[Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Maybe, but I am not sure that I get your point here.  My contention is that
this only has meaning when one regards the list of American Presidents as
being a sub-set of some larger population (i.e. war criminals) or when
comparing the list of American Presidents against a different list of some
other actors (i.e., Catholic Popes or European monarchs).  My contention is
that a list that contains everyone in a population has no meaning unless it
is compared to a list of people who have a characteristics different from
those that are common to the members of the list or unless some in the
referent population have characteristics different from those on the list
(i.e., some American Presidents are not war criminals).

Now I suppose that technically one could argue that the larger population or
a second different population against with the first is being compared is
implied; but I believe John's point was that without making this explicit in
this context an all-inclusive list is not very meaningful or useful by
itself.

-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 12:25 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; 'KAREN MEDINA'; 'CARL ESTABROOK'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war

But in the real world, if the Nuremberg principles -- on the basis of which
we
executed nazi leaders after WWII -- had been applied consistently, all
subsequent US presidents would have been hanged.


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> Capitalism (understood as corporate power) and democracy are indeed 
>> contradictories.  The latter has one person/one vote as an ideal; the
>> former says your influence in society depends on the number of "dollar
>> votes" you control.
> 
> That is not how traditional capitalism is understood (corporations did not

> exist when capitalism as a theoretical concept and idea originated); nor
does
>  capitalism in economic theory define capitalism as "corporate power" even

> after the advent of corporate capitalism.  What you are putting forth is 
> revisionist ideologically based theory here.
> 
> While it may be true that in practice  capitalism may very well equate 
> influence in society with the number of dollars you control; but that is
not
>  part of the theory of Capitalism.  Furthermore, even your assertion that 
> capitalism says "your influence in society depends on the number of
'dollar 
> votes' you control" does not imply or necessarily a notion of corporate 
> power; it could equally apply to non-corporate organizations and entities.

> Hence, your assertion contradicts your understanding of capitalism as
being 
> corporate power or even corporate based.
> 
> I do accept that with the rise of large corporate entities in the business

> sphere of society and their dominance as actors in the economy we have 
> experienced a change in capitalism from sole proprietary capitalism to 
> corporate capitalism in practice, which has resulted in a revision of 
> capitalist theory and practice while maintain the myth that it is the same
as
>  capitalism of old and as set for by traditional capitalist theory.  But
it 
> probably is not inconsistent with the notion and practice corporate
democracy
>  (which some would call fascism in theory).  Namely, fascism being that 
> corporate entities not people are the actors or citizens of the democracy.

> The corporate actors may let individuals go through the ritualized
symbolic 
> act of voting and think that they are participating in the decision-making

> and policy formation while they vote with their economic resources in
terms 
> of manipulating the masses and controlling the candidates in those
elections 
> as well as with their ability to define the range and scope of
alternatives 
> that are considered by the government and its agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> And a liberal society (even the utilitarian form you sketch) need not be
>> very democratic to qualify as liberal.
> 
> I agree that a liberal society of any form need not be a democratic (in
any 
> philosophical tradition) society.  It was you who connected the two in
your 
> post.  I merely noted that the traditional English liberal tradition
within 
> political philosophy has a basis and grounding in individualism, equality
of
>  interests, and a common societal being defined as that which produces the

> greatest good for the greatest number of individuals based on a calculus
of 
> their individual combined pleasures and pains wherein each individual is 
> treated as being of equal value.  I further noted that said philosophy was

> compatible with a given tradition of theory on the notion of democracy in 
> political philosophy. Ironically, if accepts the collectivist concept of 
> democracy (i.e., such as one that employs Edmund Burke's notion of
"virtual 
> representation" or some similar formation or such as one which holds that
the
>  State exists with the consent of the citizenry and government reach
> decisions and take actions to achieve or further the common good of the
> collective as an entity not the individuals as entities), then democracy
> cannot really qualify as being liberal in the English tradition of
> liberalism.
> 
> But back to John's original complaint about constructing lists where all
the
>  items on the list comprise all the items in the universe being
considered.
> If one says all Presidents are on a given list as having a given set of 
> properties and not others where none of the Presidents are excluded from
the
>  list, then the list tells us nothing about the universe except that it is

> different from some other universes made up of a different set of 
> non-comparable items - such as comparing a list of U.S. Presidents against
a
>  list of Catholic Popes or the leadership of other countries where some or
> all on the alternative lists do not have those qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook 
> [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:17 PM To: 
> LAURIE SOLOMON Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; KAREN MEDINA; CARL 
> ESTABROOK Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war
> 
> Capitalism (understood as corporate power) and democracy are indeed 
> contradictories.  The latter has one person/one vote as an ideal; the
former
> says your influence in society depends on the number of "dollar votes" you

> control.
> 
> And a liberal society (even the utilitarian form you sketch) need not be
very
> democratic to qualify as liberal.