The article by Michael Parenti is interesting, but seems to be following the same route as many politicians: Let's discuss the ends and not care about the means, especially if it involves loss of personal choice. Tibet as a whole may be better off now than they would have been without the Chinese takeover, but it should have been their choice. Similarly, even if the Iraq invasion by the USA had turned out to be a success, that doesn't mean the USA had the right to make the decision for them.
We have more and more politicians getting away with this in little steps in recent years. We're supposedly better off if a terrorist can't take a drink onto a plane, so it's deemed worthwhile spending billions of dollars and inconveniencing millions of travellers by not allowing them to carry a drink onto an international flight. We're supposedly better off if our ISP filters our internet content, so we're going to be forced to pay millions of dollars to have slower internet connectivity.
These are all manifestations of the same problem: Those in power deciding when we will be better off, without any regard for the concept of individual freedom.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-03 09:22 am (UTC)We have more and more politicians getting away with this in little steps in recent years. We're supposedly better off if a terrorist can't take a drink onto a plane, so it's deemed worthwhile spending billions of dollars and inconveniencing millions of travellers by not allowing them to carry a drink onto an international flight. We're supposedly better off if our ISP filters our internet content, so we're going to be forced to pay millions of dollars to have slower internet connectivity.
These are all manifestations of the same problem: Those in power deciding when we will be better off, without any regard for the concept of individual freedom.