Hello,
I am a new member here and I am posting because I want to compare and contrast our different political views. I find great value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions. I have spent some time debating leftists on various forums, and I wanted to do the same with a conservative group. I don't mean to "troll" or be rude in any way. I don't exactly know how much we might agree or how much we might disagree. I hope to find that out through discussion.
I'm sure you are aware that libertarianism is a growing political movement in this country, with plenty of influence taking root within the (grassroots) GOP, as well as outside of organized politics. I want to state my views and I look forward to thoughtful critiques.
I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as "anarcho capitalist", though I have some issues with that label. What this means is that I believe in individual self ownership. As a purposeful independent human being of intrinsic worth, I reject the idea that any other individual has the right to commit aggression against me without my permission. And similarly, I don't believe I have any right to use aggression against anyone else. Aggression is the initiation of force. This principle is otherwise known as the non-aggression principle.
I believe that aggression cannot ever be justified. And the State, as an institution, necessarily must use aggression. Therefore, the State is illegitimate and immoral.
As another justification for this view, I understand that any rational ethical principle for human behavior must be universal. If, say, murder is determined to be immoral and unjustified, then it must be immoral and unjustified for all individuals in a society. We cannot have different standards for ethical behavior based on class, wealth, or any other superficial distinction.
By tolerating the existence of the State, you must concede that you do not accept any universal moral principles for human behavior. Because those that hold office in government, or are granted special privileges through the State, necessarily are permitted to commit acts of aggression whereas all those individuals who are outside of the State as expressly forbidden from committing these very same actions.
You are not permitted to steal your neighbors money and property and call it "taxation". You are not permitted to counterfeit money and call it "central banking". You are not permitted to secede and disassociate yourself from the State. You cannot decide to murder people and call it a legitimate "war" or a "targeted drone strike".
Conservatives are supposed to believe in moral absolutes. There are certain actions that are immoral and unjustifiable. To arbitrarily make exceptions to the moral law for politicians is to reject ethics and philosophy outright.
Could you explain to me why aggression is justified? And if you have a broader issue with libertarianism in general, I'd like to hear your best critiques.
I have a paper due in my sociology class, and was wondering if you would read this and tell me what you think of it....
Please send me all of your counterfeit money so I can dispose of it properly at my local strip club.
Okay, now would either of you like to respond substantively to my post?
The Non-Aggression Principle only works, if everyone adheres to it.
If an individual, or group of individuals choose not to play your game and, instead choose to exercise aggression towards you and your NAP friends, what are you going to do? You are going to organize yourself into a cohesive unit to oppose them. This is government in its most basic form - a group of people joining together to achieve a common goal they could not achieve individually.
Anarcho Capitalism, is an ideology as shortsighted and impractical as is Marx's Communism - and will never work. The reason, in both cases, is the same - human beings. Human beings are by their very nature imperfect and corruptible. No matter how "perfect" the system, there will always be someone who will seek a way to subvert it to their own ends. And, in all most all cases, they will succeed!
When dealing with human weaknesses, failure is always an option.
-Darth
Wow, you almost had me onboard with this new fangled Arachno Libertarianism. That is, until you got to the non-aggression principle. Sorry but there's lots of folks out there that just need a good thumpin every now and then.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:39:23 PM
Okay, now would either of you like to respond substantively to my post?
How does Islum fit into your "Non Aggression" equation?
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 01, 2014, 12:49:26 PM
The Non-Aggression Principle only works, if everyone adheres to it.
If an individual, or group of individuals choose not to play your game and, instead choose to exercise aggression towards you and your NAP friends, what are you going to do? You are going to organize yourself into a cohesive unit to oppose them. This is government in its most basic form - a group of people joining together to achieve a common goal they could not achieve individually.
Anarcho Capitalism, is an ideology as shortsighted and impractical as is Marx's Communism - and will never work. The reason, in both cases, is the same - human beings. Human beings are by their very nature imperfect and corruptible. No matter how "perfect" the system, there will always be someone who will seek a way to subvert it to their own ends. And, in all most all cases, they will succeed!
When dealing with human weaknesses, failure is always an option.
-Darth
This is a common objection to libertarianism. However, you are misunderstanding what the non-aggression principle means. You are likening it to something like pacifism. You presumably are thinking that we will all voluntarily reject the use of violence and live peacefully together without any thought given to those who still choose to use violence and crime against others.
Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", as most would assume. What it means is "no rulers". That is an incredibly important distinction. "An" means "no" or "against". "Archy" means "rule". Monarchy is rule by one person. Oligarchy means rule by many. Anarchy means no rulers, no people who are granted authority over others and are exempt from the universal moral principles that we all must abide by.
The non-aggression principle means only that it is unjustified to
initiate the use of violence against someone who is minding their own business. However, the use of violence itself, in certain contexts, is entirely permissible and even encouraged under libertarian principles. In particular, it is entirely legitimate to use violence in self defense or to defend someone else from violence. It is also permissible to use
proportional force against a criminal who has been proven to have used aggression against the person or property of another. The criminal can be forced to pay restitution to the victim or, if he or she is indeed an ongoing danger to public safety, they can be physically removed from society for a time.
So, yes, libertarians fully recognize that some people in society will always choose violence as a means of "getting ahead".
I think your appeal to human nature as an argument against libertarianism is misplaced. We see it entirely the opposite. If human beings are naturally corruptible, or prone to abuse of power, then taking a small number of these same individuals and giving them great power and authority and calling it a "State" will not improve the situation. Rather, it will make things far worse. The capacity for States to commit violence and aggression is far greater than the means available to any individual criminal.
Whatever the moral character of a population, whether the people are mostly good, most evil or somewhere in-between, taking a small number of the people in any given society and granting them positions of authority and the ability to violently dominate the others will not improve the situation one bit.
As much as I don't appreciate the violence of the inner city gangs or the highway robber, their violence pales in comparison to the State. The Crips may make it tough to live in Compton, but a few madmen in government could practically wipe out life on earth by precipitating nuclear warfare with Russia!
Also it is important to keep in mind what a State is. If a group of people organize for collective defense, this is NOT a State unless there is compulsory taxation to finance it. As long as an organization of mutual defense is voluntary, funded by contributions and paid dues by its members who participate of their own volition, then this is not a State.
It is indeed far likelier in a Stateless society that individual communities will collectively organize and contract with private defense agencies to defend the lives and property of the members of that community rather than each individual hiring their own body guard or something like that. But every member of the community participates voluntarily. They are free to leave at any time.
To equate a voluntary organization for mutual defense in a community with a compulsory central State is quite foolish. It is not collectivism, socialism, community, centralization or any of these other things that are the problem with the State. It is the gun. It is the violence that we object to. If you remove the violence from the State, it becomes a voluntary organization and there is nothing left to object to.
Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 01:09:02 PM
How does Islum fit into your "Non Aggression" equation?
Islam. What do you mean "how does it fit"? If someone initiates violence against us then we have the right to defend ourselves. We have the right to use force to compel restitution or punish those criminals that are proven in a court to have committed an act of aggression. The key is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime committed. If you steal a candy bar, you can be forced to pay the cost of the candy bar but no more. If you destroy someones property you can be forced to pay damages. If you murder someone, your punishment can be anything up to and including death.
I don't know how much of a neo con presence there is on these boards, but I don't think I have to explain that the response of the US government after 9/11 has been horrific. What we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands we have killed or displaced, is a far greater crime than what was done to us.
In a different scenario, a libertarian would have advised that we do the following. In the first place, Osama bin Laden and the dozen or so radical Islamic terrorists that were directly responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks on the World Trade Center should have been formally proven to have committing the crimes in a court of law. The evidence should have been presented to the American people in an open manner. After it was proven conclusively that it was indeed bin Laden and a few others who were responsible, we should have targeted those individuals specifically.
Ron Paul argued that we should have used the Letters of Mark and Reprisal in the Constitution to target a non State threat like a dozen terrorists and then use special forces or a contractor to capture those men who were responsible and bring them to the United States for trial. They should have been tried and then, if found guilty, put to death.
We should have used the opportunity to prove the the Muslim world that we are not the imperialist oppressors that bin Laden made us out to be. We could have proven that we follow the rule of law, we don't needlessly kill Muslim civilians and we grant a fair trial to even the worst criminals.
The entire thing could have been over in six months, no Iraq War, no occupation of Afghanistan, no nation building, no 6000 dead Americans, no 5 trillion dollars in debt to fight needless wars and rebuild a country after we destroyed it.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 01:46:54 PM
Islam. What do you mean "how does it fit"? If someone initiates violence against us then we have the right to defend ourselves. We have the right to use force to compel restitution or punish those criminals that are proven in a court to have committed an act of aggression. The key is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime committed. If you steal a candy bar, you can be forced to pay the cost of the candy bar but no more. If you destroy someones property you can be forced to pay damages. If you murder someone, your punishment can be anything up to and including death.
I don't know how much of a neo con presence there is on these boards, but I don't think I have to explain that the response of the US government after 9/11 has been horrific. What we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands we have killed or displaced, is a far greater crime than what was done to us.
In a different scenario, a libertarian would have advised that we do the following. In the first place, Osama bin Laden and the dozen or so radical Islamic terrorists that were directly responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks on the World Trade Center should have been formally proven to have committing the crimes in a court of law. The evidence should have been presented to the American people in an open manner. After it was proven conclusively that it was indeed bin Laden and a few others who were responsible, we should have targeted those individuals specifically.
Ron Paul argued that we should have used the Letters of Mark and Reprisal in the Constitution to target a non State threat like a dozen terrorists and then use special forces or a contractor to capture those men who were responsible and bring them to the United States for trial. They should have been tried and then, if found guilty, put to death.
We should have used the opportunity to prove the the Muslim world that we are not the imperialist oppressors that bin Laden made us out to be. We could have proven that we follow the rule of law, we don't needlessly kill Muslim civilians and we grant a fair trial to even the worst criminals.
The entire thing could have been over in six months, no Iraq War, no occupation of Afghanistan, no nation building, no 6000 dead Americans, no 5 trillion dollars in debt to fight needless wars and rebuild a country after we destroyed it.
My heart is always with anarcho capitalists, since I would love to live in a mutually peaceful society.
Initial question, which I'm sure you've answered a million times, but how would you defend against a bunch of tanks and stealth bombers leveling your community, and keep up with the technology to counter it?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:39:23 PM
Okay, now would either of you like to respond substantively to my post?
No, I would not like to.
It's the same baited magnum opus that we see about once per week, by somebody probing our hard manly underbellies for ways to annoy us.
You have already exposed your self as a TROLL. Now go away.
Oh, BTW, the state has been limited from aggression against the people, by the constitution, better in America than any country ever.
The US constitution also enjoys a separation of powers so wise that it is the world's best inoculation, against unwise entanglements against other countries.
Unfortunately it gets distorted, ignored, and misused in many ways. But as written, it's really the best guiding document that a libertarian could ever hope to wield, if it's to be taken at face value and used properly.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 01, 2014, 02:28:20 PM
You have already exposed your self as a TROLL. Now go away.
No I won't lol.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:39:23 PM
Okay, now would either of you like to respond substantively to my post?
Sure, what's the alternative to printing counterfeit money?
Hey Hector, are you married to Gwen V ?
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 02:11:15 PM
My heart is always with anarcho capitalists, since I would love to live in a mutually peaceful society.
Initial question, which I'm sure you've answered a million times, but how would you defend against a bunch of tanks and stealth bombers leveling your community, and keep up with the technology to counter it?
I assume you are referring to another invading country rather than an internal conflict? In the example of an invading country, the incentive for such an invasion would be far less when you have a stateless society. One of the primary reasons for imperialist conquest by other nations is that they desire to expand their tax base. Those who benefit from the imperialist State stand to gain from the resources to be plundered.
But what if there is a large area of land with no State? What if each property owner in a large geographical area is sovereign? What if there are dozens of different defense agencies that are autonomous and independent and work for different communities? For an invading army, the prospect for capturing the territory is much more daunting. Perhaps they succeed in taking over one community, but what of every other independent property and community? Each is fighting for himself or his community and therefore there is no collective that can unilaterally surrender. Since there are no taxes and no State, then the invading country will have a much tougher time exploiting such a population.
It is advantageous for an imperialistic nation to take over a country where there already exists a state with a population that is acclimated to being "ruled" and being taxed. There would therefore already exist a tax revenue stream to be taken over and exploited. If, on the other hand, a nation has embraced individualist anarchy, then that must mean that many influential opinion molders in society have rejected the legitimacy of authority. How can a State take over a population who are so ideologically opposed to the existence of States?
As for the defensive weaponry that would be needed to secure the people from any invasion or internal threats, each competing defense agency would be constantly looking to provide the needed security for a given population, while at the same time reducing the liability and insurance premiums for maintaining expansive arms. Much research will no doubt be done to determine the best means for deterring any invasion.
In the 21st century, all that would be required is to have a defense agency hold a nuclear weapon or two as a deterrent. There is a reason why modern nuclear equipped States have not been invaded by other States.
I don't know if that fully answers your question, but I'll leave it here for now. Murray Rothbard has written quite a lot about this question. If you haven't read it "For a New Liberty" will help answer many of these questions.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 01, 2014, 02:24:19 PM
No, I would not like to.
It's the same baited magnum opus that we see about once per week, by somebody probing our hard manly underbellies for ways to annoy us.
Maybe our reasons for posting on message boards differ, but I don't quite understand the purpose of spending time on political message boards if you are not interested in debating those that hold differing views? Life is too short to waste on self congratulatory, bias confirming "discussion" with people who already agree with you and only serve to reinforce your existing views.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 01:46:54 PM
Islam. What do you mean "how does it fit"? If someone initiates violence against us then we have the right to defend ourselves. We have the right to use force to compel restitution or punish those criminals that are proven in a court to have committed an act of aggression. The key is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime committed. If you steal a candy bar, you can be forced to pay the cost of the candy bar but no more. If you destroy someones property you can be forced to pay damages. If you murder someone, your punishment can be anything up to and including death.
Yeah, I saw you previous explanation.
QuoteI don't know how much of a neo con presence there is on these boards,
There is none!
Quotebut I don't think I have to explain that the response of the US government after 9/11 has been horrific. What we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands we have killed or displaced, is a far greater crime than what was done to us.
Bull Shit!!!
QuoteIn a different scenario, a libertarian would have advised that we do the following. In the first place, Osama bin Laden and the dozen or so radical Islamic terrorists that were directly responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks on the World Trade Center should have been formally proven to have committing the crimes in a court of law. The evidence should have been presented to the American people in an open manner. After it was proven conclusively that it was indeed bin Laden and a few others who were responsible, we should have targeted those individuals specifically.
Of course you would, and under who's law would they be prosecuted and what protections would they be afforded, Our Constitution?
Yeah, Clintoon tried that BS and look where it got us, two towers leveled!
If we, as a Nation is attacked, then they WILL be charged as enemy combatant, and prosecuted under Military tribunal laws, end of story!
QuoteRon Paul argued that we should have used the Letters of Mark and Reprisal in the Constitution to target a non State threat like a dozen terrorists and then use special forces or a contractor to capture those men who were responsible and bring them to the United States for trial. They should have been tried and then, if found guilty, put to death.
Islum attacked us, get that through your head!
QuoteWe should have used the opportunity to prove the the Muslim world that we are not the imperialist oppressors that bin Laden made us out to be. We could have proven that we follow the rule of law, we don't needlessly kill Muslim civilians and we grant a fair trial to even the worst criminals.
The entire thing could have been over in six months, no Iraq War, no occupation of Afghanistan, no nation building, no 6000 dead Americans, no 5 trillion dollars in debt to fight needless wars and rebuild a country after we destroyed it.
You're a fool if you think they care one iota about International law.
Do yourself a favor and study Islum. If they are such a peaceful society, why isn't the rest of the M/E demanding an end to Quiadi?
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 01, 2014, 02:28:20 PM
You have already exposed your self as a TROLL. Now go away.
Can you define "troll" for me? I am arguing in good faith and am genuinely curious as to what specific critiques you have of libertarian philosophy. I didn't know there was a litmus test for posting on these forums? Are people who dissent in any way not welcome? What do you hope to learn by excluding dissenting voices?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:06:25 PM
Can you define "troll" for me? I am arguing in good faith and am genuinely curious as to what specific critiques you have of libertarian philosophy. I didn't know there was a litmus test for posting on these forums? Are people who dissent in any way not welcome? What do you hope to learn by excluding dissenting voices?
Cut the crap, claiming victim status is the epitome of troll!
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 01, 2014, 02:30:29 PM
Oh, BTW, the state has been limited from aggression against the people, by the constitution, better in America than any country ever.
The US constitution also enjoys a separation of powers so wise that it is the world's best inoculation, against unwise entanglements against other countries.
Unfortunately it gets distorted, ignored, and misused in many ways. But as written, it's really the best guiding document that a libertarian could ever hope to wield, if it's to be taken at face value and used properly.
I can write a lot of nice things on a piece of paper. I think the only lesson that can be drawn from US history is that written constitutions prove absolutely worthless in actually restraining the growth of State power. Even as drafted the Constitution had many problems, but I will concede that it was one of the best attempts at crafting a limited Republic.
But the most limited government ever has transformed into the largest, most expansive State and military empire in the history of the world. It has been a total failure.
Lysander Spooner wrote about the illegitimacy of the Constitution in binding anyone living to its tenets in the 19th century. The Constitution was ratified by a shockingly small number of people, all property owning white males. Blacks had no say, obviously as they were deemed three fifths of a human. Woman had no say and no vote. And Native Americans had absolutely no say in the construction of this government. If a written Constitution is to be interpreted as a contract between the people and their government, defining the terms of the relationship, then how can that contract be binding upon future generations that were not born when a small minority of the population established this government and ratified the constitution?
Again, I say that each individual owns himself and should be permitting to enter in any agreement he would want and none have the right to initiate violence against him. No previous generation should have the right to bind future generations to a contract that they never consented to.
The Articles of Confederation were certainly superior to the Constitution.
As a conservative (I assume) you must at times wonder about what exactly failed to lead to such disregard for the limitations that were supposed to be employed to limit the central government to specific delegated functions? What if we established our society different at the founding? Could we not have avoided the growth of central State power?
That is what I am arguing. You are trying to make the case that libertarians should be Constitutionalists. I think quite the opposite. Our history and, indeed, the history of every society on earth proves that written Constitutions are as worthless as the paper they are printed on. What we need to reject is the use of
aggression. We should hold firm to the right of self ownership, private property based on original appropriation, and voluntarism as the only civilized way to interact with one another.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 01, 2014, 02:43:35 PM
Hey Hector, are you married to Gwen V ?
No? I'm not sure who you're talking about.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 02:58:09 PM
I assume you are referring to another invading country rather than an internal conflict?
Correct.
Quote
In the example of an invading country, the incentive for such an invasion would be far less when you have a stateless society. One of the primary reasons for imperialist conquest by other nations is that they desire to expand their tax base. Those who benefit from the imperialist State stand to gain from the resources to be plundered.
Let's say the attackers don't care what state you have. They just want your land.
Quote
But what if there is a large area of land with no State? What if each property owner in a large geographical area is sovereign? What if there are dozens of different defense agencies that are autonomous and independent and work for different communities? For an invading army, the prospect for capturing the territory is much more daunting. Perhaps they succeed in taking over one community, but what of every other independent property and community? Each is fighting for himself or his community and therefore there is no collective that can unilaterally surrender. Since there are no taxes and no State, then the invading country will have a much tougher time exploiting such a population.
How are you protecting against tanks and bombs? To ask another way, how are you defending against a bigger and more powerful army? They will level your area before even setting foot on your ground. How do you compete with that?
Quote
It is advantageous for an imperialistic nation to take over a country where there already exists a state with a population that is acclimated to being "ruled" and being taxed. There would therefore already exist a tax revenue stream to be taken over and exploited. If, on the other hand, a nation has embraced individualist anarchy, then that must mean that many influential opinion molders in society have rejected the legitimacy of authority. How can a State take over a population who are so ideologically opposed to the existence of States?
I'm asking about a scenario where a more powerful attacker wants your land, just because. Their motive may or may not be to integrate an existing tax base (with whatever currency).
Quote
As for the defensive weaponry that would be needed to secure the people from any invasion or internal threats, each competing defense agency would be constantly looking to provide the needed security for a given population, while at the same time reducing the liability and insurance premiums for maintaining expansive arms. Much research will no doubt be done to determine the best means for deterring any invasion.
How do you bring the resources and technology together?
Quote
In the 21st century, all that would be required is to have a defense agency hold a nuclear weapon or two as a deterrent. There is a reason why modern nuclear equipped States have not been invaded by other States.
How are you going to build and engineer this nuclear weapon? Where would you test it?
Quote
I don't know if that fully answers your question, but I'll leave it here for now. Murray Rothbard has written quite a lot about this question. If you haven't read it "For a New Liberty" will help answer many of these questions.
I'm familiar with Rothbard.
Quote from: Hector on August 01, 2014, 02:33:41 PM
Sure, what's the alternative to printing counterfeit money?
A commodity money. Competing currencies. Stateless money. No society on earth has ever voluntarily chosen fiat money. The only reason current fiat currency is accepted is, first, it is forced upon us by the State and, second, it used to be tied to a commodity (gold). Central banking is one of the great evils of the world, because it allows a small number of bankers to monetize national debts, fund wars, and allow the unchecked growth of State power. All the while the expansion of credit causes price inflation, steals wealth from the poor and middle class and discourages savings and encourages public AND private debt.
Fiat money also changes peoples time preferences. With a sound currency, people are incentivized to save their money and plan for the future. They therefore have a low time preference because they know there money will maintain its value and they can calculate the cost of living in the future and therefore plan ahead.
