After 8 hours of sleep, more points.
Because I'm not really interested in writing my paper and I don't feel like kooning anymore, I'm actually going to continue my conversation with Sen regarding Yew and Island (names changed to prevent searches =) ) despite what I said yesterday about concentrating on my papers.
So 1) About the good man issue. Yes Senthil, you could argue that whatever good Yew has done for Island, he can't be considered a good man if the intention is not there (i.e. he's just a money-grubbing megalomaniac).
I say that even if he's not a saint, I see nothing that proves that he has any malice to anyone except perhaps to those who try to challenge his political dominance in elections. Even then, he sues when they say things they can't prove. If anything he has aligned his interest with Island so that he benefits when the country is successful. So he has done good things with, at worst, neutral intentions. Using this perspective, why he cried when we separated from our neighbours up north remains a mystery.
2) I think it ironic when you call me naive for trusting in the good or at least not bad intentions of a man when I also argue that with the money we're paying them, they really have no incentive to be corrupt. Is that not pragmatism.
You on the other hand are saying that the present politicians can't be trusted with out interests, that politicians should be motivated by something greater (if not money than power? I believe it's completely possible to like being rewarded financial while genuinely serving the country). But isn't it also naive to believe that man can be motivated by idealism alone? People have families to feed and material desires. If other people take power, what is to prevent them from abusing their power, especially when they are not rewarded for their efforts. There is nothing. Which is also why I argue that we need much more political liberalization to guard against such an occurrence. The main difference between you and me it seems is that I don't believe corruption and abuse has occurred already and you think the very thing that prevents such corruption is legalized and a part of the system. I would pick the lesser of two evils and have very competent men motivated by money more than men motivated by power (because besides money, what else would a politician want?). The altruistic, noble desire to serve the state let's say is something they both claim.
In other news: Manu is losing to Blackburn with 15 mins less. If they lose, it's going to be an exciting end to the season!
So 1) About the good man issue. Yes Senthil, you could argue that whatever good Yew has done for Island, he can't be considered a good man if the intention is not there (i.e. he's just a money-grubbing megalomaniac).
I say that even if he's not a saint, I see nothing that proves that he has any malice to anyone except perhaps to those who try to challenge his political dominance in elections. Even then, he sues when they say things they can't prove. If anything he has aligned his interest with Island so that he benefits when the country is successful. So he has done good things with, at worst, neutral intentions. Using this perspective, why he cried when we separated from our neighbours up north remains a mystery.
2) I think it ironic when you call me naive for trusting in the good or at least not bad intentions of a man when I also argue that with the money we're paying them, they really have no incentive to be corrupt. Is that not pragmatism.
You on the other hand are saying that the present politicians can't be trusted with out interests, that politicians should be motivated by something greater (if not money than power? I believe it's completely possible to like being rewarded financial while genuinely serving the country). But isn't it also naive to believe that man can be motivated by idealism alone? People have families to feed and material desires. If other people take power, what is to prevent them from abusing their power, especially when they are not rewarded for their efforts. There is nothing. Which is also why I argue that we need much more political liberalization to guard against such an occurrence. The main difference between you and me it seems is that I don't believe corruption and abuse has occurred already and you think the very thing that prevents such corruption is legalized and a part of the system. I would pick the lesser of two evils and have very competent men motivated by money more than men motivated by power (because besides money, what else would a politician want?). The altruistic, noble desire to serve the state let's say is something they both claim.
In other news: Manu is losing to Blackburn with 15 mins less. If they lose, it's going to be an exciting end to the season!
posted by OOP @ 1:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home