> While it is true that "by positioning the U. S. war plan as battle in
> the ongoing war between Freedom and Tyranny, Bush is attempting to
> justify and extend the war." But that is mostly a rhetorical
> argument. That is an argument he's using with the voters to try keep
> pressure on the legislature to stop them from undercuttign his
> policiy. It's no more valid to use that as a basis for political
> critique than to use Pat Robertson's idea that this is a war between
> Jehovah and Jubal. Supporters of the Administration can use any
> rhetoric they want. Ultimately, Bush is doing this war because, as
> Commander-in-Chief he has the power to do any war he wants so long as
> the Congress allows him to do it.
You've got the causality backwards here: as long as Bush and the Congress use the proper rhetoric and propaganda, they can retain power and carry out their plans. The formal authority Bush has is dependent upon the "rhetorical" devices you're trivializing.
--Thought experiment: without appeals to universals like Democracy and Freedom to justify the war, would the war have occurred? Would the U. S. still be there?
> If you want to talk about a "universal" then look at warlordism.
> *THAT* is a cross-cultural, universal societal structure that should
> be recognized as such. The idea that universals work through exclusion
That is a false statement. Warlordism emerges in certain social settings under certain historical conditions. Nothing universal about it.
> What society should we emulate? Afghanistan? The People's
> Republic of China? You want the Cuban legal system in all its
> one-party glory? Tell me the political party that you would like to
> take over.
In fact, there are some excellent local examples of democratic decision making in Cuba (I'd say democracy at the neighborhood/local level is much healthier there than it is here.) --And as Chuck would point out, your automatic reference to "political party" control assumes that we must have some party in control of a government apparatus to have a political system. Governments and political parties emerged under specific historical conditions; there is no need--other than lack of imagination--to assume that we must have them in some future society.
>> people in the future, or in societies under different environmental
>>conditions, will produce social and legal systems that look little or
>>nothing like the systems we're used to.
>
>
> No, I don't agree at all. There are many, many concepts that have
> endured and will endure because they are good and they work. Instead
> of makng blanket statements why don't you back up your assertion by
> telling us, for example, what parts of the Common Law you'd like to
> throw out and what you'd replace it with.
--So if concepts work under certain social conditions at certain points in time, they must work under all possible social conditions? Again, your questions reflect a nonreflective acceptance of the status quo: why must a society have "Common Law" or law at all? (Insert lawyer jokes here.) Human societies thrived for tens of thousands of years without anything like laws; why do you assume that good human societies have to have governments or laws at all?
Listen, I'm just saying that we don't know what the future brings, just as people in hunting and gathering societies 20,000 years ago had no inkling of human life today. To assume that what is politically useful at one point in time must be useful at some other point in time is dogmatic and naive.
> Not pragmatic and not really argument against appeals to universals.
> It's basically just dogmatic cultural relativism.
So pointing out the actually existing historical and cultural diversity in human social life is "dogmatic cultural relativism"? If drawing conclusions from evidence is dogmatic, color me dogmatic!
Miles