In contrast, a paper money standard causes people to consume in the present and rack up huge debts. The money is constantly losing value to people have a high time preference. This inevitably causes society to decline as national debts are racked up, people consume in excess and forget about the future.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:30:32 PM
A commodity money. Competing currencies. Stateless money. No society on earth has ever voluntarily chosen fiat money. The only reason current fiat currency is accepted is, first, it is forced upon us by the State and, second, it used to be tied to a commodity (gold). Central banking is one of the great evils of the world, because it allows a small number of bankers to monetize national debts, fund wars, and allow the unchecked growth of State power. All the while the expansion of credit causes price inflation, steals wealth from the poor and middle class and discourages savings and encourages public AND private debt.
Fiat money also changes peoples time preferences. With a sound currency, people are incentivized to save their money and plan for the future. They therefore have a low time preference because they know there money will maintain its value and they can calculate the cost of living in the future and therefore plan ahead.
In contrast, a paper money standard causes people to consume in the present and rack up huge debts. The money is constantly losing value to people have a high time preference. This inevitably causes society to decline as national debts are racked up, people consume in excess and forget about the future.
So what commodity would you tie money to?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 01:29:12 PM
This is a common objection to libertarianism. However, you are misunderstanding what the non-aggression principle means. You are likening it to something like pacifism. You presumably are thinking that we will all voluntarily reject the use of violence and live peacefully together without any thought given to those who still choose to use violence and crime against others.
Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", as most would assume. What it means is "no rulers". That is an incredibly important distinction. "An" means "no" or "against". "Archy" means "rule". Monarchy is rule by one person. Oligarchy means rule by many. Anarchy means no rulers, no people who are granted authority over others and are exempt from the universal moral principles that we all must abide by.
The non-aggression principle means only that it is unjustified to initiate the use of violence against someone who is minding their own business. However, the use of violence itself, in certain contexts, is entirely permissible and even encouraged under libertarian principles. In particular, it is entirely legitimate to use violence in self defense or to defend someone else from violence. It is also permissible to use proportional force against a criminal who has been proven to have used aggression against the person or property of another. The criminal can be forced to pay restitution to the victim or, if he or she is indeed an ongoing danger to public safety, they can be physically removed from society for a time.
So, yes, libertarians fully recognize that some people in society will always choose violence as a means of "getting ahead".
I think your appeal to human nature as an argument against libertarianism is misplaced. We see it entirely the opposite. If human beings are naturally corruptible, or prone to abuse of power, then taking a small number of these same individuals and giving them great power and authority and calling it a "State" will not improve the situation. Rather, it will make things far worse. The capacity for States to commit violence and aggression is far greater than the means available to any individual criminal.
Whatever the moral character of a population, whether the people are mostly good, most evil or somewhere in-between, taking a small number of the people in any given society and granting them positions of authority and the ability to violently dominate the others will not improve the situation one bit.
As much as I don't appreciate the violence of the inner city gangs or the highway robber, their violence pales in comparison to the State. The Crips may make it tough to live in Compton, but a few madmen in government could practically wipe out life on earth by precipitating nuclear warfare with Russia!
Also it is important to keep in mind what a State is. If a group of people organize for collective defense, this is NOT a State unless there is compulsory taxation to finance it. As long as an organization of mutual defense is voluntary, funded by contributions and paid dues by its members who participate of their own volition, then this is not a State.
It is indeed far likelier in a Stateless society that individual communities will collectively organize and contract with private defense agencies to defend the lives and property of the members of that community rather than each individual hiring their own body guard or something like that. But every member of the community participates voluntarily. They are free to leave at any time.
To equate a voluntary organization for mutual defense in a community with a compulsory central State is quite foolish. It is not collectivism, socialism, community, centralization or any of these other things that are the problem with the State. It is the gun. It is the violence that we object to. If you remove the violence from the State, it becomes a voluntary organization and there is nothing left to object to.
Don't talk down to me junior! I was a student of libertarianism before you were born. I know where the principles of which you speak originate.
I said nothing about pacifism. I also said nothing about a compulsory central government or collectivism.
I'll refer you to that famous quote by Lord Acton:
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
-Darth
Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 03:04:07 PM
Yeah, I saw you previous explanation.
There is none!
Bull Shit!!!
Of course you would, and under who's law would they be prosecuted and what protections would they be afforded, Our Constitution?
Yeah, Clintoon tried that BS and look where it got us, two towers leveled!
If we, as a Nation is attacked, then they WILL be charged as enemy combatant, and prosecuted under Military tribunal laws, end of story!
Islum attacked us, get that through your head!You're a fool if you think they care one iota about International law.
Do yourself a favor and study Islum. If they are such a peaceful society, why isn't the rest of the M/E demanding an end to Quiadi?
You may say you are not a "neo con" but you do sound like you get a lot of your information from people who are. Do you listen to ANY of the following people or institutions:
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O'Reilly, David Frum, Fox News, National Review?
These people would love for you to continue believing that Islam is responsible and we need to declare war on the entire Muslim world in response to 9/11. Have you read any books by Michael Scheuer? He was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 through 2005 or so. He knows more about the motivation behind the attacks than anyone.
There is no question that radical Islam is comprised of violent people, but the reasons they have for attacking the United States are real and substantive. They object to our foreign policy of imperialism, of sanctions and propping up puppet dictators in the Middle East and overthrowing elected leaders. They object to our blind support for Israel and military support for the subjugation of Palestinians. These grievances resonate throughout the middle east, even among moderates and very decent, moral people.
Scheuer makes the case that bin Laden and Al Qaeda would lose all their support and become marginalized in the Muslim world if they couldn't constantly point to our military occupations and dead children that we create with our sanctions and drone strikes. A million Iraqi's died as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions and Madeleine Albright said on national television that it was "worth it".
What if a foreign nation did to us what our government has done to countries in the middle east? Would you not want to take up arms against the occupying force? You wouldn't want revenge against the people who killed your family?
There is no justification for the attack on 9/11 but I believe the each and every one of the more than one million Iraqis that have died because of the actions of the US government have just as much value as the 3000 people killed in the twin towers.
You can continue to believe that all "those" people are savages, are worthless and that we are at war with Islam but I reject such xenophobic and offensive views that devalue human life.
Oh boy.
Quote from: Hector on August 01, 2014, 03:34:38 PM
So what commodity would you tie money to?
Gold has historically been chosen by the market as being the best money. But it is not for me to decide. Perhaps cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will be the best solution in the future. Bitcoin is tied to an algorithm where there will be a scarce number of bitcoins ever produced. There can never be more than 21 million bitcoins in existence. So, bitcoins will maintain there value and won't be subject to inflation.
The thing about being a libertarian is that I don't have to pretend to know the future. A central planner might say "gold is best! I'm going to force everyone to use a gold backed currency through threats of violence!" But libertarians don't do that. We want people to voluntarily decide what currency is the best.
It is like you asking me to tell you which smartphone will be the best in five years. How would I know? But I can predict that through competition and free exchange the better product will usually win out.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:00:42 PM
Gold has historically been chosen by the market as being the best money. But it is not for me to decide. Perhaps cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will be the best solution in the future. Bitcoin is tied to an algorithm where there will be a scarce number of bitcoins ever produced. There can never be more than 21 million bitcoins in existence. So, bitcoins will maintain there value and won't be subject to inflation.
The thing about being a libertarian is that I don't have to pretend to know the future. A central planning might say "gold is best! I'm going to force everyone to use a gold backed currency through threats of violence!" But libertarians don't do that. We want people to voluntarily decide what currency is the best.
It is like you asking me to tell you which smartphone will be the best in five years. How would I know? But I can predict that through competition and free exchange the better product will usually win out.
Bro, you just outed yourself with the whole bitcoin thing.
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 01, 2014, 03:51:00 PM
Don't talk down to me junior! I was a student of libertarianism before you were born. I know where the principles of which you speak originate.
I said nothing about pacifism. I also said nothing about a compulsory central government or collectivism.
I'll refer you to that famous quote by Lord Acton:
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
-Darth
I don't understand what you are objecting to then. Weren't you telling me that the non-aggression principle and libertarian anarchy were naive because of human nature, that humans are prone to corruption? That is precisely the point of libertarianism!
Lord Acton might well have been speaking explicitly about politics. In light of his insightful quote, I fail to see what your argument could possibly be in favor of the existence of the State?
a Libertarian Archno Capitalist a Presbyterian Minister with one leg and a duck walk into a bar and they order a beer.......
:popcorn:
Hmm.............would any of the wise old heads know if CPF is running
some sort of summer intern program; as at least one lad posting per
day seems to be working on a term paper???
As for the libertarian market anarchist label, it's an oxymoron and
a silly contradiction.
Self-defense is supported in the Book of Exodus. Additionally.
the Church of Rome supports the self -defense of both
person and property, even to the extent that it causes loss of life.
End of story.
Be advised, I'll be sending a bill for any further requests for analysis!!!
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 04:02:15 PM
Bro, you just outed yourself with the whole bitcoin thing.
What is that supposed to mean? You think it was some big secret that there are libertarian fans of Bitcoin? I don't personally use bitcoin, I only suggested that it or other cryptocurrencies might be chosen by the market as the best medium of exchange.
If that makes me "outed", fine. Whatever that means.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:05:09 PM
I don't understand what you are objecting to then. Weren't you telling me that the non-aggression principle and libertarian anarchy were naive because of human nature, that humans are prone to corruption? That is precisely the point of libertarianism!
Lord Acton might well have been speaking explicitly about politics. In light of his insightful quote, I fail to see what your argument could possibly be in favor of the existence of the State?
Are you Fking serious???? BITCOINS!!! the biggest scam since mood rings.
Humans are not so much prone to corruption as they are VIOlENCE...man is a violent agressive creature by nature....your theory on non agression won't workbecause of that.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:05:09 PM
I don't understand what you are objecting to then. Weren't you telling me that the non-aggression principle and libertarian anarchy were naive because of human nature, that humans are prone to corruption? That is precisely the point of libertarianism!
Lord Acton might well have been speaking explicitly about politics. In light of his insightful quote, I fail to see what your argument could possibly be in favor of the existence of the State?
Stateless societies don't work. They never have they never will.
Here is why.
Someone is going to want to form a "state" - a government of some sort. Knowing that such organization tend to grow of their own accord, more and more people will get swept up into it - whether they want to or not.
How will you and your Anarcho Capitalist keep from getting overrun by the new "state"? You can run for a while, but eventually you will run out of places to hid.
There is no escape.
The only way to protect yourself would be to form a "government" of your own.
Anarchy is not a stable social or economic society. It is (and always has been) a transition from one form of government to another. Usually it is promoted the strongest by the proponents of the "new" government who want to replace the "old" government. They use anarchy to scare the populace into accepting a government they would not normally have even considered.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken
This is what Obama is doing as we speak.
-Darth
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
What is that supposed to mean? You think it was some big secret that there are libertarian fans of Bitcoin? I don't personally use bitcoin, I only suggested that it or other cryptocurrencies might be chosen by the market as the best medium of exchange.
If that makes me "outed", fine. Whatever that means.
You need to do some research on that a little more, son.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 01, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
Are you Fking serious???? BITCOINS!!! the biggest scam since mood rings.
Humans are not so much prone to corruption as they are VIOlENCE...man is a violent agressive creature by nature....your theory on non agression won't workbecause of that.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Totally!
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 04:44:24 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Totally!
I guess our new friend is unawares......
http://www.cultofmac.com/257976/bitcoin-hoax-dupes-apple-users-destroying-macs/ (http://www.cultofmac.com/257976/bitcoin-hoax-dupes-apple-users-destroying-macs/)
Welcome to the board!
I am no longer the only anarchist!
Regarding the question of national defense, we have but to consider the idea of insurance firms, which hold assets against some known risk, and collect premiums for covering it.
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf (http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf)
The private production of defense chapter begins on page 43.
I do not claim that this is an answer that decides the issue once and for all, but it is the foundation of the alternative paradigm.
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 01, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
Stateless societies don't work. They never have they never will.
Here is why.
Someone is going to want to form a "state" - a government of some sort. Knowing that such organization tend to grow of their own accord, more and more people will get swept up into it - whether they want to or not.
How will you and your Anarcho Capitalist keep from getting overrun by the new "state"? You can run for a while, but eventually you will run out of places to hid.
There is no escape.
The only way to protect yourself would be to form a "government" of your own.
Anarchy is not a stable social or economic society. It is (and always has been) a transition from one form of government to another. Usually it is promoted the strongest by the proponents of the "new" government who want to replace the "old" government. They use anarchy to scare the populace into accepting a government they would not normally have even considered.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken
This is what Obama is doing as we speak.
-Darth
By this logic we should just give up on any idea of limited, Constitutional government as well since history has proven that limited government is impossible. We might as well just roll over and accept tyranny, Corporatism, central banking and military empire because that is what States inevitably devolve into.
If we were arguing in the 19th century about slavery, you could just as easily have argued that slavery is inevitable. It has always existed and will always exist. You might argue with me and complain that an economy cannot sustain itself without slave labor. Why, it's never happened before!
There is a reason that the abolitionists didn't argue on utilitarian grounds. The abolitionist didn't have to explain exactly how the economy would work fifty years after the abolition of slavery. The task of the abolitionist was to argue that slavery is immoral. If slavery is immoral then all decent people should support its immediate abolition.
And all countries eventually got rid of slavery. It turns out that slavery was NOT inevitable and periodically humanity makes a leap in consciousness or in ethics and we don't slide backwards. Human sacrifice was once a common practice among societies around the world.
If aggression is immoral and cannot be justified, then we should oppose aggression and therefore oppose the existence of the State.
If you have a cancerous tumor, you don't say "you know, I was going to remove this tumor surgically, but since there is a possibility that the cancer could return in the future, I'll just leave the tumor there!" That would be a ridiculous position to take. You would remove the tumor and then take ever possible precaution to make it unlikely that the cancer would return.
If centralization of power and growth of the State are truly inevitable and there is nothing we can do about it, why not just start advocating for a one world dictatorship? That is the logical implication of your reasoning.
Anarcho-capitalism is really only fifty years old or so, at least as a coherent and developed political ideology and philosophy. We have means of communication that were never before seen in human history. It is always a fallacious argument to say that since something hasn't existed before in history, it can't exist in the future.
With technology and the internet, we are in a new paradigm in human history. I would argue that the internet itself is the greatest experiment in anarchy that has ever existed. Technology advances at such a blistering rate, that the slow moving behemoths called "States" can't keep up to regulate and control it.
The internet is a model of the self organizing power of individuals.
If sufficient numbers of people educate themselves on market anarchism, read Rothbard and Hoppe, and learn about the moral arguments in favor of non aggression, then not only is anarchy possible, I believe it is inevitable. Human beings can and will make States obsolete in the near future.
It would be wise to get on the right side of history. You don't want to have people look back and see you as one of the last defenders of slavery. Or the last defender of Statism.
Every new idea has previously been untested. If you can persuasively argue against the principle of self ownership, or you can somehow justify the use of aggression, then you can logically hold a view I consider entirely untenable.
Otherwise, you should join us and work to remove parasitic States from the human experience.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on August 01, 2014, 05:00:41 PM
I guess our new friend is unawares......
http://www.cultofmac.com/257976/bitcoin-hoax-dupes-apple-users-destroying-macs/ (http://www.cultofmac.com/257976/bitcoin-hoax-dupes-apple-users-destroying-macs/)
That is a funny but mean prank to pull. But what does that have to do with the validity of Bitcoin as a currency?
I don't want to divert this thread into a Bitcoin thread since I haven't personally used it and I don't claim to be any sort of expert. All I said is that I want the market to choose the best currency. That means I want a Stateless currency that people voluntarily choose to transact with.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:06:25 PM
Can you define "troll" for me? I am arguing in good faith and am genuinely curious as to what specific critiques you have of libertarian philosophy. I didn't know there was a litmus test for posting on these forums? Are people who dissent in any way not welcome? What do you hope to learn by excluding dissenting voices?
Troll=jrodefeld!
This forum promotes unity of conservatives/TEA movement. We've already
studied the other philosophies and determined that they are not practical for our needs. To try to undermine our philisopy by sticking yours in our face is hateful and quite frankly of no benefit to either of us. If you like the libertarian view, then stay with it.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:22:48 PM
Hello,
I am a new member here and I am posting because I want to compare and contrast our different political views. I find great value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions. I have spent some time debating leftists on various forums, and I wanted to do the same with a conservative group. I don't mean to "troll" or be rude in any way. I don't exactly know how much we might agree or how much we might disagree. I hope to find that out through discussion.
I'm sure you are aware that libertarianism is a growing political movement in this country, with plenty of influence taking root within the (grassroots) GOP, as well as outside of organized politics. I want to state my views and I look forward to thoughtful critiques.
I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as "anarcho capitalist", though I have some issues with that label. What this means is that I believe in individual self ownership. As a purposeful independent human being of intrinsic worth, I reject the idea that any other individual has the right to commit aggression against me without my permission. And similarly, I don't believe I have any right to use aggression against anyone else. Aggression is the initiation of force. This principle is otherwise known as the non-aggression principle.
I believe that aggression cannot ever be justified. And the State, as an institution, necessarily must use aggression. Therefore, the State is illegitimate and immoral.
As another justification for this view, I understand that any rational ethical principle for human behavior must be universal. If, say, murder is determined to be immoral and unjustified, then it must be immoral and unjustified for all individuals in a society. We cannot have different standards for ethical behavior based on class, wealth, or any other superficial distinction.
By tolerating the existence of the State, you must concede that you do not accept any universal moral principles for human behavior. Because those that hold office in government, or are granted special privileges through the State, necessarily are permitted to commit acts of aggression whereas all those individuals who are outside of the State as expressly forbidden from committing these very same actions.
You are not permitted to steal your neighbors money and property and call it "taxation". You are not permitted to counterfeit money and call it "central banking". You are not permitted to secede and disassociate yourself from the State. You cannot decide to murder people and call it a legitimate "war" or a "targeted drone strike".
Conservatives are supposed to believe in moral absolutes. There are certain actions that are immoral and unjustifiable. To arbitrarily make exceptions to the moral law for politicians is to reject ethics and philosophy outright.
Could you explain to me why aggression is justified? And if you have a broader issue with libertarianism in general, I'd like to hear your best critiques.
Well, for what its worth, I am of the opinion that there are only two political parties right now, namely the Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, Washington is so corrupt that there really is not a whole lot of difference between those affiliated with either party.
As for aggression ... I would say right now that is a major problem as the Obama administration has been aggressively attempting to destroy this country by disregarding the Constitution with his blatant overreach of power.
The only snowball's chance in hell that his country has is to stop that aggression is by holding our elected officials responsible and demanding that they adhere to our rule of law; however when you have an Attorney General who obstructs justice and a president who acts without the consent of Congress it does become concerning that we may not make it to another election before this country becomes completely unraveled.
We have but a few in Congress that are trying to hold this country together; they happen to be labeled "hard core conservatives".
With that being said, and you certainly are entitled to label yourself and affiliate yourself with any party/belief that you want ... but this country is clearly hanging on by a very thin thread.
To try to persuade or garner support for a third party or "purposeful independent" as you call it at this point in time is futile and will only continue to "fuel" the already existing inferno in Washington.
Either we stick to the principles, morals and the Constitution upon which the country was founded upon or we crumble. Right now, the liberal progressive leftists are pushing towards socialism and we have a Marxist in the oval office.
And you want others to consider/discuss libertarian anarchists why?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 05:34:05 PM
Welcome to the board!
I am no longer the only anarchist!
Regarding the question of national defense, we have but to consider the idea of insurance firms, which hold assets against some known risk, and collect premiums for covering it.
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf (http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf)
The private production of defense chapter begins on page 43.
I do not claim that this is an answer that decides the issue once and for all, but it is the foundation of the alternative paradigm.
Great! Glad to see a fellow anarchist. Yeah, the role of insurance firms would play a vitally important role in the production of private defense services. Insurance firms are expert at assessing risk. What is the risk of invasion? What is the risk of robbery? All these questions can be answered on the market far better than any State ever could.
The risk of attack from a State might be great or it might be small, but there are multiple ways to deter such a risk and repel an attack if needed.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:20:11 PM
Troll=jrodefeld!
This forum promotes unity of conservatives/TEA movement. We've already
studied the other philosophies and determined that they are not practical for our needs. To try to undermine our philisopy by sticking yours in our face is hateful and quite frankly of no benefit to either of us. If you like the libertarian view, then stay with it.
So you do not welcome divergent view points?
You want an echo chamber?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:24:03 PM
Great! Glad to see a fellow anarchist. Yeah, the role of insurance firms would play a vitally important role in the production of private defense services. Insurance firms are expert at assessing risk. What is the risk of invasion? What is the risk of robbery? All these questions can be answered on the market far better than any State ever could.
The risk of attack from a State might be great or it might be small, but there are multiple ways to deter such a risk and repel an attack if needed.
What is needed is a paradigm shift in terms of our understanding of social cooperation, private property and the rule of law.
Conservatives have let the left define these institutions as purely public goods, and have unwittingly gone along with the conception of society as a central plan, rather than an emergent or spontaneous process.
The classical liberals of yesteryear understood the organic nature of society but it seems we have forgotten these core principals and have adopted the progressive/socialist/Hobbesian view of social cooperation.
Tis a shame but it is inevitable given the public nature of education.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:20:11 PM
Troll=jrodefeld!
This forum promotes unity of conservatives/TEA movement. We've already
studied the other philosophies and determined that they are not practical for our needs. To try to undermine our philisopy by sticking yours in our face is hateful and quite frankly of no benefit to either of us. If you like the libertarian view, then stay with it.
He's not a troll, and we do welcome discussions such as this. He's OK. He's coming from a liberty/freedom side of things. I'd much rather have these debates, in general, than with Marxists.
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 04:02:15 PM
Bro, you just outed yourself with the whole bitcoin thing.
