647
I’m 18 — and facing jail because I won’t fight for Israel
(www.thetimes.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
647 points (95.5% liked)
World News
32365 readers
314 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I think you are on the right track with your ideals of the world, but I also guess you kinda know that this is not how states operate. Of course there are different types of states, but if you think of democracies, they are also not service providers to their citizens. On the contrary. Democratic states are the abstraction of all the private interests of their citizens. This is what they protect and advance. What arises out of that is that occasionally these interests will suggest a war is what the nation desires.
I do not believe in "nation's interest". That's the thing that made USA an aggressive state. It also means that the minorities' opinions are completely rejected. And yk politicians often like to do what people didn't ask them to do. Democracy is good but the right of choosing the country and freely leaving one must always be there
yes, I also don‘t believe in the nation‘s interest, yet it somehow pretty brutally exists. Something‘s got to grow, somethings got to give.
This is why promoting peace and good ideas is important. If the society is informed, it can change the situation
At first you got to have a good analysis of how society and the economy works. Unfortunately this already is a tricky thing, because not everybody agrees.
Of course not everybody agrees. And we shouldn't force them to agree. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the world better for everyone. Ik it sounds naive but I'm just getting into all of this. Now I'm not an expert at all. I think you get the main idea. I'm not capable of detailing it very much yet
I think the point they are trying to hint at is that it makes sense to try and understand the emergent forces that culminate in events as horrific as war.
You may "not believe in national interests" but something closely resembling that is a force governing social behavior.
So while it is important to pass moral judgements on these phenomena, you will be more effective at doing so if you can abstractly evaluate them absent moral judgement. Just as you couldn't coherently understand an ecology if you cannot accept obligate predators as a concept because of the moral implications of predation.
We will all differ in our moral and strategic assessments, but we all cohabit the same world, in which we can all recognize common truths arising from nature.
I think its pretty wrong to suggest wars happen as a bottom up democratic, abstracted process rather than by the upper class imposing it on us.
I am not sure what this means, can you clarify a bit?
A democratic state allows its citizens to pursue their private interests. This is only possible though if this is happening in a legal framework, so that the private interests of one citizen don‘t infringe upon the ones of another. The outcome of this consideration then is the abstraction (the specific applied to the universal) of the free will of the citizens. We call it freedom and justice. Others call it the free market.
I see thx