I feel like since we're a Pearl Jam board, we should try to talk about and debate the activist websites they post on their front page, but this Dropping Knowledge thing just seems way to big for me to wrap my brain around. What does everyone else think?

http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/dk?ph=home

I was just browsing the website...my head is spinning a bit too

At first glance, it looks like a much more developed N&D.

this sounds interesting...i'd like to see this
http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/dk?ph=projects

Good concept. I give it a 6 for originality but I think the execution is flawed. It will not attract members from a broad spectrum of society. My theory: You will be able to share your views with a choir of voices from the liberal inteligensia, recieving all the perspectives their enlightened minds feel you are qualified to hear. Your gonna love it B, love it.

I really think it'll work, if we get enough like-minded individuals toghether we can open a new dialouge, truly communicate, and pontificate ourselves to utopia. Or I might be a cynic, been accused of it once before.

That's a good point. I think it'll end up being just like any other special-interest forum, where one point of view is widely accepted and the others are reviled and mocked.

It took me nearly 40 seconds to arrive at that same conclusion. Some of the questions they have are insightful and valid. Some made me laugh out loud. I now believe there are 'stupid questions'.

Good questions:

"How can we create a balance between the preservation of local cultures and the development of a global community?"

"How do you draw the line between individual rights and the public good?"

"Are you brave enough to fight for your true beliefs at the risk of sacrifcing what you love?"


Not-so-good:

"Why can't peace be more profitable than war?"

"Would there be less wars if we had everywhere on this planet the same wage level?"

"Children are the future of the world, why is their polical importance ignored while still being children? "

"Can there be true morality as long as money exists?"

"why does the miner have a smaller income than Paris Hilton?"

"would you help a man who works for a company that builds bombs?"

""Is it possibly that Homeopathy, a primarily mild therapeutic system, can survive and spread in a world of violence, like the one we are experiencing today?"



And a few that are too scary to think about right now:

"When will the people truly rule?"

"Why do we have unemployment? Don't we have reasonalble things to do for all of us? "



AND THE ABSOLUTE WINNER:


"Can one rock band do as much as Pearl Jam has done for everyone" -Anonymous , bothell, wa, USA

(who, unsurprisingly based on syngery, is the author of most of the ignorant questions posted)

Shut up, you fucking Nazi.

I think I'll have to cite Godwin's Law on this one.

Peace IS more profitable than war (unless, of course, you're in the business of war).

ka-ching, kaboom?

money, bombs

they interrelate in the business of war

Alright, then there's no disagreement (I think).

please dont ban me, thats all

"considering every individual has a different point of view, how can we define what is a fair cause? "

Now that is a good question.


I was trying to think of a good one myself....

"Why do so many people seem to support the idea 'those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither' when it applies to personal liberty, but reject it when it comes to economics? Can personal liberty really exist without economic liberty?"

I thought of another one:

"Which is a better state for humanity: Equality through oppression or inequality through freedom?"

Another Ryan original:

"How is it possible to decide what are fair reparations for past grievances? How can you measure the resultant suffering of descendants?"

Who has less liberty? Bill Gates' son who was forced to pay a drop in the bucket estate tax, or a single mother working two jobs and still living under the poverty line. Aren't we all more free when the best of us (with a million choices) pay small portions toward helping the least of us (with none)?

Unless it's done by choice, I tend to think not.

I understand your interpretation of the question. I intended 'economic liberty' in the sense of macro-economics, engaging in contracts with whomever we choose (marriage, hiring, possessing/selling property, free trade) without government interference. I guess it depends on your definition of 'liberty.' I tend to see personal and economic liberty together as the idea that no one is entitled to your time or efforts nor the results of your time or efforts, and you are not entitled to those from anyone else expect in the case of contractual agreement. Economic liberty and thus personal liberty cannot exist if the government (or society acting through the government) interferes.

The question was designed to inspire debate, so I guess it worked.