The hoax does not taint Bitcoins, nor their supporters.
It does taint those pranksters on 4chan who thought it up.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 06:30:37 PM
So you do not welcome divergent view points?
You want an echo chamber?
Divergent views distract from the principals this great country was founded upon. You do note the mess our congress is having, don't you? Why? Self interests over the rule of law. This difference of opinion was morphed into criminal activity by some in both Democrats and Republican parties. Like some here have stated, this country is hanging on by the conservative principals of only a few.
Me, want an echo chamber? Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views? Get real and get going.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:43:53 PMMe, want an echo chamber? Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views? Get real and get going.
lolz
I hope you see the irony here.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:43:53 PM
Divergent views distract from the principals this great country was founded upon. You do note the mess our congress is having, don't you? Why? Self interests over the rule of law. This difference of opinion was morphed into criminal activity by some in both Democrats and Republican parties. Like some here have stated, this country is hanging on by the conservative principals of only a few.
Me, want an echo chamber? Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views? Get real and get going.
We don't want an echo chamber. It's a political discussion and it's fine. Having discussions with libertarians is important. Some of us were pretty hard-core libertarians at one point.
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 06:52:14 PM
We don't want an echo chamber. It's a political discussion and it's fine. Having discussions with libertarians is important. Some of us were pretty hard-core libertarians at one point.
Someone should nudge keyboarder and let him know that the libertarian focus on the rule of law, individual liberty, free exchange, sound money and the spontaneous order, is directly pulled from the classical liberalism that animated the views of the best "founding fathers."
Of course I am referring to the anti-federalists.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 06:56:10 PM
Someone should nudge keyboarder and let him know that the libertarian focus on the rule of law, individual liberty, free exchange, sound money and the spontaneous order, is directly pulled from the classical liberalism that animated the views of the best "founding fathers."
Of course I am referring to the anti-federalists.
She's good. I always love the discussion. It's actually my favorite.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:43:53 PM
Divergent views distract from the principals this great country was founded upon. You do note the mess our congress is having, don't you? Why? Self interests over the rule of law. This difference of opinion was morphed into criminal activity by some in both Democrats and Republican parties. Like some here have stated, this country is hanging on by the conservative principals of only a few.
Me, want an echo chamber? Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views? Get real and get going.
I personally go out of my way to avoid an echo chamber. Libertarians in general, even among themselves, are always trying to refine their views and improve their arguments. The only way I can know if my positions are sound is to engage in discussion with different groups who hold different views than my own.
If I can convert a few people here and there to the cause of (true) liberty, then that is a bonus. There is far more to be gained through honest debate than by constantly reinforcing your own views and prejudices. I just got done debating some Marxists on another forum and I enjoyed the experience. I got to hear what they have to say and I did my best to refute their arguments.
Divergent views don't "distract" from any great principles. To the contrary divergent views test those principles and, if those principles are worth upholding, then they will stand up to scrutiny.
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 07:02:45 PM
She's good. I always love the discussion. It's actually my favorite.
As do I!
It's nice to break up the daily routine of takin' the piss out of the socialists and statists at that other place.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 07:15:32 PM
I personally go out of my way to avoid an echo chamber. Libertarians in general, even among themselves, are always trying to refine their views and improve their arguments. The only way I can know if my positions are sound is to engage in discussion with different groups who hold different views than my own.
If I can convert a few people here and there to the cause of (true) liberty, then that is a bonus. There is far more to be gained through honest debate than by constantly reinforcing your own views and prejudices. I just got done debating some Marxists on another forum and I enjoyed the experience. I got to hear what they have to say and I did my best to refute their arguments.
Divergent views don't "distract" from any great principles. To the contrary divergent views test those principles and, if those principles are worth upholding, then they will stand up to scrutiny.
How can you debate Marxists? They're complete idiots.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 06:56:10 PM
Someone should nudge keyboarder and let him know that the libertarian focus on the rule of law, individual liberty, free exchange, sound money and the spontaneous order, is directly pulled from the classical liberalism that animated the views of the best "founding fathers."
Of course I am referring to the anti-federalists.
I agree. One troubling tendency I have noticed with many Tea Party people and conservatives in general could only be described as "founders worship". It seems that many of them, probably including keyboarder, think that the founding fathers were almost infallible, that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence represent the pinnacles of human thought and progress, never to be surpassed.
To the contrary, I think that the Classical Liberalism that emerged from the Enlightenment Era with thinkers like John Locke represents only the starting point in the study of human liberty. The study of free markets and liberty has progressed far beyond anything that the founders imagined. The Austrian School of economics greatly improved upon the rather rudimentary understanding of economics that the founders had to work with. Thinkers like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and many others have corrected many of the errors of the Classical Liberals and have given us a far more consistent and ethical basis for a society based on human liberty, private property and free markets.
That is not to say that we should not continue to derive value from the writings of the best of the founders, but we should not hold back in our criticisms either. I don't think their capitulation and compromise on the issue of slavery, not to mention the vicious personal brutality that some showed towards their own slaves, should be taken lightly. It is hard to see how a generation that owned slaves, murdered Native Americans by the thousands and oppressed women can ever provide the foundation for a truly free society.
Rather we should look at the American Revolution as a rough first attempt at creating a society with a limited, voluntary Republic. And the record should be clear that it was a complete failure. They violated the Constitution the minute the ink was dry.
We can do far better than that. We don't need to cling to some romantic notion of the founding generation and the Constitution, when we have libertarian thinkers and scholars that are far more accomplished whose work we can base a truly free society on.
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 07:30:17 PM
How can you debate Marxists? They're complete idiots.
Well, they were closer to left anarchists, sometimes called libertarian socialists. Some of them are actually quite well read. I could see how some people would be persuaded of their arguments on a superficial level. They too oppose the State and want to get rid of it. They oppose war and civil liberties abuses. Where they differ from libertarians (and conservatives) is that they oppose workplace hierarchy. This is a stupid and untenable position, I know. They say that you can have private property, but it is based on use. Your personal items, your home, your car, all things of that nature are your property and no one should be permitted to take them without your permission. But they say that once you hire workers, you must enter into a "partnership" and you cannot "exploit" them by making profits off of their labor.
The contradiction is how they plan to enforce such a system without a State. In a system of anarchy, if I sign a contract with a worker and he agrees to work for me and I am permitted by contract to make a profit, then who is going to stop us from this voluntary economic transaction?
One difference between antistate Marxist and anarcho captitalists is that we would permit voluntary Marxism. You could proselytize and convince other workers to form non hierarchical coops where each owns the means of production. No one would be permitted to use violence against them for forming that arrangement.
However, they MUST accept the right of some institution, whether the State or just a gang of workers, to use violence against me if I voluntarily hire workers and they voluntarily accept the conditions laid out in the contract.
They get kind of vague when I bring up this contradiction. But it is fun to debate them nonetheless.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 07:35:42 PM
I agree. One troubling tendency I have noticed with many Tea Party people and conservatives in general could only be described as "founders worship". It seems that many of them, probably including keyboarder, think that the founding fathers were almost infallible, that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence represent the pinnacles of human thought and progress, never to be surpassed.
To the contrary, I think that the Classical Liberalism that emerged from the Enlightenment Era with thinkers like John Locke represents only the starting point in the study of human liberty. The study of free markets and liberty has progressed far beyond anything that the founders imagined. The Austrian School of economics greatly improved upon the rather rudimentary understanding of economics that the founders had to work with. Thinkers like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and many others have corrected many of the errors of the Classical Liberals and have given us a far more consistent and ethical basis for a society based on human liberty, private property and free markets.
That is not to say that we should not continue to derive value from the writings of the best of the founders, but we should not hold back in our criticisms either. I don't think their capitulation and compromise on the issue of slavery, not to mention the vicious personal brutality that some showed towards their own slaves, should be taken lightly. It is hard to see how a generation that owned slaves, murdered Native Americans by the thousands and oppressed women can ever provide the foundation for a truly free society.
Rather we should look at the American Revolution as a rough first attempt at creating a society with a limited, voluntary Republic. And the record should be clear that it was a complete failure. They violated the Constitution the minute the ink was dry.
We can do far better than that. We don't need to cling to some romantic notion of the founding generation and the Constitution, when we have libertarian thinkers and scholars that are far more accomplished whose work we can base a truly free society on.
Want some professional advice from a grey head?
Suggest you learn, very quickly, to make your point
w/an economy of words. If you think posters are going
to wade through your endless verbiage, you're delusional;
particularly w/your level of grammar and syntax.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 03:51:20 PM
You may say you are not a "neo con" but you do sound like you get a lot of your information from people who are. Do you listen to ANY of the following people or institutions:
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O'Reilly, David Frum, Fox News, National Review?
These people would love for you to continue believing that Islam is responsible and we need to declare war on the entire Muslim world in response to 9/11. Have you read any books by Michael Scheuer? He was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 through 2005 or so. He knows more about the motivation behind the attacks than anyone.
Barbary Pirates. Ring a bell?
It's literally the reason we have a Navy, they were created to protect American interests abroad.
That's right, were freakin Capitalists, and will do whatever it takes to protect said interests.
You can be as passive as you please, but if one nation is blockading our ships from trade with others, that's aggression and will be met with even harsher aggression.
And no, I seldom catch any radio and turned the TV of years ago.
QuoteThere is no question that radical Islam is comprised of violent people, but the reasons they have for attacking the United States are real and substantive. They object to our foreign policy of imperialism, of sanctions and propping up puppet dictators in the Middle East and overthrowing elected leaders. They object to our blind support for Israel and military support for the subjugation of Palestinians. These grievances resonate throughout the middle east, even among moderates and very decent, moral people.
So what? We wanted to trade with peaceful nations, and propping up a puppet is all part of the game of capitalism.
QuoteScheuer makes the case that bin Laden and Al Qaeda would lose all their support and become marginalized in the Muslim world if they couldn't constantly point to our military occupations and dead children that we create with our sanctions and drone strikes. A million Iraqi's died as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions and Madeleine Albright said on national television that it was "worth it".
Scheure is a freakin idiot too! Ever heard of Wahhabism?These people have been preaching and teaching young minds for going on 40 years, death to America and Jews, and you really think you can actually reason with people that want to return to the 7th century?
QuoteWhat if a foreign nation did to us what our government has done to countries in the middle east? Would you not want to take up arms against the occupying force? You wouldn't want revenge against the people who killed your family?
Who do you think the Marxist in the WH is? He's a fuckin commie plant, we are already under assault.
QuoteThere is no justification for the attack on 9/11 but I believe the each and every one of the more than one million Iraqis that have died because of the actions of the US government have just as much value as the 3000 people killed in the twin towers.
You can continue to believe that all "those" people are savages, are worthless and that we are at war with Islam but I reject such xenophobic and offensive views that devalue human life.
Wait, you're under the impression, that with the ability of hindsight, I think it was a good idea?
Personally, I think we should have taken out Iran as well, and occupied the damn place and installed a dictator, because that's all those people understand, trading one dictator for another.
As evidenced by history!
If I had my way, we'd yank all interests out of the M/E and never look back, let the animals slaughter one another, they've been at it for years.
Let me guess, you're in your late 20s, and after voting for Hussein, realized you'd made a huge mistake and took up the LIBertarian cause? Don't lie!
Quote from: Walter Josh on August 01, 2014, 07:54:36 PM
Want some professional advice from a grey head?
Suggest you learn, very quickly, to make your point
w/an economy of words. If you think posters are going
to wade through your endless verbiage, you're delusional;
particularly w/your level of grammar and syntax.
This seems a bit like a deflection. I admit I can be wordy when I express myself but I don't think anything on this thread has been over the top. Whether or not you care to read what I write is entirely up to you.
Is this a pithy enough post for you?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 08:01:59 PM
This seems a bit like a deflection. I admit I can be wordy when I express myself but I don't think anything on this thread has been over the top. Whether or not you care to read what I write is entirely up to you.
Is this a pithy enough post for you?
Actually you'd do well to heed his words. Don't take them as an insult, but rather blunt advice, people eventually get your drift as a repetitive point and simply pass on reading your replies.
It's just human nature.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 08:01:59 PM
This seems a bit like a deflection. I admit I can be wordy when I express myself but I don't think anything on this thread has been over the top. Whether or not you care to read what I write is entirely up to you.
Is this a pithy enough post for you?
You did well; now keep it up.
See, it ain't hard.
Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 07:56:39 PM
Barbary Pirates. Ring a bell?
It's literally the reason we have a Navy, they were created to protect American interests abroad.
That's right, were freakin Capitalists, and will do whatever it takes to protect said interests.
You can be as passive as you please, but if one nation is blockading our ships from trade with others, that's aggression and will be met with even harsher aggression.
And no, I seldom catch any radio and turned the TV of years ago.
So what? We wanted to trade with peaceful nations, and propping up a puppet is all part of the game of capitalism.
Scheure is a freakin idiot too! Ever heard of Wahhabism?These people have been preaching and teaching young minds for going on 40 years, death to America and Jews, and you really think you can actually reason with people that want to return to the 7th century?
Who do you think the Marxist in the WH is? He's a fuckin commie plant, we are already under assault.
Wait, you're under the impression, that with the ability of hindsight, I think it was a good idea?
Personally, I think we should have taken out Iran as well, and occupied the damn place and installed a dictator, because that's all those people understand, trading one dictator for another.
As evidenced by history!
If I had my way, we'd yank all interests out of the M/E and never look back, let the animals slaughter one another, they've been at it for years.
Let me guess, you're in your late 20s, and after voting for Hussein, realized you'd made a huge mistake and took up the LIBertarian cause? Don't lie!
I AM in my late 20s but that is beside the point. And no, I never voted for Barack Obama. I've been a libertarian at least since 2005-2006. I supported Ron Paul in the primaries in 2008 and 2012 and I voted for Gary Johnson in the general.
I don't mean to be presumptuous but if I had to bet, I'd say you've studied next to nothing about the history of the middle east. Have you studied ANYTHING about the history of suicide terrorism and Al Qaeda? Are you familiar with the term "blowback"?
One book you ought to read is called "Dying to Win" by Robert Pape. It is one of the best and most comprehensive studies on the motivations for suicide terrorism ever assembled. The conclusion of his studies revealed that it is
foreign occupation that is the motivating factor for suicide terrorism. Once the foreign occupier leaves, the incidents of suicide terrorism stop.
I don't know if you said we should have "taken out" Iran in jest, but your support for such aggression is unconscionable.
There was a time when the United States was beloved throughout the middle east. Sure, they had there ongoing conflicts and religious fanaticism, but they did not consider us an enemy. What changed? Half a century of military occupation, imperialist aggression, sanctions and puppet dictators will change just about anyone's mind.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
I AM in my late 20s but that is beside the point. And no, I never voted for Barack Obama. I've been a libertarian at least since 2005-2006. I supported Ron Paul in the primaries in 2008 and 2012 and I voted for Gary Johnson in the general.
I don't mean to be presumptuous but if I had to bet, I'd say you've studied next to nothing about the history of the middle east. Have you studied ANYTHING about the history of suicide terrorism and Al Qaeda? Are you familiar with the term "blowback"?
One book you ought to read is called "Dying to Win" by Robert Pape. It is one of the best and most comprehensive studies on the motivations for suicide terrorism ever assembled. The conclusion of his studies revealed that it is foreign occupation that is the motivating factor for suicide terrorism. Once the foreign occupier leaves, the incidents of suicide terrorism stop.
I don't know if you said we should have "taken out" Iran in jest, but your support for such aggression is unconscionable.
There was a time when the United States was beloved throughout the middle east. Sure, they had there ongoing conflicts and religious fanaticism, but they did not consider us an enemy. What changed? Half a century of military occupation, imperialist aggression, sanctions and puppet dictators will change just about anyone's mind.
Wow, the ignorance abounds, and I don't mean that as an insult, honestly.
I'm not even going to bother anymore, you are literally a product of a liberal education, and there is no way I'll ever convince you that you're wrong on so many levels.
The only thing that will change your mind, is time, and and travel. Spend some time in a third world country, the culture may be of your liking, but the politics will really open your eyes.
There's a reason these people have produced nothing in the last 1000 years, see if you can figure out why.
Edit: FWIW< I too was a libertarian at one time decades ago, but realized it was in total conflict with human nature.
I'm sure you too will eventually come to this conclusion.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 07:47:15 PM
Well, they were closer to left anarchists, sometimes called libertarian socialists. Some of them are actually quite well read. I could see how some people would be persuaded of their arguments on a superficial level. They too oppose the State and want to get rid of it. They oppose war and civil liberties abuses. Where they differ from libertarians (and conservatives) is that they oppose workplace hierarchy. This is a stupid and untenable position, I know. They say that you can have private property, but it is based on use. Your personal items, your home, your car, all things of that nature are your property and no one should be permitted to take them without your permission. But they say that once you hire workers, you must enter into a "partnership" and you cannot "exploit" them by making profits off of their labor.
The contradiction is how they plan to enforce such a system without a State. In a system of anarchy, if I sign a contract with a worker and he agrees to work for me and I am permitted by contract to make a profit, then who is going to stop us from this voluntary economic transaction?
One difference between antistate Marxist and anarcho captitalists is that we would permit voluntary Marxism. You could proselytize and convince other workers to form non hierarchical coops where each owns the means of production. No one would be permitted to use violence against them for forming that arrangement.
However, they MUST accept the right of some institution, whether the State or just a gang of workers, to use violence against me if I voluntarily hire workers and they voluntarily accept the conditions laid out in the contract.
They get kind of vague when I bring up this contradiction. But it is fun to debate them nonetheless.
I have also been engaged in a back and forth with people from this point of view. And the discussions turn on just the issues you raise, ie Marxian value theory, surplus value, alienation theory, the labor theory of value, etc
These are many times honest and well read individuals, as you say, but they have failed to understand the lessons of the marginal revolution, as it pertains to the distribution of incomes across the production structure, where processes are at work such that each factor tends to earn its discounted marginal value product. Nor do they understand the nature of interest, of rent and profit, not to mention capital theory.
But they do have a thing to teach those big "L" libertarian supporters of corporatism and crony capitalism, who think arguments for free markets apply to the status quo.
The center for the stateless society has done noble work exposing this hypocrisy, in my view. Though it is a charge that can hardly be laid at the feet of anyone connected with the Mises Institute.
Quote from: Walter Josh on August 01, 2014, 07:54:36 PM
Want some professional advice from a grey head?
Suggest you learn, very quickly, to make your point
w/an economy of words. If you think posters are going
to wade through your endless verbiage, you're delusional;
particularly w/your level of grammar and syntax.
Here's the word you want. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laconic) Your on-point advice was received as you probably expected.
Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 08:26:11 PM
Wow, the ignorance abounds, and I don't mean that as an insult, honestly.
I'm not even going to bother anymore, you are literally a product of a liberal education, and there is no way I'll ever convince you that you're wrong on so many levels.
The only thing that will change your mind, is time, and and travel. Spend some time in a third world country, the culture may be of your liking, but the politics will really open your eyes.
There's a reason these people have produced nothing in the last 1000 years, see if you can figure out why.
Edit: FWIW< I too was a libertarian at one time decades ago, but realized it was in total conflict with human nature.
I'm sure you too will eventually come to this conclusion.
Again with the human nature argument against libertarianism. That line of argumentation really is not persuasive. I've already stated the reasons why in a previous post.
I am not a product of "liberal" education, by which I assume you mean public schooling. When I was very young I was home schooled, then I attended private schools. I probably had no more than a year of public schooling my entire K-12 education. And, believe me, I have heard all these conservative arguments about how the "muslims" are our enemy, how we need to fight this "war on terror" and promote democracy and all the rest of it. I never fully bought into it but once I actually read something about it, like the aforementioned book by Robert Pape as well as works by Michael Scheuer and others, I fully rejected that view.
There are interests within our government and in the military industrial complex that stand to profit greatly from fomenting conflict and taking us to war. The reasons given by their media mouthpieces are scarcely ever consistent with reality.
It is not that I think all the problems in the middle east are the fault of the United States. Far from it. I think we have exacerbated the already existing conflict, but we should simply stay out of it. The dysfunction in that part of the world would remain an internal problem from the Muslim world to deal with on their own. We don't have to incite them and incure the wrath of the jihadists who otherwise would not be able to garner the popular support to target us and our allies.
Unless a bin Laden character can point to actual grievances, destroyed families, corpses piled up due to US sanctions or bombing campaigns and the like, then he could never have gained so many new recruits.
You think tons of young Arabs would be willing to lose their life because we have women in the workplace? Because we have liberal views and are Christians? Contrary to what you may have heard, they don't "hate us for our freedom".
With all due respect, I'd rather trust the informed, expert opinions of people like Scheuer and Pape over your generalizations and stereotypes.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
If aggression is immoral and cannot be justified, then we should oppose aggression and therefore oppose the existence of the State.
You still don't get it, do you?
Here is the conundrum that you have to deal with, and what I (and others) have been trying to explain to you.
You and all of your anarchist friends see the "state" as an immoral institution. You want to oppose it and to end its power. In fact, you want to destroy it.
First, you have to know what a "state" is before you can hope to oppose it.
A "state" is nothing more or less that a group of people working towards a common goal. That goal may be noble, or it may be ignominious - it really doesn't' matter. It may take many forms, and can become quite complex, but when you strip all the B.S. away, this is what a "state" is.
Now, how are you going to oppose something like that? Are you going to do it as individuals? You can, but it is unlikely that you will succeed. No, the most effective way to mount a resistance to the "state" is to grab a bunch of your Anarchists buddies and organize yourselves into a cohesive group to oppose and hopefully defeat the hated "state".
Guess, what you've just done! You've organized like minded people for the purpose of achieving a common goal.
Congratulations! You've just created "state".
Now, you have two "states". One you support and one you oppose.
