I agree with you in the point that sometimes "the good for all" issue becomes fascist; there is were common sense and humanity are important.
Yes, Hitler was working or the "common goal" of the Aryans by commiting genocide; just like the rich white men of the south were working for their common goal of being rich by enslaving people; and the Aztecs were working for the "common goal" of keeping the gods happy by sacrificing members of their dominated territories.
The problem here is that all of the above where taking advantage of some other race, culture, religion, etcetera; without taking in consideration their human dimension.
Now, comparing that with saying that it is oppressive if it is prohibited, for example, to eat meat or drive SUV's... is a little far fetched. These ones would be rules that would not affect your human dimension.
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Some people join the military to perserve peace.
Some people choose to join the peace corp to perserve peace.
neither are right and neither are wrong...they are both good choices with the same goal. Actually, in theory, both must exisit for their to be peace....the paradox of peace.
What theory are you talking about? and why is it important for both to exist?
The idea of having military for peace is pure double speak. The two concepts don't go together.
And peace is not a paradox; that is what most military states want for people to believe. Example: Pinochet in Chile.
I don't believe that there is anywhere in the world where the military is used for peace purposes. Instead, it is used for business and selfish political ideologies: an oil pipe in Afghanistan, a friendly capitalist governement in Nicaragua, etcetera.
Ah, by the way, is not a spelling bee, I was just showing you your mistake. I just learned that because is written with an "a" and not with an "o".