How to Free Government
In political theory, the United States government runs on the power granted it by the populace of these united States. On a more concrete level, it runs today on money and software.
Here’s what every American wants: a government that does more helpful stuff without raising taxes. We all want safer streets, cleaner restaurants, less corporate crime, and a bigger chunk of our own paychecks.
Well, the Brits may have a really good idea here: stop giving money to Microsoft and other proprietary computer software companies, and switch to freedom (i.e. move computer networks to GNU/Linux). The Kent police needed to upgrade their crime-tracking computer system. They got two quotes: one from their existing provider, which called for proprietary (read: greedy) software running on Windows, the other from Dell, running on SUSE’s distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system. The quote from Dell was one tenth the cost.
It’s hard to get an exact and accurate breakdown of the federal government’s IT costs, but one recent figure suggests that the feds are in the middle of a $500 billion program to protect their databases. Guess what? There are a dozen open-source databases systems that are as secure as you could hope for, because they are designed intelligently. Know what you could do with $450 billion saved? Hire a hell of a lot of policemen, for one.
On the Iraq front, an Army lieutenant who refused to “deploy” (we don’t just travel and march anymore) to Iraq has been charged with three counts and could be looking at up to eight years in prison.
I have long been of two opinions on this sort of thing:
1. As a soldier, even as an inferior officer, your job is to obey orders intelligently and not to think about the moral and ethical elements of what you are doing. I think that the safest and most humane way to proceed. You learn the fundamental rules of the U.S. military as well as you can (which should teach you, among other things, how you can and should handle detainees and civilians), and as long as your direct orders don't violate those rules, you follow them. Try to weigh every ethical decision (which is every decision during war) and you're dead or heading straight to the psych ward. Leave the moral and ethical thinking for later, once you’ve made it out alive.
2. The Iraq war is in fact immoral, and has been all along.
So while I respect the stand taken by First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, I also believe that the Army is doing the right thing by prosecuting him. (Thoreau meant it when he said that the only place for a just man in an unjust society was in jail—not just as a rhetorical exercise.)
My larger question, which I still haven’t resolved, is this:
In other words, it is immoral to join the military today? Should new recruits (who know that they’re getting into the Iraq occupation) receive our undying support with no reservations?
Here’s what every American wants: a government that does more helpful stuff without raising taxes. We all want safer streets, cleaner restaurants, less corporate crime, and a bigger chunk of our own paychecks.
Well, the Brits may have a really good idea here: stop giving money to Microsoft and other proprietary computer software companies, and switch to freedom (i.e. move computer networks to GNU/Linux). The Kent police needed to upgrade their crime-tracking computer system. They got two quotes: one from their existing provider, which called for proprietary (read: greedy) software running on Windows, the other from Dell, running on SUSE’s distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system. The quote from Dell was one tenth the cost.
It’s hard to get an exact and accurate breakdown of the federal government’s IT costs, but one recent figure suggests that the feds are in the middle of a $500 billion program to protect their databases. Guess what? There are a dozen open-source databases systems that are as secure as you could hope for, because they are designed intelligently. Know what you could do with $450 billion saved? Hire a hell of a lot of policemen, for one.
On the Iraq front, an Army lieutenant who refused to “deploy” (we don’t just travel and march anymore) to Iraq has been charged with three counts and could be looking at up to eight years in prison.
I have long been of two opinions on this sort of thing:
1. As a soldier, even as an inferior officer, your job is to obey orders intelligently and not to think about the moral and ethical elements of what you are doing. I think that the safest and most humane way to proceed. You learn the fundamental rules of the U.S. military as well as you can (which should teach you, among other things, how you can and should handle detainees and civilians), and as long as your direct orders don't violate those rules, you follow them. Try to weigh every ethical decision (which is every decision during war) and you're dead or heading straight to the psych ward. Leave the moral and ethical thinking for later, once you’ve made it out alive.
2. The Iraq war is in fact immoral, and has been all along.
So while I respect the stand taken by First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, I also believe that the Army is doing the right thing by prosecuting him. (Thoreau meant it when he said that the only place for a just man in an unjust society was in jail—not just as a rhetorical exercise.)
My larger question, which I still haven’t resolved, is this:
Obviously we should support all our troops (and their families) who are already in the military, even if we disagree with the war-making decisions of their superiors. But, should we support a young man or young woman who is entering the military now, who knows that he or she will likely wind up playing a part in this immoral war?
In other words, it is immoral to join the military today? Should new recruits (who know that they’re getting into the Iraq occupation) receive our undying support with no reservations?
posted by danielklotz at 6:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home