But... but... but... but... your "state" wasn't formed via "aggression", you protest. Perhaps so, but will it stay that way? Do you think the leaders you voluntarily invested with power over their fellow citizens will willing give up that power if you demand they do so? Some will, others will not!
How will you deal with that
when it happens?
-Darth
A voluntary group of freely associating equals is not a state, for it lacks the vertical or hierarchical relation that characterizes governments.
The way to beat the state is not through opposing it violently, with your own state, but by undercutting its popular support.
Then it will collapse of its own weight.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 10:34:30 PM
A voluntary group of freely associating equals is not a state, for it lacks the vertical or hierarchical relation that characterizes governments.
The way to beat the state is not through opposing it violently, with your own state, but by undercutting its popular support.
Then it will collapse of its own weight.
You're dealing is semantics, but even so, even non-violent resistance, to be effective will need to be organized. There will be leaders and there will be followers and not all of the followers will approve of who gets to be the leaders.
If the leaders are elected democratically, it is unlikely their election will be unanimous. Will the ones who did not vote for the chosen leaders of the resistance be free not to participate in the resistance against the state? And if they are, is it fair for them to share in whatever benefits that the fall of the state might bring to those who opposed it and took action to bring it down?
-Darth
Obviously youve never had to deal with rape, robbery, murder... the childish nature of anarchists and the left is that they imagine real problems away... I had to deal with an "anarchist" who cut off the finger of an 80+ year woman to get the ring for pawn. So... how exactly would you handle this? You cannot imagine it, or them, away. GROW UP.
Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2014, 08:07:15 PM
Actually you'd do well to heed his words. Don't take them as an insult, but rather blunt advice, people eventually get your drift as a repetitive point and simply pass on reading your replies.
It's just human nature.
Remember: pithy
WORKS!Alternately: draft your comment in a document and then kill a third of it through merging repetitions. It's brutal and it works. Write tight if you want to be read.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
By this logic we should just give up on any idea of limited, Constitutional government as well since history has proven that limited government is impossible. We might as well just roll over and accept tyranny, Corporatism, central banking and military empire because that is what States inevitably devolve into.
It's rather quite the opposite, history has proven to us that limited government is possible if certain factors are met, such as i.e a moral religious people. History has also proven that it is possible to have a very huge state even with limited government sectors, and it is also quite simple. Little to nothing regulations, privatize what can be private, simple tax code and make it uncomfortable to be poor/unemployed so people have an incentive to work/better themselves. There will always be poor people, there will always be corruption and there will always be some form of misery but Republican government like the early Roman Empire and early American Empire is good enough and gives the citizens the most freedom compared to other tried systems. The problem is prosperity breeds cultural degradation and loss of virtue which ultimately ends in tyranny.
There is no such thing as a perfect society, and the ones that say it exist will kill you.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
If aggression is immoral and cannot be justified, then we should oppose aggression and therefore oppose the existence of the State.
I never bought this "the state is inherently immoral because it uses force" argument, you do have the option to opt out and become stateless, why haven't you?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
If you have a cancerous tumor, you don't say "you know, I was going to remove this tumor surgically, but since there is a possibility that the cancer could return in the future, I'll just leave the tumor there!" That would be a ridiculous position to take. You would remove the tumor and then take ever possible precaution to make it unlikely that the cancer would return.
If centralization of power and growth of the State are truly inevitable and there is nothing we can do about it, why not just start advocating for a one world dictatorship? That is the logical implication of your reasoning.
The growth of the state is inevitable as society itself grow and become prosperous, the problem is when the tax base shrinks the government instead of cutting spending increase taxes instead, the reasons for this lie with socialism and unionization of public sector worker and a democratic legislature/judiciary that disregards the laws and enables increase in taxes.
Blaming conservatism for the faults of socialism is not intellectually honest.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
Anarcho-capitalism is really only fifty years old or so, at least as a coherent and developed political ideology and philosophy. We have means of communication that were never before seen in human history. It is always a fallacious argument to say that since something hasn't existed before in history, it can't exist in the future.
With technology and the internet, we are in a new paradigm in human history. I would argue that the internet itself is the greatest experiment in anarchy that has ever existed. Technology advances at such a blistering rate, that the slow moving behemoths called "States" can't keep up to regulate and control it.
That is not an argument against conservatism, that's an argument against socialist regulation.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
The internet is a model of the self organizing power of individuals.
Please clarify this statement as 99% of the internet consist of porn, lolcats and asinine entertainment.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
If sufficient numbers of people educate themselves on market anarchism, read Rothbard and Hoppe, and learn about the moral arguments in favor of non aggression, then not only is anarchy possible, I believe it is inevitable. Human beings can and will make States obsolete in the near future.
Whats the time frame for this inevitability? 10,000 years? Most human beings don't care about politics/philosophy and even the ones that does often fall for fallacious theories.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
It would be wise to get on the right side of history. You don't want to have people look back and see you as one of the last defenders of slavery. Or the last defender of Statism.
Funny you would say that as the only ones that have a problem with the Republican Party eliminating slavery on this forum is the neo-confederates and libertarians. Where are the anarchists that supposedly freed the slaves?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:11:57 PM
Every new idea has previously been untested. If you can persuasively argue against the principle of self ownership, or you can somehow justify the use of aggression, then you can logically hold a view I consider entirely untenable.
Otherwise, you should join us and work to remove parasitic States from the human experience.
Aggression is justified in eliminating evil, Aggression is justified in pursuit of justice and the State is a necessary institution that can protect private property and rule of law in conjunction with right to arms and liberty bla bla bla read the constitution and the federal papers and you catch the drift.
Edit: Most of the time individualism is the answer, but some of the time collectivism is the answer. The government is not inherently evil.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 10:10:31 PM
Again with the human nature argument against libertarianism. That line of argumentation really is not persuasive. I've already stated the reasons why in a previous post.
I am not a product of "liberal" education, by which I assume you mean public schooling. When I was very young I was home schooled, then I attended private schools. I probably had no more than a year of public schooling my entire K-12 education.
Actually, no, I was referencing college, anyone can get a bad education anywhere, but it's higher learning institutions where the Marxists reside, destroying free thinking, critical thinking, by turning kids against our Republican form of govt.
QuoteAnd, believe me, I have heard all these conservative arguments about how the "muslims" are our enemy, how we need to fight this "war on terror" and promote democracy and all the rest of it. I never fully bought into it but once I actually read something about it, like the aforementioned book by Robert Pape as well as works by Michael Scheuer and others, I fully rejected that view.
You think Conservatives want to Democratize the M/E?
QuoteThere are interests within our government and in the military industrial complex that stand to profit greatly from fomenting conflict and taking us to war. The reasons given by their media mouthpieces are scarcely ever consistent with reality.
Well... something we agree upon.
QuoteIt is not that I think all the problems in the middle east are the fault of the United States. Far from it. I think we have exacerbated the already existing conflict, but we should simply stay out of it. The dysfunction in that part of the world would remain an internal problem from the Muslim world to deal with on their own. We don't have to incite them and incure the wrath of the jihadists who otherwise would not be able to garner the popular support to target us and our allies.
You've heard the term, "keep your friends, but keep you enemy closer", right?
Well, unfortunately the M/E is a jewel to be sought after, (again, I refer to human nature) because they have the life blood of the planet, and he who controls the energy, controls the planet.
Had Carter not fucked up in Iran so badly, we wouldn't be in the mess were in now.
Yes, all this can be traced back to Carter and his total ineptness in all of this.
You see, we aren't the only ones interested in their oil, but better us than that of our enemies Hell bent on controlling the planet, again, human nature, there's no denying it.
QuoteUnless a bin Laden character can point to actual grievances, destroyed families, corpses piled up due to US sanctions or bombing campaigns and the like, then he could never have gained so many new recruits.
You think tons of young Arabs would be willing to lose their life because we have women in the workplace? Because we have liberal views and are Christians? Contrary to what you may have heard, they don't "hate us for our freedom".
With all due respect, I'd rather trust the informed, expert opinions of people like Scheuer and Pape over your generalizations and stereotypes.
Where do you learn this bull shit? As I stated earlier, look up Wahhabi, what it is, where it started, and what their goals are, once you've educated yourself, we can talk.
Something you really need to do, is quit reading shit that affirms your prejudices, do a search to the contrary of your belief system, don't be afraid to search outside the box.
The belief system of the idiots is one of war and conquering, taking of slaves, killing of Joos, those that practice Islum learn that the world is theirs for the taking, it is their duty to expand their religion at the point of the sword, assimilate and pay a tax or die.
If you're going to argue against something, you really should learn about the other side of the argument.
You see, this is why I dumped Libertarianism, it slaps in the face of human nature, it completely ignores the fact that there is evil in the world, ignores the violent side of human nature, the idea that man can live in peace, if only he treats his neighbors nicely.
Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. Here in the US, we live an extremely privileged Christian styled life, a culture that teaches us law and order, the Golden Rule, which has worked quite well for us, but the rest of the world doesn't share our belief system, which is why we have a military.
If you understood anything, you'd realize America brought peace to the world, we were a cornerstone of stability for decades, the envy of totalitarian govts around the globe.
Yeah, sucks, but that my friend is human nature, and if you think pulling our forces home will stabilize the world, think again, there are Nations just waiting for the opportunity to take control, leaving us with no way of protecting our interests.
Isolationism will not make us safe, or allow us to prosper. It's dog eat dog son, that's life, and the sooner you learn it, the better off you'll be.
Perhaps libertarian anarchists should find a country more conforming to their political beliefs and move there. Perhaps libertarian anarchists who would like to oust our Constitution and who scoff at our Declaration of Independence should be considered the "aggressors".
American patriots have sacrificed their lives for this country. Those in our military are putting their lives on the line for our freedom. I am one who firmly believes that it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its CONSTITUTION; to obey its LAWS, to respect is flag; and to DEFEND it against ALL enemies.
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 01, 2014, 10:53:53 PM
You're dealing is semantics, but even so, even non-violent resistance, to be effective will need to be organized. There will be leaders and there will be followers and not all of the followers will approve of who gets to be the leaders.
Discussing the differences between voluntary and vertical associations is not semantics. It is a very real distinction.
The second you are compelled to follow a leader whom you do not wish to be lead by, he is no longer a leader, and you no longer have a voluntary association.
That is a government, of some form.
Quote
If the leaders are elected democratically, it is unlikely their election will be unanimous. Will the ones who did not vote for the chosen leaders of the resistance be free not to participate in the resistance against the state?
They would have to be free to if the group in question harbors any commitment to voluntarism.
Quote
And if they are, is it fair for them to share in whatever benefits that the fall of the state might bring to those who opposed it and took action to bring it down?
-Darth
Well, no, if we are speaking about payment for participating, or recognition for a role played, but if we are talking external and indirect benefits, then yes.
Quote from: RightEdge on August 01, 2014, 11:27:53 PM
Obviously youve never had to deal with rape, robbery, murder... the childish nature of anarchists and the left is that they imagine real problems away... I had to deal with an "anarchist" who cut off the finger of an 80+ year woman to get the ring for pawn. So... how exactly would you handle this? You cannot imagine it, or them, away. GROW UP.
This is a non-problem for anarchists can point to the system of customary law, private arbitration, defense insurance and social ostracism.
There will always be people around who have no respect for others and their rights.
Anarchists are not caught off guard by that. The idea is not to have lawlessness, but to have private law, and the private provision of justice.
Just as the state fails to efficiently deliver the mail, provide a safety net or adequate national defense, it fails to produce legal services in an efficient and just manner.
Quote from: suzziY on August 02, 2014, 05:27:04 AM
Perhaps libertarian anarchists should find a country more conforming to their political beliefs and move there. Perhaps libertarian anarchists who would like to oust our Constitution and who scoff at our Declaration of Independence should be considered the "aggressors".
American patriots have sacrificed their lives for this country. Those in our military are putting their lives on the line for our freedom. I am one who firmly believes that it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its CONSTITUTION; to obey its LAWS, to respect is flag; and to DEFEND it against ALL enemies.
The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.
It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz
You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.
And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 02, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.
It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz
You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.
And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.
The lack of basic common sense belongs to you on this one.
I, along with over 90% of this forum, share Suzi's respect for our Constitution.
The very Constitution you would like to see dumped is the same piece of paper allowing you to speak your opinion on this forum.
Quote from: keyboarder on August 02, 2014, 10:00:42 AM
The lack of basic common sense belongs to you on this one.
I, along with over 90% of this forum, share Suzi's respect for our Constitution.
The very Constitution you would like to see dumped is the same piece of paper allowing you to speak your opinion on this forum.
I do not trace my rights back to a mere piece of paper, nor to any government.
If anything, the biggest threat to my freedom and liberty, not to mention to Western civilization, is the entity that was created by that document.
I would remind you that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were sent there by their principles, the respective states, to AMEND the Articles of Confederation.
They ended up scraping the Articles and forming a new government, which superseded the previously sovereign states, but in doing so, they acted outside the bounds of their charge, and ceased being representatives, and instead became usurpers.
Quote from: RightEdge on August 01, 2014, 11:27:53 PM
Obviously youve never had to deal with rape, robbery, murder... the childish nature of anarchists and the left is that they imagine real problems away... I had to deal with an "anarchist" who cut off the finger of an 80+ year woman to get the ring for pawn. So... how exactly would you handle this? You cannot imagine it, or them, away. GROW UP.
Have you actually read my arguments thus far? I explicitly said that the use of force and violence is perfectly fine in self defense and to punish those that commit aggression against others. In this case, the aggressor should be convicted in a court of law and put in prison for a long time. It is not about "imagining" problems away. That is a strawman of your own invention.
So I'll repeat myself for your benefit. If you choose to use aggression against the person or property of another, then you abdicate your right to be left alone. Others are now allowed to use violence in self defense, to provide restitution to the victim or to physically remove you from society based on the degree of the offense.
Anarchism simply means that all members of society should be held to the same moral standard, and that none should have the right to
initiate force against anyone or their property.
Understand?
OK jrod,
You have posted 22X on this thread re, your
theme of libertarian market anarchist.
Hopefully you agree that you are not an original
mind as were Aristotle, Euclid, Shakespeare etc.
As such, who are your intellectual mentors and
idea catalysts who nurtured you on your journey
to the present???
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 12:36:54 PM
Have you actually read my arguments thus far? I explicitly said that the use of force and violence is perfectly fine in self defense and to punish those that commit aggression against others. In this case, the aggressor should be convicted in a court of law and put in prison for a long time. It is not about "imagining" problems away. That is a strawman of your own invention.
So I'll repeat myself for your benefit. If you choose to use aggression against the person or property of another, then you abdicate your right to be left alone. Others are now allowed to use violence in self defense, to provide restitution to the victim or to physically remove you from society based on the degree of the offense.
Anarchism simply means that all members of society should be held to the same moral standard, and that none should have the right to initiate force against anyone or their property.
Understand?
In this passive anarchist world you envision, one where we turn the other cheek unless physically attacked, whether personally as an individual, or a nation.
What happens when an aggressor on the National stage refuses to grant you access to to your interests, as say, a blockade.
They never fired a shot, they refuse you passage, and you have no other options, diplomacy is fruitless. Do you fire the first shot?
Quote from: suzziY on August 02, 2014, 05:27:04 AM
Perhaps libertarian anarchists should find a country more conforming to their political beliefs and move there. Perhaps libertarian anarchists who would like to oust our Constitution and who scoff at our Declaration of Independence should be considered the "aggressors".
American patriots have sacrificed their lives for this country. Those in our military are putting their lives on the line for our freedom. I am one who firmly believes that it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its CONSTITUTION; to obey its LAWS, to respect is flag; and to DEFEND it against ALL enemies.
This is just mind numbing patriotism propaganda. It is your "duty" to your country to love it? To obey its laws? To respect its flag? Are you serious?
I would argue that it is your duty to behave ethically. It is your duty to care about what is right, what is philosophically sound. If you seek out moral rules for ethical behavior and strive to attain virtue, you will no doubt see that the State you currently hold so much allegiance to behaves contrary to any defensible, universal system of ethics.
The "Law" is merely an opinion with a gun. Just because some politicians scribble some text on a piece of paper does not mean that you are morally obligated to comply with clearly immoral edicts. I would highly recommend "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat which elaborates on the proper role of law in any just society. The law is merely a convenient excuse for petty tyrants to stick guns in peoples faces and push them around.
There are indeed some legitimate laws on the books, primarily dealing with acts of aggression and contract, but they are not even 1% of the legal code we are expected to comply with.
I'm sorry, but US soldiers and not fighting for our freedom. General Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine in US history, explained that war is a racket. The excuses given for armed conflict are hardly ever the real reasons for the war. The real reasons for US military conflict: war profiteering, imperialist aggression, and capturing natural resources or valuable land.
Murray Rothbard wrote that there were only two wars in American history that were legitimate. The Revolutionary War and the War for Southern Independence. The second one is no doubt controversial, because surely no person has any right to enslave anyone else. That is true, but the Constitution as drafted was quite clear that any State that no longer wished to remain part of the Union had the right to secede. To violently prevent secession was therefore unconstitutional.
Lysander Spooner, a noted abolitionist and anarchist, supported the right of the South to secede. But at the same time he supported a slave revolt, aided by abolitionists in the North, aided by those running the underground railroad. Every slave had the right to rise up and kill their master and justly acquire the land they were forced to work on. After emancipation, every single slave owner should have had his property taken from him and given to the slaves whose labor he stole. The enslaved Africans legitimately homesteaded that land by mixing their labor with it, and thus that property was legitimately theirs.
I'm getting off topic here, but the point is that out of dozens of wars and military conflicts, Rothbard argues that only two could be justified.
And "respecting the flag" is just asinine. These sorts of symbols are just meaningless. They are really tools of statist propaganda. I'm sure your "rulers" just love for you to get all choked up when you hear the national anthem, or say the pledge of allegiance. I submit that you should have allegiance to ethics and philosophy. You should try to determine moral rules for conduct and apply them to your life as consistently as possible.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 02, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.
It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz
You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.
And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.
I am reminded of a quote from Lysander Spooner:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist."
Quote from: Walter Josh on August 02, 2014, 01:14:27 PM
OK jrod,
You have posted 22X on this thread re, your
theme of libertarian market anarchist.
Hopefully you agree that you are not an original
mind as were Aristotle, Euclid, Shakespeare etc.
As such, who are your intellectual mentors and
idea catalysts who nurtured you on your journey
to the present???
Okay, I'll list some of my intellectual influences. Not all of these people are equal in their influence of course but all played their part:
Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Henry Hazlitt, Stephen Kinsella, Ron Paul, Stefan Molyneux, Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Walter Block, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Benjamin Tucker
There are plenty of others but that is a good sampling.
Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 01:15:59 PM
In this passive anarchist world you envision, one where we turn the other cheek unless physically attacked, whether personally as an individual, or a nation.
What happens when an aggressor on the National stage refuses to grant you access to to your interests, as say, a blockade.
They never fired a shot, they refuse you passage, and you have no other options, diplomacy is fruitless. Do you fire the first shot?
What are "our interests"? You mean internationally right? In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned. People are free to exchange with others for mutual benefit. But no one has a right to another persons property. If someone refuses to sell you their product, or refuses to allow you access to their property, then no you have absolutely no right to commit aggression against them. You go about your business and find someone else who is willing to voluntarily trade with you.
Free trade is mutually beneficial to all parties so it is highly unlikely that many businesses or property owners would refuse to trade with others for no good reason.
If Saudi Arabia refused to sell us oil, then we wouldn't buy oil from them. Simple as that. We don't own their oil. They may "block" us from accessing it as an antagonistic move, but we have no right to commit aggression against them for choosing what to do with their own resource.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 01:38:01 PM
What are "our interests"? You mean internationally right? In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned. People are free to exchange with others for mutual benefit. But no one has a right to another persons property. If someone refuses to sell you their product, or refuses to allow you access to their property, then no you have absolutely no right to commit aggression against them. You go about your business and find someone else who is willing to voluntarily trade with you.
Free trade is mutually beneficial to all parties so it is highly unlikely that many businesses or property owners would refuse to trade with others for no good reason.
If Saudi Arabia refused to sell us oil, then we wouldn't buy oil from them. Simple as that. We don't own their oil. They may "block" us from accessing it as an antagonistic move, but we have no right to commit aggression against them for choosing what to do with their own resource.
You completely failed to answer the question. In the case of a blockade, an external force (a foreign nation) prevents us from accessing goods offered willingly on open markets. What then?
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 02, 2014, 02:41:00 PM
You completely failed to answer the question. In the case of a blockade, an external force (a foreign nation) prevents us from accessing goods offered willingly on open markets. What then?
Could you offer a concrete example of what that would look like? I can imagine a scenario where we want to trade with a middle east nation but another neighboring nation blocks us from doing so. Or we want to trade with a Chinese company but there government won't permit it through their own protectionist and anti free trade policies. And other similar examples.
If our country embraces anarchy but the rest of the world is still comprised of nation states, we have to recognize that we cannot hope to remake the world through force. That is what central planners and tyrants do.
It would be unfortunate if another nation state blocks our ability to freely trade with other nations, but would you risk war over it? The ideal of free trade is certainly a noble one but even now geopolitical instability in certain parts of the world make the prospect of free exchange of goods and services with certain populations very difficult. I would suggest we provide an example for others to emulate. We can and should use diplomacy to encourage open trade and international markets. We should spread the ideas of liberty through concerted, voluntary propaganda campaigns and through encouraging grassroots movements based on these ideas in other parts of the world.
I find it hard to believe that another nation would spend the money and resources to prevent free exchange of goods and services merely to spite us. What would any nation stand to gain from preventing free trade between two nations that have nothing to do with them? I would imagine that in any scenario where some nation is blockading the free trade into or out of a nation state, there is another ulterior motive behind the action. There will no doubt be instability and strife in different parts of the world.
