Why not just leave?

[Yoda Power]

I just realised I should learn how to read threads

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I don't think that this is moral preaching. It was simply a question. lets take someone like Noam Chomsky (sp?) or Ward Churchill. Both have gone on record denouncing their countries and supporting other countries in the world with radically different philosophies. They have denounced regardless of politics and administration. Why do they choose to enrich themselves and support the very culture that they denounce? The question is really about them, or people like them. Are they serious about their pronouncements, and if so, why don't they do something about it?

Thank you, yes its a very simple question: are people who believe they live in an evil society, which enriches itself and its citizens by exploiting people around the world, really being honest, if they continue to live there, pay taxes into its treasury, buy its products, energy, etc.

I can put it much simpler than that: If a person belongs to a Country Club that doesnt permit Blacks and Jews to join, and is against that policy, yet continues to retain membership in that club, and faithfully pays his monthly dues, then how seriously should his protestations be taken?

@Prince, you also might try reading threads before making nonsequitor comments.

 

[Mirc]

Some of the people would like to leave, but can't. For example, me. I don't hate my society at all, I just don't want to be this poor for all my life.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Some of the people would like to leave, but can't. For example, me. I don't hate my society at all, I just don't want to be this poor for all my life.

Mirc, thats different then. Im talking about people who hate their country, but would never dream of leaving and living among its foreign victims.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

@Prince, you also might try reading threads before making nonsequitor comments.

For one Bozo, you've spelt 'non sequitur' wrong.

Secondly, if your thread doesn't apply to those who don't have the ability to leave their countries, perhaps you should have said so.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

For one Bozo, you've spelt 'non sequitur' wrong.

Secondly, if your thread doesn't apply to those who don't have the ability to leave their countries, perhaps you should have said so.

If I know that a person is unable to leave, why would I ask him why he stays? Do you see your illogic? Its alot worse than my mispelling of nonsequitor.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

If I know that a person is unable to leave, why would I ask him why he stays?

I have no idea why you would ask. But questions more stupid than that have been asked on CFC. I've also read posters who have accused people in places like Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq for being culpable in what action their respective Government's take simply by living there and not emmigrating.

If you are not one of those people then I apologise But, as I said, perhaps your OP could have been clearer.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Prince, ok no problem. What I asked in the OP can be summed up in one sentence: is it ethical for a person to continue to benefit from a system which he finds to be evil and abhorrent?

Those who are unable to leave dont have to worry about the ethics of remaining.

 

[betazed]

Those who are unable to leave dont have to worry about the ethics of remaining.

Bozo, isn't that the majority of the population? Ask yourself, can you pick up and leave even if you want to?

So your OP really applies to an insignificant % of the population. Who is to say that insignificant % don't actually leave?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo, isn't that the majority of the population? Ask yourself, can you pick up and leave even if you want to?

So your OP really applies to an insignificant % of the population. Who is to say that insignificant % don't actually leave?

I dont think its such a small percentage of the population in the developed world. Who cant afford a one way plane ticket? Remember Im not talking about mild dislike, ideological differences. Im talking about people who think this is a sick, evil, violent destructive society and a source of much of the worlds misery for centuries. We know theyre out there, Im not going over the top here. Wouldnt anyone who honestly believes that be morally compelled to end all association with it, even if doing so could cause them considerable economic hardship?

 

[betazed]

Who cant afford a one way plane ticket?

Come on Bozo. To move from country A to country B permanently you need more than a plane ticket.

You essentially need to rearrange and build up your entire life all over.

 

[The Last Conformist]

As far as Sweden is concerned, I dare say most of the population could move abroad without giving up too much. Certainly less than your average asylum-seeker.

The catch, tho, is that the places that are easy to move to are mostly other Western countries not too disimilar from Sweden, so if you hate Swedish society, you're likely not to be thrilled by those either.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I dont think its such a small percentage of the population in the developed world. Who cant afford a one way plane ticket? Remember Im not talking about mild dislike, ideological differences. Im talking about people who think this is a sick, evil, violent destructive society and a source of much of the worlds misery for centuries. We know theyre out there, Im not going over the top here. Wouldnt anyone who honestly believes that be morally compelled to end all association with it, even if doing so could cause them considerable economic hardship?

I'm reminded of a passage of Daniela Dahn's; he justified her staying in the DDR by saying it was her duty to resist the system from within.

 

[spankey]

Come on Bozo. To move from country A to country B permanently you need more than a plane ticket.

You essentially need to rearrange and build up your entire life all over.

In my opinion this thread is motivated by wealthy elites who denounce their countries and their fellow countrymen (like calling them little Eichmanns) and yet remain in their countries that they despise. These people can emigrate anywhere, and would be welcomed by people of their ideological ilk. Hugo Chavez would gladly keep these people up in grand style. Why don't they go? It's not political, they hate 95% of their countrymen and their country's values.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Betazed, I understand, its a major commitment. But many immigrants have done that for their ideas, what they believe in. I guess Im asking how strongly they feel they live in an unjust society that causes great harm in the world. Do they object to it enough to end all association with it? If not, then they dont really think its that bad.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I'm reminded of a passage of Daniela Dahn's; he justified her staying in the DDR by saying it was her duty to resist the system from within.

Well if youre going to stay, but youre going to be an insurgent of some kind, that makes sense. But not if youre going to stay and be a good citizen, pay your taxes, shop at the mall, buy a home, put your kids through school, and plan for a cushy retirement.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well if youre going to stay, but youre going to be an insurgent of some kind, that makes sense. But not if youre going to stay and be a good citizen, pay your taxes, shop at the mall, buy a home, put your kids through school, and plan for a cushy retirement.

Her mode of resistance was the same as that of Ward Churchill; writing. The only difference is that the DDR regime took a rather bleaker view of dissident writers than does the American.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Her mode of resistance was the same as that of Ward Churchill; writing. The only difference is that the DDR regime took a rather bleaker view of dissident writers than does the American.

Yeah its a big difference. By remaining and continuing to speak out against a repressive regime, she was putting it all on the line for what she believed in. Theres no ethical conflict in a case like hers. Churchill however is just another flavor of McLiterature, or McOpinion. When he puts pen to paper to denounce his country, he doesnt endanger his life, he makes himself wealthier.

 

[sysyphus]

Just because one complains doesn't mean they hate it. I don't criticise Canada because I hate it, I criticise because I love it and I want to make it better.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yeah its a big difference. By remaining and continuing to speak out against a repressive regime, she was putting it all on the line for what she believed in. Theres no ethical conflict in a case like hers. Churchill however is just another flavor of McLiterature, or McOpinion. When he puts pen to paper to denounce his country, he doesnt endanger his life, he makes himself wealthier.

Dahn didn't endanger her life either; the worst she realistically risked was being prevented from publishing anything further. In her own words, the DDR regime was a "sclerotic dictatorship" in its later years, which didn't have the guts to kill dissidents.