sometimes we need rules like affirmative action to counter the
> > segregation rules.
>
> Without intending to do so, you raise an interesting question to ponder.
>  Why
> do some societal rules take longer to get rid of than others?  Segregation
> and various forms of societally  - and often governmentally - sanctioned
> rules take decades - if not centuries - to reverse, while others like
> affirmative action undergo reversing from the day they were established and
> seem to get undone within a couple of decades.  One sees a similar trend
> when it comes to the societal and governmental support and subsidization of
> corporate monopolies (under various names and guises) versus the societal
> and governmental support of unions.  The main counter example is probably
> Social Security which is taking longer than the elites thought to dismantle
> or render ineffective.  This might be because they found a way to make a
> buck off of this program.
>
> The easy answer is that the powerful elites support and have vested
> interests in maintaining the long lasting rules and in destroying the short
> lasting ones; whereas, the masses do not really know or support their own
> interests - be it from ignorance or from management of the information by
> the elites.  However, surely the easy answer cannot be the only answer and
> may not even be the most significant one.


No, you're absolutely right.  The "short" rules are those that increase
social justice, and therefore are anathema to the elites.  The long-lasting
rules are those that benefit the elites.  The elites by definition have more
power, so they're largely able to maintain in force those rules that benefit
them.

The problem with revolution or its more benevolent sibling, reform, is that
people are motivated primarily by self-interest.  The formerly oppressed
become the new elites, who oppress in their turn.  'Twas ever thus.




> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> > bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Medina
> > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 5:41 AM
> > To: peace-discuss
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Will I.P. elect McCain?
> >
> > Jenifer,
> >
> > I think Bob Naiman's point is that sometimes the rules help make the
> > change, and without them things would be much the same as they were.
> >
> > Societal rules, like seggregation, do take a long time to reverse. And
> > sometimes we need rules like affirmative action to counter the
> > seggretation rules. Does affirmative action work? Well at least we can
> > talk to each other on the train.
> >
> > Knowing when to let the rules fade is not easy.
> >
> > I'll just point out a few other things that society still accepts
> > without much of a fight:
> > * Women still do not have equal pay. In some places, yes, but overall,
> > not yet.
> > * Neighbors still look the other way with spouse abuse, elder abuse,
> > and child abuse.
> > * Homeless people are treated as trash.
> >
> > Yes, the rules that are supposed to move us in the right direction can
> > be taken advantage of (just as an example, a woman can wrongly accuse a
> > man of sexual assault in order to hurt the man), and that is most
> > unfortunate. But, overall, we hope that the rules help more than they
> > hurt.
> >
> > There are many places that we have given power to the person who
> > society has made weak. Yes, the new power will be abused. All power is
> > abused.
> >
> > Somehow, we need to find a balance.
> >
> > -karen medina
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080803/7a281d1e/attachment.htm