But let's say we wanted to trade with Iran, but Iraq and Afghanistan are making that very difficult through a blockade of some sort. Do you propose we start dropping bombs on those two countries? Military aggression is fraught with the potential for blowback and unintended consequences.
In an anarchist society, there would be no socialized military where the "leaders" can dump the costs of their military conquests and intervention on the taxpayers. A private defense agency would have to evaluate whether the cost and the risk of attacking a blockading nation is worth it from a financial standpoint. I very much doubt that any private defense agency would be willing to bear to cost and the considerable risk that comes from an open attack on another nation state, simply because they make it more difficult to freely trade with one nation out of more then one hundred.
Yes, technically speaking, the act of preventing consenting parties from engaging in voluntary economic transactions is an act of aggression. But so would any number of atrocities that other nation states commit against their own people. That doesn't mean that we have an obligation to openly attack every nation that commits aggression.
So my answer would be that, provided a private defense agency and insurance company believes that the cost and risk of using force to permit the free trade of goods and services on the open market is worth it, then they could use force only proportional to get around the blockade. Any more and it would be an act of unjustified aggression.
But like I said, it is unlikely that any insurance agency and private defense provider would consider the risk and cost worth it.
Maybe TowardLiberty would like to add his two cents?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 01:30:36 PM
Okay, I'll list some of my intellectual influences. Not all of these people are equal in their influence of course but all played their part:
Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Henry Hazlitt, Stephen Kinsella, Ron Paul, Stefan Molyneux, Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Walter Block, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Benjamin Tucker
There are plenty of others but that is a good sampling.
Indeed, there are a number of prominent and worthy names on your list.
The purpose of my question was to highlight a contrast. Now Libertarianism
and Anarchism are relatively modern, the former, a product of the French
Enlightenment, which coined the term in 1789, and the latter, evolving
some three generations later. But pause and reflect a moment.
Classical Greece created Philosophy and the Laws of Reason(Logic),
Geometry, w/o which structure could not be built, Representative Democracy,
History, the chronicle of time, Literature, including Comedy and Tragedy, and more.
Imperial Rome followed, creating infrastructure that allowed the development of
the city, state and nation. The Medieval Era created the great monasteries
and universities which produced original minds such as Aquinas, Duns Scotus,
Occam etc. as well as the priests who were our first scientists. In the 13th cent.
Bernard of Chartres said his peers were but dwarves standing on the shoulders
of the Giants of Antiquity! Principled Conservatism, recognizing and respecting this,
it is anchored by the ageless wisdom of the past. My question is simple.
As the French Enlightenment was a revolutionary break w/the past, how do
modern isms such as Libertarianism and Anarchism reconnect w/the wisdom of the
past, for their strength and support???
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 03:27:57 PM
Could you offer a concrete example of what that would look like? I can imagine a scenario where we want to trade with a middle east nation but another neighboring nation blocks us from doing so. Or we want to trade with a Chinese company but there government won't permit it through their own protectionist and anti free trade policies. And other similar examples.
If our country embraces anarchy but the rest of the world is still comprised of nation states, we have to recognize that we cannot hope to remake the world through force. That is what central planners and tyrants do.
It would be unfortunate if another nation state blocks our ability to freely trade with other nations, but would you risk war over it? The ideal of free trade is certainly a noble one but even now geopolitical instability in certain parts of the world make the prospect of free exchange of goods and services with certain populations very difficult. I would suggest we provide an example for others to emulate. We can and should use diplomacy to encourage open trade and international markets. We should spread the ideas of liberty through concerted, voluntary propaganda campaigns and through encouraging grassroots movements based on these ideas in other parts of the world.
I find it hard to believe that another nation would spend the money and resources to prevent free exchange of goods and services merely to spite us. What would any nation stand to gain from preventing free trade between two nations that have nothing to do with them? I would imagine that in any scenario where some nation is blockading the free trade into or out of a nation state, there is another ulterior motive behind the action. There will no doubt be instability and strife in different parts of the world.
But let's say we wanted to trade with Iran, but Iraq and Afghanistan are making that very difficult through a blockade of some sort. Do you propose we start dropping bombs on those two countries? Military aggression is fraught with the potential for blowback and unintended consequences.
In an anarchist society, there would be no socialized military where the "leaders" can dump the costs of their military conquests and intervention on the taxpayers. A private defense agency would have to evaluate whether the cost and the risk of attacking a blockading nation is worth it from a financial standpoint. I very much doubt that any private defense agency would be willing to bear to cost and the considerable risk that comes from an open attack on another nation state, simply because they make it more difficult to freely trade with one nation out of more then one hundred.
Yes, technically speaking, the act of preventing consenting parties from engaging in voluntary economic transactions is an act of aggression. But so would any number of atrocities that other nation states commit against their own people. That doesn't mean that we have an obligation to openly attack every nation that commits aggression.
So my answer would be that, provided a private defense agency and insurance company believes that the cost and risk of using force to permit the free trade of goods and services on the open market is worth it, then they could use force only proportional to get around the blockade. Any more and it would be an act of unjustified aggression.
But like I said, it is unlikely that any insurance agency and private defense provider would consider the risk and cost worth it.
Maybe TowardLiberty would like to add his two cents?
You can wander around in this forest of your own creation as long as you care to... though I think you'll find yourself doing it somewhere besides here before long. Are you capable of making an unqualified, straightforward statement of principle? Are you
honestly willing to place the integrity and security of a sovereign nation in the hands of a "private defense provider" and an insurance company?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 03:27:57 PM
Could you offer a concrete example of what that would look like? I can imagine a scenario where we want to trade with a middle east nation but another neighboring nation blocks us from doing so. Or we want to trade with a Chinese company but there government won't permit it through their own protectionist and anti free trade policies. And other similar examples.
If our country embraces anarchy but the rest of the world is still comprised of nation states, we have to recognize that we cannot hope to remake the world through force. That is what central planners and tyrants do.
It would be unfortunate if another nation state blocks our ability to freely trade with other nations, but would you risk war over it? The ideal of free trade is certainly a noble one but even now geopolitical instability in certain parts of the world make the prospect of free exchange of goods and services with certain populations very difficult. I would suggest we provide an example for others to emulate. We can and should use diplomacy to encourage open trade and international markets. We should spread the ideas of liberty through concerted, voluntary propaganda campaigns and through encouraging grassroots movements based on these ideas in other parts of the world.
I find it hard to believe that another nation would spend the money and resources to prevent free exchange of goods and services merely to spite us. What would any nation stand to gain from preventing free trade between two nations that have nothing to do with them? I would imagine that in any scenario where some nation is blockading the free trade into or out of a nation state, there is another ulterior motive behind the action. There will no doubt be instability and strife in different parts of the world.
But let's say we wanted to trade with Iran, but Iraq and Afghanistan are making that very difficult through a blockade of some sort. Do you propose we start dropping bombs on those two countries? Military aggression is fraught with the potential for blowback and unintended consequences.
In an anarchist society, there would be no socialized military where the "leaders" can dump the costs of their military conquests and intervention on the taxpayers. A private defense agency would have to evaluate whether the cost and the risk of attacking a blockading nation is worth it from a financial standpoint. I very much doubt that any private defense agency would be willing to bear to cost and the considerable risk that comes from an open attack on another nation state, simply because they make it more difficult to freely trade with one nation out of more then one hundred.
Yes, technically speaking, the act of preventing consenting parties from engaging in voluntary economic transactions is an act of aggression. But so would any number of atrocities that other nation states commit against their own people. That doesn't mean that we have an obligation to openly attack every nation that commits aggression.
So my answer would be that, provided a private defense agency and insurance company believes that the cost and risk of using force to permit the free trade of goods and services on the open market is worth it, then they could use force only proportional to get around the blockade. Any more and it would be an act of unjustified aggression.
But like I said, it is unlikely that any insurance agency and private defense provider would consider the risk and cost worth it.
Maybe TowardLiberty would like to add his two cents?
That was a waste of time, where a simple answer of "I don't know" would have sufficed.
It's obvious you haven't thought your Utopian ideals through, studied history, or grasp human nature, so I'd suggest some light reading by Sun Tzu, a man whom had a firm grasp of human nature.
Fact is, if you are being blockaded, and you capitulate, your enemy will sense weakness of resolve, other nation states will see this as well, possibly allying with your enemies and entering into siege on your Utopian state.
Unfortunately by this time, it's too late and your demise is imminent, all because you cowered in the face of adversity.
You see, the world is full of people that have no issue in taking what you have, eg. Muscum would happily conquer you and sell your people into slavery.
That's right, it's part of their so called religion/political system.
Am I getting through here, do you understand the fact that there are nations that would love nothing more than to take everything you hold dear, including your freedom?
Quit reading shit that affirms your beliefs, that is the path of a fool in need of yes men, instead, start reading articles that are in direct conflict with your ideals, as you stated in the OP, "value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions", or were you simply pandering, in hopes of using the forum as your own personal soap box?
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 02, 2014, 03:50:21 PM
You can wander around in this forest of your own creation as long as you care to... though I think you'll find yourself doing it somewhere besides here before long. Are you capable of making an unqualified, straightforward statement of principle? Are you honestly willing to place the integrity and security of a sovereign nation in the hands of a "private defense provider" and an insurance company?
Your a conservative right? I thought that conservatives were supposed to believe in free markets and competition. Yet here you are defending a State monopoly on the provision of one of the most important services imaginable, security and defense. Look at the monstrosity that the military industrial complex has grown into following the second World War. We haven't even won a single war since WW2, but our military budget now stands at nearly one trillion dollars a year and our national debt has exploded in large part due to a never ending string of military interventions.
Is this a record you want to defend? If every individual, every community could pay for precisely the amount of security they desired, then the market system of profit and loss would lead to economizing of resources, and a far better product at a lower cost.
Why not argue for a monopoly on cell phone service? Who in their right mind would advocate that, say, Verizon be granted a total monopoly on providing wireless service to the entire country? Naturally this would lead to much higher costs and a worse product. But somehow we are supposed to believe that these economic laws don't apply to government monopoly on national defense?
No I don't believe that we would be more at risk of invasion or attack if we had competing defense agencies that were financed by freely paying consumers. We would be much safer and we wouldn't be instigating conflict throughout the world and running a military empire. Militarism is extremely expensive. That is why the State needs a central bank to expand credit at will. Nations that are on a gold standard cannot wage endless war and finance a military empire.
On the market, providers will be trying to maximize the amount of security offered to their customers at the lowest price. They wouldn't be building fighter jets that they have no use for! They wouldn't be maintaining a nuclear arsenal of more than four thousand warheads!
Perhaps you could elaborate on why a supposed conservative is advocating for socialism? Defense socialism, a State monopoly on the provision of national defense.
Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
That was a waste of time, where a simple answer of "I don't know" would have sufficed.
It's obvious you haven't thought your Utopian ideals through, studied history, or grasp human nature, so I'd suggest some light reading by Sun Tzu, a man whom had a firm grasp of human nature.
Fact is, if you are being blockaded, and you capitulate, your enemy will sense weakness of resolve, other nation states will see this as well, possibly allying with your enemies and entering into siege on your Utopian state.
Unfortunately by this time, it's too late and your demise is imminent, all because you cowered in the face of adversity.
You see, the world is full of people that have no issue in taking what you have, eg. Muscum would happily conquer you and sell your people into slavery.
That's right, it's part of their so called religion/political system.
Am I getting through here, do you understand the fact that there are nations that would love nothing more than to take everything you hold dear, including your freedom?
Quit reading shit that affirms your beliefs, that is the path of a fool in need of yes men, instead, start reading articles that are in direct conflict with your ideals, as you stated in the OP, "value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions", or were you simply pandering, in hopes of using the forum as your own personal soap box?
Believe me, I don't just read things that affirm my beliefs. So far in this debate I've suggested that you read two scholarly, well researched books by experts in their fields and yet I've only heard rehashed Neocon warmongering talking points from you.
This conservative "macho" tough guy stuff gets old real fast. If you don't want your "enemy" to sense "weakness of resolve" then you ought to go do something about it. You ought to spend your own money to push back against whatever non aggressive, perceived "encroachment" you sense from a foreign nation state. What you shouldn't have the right to do though, is to steal my money or anyone else's money and send any young people off to be killed because you want to feel like a tough guy and show "strength" to the rest of the world.
You accuse me of not thinking through my principles but the example of a "blockade" is not specific enough to give any definitive answer. Yes, if people are literally antagonizing you and are a genuine threat to launch an attack, you would be justified in doing something about it. It's like if you saw the warships on the horizon, would you have to wait for them to land before attacking first? Of course not. But a "blockade" could be many different things, and not all of them are worth risking war over.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand the anarchist position. There is no singular "nation". There is a collection of sovereign communities comprised of sovereign people. Each community and each person is permitted to spend his or her money on whatever security services they deem necessary. Just because I cannot tell you what other people ought to do with their money in a free society is not a failing on my part to articulate any principles. Rather it is precisely the point of opposing central planning and authority.
If an anarchist society is prosperous, as it surely would be, and the defense agencies hold an arsenal of weapons that are sufficient to repel any potential threat, then what would we have to worry about? Who is going to attack a nation with nuclear weapons as a deterrent?
This conservative fantasy about how we need to "project strength" and go around antagonizing people, propping up dictators and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations in order to be safe from invasion cannot be refuted enough.
There is a big difference between legitimate defense and warmongering. And you come down on the warmongering side far too frequently.
But if you have any books you recommend I read on this subject, then let me know.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:18:55 PM
That is a funny but mean prank to pull. But what does that have to do with the validity of Bitcoin as a currency?
I don't want to divert this thread into a Bitcoin thread since I haven't personally used it and I don't claim to be any sort of expert. All I said is that I want the market to choose the best currency. That means I want a Stateless currency that people voluntarily choose to transact with.
why does it have to be a 'Stateless' currency?
If so would not incremental ounce gold and silver preferable 90 or better 925 sterling for the silver
jrodefeld, I'm still waiting for a response to reply #23.
Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 03:29:43 PM
Correct.
Let's say the attackers don't care what state you have. They just want your land.
How are you protecting against tanks and bombs? To ask another way, how are you defending against a bigger and more powerful army? They will level your area before even setting foot on your ground. How do you compete with that?
I'm asking about a scenario where a more powerful attacker wants your land, just because. Their motive may or may not be to integrate an existing tax base (with whatever currency).
How do you bring the resources and technology together?
How are you going to build and engineer this nuclear weapon? Where would you test it?
I'm familiar with Rothbard.
If another State wants to invade and conquer your territory and they have a more powerful army as you stipulated, whether you are a State or a Stateless society, you are at a disadvantage. If an invading army is much larger and more powerful, you are likely to lose regardless. I maintain that the incentive for a nation state to invade will still be less in a Stateless society than one with an existing tax base and population that is acclimated to being ruled, but why would you assume that a Stateless society would have inferior resources and strength to defend itself?
This seems like a faulty assumption to me. Each individual defense agency will have calculated the risk of invasion and will have made precautions in order to effectively repel such an attack. It is highly likely that that various competing defense agencies will have formed agreements with each other in order to defend their clientele in a coordinated fashion if a very powerful army invades the territory. Of course, if an invading army takes over a nearby community, your community and property are also at risk so you have every incentive to pay for the collective defense in such a situation.
Furthermore, citizen militias and voluntary armies can play an important role. Following the Swiss model, fighting age males can be encouraged to be armed and trained in the event of an invasion. In fact, defense agencies and insurance companies will offer a discounted rate to customers who can display proficiency in self defense and who own a gun or several.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, it needn't be said that the use of such weapons would ALWAYS be immoral from a libertarian standpoint. And the goal should be to reduce them and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. But as long as they exist and other nation states have them, it would be irresponsible to unilaterally disarm. We would have to keep some of them for the purpose of deterring attacks from other nation states.
The only weapons that can be legitimately used according to libertarian theory are those that can specifically target only the bad guys. If you have a weapon that must by necessity injure and harm innocent people through its use, then it cannot ever be justified. Nuclear weapons fall into this category. So do biological weapons.
Did you see a recent segment on John Oliver's show about the state of our nuclear weapons as maintained by the US government?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g)
It is very funny but also very telling. I believe that a couple dozen nuclear warheads could suffice just fine as a deterrent rather than more than four thousand. And I have no doubt that a private company on the market could responsibly look after such weapons far better than any State. Of course the insurance premiums for any such company would be through the roof given the inherent danger of such weaponry.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 07:28:07 PM
If another State wants to invade and conquer your territory and they have a more powerful army as you stipulated, whether you are a State or a Stateless society, you are at a disadvantage. If an invading army is much larger and more powerful, you are likely to lose regardless. I maintain that the incentive for a nation state to invade will still be less in a Stateless society than one with an existing tax base and population that is acclimated to being ruled, but why would you assume that a Stateless society would have inferior resources and strength to defend itself?
It is very funny but also very telling. I believe that a couple dozen nuclear warheads could suffice just fine as a deterrent rather than more than four thousand. And I have no doubt that a private company on the market could responsibly look after such weapons far better than any State. Of course the insurance premiums for any such company would be through the roof given the inherent danger of such weaponry.
Russia has 8500
China has roughly 300-400
Still think a couple dozen nuclear warheads would suffice?
I don't think you're stupid, just terribly, terribly naive and unrealistic.
-Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 02, 2014, 07:51:40 PM
Russia has 8500
China has roughly 300-400
Still think a couple dozen nuclear warheads would suffice?
I don't think you're stupid, just terribly, terribly naive and unrealistic.
-Darth
And how many of these have to be used to create a nuclear winter that will change life on earth as we know it? New research suggests that even a small scale nuclear exchange could trigger a 10 year nuclear winter. It is not for me to say how many nuclear weapons are needed as a deterrent but this constant build up is not necessary.
How many would you have? 10,000? 20,000? If we drop even one nuclear warhead on another nation and they retaliate with one of their own, it could change life as we know it.
I don't know if 40-50 nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles are enough. I think we ought to be reducing nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. But surely you recognize at some point that more nuclear warheads really don't serve any additional purpose as a deterrent? Yes, 8000 is a larger number than 4000. But does that really give Russia any additional leverage over other nuclear powers? If you can wipe your enemy off the face of the map literally, then being able to do it two or three times over really provides no additional leverage.
And why would you trust this awesome destructive power to politicians? Or do you take the position that the only rational course for humanity is to continue to endlessly build up our arsenals of nuclear weapons and defense budgets? Where does it end?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 08:12:17 PM
And how many of these have to be used to create a nuclear winter that will change life on earth as we know it? New research suggests that even a small scale nuclear exchange could trigger a 10 year nuclear winter. It is not for me to say how many nuclear weapons are needed as a deterrent but this constant build up is not necessary.
How many would you have? 10,000? 20,000? If we drop even one nuclear warhead on another nation and they retaliate with one of their own, it could change life as we know it.
You really need to do some research, you ignorance on this topic is glaringly apparent.
Since the first tests prior to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagaski, there have been a total of 2119 nuclear detonations!
And no "nuclear winter".
I suggest you stop reading DNC Talking points and start reading some history.
-Darth
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 05:25:54 PM
Believe me, I don't just read things that affirm my beliefs. So far in this debate I've suggested that you read two scholarly, well researched books by experts in their fields and yet I've only heard rehashed Neocon warmongering talking points from you.
This conservative "macho" tough guy stuff gets old real fast. If you don't want your "enemy" to sense "weakness of resolve" then you ought to go do something about it. You ought to spend your own money to push back against whatever non aggressive, perceived "encroachment" you sense from a foreign nation state. What you shouldn't have the right to do though, is to steal my money or anyone else's money and send any young people off to be killed because you want to feel like a tough guy and show "strength" to the rest of the world.
Macho? I'm flattered, because being a man is what it's all about. Never backing down from a fight, you know, like our Founders?
You can't answer my question, so you create your own and answer it? That is not what is referred to as debate, that is obfuscation.
I specifically described a blockade event, one where you are not being allowed to enter your allies waters, one in which you are being provoked, one that will expose your weakness, in turn showing cowardliness to your enemy, an enemy looking for weakness in resolve.
And you just gave it to them.
QuoteYou accuse me of not thinking through my principles but the example of a "blockade" is not specific enough to give any definitive answer. Yes, if people are literally antagonizing you and are a genuine threat to launch an attack, you would be justified in doing something about it. It's like if you saw the warships on the horizon, would you have to wait for them to land before attacking first? Of course not. But a "blockade" could be many different things, and not all of them are worth risking war over.
They've made their intentions clear, cross their line, and be destroyed, yet you think you can bargain, or turn and run, regardless of obligation to your ally?
QuoteFurthermore, I don't think you understand the anarchist position. There is no singular "nation". There is a collection of sovereign communities comprised of sovereign people. Each community and each person is permitted to spend his or her money on whatever security services they deem necessary. Just because I cannot tell you what other people ought to do with their money in a free society is not a failing on my part to articulate any principles. Rather it is precisely the point of opposing central planning and authority.
Oh I understand it quite clearly, you're a syndicalist, one that believes in no govt, a dreamer, a denier of human nature.
You mentioned macho, what you fail to understand, is I would happily kick your ass, take your women, steal your country, all because I hate effeminate men.
Granted, you aren't a leader, and I don't see a country that runs on your fanciful principles, so I won't be invading today.
Point is, that mentality exists in the M/E, and to deny it is a fools prize.
QuoteIf an anarchist society is prosperous, as it surely would be, and the defense agencies hold an arsenal of weapons that are sufficient to repel any potential threat, then what would we have to worry about? Who is going to attack a nation with nuclear weapons as a deterrent?
If Al quiada attacks, what nation are you going to nuke?
QuoteThis conservative fantasy about how we need to "project strength" and go around antagonizing people, propping up dictators and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations in order to be safe from invasion cannot be refuted enough.
Welcome to the real world.
QuoteThere is a big difference between legitimate defense and warmongering. And you come down on the warmongering side far too frequently.
