Philosophy Discussion Forums

anarchyisbliss wrote:

Martin Ekdahl wrote: In the case of promoting vegetarianism I think the Nazis caused more antagonism than goodwill. It is a standing statement I hear every time I talk with people about vegetarianism: "So you are a vegetarian? Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian?". The logic goes Nazis=Vegetarians hence Vegetarians=Nazis. For that reason must I not only explain Why I am a vegetarian, but also that I am not a militant vegan (which I by all given logic must be:roll:) plus that vegetarianism doesn't have anything to do with Nazism.

That may be true. People should be vegetarian by choice, not by force. Although I'm sure that the rest of the planet enjoyed that short period of time in which the environment was being harmed a little less. And yes, it would be very ignorant to say that because Hitler was a vegetarian that vegetarianism must correlate to Nazism.

But was the environment really harmed a little less? Billions of tons of chemicals was left in forests. Ships full of hazardous metal and chemical cargo sunk to the bottom of oceans, gas-, chemical-, biological (and as a result of Nazi aggression) nuclear weapons were used. People was forced to eat everything that moved (and didn't) move. Explosions day and night. A hysterical race on natural resources. Experiments conducted with chemicals... Do I have to go on?

Martin Ekdahl wrote:

anarchyisbliss wrote: That may be true. People should be vegetarian by choice, not by force. Although I'm sure that the rest of the planet enjoyed that short period of time in which the environment was being harmed a little less. And yes, it would be very ignorant to say that because Hitler was a vegetarian that vegetarianism must correlate to Nazism.

But was the environment really harmed a little less? Billions of tons of chemicals was left in forests. Ships full of hazardous metal and chemical cargo sunk to the bottom of oceans, gas-, chemical-, biological (and as a result of Nazi aggression) nuclear weapons were used. People was forced to eat everything that moved (and didn't) move. Explosions day and night. A hysterical race on natural resources. Experiments conducted with chemicals... Do I have to go on?

I was just trying to be optimistic in light of such a negative situation.

I cannot agree that if we did not obey them they would lose all power all over us: if we did not obey them (be good citizens) they could exercise compelling power over us.

Last post Feb 2009? Does anybody read these comments anymore? Has anyone thought about self-sovereignty - self government?

Should we obey the government? This is such a broad question! I don't think there is a black and white answer to this question . . .

No person agrees with every law but I personally agree most of the major laws, i.e. Murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. If you wouldn't like it done to you then don't do it to others.

I understand that like most subjects in philosophy, law is not a straight forward subject and contains many grey areas but human beings seemed to get on just fine before modern morality.

In answer to the question, I think you should obey what feels right and challenge what doesn't. You don't need religion, philosophy, science or government to tell you that you shouldn't torture another sentient being.

Sometimes, I think over-thinking can be harmful in itself.

anarchyisbliss wrote:Hitler/The NAZIs banned genetically modified organisms from the German food system, the promoted a vegan lifestyle with a low environmental impact, they built the safest highway in the world, the promoted environmental protection, the lowered the unemployment rate to an international low, and Germany had the lowest recorded crime rate under their regime.

They did one bad thing: The Holocaust, but a lot of good things that they don't get credit for. At least in American history classes.

Wow! You say "one bad thing: The Holocaust" like it is a small indiscretion. Hitler ordered the cold-blooded murder of over 6 million people. I don't think low unemployment rates and safer highways should be measured against the holocaust. EVER. I think you over stepped a boundary with that statement. I know this is a philosophy forum but let's have at least a modicum of respect.

If you vote then you are aligning yourself to government. You are empowering a hierarchy to make decisions on your behalf. The choice as to whether to obey government or not is not a question of should but shall I/shall I not? Once you abdicate personal resposibility then you have little choice.


BE WITH THEM BUT NOT OF THEM.

cynicallyinsane wrote:I don't see any reason why we obey the government so much. Why do we do it? Clearly if most of us didn't respect most laws, then they would have no power over us.

The government is the reason we have internet, and can post on philosophy forums. We obey the law and pay tax because without rules everyone would be running around doing whatever they fancy (corruption). Tax we pay is the reason why we have access to clean water, gas and electricity.

It's true that if we don't follow, they can't lead, but without leaders I doubt we'd make any progress. People figured out that we vary differently in opinion, so the only way to make any progress is to elect leaders to order society. That's why the world is divided up into various political parties. If it didn't work, we wouldn't have a government in the first place.

Chris_lawman1987 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Wow! You say "one bad thing: The Holocaust" like it is a small indiscretion. Hitler ordered the cold-blooded murder of over 6 million people. I don't think low unemployment rates and safer highways should be measured against the holocaust. EVER. I think you over stepped a boundary with that statement. I know this is a philosophy forum but let's have at least a modicum of respect.

But we should know about good things that Hitler's Germany did and why Hitler's Germany did those good things and likewise by knowledge and judgement avoid the bad things that Hitler's Germany did. Then we might be the more able imitate the one and avoid the other. Good use of historical knowledge and understanding is not to be got via fear of political incorrectness. I did not myself gather that Anarchy is Bliss implied that the Holocaust was not a major crime against humanity.

As philosophers we may argue that a dictatorship provides technological advances that are impossible for a true democracy. I prefer democracy but it is the philosopher's duty to argue with reason for her chosen stance.

Has anyone noted the post by Fafner88 on Topic Re :'Best system of government' (What is Anarchism?) Highly recommend.

Yes.

All the advantages of government are lost in anarchy. The foolish people who have a romantic view of anarchy in their minds do not even realize how much law & order benefit them.

Theophane, you are swift with your one liners. Clearly you did not hear the speeches through and clearly you do NOT understand about Anarchy as is evidenced by your presumptuous, rash and judgemental comments.

Anarchy is inherently destructive! It's not a viable alternative to government, never mind Alan Moore and V For Vendetta.

Theophane, you are swift with your one liners. Clearly you did not HEAR the speeches through and clearly you do NOT understand about Anarchy as evidenced by your presumptuous, rash and judgemental comments which lack clarity and coherence. It is not possible to hold a logical discussion with a reacting automaton.

But the NAZIs did do a lot to help the environment and promote vegetarianism.

How is that significant or even worth mentioning?