Peace through strength. The man with the most guns wins, that's the law of nature.
QuoteBut if you have any books you recommend I read on this subject, then let me know.
I gave you one, look it up online, it has no copyright, considering it's roughly as old as the bible.
That single book will give you an inside look at the soul of man, and his need to dominate, and it's still referenced by armies around the globe to this day.
Because in a thousand years, man has not changed one iota, only cultures, and some evolve into conquerors, and unfortunately, it will always be that way, because the world breeds bullies everyday, while it also breeds men of strength and resolve to take them on, which inevitably leads to war.
And that my friend, is human nature.
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 02, 2014, 08:22:05 PM
You really need to do some research, you ignorance on this topic is glaringly apparent.
Since the first tests prior to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagaski, there have been a total of 2119 nuclear detonations!
And no "nuclear winter".
I suggest you stop reading DNC Talking points and start reading some history.
-Darth
I don't claim to be an expert on nuclear weapons. I think you are missing my larger point. When I said we could have "a few dozen" nuclear warheads as a deterrent, I was using that as an example only. I don't have to know what the proper proportionate size of our nuclear arsenal should be. I would leave it up to private defense agencies and experts who know far more than I do about what is necessary to provide security to their clients. I maintain that the use of a nuclear weapon, not as a controlled test but in actual conflict cannot be morally justified. And I would prefer that we work to reduce and eventually eliminate the worldwide stockpile of nuclear weapons. But I know that so long as Russia has them, and China has them, and Israel and Pakistan have them, then it would be necessary to have some as a deterrent.
I would prefer you respond to my larger point rather than nitpicking on what size our nuclear arsenal should be in a theoretical anarchist society. Obviously I would never be in a position to make that determination anyway. Private defense agencies who have assessed the risk of attack and are willing to pay the insurance premiums, would be making their determination based on extensive research, what the most cost effective means of preventing and repelling attack from another nation state.
I don't get any information from DNC talking points by the way. Anyone who takes seriously the non aggression principle should want to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons, since their use can never be justified.
I don't think the fact that there have been a total of more than 2000 nuclear detonations is really a fair comparison of a nuclear war between two similarly equipped superpowers. Nuclear detonations that are done on a relatively small scale for testing purposes under controlled situations is obviously quite different.
I was thinking more along the lines of us dropping an hydrogen bomb on Moscow and Russia dropping a hydrogen bomb on Los Angeles. Nuclear winter or not, you can't tell me that a nuclear exchange of that magnitude wouldn't alter the course of history forever. If we actually had the capacity to do such a thing to Russia, you think they would want to risk it by invading us? Exactly how many Russian cities would we need to have the capacity to wipe out before it would provide a sufficient deterrent effect to keep them from attacking us?
I concede that I am no expert on this but I have read some very persuasive literature on the subject.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 07:28:07 PM
If another State wants to invade and conquer your territory and they have a more powerful army as you stipulated, whether you are a State or a Stateless society, you are at a disadvantage.
Hence why you are assured to be conquered, versus an army or militia attempting to defend.
Quote
If an invading army is much larger and more powerful, you are likely to lose regardless.
Sun Tzu may disagree with you. He may agree with you, though, that one or two people may be at quite a disadvantage instead of an army.
Quote
I maintain that the incentive for a nation state to invade will still be less in a Stateless society than one with an existing tax base and population that is acclimated to being ruled, but why would you assume that a Stateless society would have inferior resources and strength to defend itself?
Maybe, or maybe not. That is what you hope, but the hypothetical question I pose has to do with a recurring theme since the beginning of time.
Quote
This seems like a faulty assumption to me. Each individual defense agency will have calculated the risk of invasion and will have made precautions in order to effectively repel such an attack. It is highly likely that that various competing defense agencies will have formed agreements with each other in order to defend their clientele in a coordinated fashion if a very powerful army invades the territory. Of course, if an invading army takes over a nearby community, your community and property are also at risk so you have every incentive to pay for the collective defense in such a situation.
The weeds we need to get into has to do with how we get to that point where we have the agency. Also, your neighbors aren't compelled to fight necessarily. Why would they help you fight for your property? Your property is your property. It's yours, because you will defend it and fight to the death to prove it's yours. I recognize that and agree with it, from that perspective. If I'm on my own, I will do everything I can to help others around me, but if ISIS rolls into "town", I'll haul ass and say "Sorry bro... gotta run!". There is a yin/yang to everything. To the universe. If you own property, then there is another side to it where you must defend it.
Your chain of hope and the sequence of mutual agreement you would rely on may or may not be there. Meanwhile, ISIS, in my current event hypothetical, is beheading everyone around you.
Quote
Furthermore, citizen militias and voluntary armies can play an important role. Following the Swiss model, fighting age males can be encouraged to be armed and trained in the event of an invasion. In fact, defense agencies and insurance companies will offer a discounted rate to customers who can display proficiency in self defense and who own a gun or several.
This is where it goes off the rails to me. Again, I'm with you, but you can't have your state-cake and eat it too. When the mutual peace is disrupted, the individuals are on their own. If a person or a family in your proximity is in trouble, everyone will band together and help them. I know people are mostly good and it is human nature for us to help. But when that own person's peace is in jeopardy, it goes out the window. When people are on their own, they will stay on their own.
Quote
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, it needn't be said that the use of such weapons would ALWAYS be immoral from a libertarian standpoint.
How do we get to the point of even getting the infrastructure in place TO have nuclear weapons. I'm wondering what land are we going to forcibly seize and defend to allow us to manufacture such weapons?
Quote
And the goal should be to reduce them and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.
That would be great, but will China, Russia, etc., go along with it? How do we communicate our new way of life to them, and convince the Putins of the world that they need to step down and let everyone do their own thing? How to we get there?
Quote
But as long as they exist and other nation states have them, it would be irresponsible to unilaterally disarm. We would have to keep some of them for the purpose of deterring attacks from other nation states.
Who is we? There isn't a state. Who is going to house them?
Quote
The only weapons that can be legitimately used according to libertarian theory are those that can specifically target only the bad guys. If you have a weapon that must by necessity injure and harm innocent people through its use, then it cannot ever be justified. Nuclear weapons fall into this category. So do biological weapons.
Sounds good to me. Just let me know how we get the rest of the world on board.
Quote
Did you see a recent segment on John Oliver's show about the state of our nuclear weapons as maintained by the US government?
No. I'm a thinker.
Quote
It is very funny but also very telling. I believe that a couple dozen nuclear warheads could suffice just fine as a deterrent rather than more than four thousand. And I have no doubt that a private company on the market could responsibly look after such weapons far better than any State. Of course the insurance premiums for any such company would be through the roof given the inherent danger of such weaponry.
I grew up under a military history and strategy expert, and I can say you, nor I, have any clue about war, and it is foolish for you to pretend. The complexities of battle are mind boggling. To do it with a bunch of individuals just seems completely impossible to me. Battle and executing a battle is an art and science, honed over thousands of years.
To people like myself, who were pretty hard-core libertarians, and are still so at heart, you need to get past the defense thing. You're not preaching Marx. Everyone here wants what you are preaching, a society where we are free and peaceful. The reality is, and maybe why I see things the way I do with how I grew up with battlefield maps on walls all over the house, is there are bad people out there. You want to hope that "we're the problem", and if we leave others alone, then they will leave us alone. We're good guys, and we're still the problem? How do you think the bad guys are? Look at ISIS. Now look at ISIS with nuclear weapons and tanks. They are killing plenty of their own kind of their own religion.
One thing I think may help you, for your cause, is to understand the technology and lifestyle you enjoy would probably have to take a back seat in your world. I, personally, would be OK with it, but you aren't able to compete, militarily or technologically, with the rest of the world as individuals.
I'm open to this discussion, because I'd love to be convinced it can be done. You need to make the case on how to get there. How do we get Putin and Jinping on board?
Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 08:49:34 PM
Macho? I'm flattered, because being a man is what it's all about. Never backing down from a fight, you know, like our Founders?
You can't answer my question, so you create your own and answer it? That is not what is referred to as debate, that is obfuscation.
I specifically described a blockade event, one where you are not being allowed to enter your allies waters, one in which you are being provoked, one that will expose your weakness, in turn showing cowardliness to your enemy, an enemy looking for weakness in resolve.
And you just gave it to them.
They've made their intentions clear, cross their line, and be destroyed, yet you think you can bargain, or turn and run, regardless of obligation to your ally?
Oh I understand it quite clearly, you're a syndicalist, one that believes in no govt, a dreamer, a denier of human nature.
You mentioned macho, what you fail to understand, is I would happily kick your ass, take your women, steal your country, all because I hate effeminate men.
Granted, you aren't a leader, and I don't see a country that runs on your fanciful principles, so I won't be invading today.
Point is, that mentality exists in the M/E, and to deny it is a fools prize.
Let's be very clear in our language. What is "exposing weakness", "weakness in resolve" and displaying "cowardliness"? Can you or can you not justify aggression?
There is a very specific threshold for aggression and it is a boundary crossing of an antagonist against the physical body of another and/or their justly acquired property. If this boundary crossing occurs, then the victim and every other person that chooses to come to their aid, can use self defense against the aggressor.
So be very specific in your example. Now, let's suppose another nation state refuses to allow me access to certain waters. Who has jurisdiction over those waters? Are they in the territory of the nation state that is doing the blockading?
If I own a company that wants to do business with someone in another country and I send over a ship full of goods to exchange with people who want to engage in free trade with me, what would the blockading country do? Now, I stipulate that I am not crossing the borders of the blockading nation or their territory. If they try to use force and aggression against me, I am perfectly justified in self defense. I can defend my ships from unjustified aggression and continue to trade freely with the people of another nation unmolested.
Anyone in the stateless society could support the effort to fight off the blockading nation. Not to invade them, or kill civilians or wage war, but to defend the ships and free exchange of goods and services into and out of the country that want to engage with us in free trade.
Is that a clear enough answer for you on the issue of a blockade? However, each defense agency and company in the anarchist society will have to make a determination whether or not it is worth it to continue to spent the money to ensure free trade in certain volatile parts of the world.
Here is an example from modern society. If the United States has an embassy in the middle east and we maintain a military presence in that region of the world, then we are more exposed to acts of aggression by terrorists. And, since each individual owns themselves and stipulating that the property we inhabit on such an embassy or military presence was acquired legitimately, i.e. it was sold to us or we were invited in by some nation. Of course we would have the right to defend ourselves against the terrorists.
But at some point we would have to say "let's not continue to maintain a presence in a dangerous part of the world and leave us vulnerable to attacks by terrorists." It might be more financially feasible and pragmatic to just avoid sticking your head into volatile situations.
That doesn't mean that you are a "coward" or you are "showing weakness" to Al Qaeda or any of that childish nonsense. Have you ever heard the saying that the best revenge is to live well?
If it bleeds us dry financially and in human life to teach a handful of terrorists a lesson and not "show weakness" then the terrorists have won.
In a free society, you can spend your own resources in any way you see fit. You wouldn't have the right to commit aggression under libertarian law, but you could come to the aid of ANY subjugated and oppressed people anywhere in the world. If you, or another company, want to trade with another nation and some other country is blockading you, but not directly attacking you, then you can spend your own resources on a private military escort to accompany the free exchange of goods and services with the other nation.
What you can't do is steal my money to fund your idea of "projecting strength".
Is that clear now?
Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 08:49:34 PM
If Al quiada attacks, what nation are you going to nuke?
Welcome to the real world.
Peace through strength. The man with the most guns wins, that's the law of nature.I gave you one, look it up online, it has no copyright, considering it's roughly as old as the bible.
That single book will give you an inside look at the soul of man, and his need to dominate, and it's still referenced by armies around the globe to this day.
Because in a thousand years, man has not changed one iota, only cultures, and some evolve into conquerors, and unfortunately, it will always be that way, because the world breeds bullies everyday, while it also breeds men of strength and resolve to take them on, which inevitably leads to war.
And that my friend, is human nature.
You think Al Qaeda is such a grave threat? A few thousand impoverished desperate radical Muslims living in caves?
Have you forgotten that Al Qaeda was essentially created by the United States government? We armed and enabled the Mujahadeen (as they were called) during the Reagan Administration. If you actually read the reasons Osama bin Laden gave for the attacks on 9/11, it had everything to do with our military occupation, puppet dictators, bombing campaigns and blind support for Israel.
Osama was quite explicit that his goal was to bog the United States down in a protracted war and bleed us dry financially. We have exceeded his wildest dreams.
"Peace through strength" is a nice sounding phrase but do you really mean that? Do you have an ideological objection to the use of aggression? Because from my understanding, you would indeed support the use of aggression under a variety of circumstances.
If you mean that we should have the capacity to adequately defend ourselves against any potential threat, then we agree. When did I ever say otherwise?
Can you please give me a direct answer. Do you think you can ever justify the use of aggression, that is the
initiation of force?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 02, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.
It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz
You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.
And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.
No, dumping the Constitution would be an assault on liberty.
If you have not done so already, I would encourage you to watch D'Souza's film "America"
http://www.americathemovie.com/trailers/american_moments/ (http://www.americathemovie.com/trailers/american_moments/)
"The Revolution was a struggle for the creation of America. The Civil War was a struggle for the preservation of America. World War II was a struggle for the protection of America. Our struggle is for the restoration of America." -- D'Souza
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 09:40:56 PM
I would prefer you respond to my larger point rather than nitpicking on what size our nuclear arsenal should be in a theoretical anarchist society.
An Anarchist society is not possible. as I've said before it is an unstable society whose only purpose can be to transition from one form of government to another - usually from a government that protects the individual liberties of its citizens, to a tyrannical government that exercises unlimited authority and control over its citizens.
Even if it were possible, an anarchist state, where there is no central authority whatsoever, in possession of an arsenal of nuclear weapons is a concept that should scare the hell out of any sane individual!
-Darth
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 10:26:17 PM
Let's be very clear in our language. What is "exposing weakness", "weakness in resolve" and displaying "cowardliness"? Can you or can you not justify aggression?
There is a very specific threshold for aggression and it is a boundary crossing of an antagonist against the physical body of another and/or their justly acquired property. If this boundary crossing occurs, then the victim and every other person that chooses to come to their aid, can use self defense against the aggressor.
So be very specific in your example.
Good God son, all that shit, just to say be specific, as if I wasn't concise already?
QuoteNow, let's suppose another nation state refuses to allow me access to certain waters. Who has jurisdiction over those waters? Are they in the territory of the nation state that is doing the blockading?
If I own a company that wants to do business with someone in another country and I send over a ship full of goods to exchange with people who want to engage in free trade with me, what would the blockading country do? Now, I stipulate that I am not crossing the borders of the blockading nation or their territory. If they try to use force and aggression against me, I am perfectly justified in self defense. I can defend my ships from unjustified aggression and continue to trade freely with the people of another nation unmolested.
Anyone in the stateless society could support the effort to fight off the blockading nation. Not to invade them, or kill civilians or wage war, but to defend the ships and free exchange of goods and services into and out of the country that want to engage with us in free trade.
Try the Straights of Hormuz, Cape Horn, Red sea, take your pick, you aren't being allowed passage, all because you refused to stand up the first time you were challenged.
QuoteIs that a clear enough answer for you on the issue of a blockade? However, each defense agency and company in the anarchist society will have to make a determination whether or not it is worth it to continue to spent the money to ensure free trade in certain volatile parts of the world.
So your entire way of life rests in the hands of hired guns? You really are nutzzz!
I just outbid your anarchist industry, and now control your hired guns, now get bthe Hell off my land!
QuoteHere is an example from modern society. If the United States has an embassy in the middle east and we maintain a military presence in that region of the world, then we are more exposed to acts of aggression by terrorists. And, since each individual owns themselves and stipulating that the property we inhabit on such an embassy or military presence was acquired legitimately, i.e. it was sold to us or we were invited in by some nation. Of course we would have the right to defend ourselves against the terrorists.
But at some point we would have to say "let's not continue to maintain a presence in a dangerous part of the world and leave us vulnerable to attacks by terrorists." It might be more financially feasible and pragmatic to just avoid sticking your head into volatile situations.
Now see if you can figure out on your own, just what message you just sent the bully terrorists?
QuoteThat doesn't mean that you are a "coward" or you are "showing weakness" to Al Qaeda or any of that childish nonsense. Have you ever heard the saying that the best revenge is to live well?
Yeah, stated by a pacifist at his hanging.
QuoteIf it bleeds us dry financially and in human life to teach a handful of terrorists a lesson and not "show weakness" then the terrorists have won.
Then you have no other option but to fight, now do you?
QuoteIn a free society, you can spend your own resources in any way you see fit. You wouldn't have the right to commit aggression under libertarian law, but you could come to the aid of ANY subjugated and oppressed people anywhere in the world. If you, or another company, want to trade with another nation and some other country is blockading you, but not directly attacking you, then you can spend your own resources on a private military escort to accompany the free exchange of goods and services with the other nation.
What you can't do is steal my money to fund your idea of "projecting strength".
Is that clear now?
So let me see if I get this right. Your little nation state, that isn't a state at all, has no govt, is nothing more than a conglomerate of cooperative interests living in harmony, correct?
So why is one entity allowed to decide it's in your "no nation" best interest to not use force in your endeavors, in turn putting the rest of you'r "no nation state in jeopardy?
I guess because you have no govt, no one has a say in your "no nation state" outside of a corporate decision taken by a vote of shareholders.
Boy, you're screwed!
QuoteYou think Al Qaeda is such a grave threat? A few thousand impoverished desperate radical Muslims living in caves?
I see you still haven't looked up Wahhabi.
QuoteHave you forgotten that Al Qaeda was essentially created by the United States government? We armed and enabled the Mujahadeen (as they were called) during the Reagan Administration. If you actually read the reasons Osama bin Laden gave for the attacks on 9/11, it had everything to do with our military occupation, puppet dictators, bombing campaigns and blind support for Israel.
Ignorance on display again.
QuoteOsama was quite explicit that his goal was to bog the United States down in a protracted war and bleed us dry financially. We have exceeded his wildest dreams.
You give way to much credit to a single individual when his ideals are shared by millions.
Quote"Peace through strength" is a nice sounding phrase but do you really mean that?
You bet I do, and I practice here in the wilderness.
QuoteDo you have an ideological objection to the use of aggression? Because from my understanding, you would indeed support the use of aggression under a variety of circumstances.
OK?
QuoteIf you mean that we should have the capacity to adequately defend ourselves against any potential threat, then we agree. When did I ever say otherwise?
Aw cut the crap, your entire premise is built on pacifism.
QuoteCan you please give me a direct answer. Do you think you can ever justify the use of aggression, that is the initiation of force?
Son, you really need to learn how to debate, we've beaten that horse into the dust.
What part of "aggression" that has been taken by our president against this country don't you understand?
Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2014, 08:01:00 AM
Good God son, all that shit, just to say be specific, as if I wasn't concise already?
Try the Straights of Hormuz, Cape Horn, Red sea, take your pick, you aren't being allowed passage, all because you refused to stand up the first time you were challenged.
So your entire way of life rests in the hands of hired guns? You really are nutzzz!
I just outbid your anarchist industry, and now control your hired guns, now get bthe Hell off my land!
Now see if you can figure out on your own, just what message you just sent the bully terrorists?
Yeah, stated by a pacifist at his hanging.
Then you have no other option but to fight, now do you?
So let me see if I get this right. Your little nation state, that isn't a state at all, has no govt, is nothing more than a conglomerate of cooperative interests living in harmony, correct?
So why is one entity allowed to decide it's in your "no nation" best interest to not use force in your endeavors, in turn putting the rest of you'r "no nation state in jeopardy?
I guess because you have no govt, no one has a say in your "no nation state" outside of a corporate decision taken by a vote of shareholders.
Boy, you're screwed!
I see you still haven't looked up Wahhabi.
Ignorance on display again.You give way to much credit to a single individual when his ideals are shared by millions.
You bet I do, and I practice here in the wilderness.
OK?Aw cut the crap, your entire premise is built on pacifism.
Son, you really need to learn how to debate, we've beaten that horse into the dust.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm still trying to figure out how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this. Also, where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?
Quote from: taxed on August 03, 2014, 03:06:44 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm still trying to figure out how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this. Also, where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?
BINGO! :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's my point about a blockade. If you don't kick ass at the first sign of a threat, you're screwed.
But Putin, ISIS, China, they'll all see that he's a pacifist/Anarchist/LIBertarian and probably invite him to a beer summit and sing Kum by ya.
Besides, he has corporate military waiting in the wings, oh, and they're insured. :rolleyes:
Quote from: taxed on August 02, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
Hence why you are assured to be conquered, versus an army or militia attempting to defend.
Sun Tzu may disagree with you. He may agree with you, though, that one or two people may be at quite a disadvantage instead of an army.
Maybe, or maybe not. That is what you hope, but the hypothetical question I pose has to do with a recurring theme since the beginning of time.
The weeds we need to get into has to do with how we get to that point where we have the agency. Also, your neighbors aren't compelled to fight necessarily. Why would they help you fight for your property? Your property is your property. It's yours, because you will defend it and fight to the death to prove it's yours. I recognize that and agree with it, from that perspective. If I'm on my own, I will do everything I can to help others around me, but if ISIS rolls into "town", I'll haul ass and say "Sorry bro... gotta run!". There is a yin/yang to everything. To the universe. If you own property, then there is another side to it where you must defend it.
Your chain of hope and the sequence of mutual agreement you would rely on may or may not be there. Meanwhile, ISIS, in my current event hypothetical, is beheading everyone around you.
This is where it goes off the rails to me. Again, I'm with you, but you can't have your state-cake and eat it too. When the mutual peace is disrupted, the individuals are on their own. If a person or a family in your proximity is in trouble, everyone will band together and help them. I know people are mostly good and it is human nature for us to help. But when that own person's peace is in jeopardy, it goes out the window. When people are on their own, they will stay on their own.
How do we get to the point of even getting the infrastructure in place TO have nuclear weapons. I'm wondering what land are we going to forcibly seize and defend to allow us to manufacture such weapons?
That would be great, but will China, Russia, etc., go along with it? How do we communicate our new way of life to them, and convince the Putins of the world that they need to step down and let everyone do their own thing? How to we get there?
Who is we? There isn't a state. Who is going to house them?
Sounds good to me. Just let me know how we get the rest of the world on board.
No. I'm a thinker.
I grew up under a military history and strategy expert, and I can say you, nor I, have any clue about war, and it is foolish for you to pretend. The complexities of battle are mind boggling. To do it with a bunch of individuals just seems completely impossible to me. Battle and executing a battle is an art and science, honed over thousands of years.
To people like myself, who were pretty hard-core libertarians, and are still so at heart, you need to get past the defense thing. You're not preaching Marx. Everyone here wants what you are preaching, a society where we are free and peaceful. The reality is, and maybe why I see things the way I do with how I grew up with battlefield maps on walls all over the house, is there are bad people out there. You want to hope that "we're the problem", and if we leave others alone, then they will leave us alone. We're good guys, and we're still the problem? How do you think the bad guys are? Look at ISIS. Now look at ISIS with nuclear weapons and tanks. They are killing plenty of their own kind of their own religion.
One thing I think may help you, for your cause, is to understand the technology and lifestyle you enjoy would probably have to take a back seat in your world. I, personally, would be OK with it, but you aren't able to compete, militarily or technologically, with the rest of the world as individuals.
I'm open to this discussion, because I'd love to be convinced it can be done. You need to make the case on how to get there. How do we get Putin and Jinping on board?
You're right, I'd love nothing more than to live in the society he envisions, but I'm a realist, I know there is evil in the world, it's basic human nature, as sad as that is.
Maybe these anarchists need to start a commune as an experiment? :rolleyes:
Quote from: suzziY on August 02, 2014, 11:46:36 PM
No, dumping the Constitution would be an assault on liberty.
If you have not done so already, I would encourage you to watch D'Souza's film "America"
http://www.americathemovie.com/trailers/american_moments/ (http://www.americathemovie.com/trailers/american_moments/)
"The Revolution was a struggle for the creation of America. The Civil War was a struggle for the preservation of America. World War II was a struggle for the protection of America. Our struggle is for the restoration of America." -- D'Souza
I think the Federal Government that was established by ratifying the Constitution has been systematically assaulting the liberties of every American for a couple of centuries now. That is not to say that the Constitution cannot serve a pragmatic purpose as a theoretical limitation on State power, but it remains theoretical. The Constitution has completely failed as a restraint on Federal Power. Hans Hoppe has argued that the Constitution was never intended to limit the power of the state but rather to expand and promote centralized power. The Anti Federalists had it right all along, but they were deceived. They were assured that the "General welfare", "Necessary and proper" and other clauses could not be misinterpreted. They were assured that the Constitution listed an exhaustive list of the proper delegated functions of the central State and that any function not explicitly delegated would be reserved to the States and the people.
How has this worked out for us? You may protest and say that we just need to "hold our representatives accountable", and elect Congressmen and Presidents who take their oath to the Constitution seriously. In the last half century I can think of only one man who actually took this oath seriously and upheld those principles throughout a political career. Of course Ron Paul is the one I am thinking of, but even if I am generous and concede that there may have been a small handful of others over the last century who were similarly principled in their adherence to the Constitution, that still represents less than 1% of elected politicians during that time period.
The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It has no power of its own to actually restrain State power. In fact it legitimizes the growth of State power. We are told that the Constitution is some divinely inspired near-perfect document establishing our Union. It is supposedly beyond reproach and to question the legitimacy of the State as any sort of just authority is naturally to question the legitimacy of the Constitution itself, which leads individuals such as yourself to react by calling proponents of such an idea "enemies of liberty".
Who have we entrusted with the right to interpret the Constitution? The Supreme Court, a part of the very central authority we are entrusting it to restrain. Naturally, the Supreme Court will continue to interpret the text of the document more and more broadly, thus legitimizing any expansion of State power. If any of us question, say, the Affordable Care Act, our opponents will cite the Supreme Court ruling which ruled that the law is Constitutional.
If you or I are having a dispute and we want someone to arbitrate, you wouldn't be okay with me having my father decide which of us is correct. He would not be an impartial arbiter. In the same way, the Supreme Court, as part of the agency being judged, cannot be an impartial arbiter of judging the Constitutionality of government law.
The conclusion that one must reach is that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are merely propaganda tools and methods of lending legitimacy to expansions of State power.
You mention D'Souza and his film. I am not a fan of D'Souza and that quote exemplifies why. "The Revolution was the struggle for the creation of America". I would rephrase it since those who risked their lives in the Revolutionary War were not fighting for the establishment of a central State or any collective. They were fighting for independence from a tyrant and for freedom.
"The Civil War was a struggle for the preservation of America." Wrong. Dead wrong. The Civil War was fought to establish a more powerful central authority and to destroy the original intent of the Constitution. Lincoln cared little about the issue of slavery, he cared about preventing Southern secession through violence. One of the end results of that war was indeed the 13th Amendment which emancipated the slaves, but the lasting ramifications were to forever discredit the concept of secession, States rights and interposition and nullification of unconstitutional federal laws.
From the drafting of the Constitution, there existed a faction of individuals who desired a powerful central authority without limits. The Federalists and the Hamiltonians favored expansive powers. Hamilton wanted a central bank. Lincoln merely furthered the Hamiltonian vision. A few generations later, Woodrow Wilson created the income tax, the Federal Reserve system and he set a precedent for total war throughout the 20th century with his ill fated decision to get us involved in the first World War.
You may indeed dislike the Progressives who you claim "hijacked" this country in the early part of the 20th century, but this expansion of State power was set in motion by embracing the Federalists and rejecting the Anti Federalists. By supporting the Constitution, you are giving the State their most important propaganda tool with which they have claimed legitimacy and expanded their power through Supreme Court rulings.
"World War II was a struggle for the protection of America". Not really. The lesson of WW2 should be that we should refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. I am not saying that Hitler didn't pose a threat, but we created the conditions for his rise to power when we intervened twenty years earlier in the first World War. The Versailles Treaty imposed heavy reparations on Germany and combined with the cost of a prolonged war (lengthened by US intervention) contributed to hyperinflation in Germany and a loss of industry and great poverty. Plus the universal blame placed on Germany for all the damage caused by the Great War, explicitly stated in the so called "guilt" clause of the Versaille Treaty, led to resentment. Economic devastation and all these factors combined to permit a lunatic like Adolf Hitler to gain traction as a rising political figure, promising to lead the German people out of their post war conditions.
World War II should be properly viewed as the largest and most devastating example of blowback in American history. If the United States didn't intervene in World War 1, that war would have likely been over years earlier, we wouldn't have signed the Versailles Treaty and Germany likely wouldn't have experienced hyperinflation. And Adolf Hitler would have remained a nobody.
Quote from: taxed on August 03, 2014, 03:06:44 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm still trying to figure out how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this. Also, where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?
I'm going to suggest a book you all should read. It is called
"The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production" by Hans Hermann Hoppe and various contributors. It will dispel any convictions you have that the only effective way to provide adequate defense is through a nation state.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-National-Defense-Production/dp/0945466374/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407134206&sr=8-2&keywords=the+production+of+security&tag=donations09-20 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-National-Defense-Production/dp/0945466374/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407134206&sr=8-2&keywords=the+production+of+security&tag=donations09-20)
I don't know what you mean "how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this"? I don't have to "get" them to do anything. If they are threatening us, or are about to invade and attack, then we defend ourselves. Private militia, private defense agencies and mercenaries would repel the attack and destroy the enemy. Contrary to what Solar believes, I am NOT a pacifist. He really needs to look up the definition of that word. A pacifist is someone who rejects violence in all situations, even when they are being pushed around and threatened. A non-interventionist or advocate of the non-aggression principle is someone who would only use violence in self defense or to come to the aid of someone who is the victim of aggression. I know I am repeating myself but somehow this simple concept is not sinking in (for some people).
I have no idea what you mean when you say "where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?" I'm personally not going to do anything. I might buy a gun and become proficient in its use, but I am not personally going to run a defense agency. Why don't you ask "where is Sony going to innovate and manufacture the next PlayStation?" Or "where is Samsung going to innovate and manufacture the next Galaxy smartphone?"
I find it odd that conservatives who are supposed to believe in and understand the free market economy are so perplexed at how it could work in the provision and distribution of defense services.
Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2014, 04:03:36 PM
You're right, I'd love nothing more than to live in the society he envisions, but I'm a realist, I know there is evil in the world, it's basic human nature, as sad as that is.
Maybe these anarchists need to start a commune as an experiment? :rolleyes:
I know there is evil in the world. But you seem to jump irrationally from "evil exists out there" to "we need to use aggression". There is no logical connection between those two disparate statements. I say "I am an anarchist and I don't believe in the initiation of violence" and you interpret that as "I am a pacifist. I don't think evil exists. I just think everyone will voluntarily get along and we don't need to take any threats from people like Putin and radical Muslim terrorists seriously."
A more logical connection of statements would be this: "I am a realist. I recognize that evil exists in the world. Therefore, we need a society that has the capacity to defend itself from that evil."
Notice how nothing in the above endorses the use of aggression? I believe in the free market and therefore I don't believe that a government monopoly on the provision of national security will turn out any better than a government monopoly on the production of automobiles. "National defense" is not some special case where the economic laws are revoked and the State somehow becomes super efficient, responsible and accountable, unlike every other task it does.
If we had competition in the provision of defense services, then we should expect to see better, more efficient defense and security, delivered more efficiently and at a far lower cost. We wouldn't be more vulnerable to attacks by nation states, but far less vulnerable.
I know this concept goes against your conservative "peace through strength", "support our troops" ideology but I encourage you to take a look at some of the libertarian literature on the subject of private defense services and see if you can't expand you distrust of central authority to include the military and Federal foreign policy.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 12:07:39 AM
I know there is evil in the world. But you seem to jump irrationally from "evil exists out there" to "we need to use aggression". There is no logical connection between those two disparate statements. I say "I am an anarchist and I don't believe in the initiation of violence" and you interpret that as "I am a pacifist. I don't think evil exists. I just think everyone will voluntarily get along and we don't need to take any threats from people like Putin and radical Muslim terrorists seriously."
If you're walking down the street, and someone cuts you off and demands you pay them to pass, what do you do?
QuoteA more logical connection of statements would be this: "I am a realist. I recognize that evil exists in the world. Therefore, we need a society that has the capacity to defend itself from that evil."
And you do it with a standing army, one big enough to ALWAYS WIN ANY WAR!
QuoteNotice how nothing in the above endorses the use of aggression? I believe in the free market and therefore I don't believe that a government monopoly on the provision of national security will turn out any better than a government monopoly on the production of automobiles. "National defense" is not some special case where the economic laws are revoked and the State somehow becomes super efficient, responsible and accountable, unlike every other task it does.
LOL! So you're saying our Founders were stupid in making it the sole purpose of the Fed?
QuoteIf we had competition in the provision of defense services, then we should expect to see better, more efficient defense and security, delivered more efficiently and at a far lower cost. We wouldn't be more vulnerable to attacks by nation states, but far less vulnerable.
Again, "Human Nature" is being ignored in your Utopian world.
What is it that business does, that brings in profit? They compete, the leverage buyouts, they monopolize industry, and they also sell to the highest bidder.
You're under the assumption these businesses share your ideals, they don't, they are in it for the profit!
And guess what? I'm going to buyout your defense industry, and turn it against you.
God, am I getting through to you yet?
I've been in business all my life, retired as a defense contractor, I understand the mentality of the industry, you don't have the first clue!
It's that naivete that exposes your plan as nothing less than a Utopian pipe dream.
QuoteI know this concept goes against your conservative "peace through strength", "support our troops" ideology but I encourage you to take a look at some of the libertarian literature on the subject of private defense services and see if you can't expand you distrust of central authority to include the military and Federal foreign policy.
Answer this, can you buy your own private army? Now, can you buy a govt run army?
The answer is obvious, and if you can't see it, you're screwed. I can't believe in all the BS you've read, no one ever pointed out this tiny flaw.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
I can't believe in all the BS you've read, no one ever pointed out this tiny flaw.
It's almost as if these anarchist want to weaken western society... Oh wait :laugh:
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 04, 2014, 09:37:13 AM
It's almost as if these anarchist want to weaken western society... Oh wait :laugh:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
They hate the fact that we even have a govt.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
If you're walking down the street, and someone cuts you off and demands you pay them to pass, what do you do?
The pertinent question is who owns the street? In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned. Therefore the owner of the street will have various means of collecting revenue to continue running the street. The street in a neighborhood might be owned by the residents of that neighborhood and they agree, as a condition of living in that community, to pay for its upkeep. A highway could be privately owned and indeed there might be legitimate fees demanded to pass on such a privately owned road.
I am assuming you are speaking of a private criminal who is merely practicing extortion and has no permission to harass people freely traveling on private property. Then that person would be committing aggression and you have the right to defend yourself. Your response should be proportional. If someone is just being annoying, then you shouldn't punch them or shoot them obviously. Getting in your personal space, not leaving you alone, constantly harassing you even if they don't physically assault you, they are still committing aggression. There are two acts of aggression being committed. The first is against you, the traveler. And the second is against the property owner of the road who would clearly forbid the harassment of users that are permitted to travel on that privately owned road.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
And you do it with a standing army, one big enough to ALWAYS WIN ANY WAR!
Why does it have to be a standing army? You should know that many of the founders warned against the maintenance of a standing army.
James Madison said:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."Thomas Jefferson continually warned against the creation of a standing army, calling it
"an engine of oppression."In an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies:
"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."Even though I have no irrational worship of the Founders like some people, they clearly thought that an armed population and a well trained Militia was the best method of organizing the defense of the Union. They feared the loss of liberty that would be inevitable if we maintained a standing army. Clearly a private militia, like the Swiss model, is a Stateless anarchist approach to national defense.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
LOL! So you're saying our Founders were stupid in making it the sole purpose of the Fed?
See my previous answer. Most of the Founders would clearly not endorse your conception of national defense through a powerful standing army.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
Again, "Human Nature" is being ignored in your Utopian world.
What is it that business does, that brings in profit? They compete, the leverage buyouts, they monopolize industry, and they also sell to the highest bidder.
You're under the assumption these businesses share your ideals, they don't, they are in it for the profit!
And guess what? I'm going to buyout your defense industry, and turn it against you.
God, am I getting through to you yet?
I've been in business all my life, retired as a defense contractor, I understand the mentality of the industry, you don't have the first clue!
It's that naivete that exposes your plan as nothing less than a Utopian pipe dream.
You sound like a socialist. Actually, you ARE a socialist. You endlessly criticize private industry and the free market, and your solution is to have the central government nationalize and socialize the vital function of security and national defense. And you have the audacity to criticize Barack Obama for being a socialist because he bailed out the auto industry in Detroit and passed Obamacare?
I don't support any of those things but you should stop and think about the hypocrisy you are displaying. If socialism is a failed ideology, and redistribution of wealth is immoral, as I keep hearing from Tea Party types and social conservatives, then why are you guys such ardent supporters of Defense socialism?
Why do you continue to defend the State in this area? Especially as this is the one area where the State has committed its worst atrocities.
If Obamacare is bad, then surely the perpetual war machine of the Military Industrial Complex and the standing army that the founders warned against is far, far worse.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
Answer this, can you buy your own private army? Now, can you buy a govt run army?
The answer is obvious, and if you can't see it, you're screwed. I can't believe in all the BS you've read, no one ever pointed out this tiny flaw.
People "buy" influence into the government run military all the time. Defense contractors and warmongering special interests dictate our foreign policy to a large degree. They socialize the costs of this bloodshed and reap only the profits of selling the government weapons systems that it doesn't need.
I would prefer that private security agencies be forced to comply with market pressures and satisfy the needs of voluntarily paying customers. War is VERY expensive. Without the State that prints up the money and socializes the risk and removes any semblance of market discipline, private companies would make every effort to avoid war. They will be forced to find the best means of providing security at the lowest cost. And therefore, they wouldn't be warmongerers. They wouldn't incite conflict, rather they would seek to find peaceful solutions to conflicts that exist.
If their goal is to make profits, and their entire source of revenue depends on voluntarily paying customers who can choose alternative defense agencies to represent them, then they would be subject to market discipline. We would get precisely the amount of security and defense that the people would be willing to pay for.
And, believe me, the one thing that NOBODY wants is to be involved in war. War can wipe out the wealth of an economy in only a few years. And, if an anarchist territory was actually conquered by another nation state, we would lose our independence and everything we value. People will pay for adequate defense services with the capability to repel any existing or plausible potential threats.
If you are a founders quoting, Constitution loving, Tea Party conservative you should heed the words of Madison and Jefferson and reject the concept of a standing army.
You should also reject socialism or at least own up to your own hypocrisy when you criticize liberals for believing in socialized medicine when you endorse socialized defense.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 04, 2014, 09:37:13 AM
It's almost as if these anarchist want to weaken western society... Oh wait :laugh:
What do you mean "weaken western society"? Surely you are not so naive as you equate the State with society? I repeat myself but I cannot find any moral or logical justification for the initiation of force. I cannot find any valid ethic that grants certain humans in a society immunity from the ethical rules that govern the rest of us peons. Any valid moral principle must be universalizable. I cannot logically refute the argument in favor of self ownership without contradiction.
Therefore, I must oppose the State since it violates universal moral principles, it MUST initiate coercion to fit the description of a "state", and it necessarily violates the right of self ownership of the citizens who live within its jurisdiction.
And this is to say nothing of the many utilitarian objections to the State, which are quite extensively documented in the literature.
If you feel you can refute any of these statements, you are welcome to make the attempt.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 03:02:13 PM
The pertinent question is who owns the street? In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned. Therefore the owner of the street will have various means of collecting revenue to continue running the street. The street in a neighborhood might be owned by the residents of that neighborhood and they agree, as a condition of living in that community, to pay for its upkeep. A highway could be privately owned and indeed there might be legitimate fees demanded to pass on such a privately owned road.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do you still hear the term "NERD"?
QuoteI am assuming you are speaking of a private criminal who is merely practicing extortion and has no permission to harass people freely traveling on private property. Then that person would be committing aggression and you have the right to defend yourself. Your response should be proportional. If someone is just being annoying, then you shouldn't punch them or shoot them obviously. Getting in your personal space, not leaving you alone, constantly harassing you even if they don't physically assault you, they are still committing aggression. There are two acts of aggression being committed. The first is against you, the traveler. And the second is against the property owner of the road who would clearly forbid the harassment of users that are permitted to travel on that privately owned road.
You're killing me here with all this obfuscation covered up with redundancies in what can only be described as verbose.
QuoteWhy does it have to be a standing army? You should know that many of the founders warned against the maintenance of a standing army.
James Madison said:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Thomas Jefferson continually warned against the creation of a standing army, calling it "an engine of oppression."
In an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."
Even though I have no irrational worship of the Founders like some people, they clearly thought that an armed population and a well trained Militia was the best method of organizing the defense of the Union. They feared the loss of liberty that would be inevitable if we maintained a standing army. Clearly a private militia, like the Swiss model, is a Stateless anarchist approach to national defense.
See my previous answer. Most of the Founders would clearly not endorse your conception of national defense through a powerful standing army.
And still Jefferson gave us a Navy, and you know why? Two fold, Muscums, and second, they weren't what you refer to a standing army.
By standing army, they referred to an army on US soil, and more than 90% of our army is off shore.
QuoteYou sound like a socialist. Actually, you ARE a socialist. You endlessly criticize private industry and the free market, and your solution is to have the central government nationalize and socialize the vital function of security and national defense. And you have the audacity to criticize Barack Obama for being a socialist because he bailed out the auto industry in Detroit and passed Obamacare?
I don't support any of those things but you should stop and think about the hypocrisy you are displaying. If socialism is a failed ideology, and redistribution of wealth is immoral, as I keep hearing from Tea Party types and social conservatives, then why are you guys such ardent supporters of Defense socialism?
Why do you continue to defend the State in this area? Especially as this is the one area where the State has committed its worst atrocities.
If Obamacare is bad, then surely the perpetual war machine of the Military Industrial Complex and the standing army that the founders warned against is far, far worse.
Dumb ass! Read our Founding documents. The only thing the US Govt was charged to do, was protect the states.
So now our Founders were socialists?
Oh. and learn to be more concise, this whole thing sounded like a woman trying to explain her "feelings" during pregnancy, I'm serious, you are one tedious writer!
Stop relying on how you "feel" when you write, you don't need to "feel" you've gotten your point across, I'll still get your point, even if you were to cut out 70% of what you write.
QuotePeople "buy" influence into the government run military all the time. Defense contractors and warmongering special interests dictate our foreign policy to a large degree. They socialize the costs of this bloodshed and reap only the profits of selling the government weapons systems that it doesn't need.
Wait! Are you saying money corrupts? This is that thing I keep hounding you about, "Human Nature"!
And you think having a nongoverment without laws is going to stop mans endeavor to influence using whatever currency you decide to use?
QuoteI would prefer that private security agencies be forced to comply with market pressures and satisfy the needs of voluntarily paying customers. War is VERY expensive. Without the State that prints up the money and socializes the risk and removes any semblance of market discipline, private companies would make every effort to avoid war. They will be forced to find the best means of providing security at the lowest cost. And therefore, they wouldn't be warmongerers. They wouldn't incite conflict, rather they would seek to find peaceful solutions to conflicts that exist.
If their goal is to make profits, and their entire source of revenue depends on voluntarily paying customers who can choose alternative defense agencies to represent them, then they would be subject to market discipline. We would get precisely the amount of security and defense that the people would be willing to pay for.
Wow, are you out of touch with reality! Think about this for a moment. You own this so called security force, you really don't care one way or the other, as long as you get paid, by anyone, because you're in it for profit, (Think Mercenary)
But your employer decides they no longer need such a bloated force and demand cuts, this scares you, because you have contracts in the making and need a large force to fulfill them.
So what does the immoral man do? He finds a way to start conflict, in turn making his current force to small, so he bilks his employer for more money to grow his force.
Wait! You refuse to pay? Better think about your decision, remember, he has all the heavy weaponry and can leave your ass hanging out to dry.
QuoteAnd, believe me, the one thing that NOBODY wants is to be involved in war. War can wipe out the wealth of an economy in only a few years. And, if an anarchist territory was actually conquered by another nation state, we would lose our independence and everything we value. People will pay for adequate defense services with the capability to repel any existing or plausible potential threats.
Really? Seriously? Some men live for war, and if you plan on hiring someone with experience, which you will, then he loves war, he eats sleeps and drinks war, it's what he lives for.
QuoteIf you are a founders quoting, Constitution loving, Tea Party conservative you should heed the words of Madison and Jefferson and reject the concept of a standing army.
You should also reject socialism or at least own up to your own hypocrisy when you criticize liberals for believing in socialized medicine when you endorse socialized defense.
You really shouldn't quote the Founders, at least, not until you understand what they were saying.
Oh, and by the way, that security force of yours? I just bought them off, now get the Hell off my land!
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 03, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
I'm going to suggest a book you all should read. It is called "The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production" by Hans Hermann Hoppe and various contributors. It will dispel any convictions you have that the only effective way to provide adequate defense is through a nation state.
I read it already. It doesn't dispel anything.
Quote
I don't know what you mean "how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this"?
That's my point. You don't know what I mean.
Quote
I don't have to "get" them to do anything.
It doesn't matter, because you couldn't.
Quote
If they are threatening us, or are about to invade and attack, then we defend ourselves.
Who? You're on your own. Why would others help you defend the living area you claimed?
Quote
Private militia, private defense agencies and mercenaries would repel the attack and destroy the enemy.
They would be concerned about their area they claim, not yours. You need a leader in battle, with a strategy. You are WAY out of your element, young man.
Quote
Contrary to what Solar believes, I am NOT a pacifist.
It doesn't matter. You would be someone's slave in your system.
Quote
He really needs to look up the definition of that word.
I'm being serious here, so please don't take offense to this, but do you have a learning disability? He's had more learning and experience than you and I combined. I ask, because smart people don't just dismiss experienced, educated people. Again, I don't mean it to be insulting, but you seem to be struggling with thinking. It's a skill you should have learned already, if you are in your early-mid 20s.
Quote
A pacifist is someone who rejects violence in all situations, even when they are being pushed around and threatened. A non-interventionist or advocate of the non-aggression principle is someone who would only use violence in self defense or to come to the aid of someone who is the victim of aggression. I know I am repeating myself but somehow this simple concept is not sinking in (for some people).
I don't doubt you would defend the plot of land you stole.
Quote
I have no idea what you mean when you say "where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?" I'm personally not going to do anything. I might buy a gun and become proficient in its use, but I am not personally going to run a defense agency. Why don't you ask "where is Sony going to innovate and manufacture the next PlayStation?" Or "where is Samsung going to innovate and manufacture the next Galaxy smartphone?"
Where are you getting these wonderful products and tools? Do they just fall out of the sky? How are you going to procure the resources and build these products to enjoy?
Quote
I find it odd that conservatives who are supposed to believe in and understand the free market economy are so perplexed at how it could work in the provision and distribution of defense services.
Again, we want your idea. I am a fan of it, but you won't even discuss a very basic part of how we transition to this, maintain our capitalist system that requires land, facilities, etc. The one problem academics like yourself have is they can't get into the details. Karl Marx and his drones are the same way. I want to discuss this, but you just want to throw book titles around that many of us have already read. I understand it is new to you, but this is old news to many of us.
What I haven't done in a long time is have a discussion with someone, like yourself, about hypothetically simulating the transition to this system. I wanted to write a book about this some years ago and title it "Who gets the river?", keyed off the premise that we have a bunch of people ready to implement this system, but we all want the nice river spot, upstream, with the shade. Who is forced to live further away from the river, etc.
Anyway, I'm wanting to discuss this down to the details, but I'm not sure you have the intellectual chops to do so. I think it's great you have read a lot, as many of us have, so let's put our brains to work. And again, I want this system you speak of, so let's figure out how to get there, and protect ourselves with something other than hopes and dreams.
Solar, you are not really interested in having any sort of intellectual discussion it seems. But I am curious. What sort of conservative are you exactly? It seems you have never exposed yourself to any of the anarcho capitalist or Austrian literature. If I had to guess, I'd say you're some sort of watered down neo con, but I'm sure you'd strongly protest such a label.
Who did you support in the last election cycle? What functions, besides national defense, do you want the Federal Government to have?
If you believe in limited government, how do you propose we actually impose those limits? Surely you can see that the Constitution has been a failure in that regard? Or do you really think we can elect a majority of Ron Pauls to Congress?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
Solar, you are not really interested in having any sort of intellectual discussion it seems. But I am curious. What sort of conservative are you exactly? It seems you have never exposed yourself to any of the anarcho capitalist or Austrian literature. If I had to guess, I'd say you're some sort of watered down neo con, but I'm sure you'd strongly protest such a label.
Who did you support in the last election cycle? What functions, besides national defense, do you want the Federal Government to have?
If you believe in limited government, how do you propose we actually impose those limits? Surely you can see that the Constitution has been a failure in that regard? Or do you really think we can elect a majority of Ron Pauls to Congress?
Son, this is why you fail to understand Conservative Ideals.
Conservatism is not a political party, never was, ever. It's a way of life, family, the golden rule, respect for your fellow man, and defending another with your very own life, it's just who we are.
We believe in country, total independence, tiny govt, yes, we do like govt, just not the monstrosity that's grown in the last 70 years.
We want the govt the Founders planned for us.
It's the fabric of who we are, we lived in a different America than you grew up in, it's why the age group you see at TEA rallies is in their late 50s and up, though there are younger people in it that still remember the qualities Reagan exuded, we remember a better America.
The America you are experiencing, only happened in the last 30 years, so to understand what it is we're trying to accomplish, would require to study what is our yesteryear, and now your history.
Hey, I'll admit, I was giving you a really hard time, not because I wanted to fuck with you, but rather make you use your critical thinking gene.
I wanted to challenge you, think through what you are proposing and why it won't work, and hope you would rather take on the task with us in repairing the nation.
Problem with what you're proposing is a guaranteed failure, because there are way too many takers in the current society, they won't give up the gravy train willingly.
Not to mention the fact that internal conflict leaves you wide open for a dictatorship, and yes, it's human nature to do as the majority demands.
As to what "Kind" of Conservative I am? Just look around, Taxed and I started this forum to give other like minded individuals a place to speak freely.
Yes, we are the TEA, and we plan on stealing the GOP for the first time since it's inception, we are the ONLY hope this country has of stopping the communists.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I read it already. It doesn't dispel anything.
That's my point. You don't know what I mean.
It doesn't matter, because you couldn't.
Who? You're on your own. Why would others help you defend the living area you claimed?
They would be concerned about their area they claim, not yours. You need a leader in battle, with a strategy. You are WAY out of your element, young man.
It doesn't matter. You would be someone's slave in your system.
I'm being serious here, so please don't take offense to this, but do you have a learning disability? He's had more learning and experience than you and I combined. I ask, because smart people don't just dismiss experienced, educated people. Again, I don't mean it to be insulting, but you seem to be struggling with thinking. It's a skill you should have learned already, if you are in your early-mid 20s.
I don't doubt you would defend the plot of land you stole.
Where are you getting these wonderful products and tools? Do they just fall out of the sky? How are you going to procure the resources and build these products to enjoy?
Again, we want your idea. I am a fan of it, but you won't even discuss a very basic part of how we transition to this, maintain our capitalist system that requires land, facilities, etc. The one problem academics like yourself have is they can't get into the details. Karl Marx and his drones are the same way. I want to discuss this, but you just want to throw book titles around that many of us have already read. I understand it is new to you, but this is old news to many of us.
What I haven't done in a long time is have a discussion with someone, like yourself, about hypothetically simulating the transition to this system. I wanted to write a book about this some years ago and title it "Who gets the river?", keyed off the premise that we have a bunch of people ready to implement this system, but we all want the nice river spot, upstream, with the shade. Who is forced to live further away from the river, etc.
Anyway, I'm wanting to discuss this down to the details, but I'm not sure you have the intellectual chops to do so. I think it's great you have read a lot, as many of us have, so let's put our brains to work. And again, I want this system you speak of, so let's figure out how to get there, and protect ourselves with something other than hopes and dreams.
I'm up for that, if I can play Devil's advocate. :biggrin:
Seriously though, if this is to be successful, scrutiny needs to be applied in heavy doses.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 06:19:18 PM
I'm up for that, if I can play Devil's advocate. :biggrin:
Seriously though, if this is to be successful, scrutiny needs to be applied in heavy doses.
Two devil's advocates are better than one! My intent with this excersize it so show him it isn't quite what he envisions. Something as basic as finding a plot of land to call your own is a huge endeavor. Forget about the luxuries and technology.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
Two devil's advocates are better than one! My intent with this excersize it so show him it isn't quite what he envisions. Something as basic as finding a plot of land to call your own is a huge endeavor. Forget about the luxuries and technology.
Yeah, that's futile as Hell, just ask the Taiwanese when they tried to buy a piece of Australia. :lol:
Though, like so many of his ilk, they envision a new America, so I think we have to work off the premise that the country is on the verge of Civil war.
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 06:42:43 PM
Yeah, that's futile as Hell, just ask the Taiwanese when they tried to buy a piece of Australia. :lol:
Though, like so many of his ilk, they envision a new America, so I think we have to work off the premise that the country is on the verge of Civil war.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynewsforum.com%2Fyabbfile%2FSmilies%2Fhysterical.gif&hash=5f23b8fcab54d8366f4999c833f7bed4a601b71e) Sorry but I don't think he would make it make it through a Civil war.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I read it already. It doesn't dispel anything.
I don't know if that is meant as sarcasm, I can be pretty bad at interpreting tone and intent over the internet. I would say the likelihood that you have read this rather obscure collection of Anarcho-Capitalist essays on the market production of defense services is very low, or you are confusing it with another book.
Kudos to you if you actually have read this book but I suspect you wouldn't be asking some of these questions if you had.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
That's my point. You don't know what I mean.
It doesn't matter, because you couldn't.
Who? You're on your own. Why would others help you defend the living area you claimed?
They would be concerned about their area they claim, not yours. You need a leader in battle, with a strategy. You are WAY out of your element, young man.
Why would you make that assumption? You think that community would simply vanish without a State? Unity and comradery would still exist. Why would we all be content to sit back and watch as our neighbors homes are destroyed by an invading army? In my mind, there is nothing wrong with collectivism, "national" purpose, and cooperation in working toward common goals. Provided such agreements and collective purpose are voluntary, there is nothing to object to.
Let's propose a hypothetical. Let's say we kept the Articles of Confederation and we stayed as a collection of multiple independent colonies or states instead of as one Union. Let's suppose New York was getting invaded by Russia. Why would Maine or Pennsylvania or West Virginia care about what was happening in New York? It wasn't happening to THEIR property after all. The answer obviously is that if New York was taken over by an invading army, then every other independent state would be at much greater risk. Furthermore, the commonality of culture and of peoples who live in New York and in the other States would mean that people would care about the survival of all the independent States.
If you are the first large example of an anarchist, free society in the modern world, you would have a tremendous emotional investment into the collective survival of free, independent people.
When Patrick Henry famously said "Give me liberty or give me death" do you think he really meant "I prefer liberty for myself, but if my colleagues who also prefer liberty are being slaughtered by an invading army, hey tough shit. At least they aren't yet touching my property!"
The fact that a society would be more decentralized would not automatically mean they would be more vulnerable. You seem to be making that leap and it is irrational. The anarchist society is merely a few steps more decentralized than a Confederacy of States. I would suspect that the competing defense agencies would quite easily deal with internal threats of street crime and normal policing activities. The actual threat of attack and invasion by another Nation state would be an extremely unlikely scenario, especially as such an anarchist society would be minding its own business and not triggering blowback and resentment throughout the world.
But what would prevent the various defense agencies, the various independent communities and voluntary militias from forming legal contracts and agreements that in the event of a large scale invasion or major threat from another nation state, they would work together in a coordinated fashion according to a previously agreed upon blueprint designating a chain of command, various duties for different security agencies and so forth?
Surely it is in everyone's mutual benefit that we don't get taken over by another government?
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
It doesn't matter. You would be someone's slave in your system.
I'm confused. On the one hand you display genuine curiosity and a willingness to be convinced of the merits of an anarchist, free market society and on the other, you make statements such as this.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I'm being serious here, so please don't take offense to this, but do you have a learning disability? He's had more learning and experience than you and I combined. I ask, because smart people don't just dismiss experienced, educated people. Again, I don't mean it to be insulting, but you seem to be struggling with thinking. It's a skill you should have learned already, if you are in your early-mid 20s.
Solar might be the most brilliant man living, but all I have to go by in my assessment are the handful of posts he has contributed to this thread. It seems odd that you would criticize my ability to think, and postulate that I have a learning disability, all because you think I am being unjustly dismissive . I don't know the extent of his learning or experience nor do you of me. What I have heard here seems to be standard conservative talking points. If I have judged hastily and in error, I apologize.
I don't think that approach of ad hominems is useful. I know you said "don't take offense" and I don't, but simply saying I am having trouble with "thinking" is a poor way of debating. If I have made an erroneous argument, then show me how I am in error. Saying "you probably have a learning disorder" and "you have problems thinking" is a distraction. Whether or not I have trouble "thinking" or have a learning disorder, that has no bearing on the validity of the arguments I have offered.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I don't doubt you would defend the plot of land you stole.
What plot of land have I stolen? That is a rather ridiculous and incendiary statement to just toss off in a casual fashion.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
Where are you getting these wonderful products and tools? Do they just fall out of the sky? How are you going to procure the resources and build these products to enjoy?
The division of labor. People homestead previously unowned and unused natural resources and transform them through their labor. Each specializes in what they do best and then they trade the excess of their production with someone else for other needed goods and services. This is how every primitive economy starts. It shouldn't have to be said that this division of labor and mutual trade predates the existence of any State.
Money develops on the market because barter is inefficient. Some people are able to save up a store of money and resources because they abstain from consumption. From these savings, investments can take place. These savers become known as the capitalists. They invest in the creation of a factory or grant a loan to an entrepreneur to start a business. That entrepreneur or capitalist can then trade wages for labor services.
I don't really think I have to continue and describe the entire workings of the market economy, do I? But suffice to say, the market economy emerged prior to the existence of any formal State and will continue to function in much the same way if the State was dissolved.
Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
Again, we want your idea. I am a fan of it, but you won't even discuss a very basic part of how we transition to this, maintain our capitalist system that requires land, facilities, etc. The one problem academics like yourself have is they can't get into the details. Karl Marx and his drones are the same way. I want to discuss this, but you just want to throw book titles around that many of us have already read. I understand it is new to you, but this is old news to many of us.
What I haven't done in a long time is have a discussion with someone, like yourself, about hypothetically simulating the transition to this system. I wanted to write a book about this some years ago and title it "Who gets the river?", keyed off the premise that we have a bunch of people ready to implement this system, but we all want the nice river spot, upstream, with the shade. Who is forced to live further away from the river, etc.
Anyway, I'm wanting to discuss this down to the details, but I'm not sure you have the intellectual chops to do so. I think it's great you have read a lot, as many of us have, so let's put our brains to work. And again, I want this system you speak of, so let's figure out how to get there, and protect ourselves with something other than hopes and dreams.
The transition to a Stateless society is a tricky proposition I concede. I think it is a good discussion to have, but I believe that first we need to resolve whether or not the State can be morally justified, or rather whether aggression can be morally justified. If aggression is immoral, then it must be opposed.
Let us suppose I was an abolitionist in 1850 and you were a defender of slavery. I would be making the moral argument against slavery, that it is a great evil, that a human being's self ownership is being trashed, that his or her labor is being stolen, etc. And being a great atrocity, it must be ended as quickly as humanly possible. You might protest and say "wait a minute. Most of our economy runs on slave labor. I can't support the abolitionist movement until I can be convinced that we can easily transition to an economy without slave labor." This would be an erroneous argument. The "transition", if you could call it that, from a nation that tolerated slavery was indeed a difficult one. But there is no question that it had to be done for moral reasons. I think the same is true in the effort to oppose the initiation of force.
But the question of how to get from here to there is a valid one, so I will indulge you.
The anarchist society would require that all land be privately owned. But how can we ensure that property titles are justly acquired? The theoretical libertarian view of legitimate property rights are those that are homesteaded. Otherwise known as original appropriation, this theory states that since individuals own themselves, then once they mix their labor with previously unowned natural land and resources, that which they transformed becomes their just property. The first user of some scarce resource has a better claim to ownership than anyone else. He or she has the right to determine its use until the scarce resource is either sold to another, given as a gift, or merely abandoned.
That is the principle. Stolen property is obviously not legitimate property. However, the person who feels that a property was stolen from him or her whether recently or generations ago (land stolen from ancestors) would have to provide proof in a court of law. If such proof can be provided, then that property must be taken away from the current user and returned to its rightful owner.
Then there exists the issue of so-called "public" land. Since the State can never legitimately own property and it can be usually impossible to determine who owned the land before the State stole it, another solution has to be devised. Hans Hoppe suggests we use the principle of syndicalism to transfer the "public" property to private ownership. Syndicalism means that those who work on the land have a better claim to just ownership than anyone else. They have "homesteaded" the land in other words. Therefore, the farm to the farmers, the factory to the factory workers, the lakes to the fisherman who fish there, etc. This would only apply to public land.
Land that is not currently owned by anyone, remote mountain peaks, some dense forest areas, etc would simply remain unowned but under libertarian law any person is free to homestead that land.
Now how do we abolish the State? The first recourse in my mind is secession. We need to work to break up large centralized political units, into smaller and more decentralized political units. More local government and more competing jurisdictions of authority would be a great improvement. Over time we need to keep pushing this decentralization until we reach the level of the individual.
Second, we need to change legal tender laws and permit competing currencies, and people should be encouraged to opt out of the paper money system and use private currencies for their transactions. To bring down a government, you must bring down their currency and financial support. Rather than wait for hyperinflation or some catastrophic event, we should preemptively opt out of the system and create economic transactions outside of the purview of the State as much as possible.
Finally, the practice of Agorism is helpful. Agorism is a means where you work to make the State as irrelevant as possible within your own life. That means not voting, avoiding taxes as much as possible, keeping your kids out of public schools, working peacefully to undermine the legitimacy of the State in your local community as much as you possibly can. If the State loses legitimacy and popular support, it will simply be superseded by private alternatives. It will be rendered obsolete.
These are my initial thoughts on how to transition to a market anarchist society.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 07:12:53 PM
I don't know if that is meant as sarcasm, I can be pretty bad at interpreting tone and intent over the internet. I would say the likelihood that you have read this rather obscure collection of Anarcho-Capitalist essays on the market production of defense services is very low, or you are confusing it with another book.
Kudos to you if you actually have read this book but I suspect you wouldn't be asking some of these questions if you had.
Why would you make that assumption? You think that community would simply vanish without a State? Unity and comradery would still exist. Why would we all be content to sit back and watch as our neighbors homes are destroyed by an invading army? In my mind, there is nothing wrong with collectivism, "national" purpose, and cooperation in working toward common goals. Provided such agreements and collective purpose are voluntary, there is nothing to object to.
Let's propose a hypothetical. Let's say we kept the Articles of Confederation and we stayed as a collection of multiple independent colonies or states instead of as one Union. Let's suppose New York was getting invaded by Russia. Why would Maine or Pennsylvania or West Virginia care about what was happening in New York? It wasn't happening to THEIR property after all. The answer obviously is that if New York was taken over by an invading army, then every other independent state would be at much greater risk. Furthermore, the commonality of culture and of peoples who live in New York and in the other States would mean that people would care about the survival of all the independent States.
If you are the first large example of an anarchist, free society in the modern world, you would have a tremendous emotional investment into the collective survival of free, independent people.
When Patrick Henry famously said "Give me liberty or give me death" do you think he really meant "I prefer liberty for myself, but if my colleagues who also prefer liberty are being slaughtered by an invading army, hey tough shit. At least they aren't yet touching my property!"
The fact that a society would be more decentralized would not automatically mean they would be more vulnerable. You seem to be making that leap and it is irrational. The anarchist society is merely a few steps more decentralized than a Confederacy of States. I would suspect that the competing defense agencies would quite easily deal with internal threats of street crime and normal policing activities. The actual threat of attack and invasion by another Nation state would be an extremely unlikely scenario, especially as such an anarchist society would be minding its own business and not triggering blowback and resentment throughout the world.
But what would prevent the various defense agencies, the various independent communities and voluntary militias from forming legal contracts and agreements that in the event of a large scale invasion or major threat from another nation state, they would work together in a coordinated fashion according to a previously agreed upon blueprint designating a chain of command, various duties for different security agencies and so forth?
Surely it is in everyone's mutual benefit that we don't get taken over by another government?
I'm confused. On the one hand you display genuine curiosity and a willingness to be convinced of the merits of an anarchist, free market society and on the other, you make statements such as this.
Solar might be the most brilliant man living, but all I have to go by in my assessment are the handful of posts he has contributed to this thread. It seems odd that you would criticize my ability to think, and postulate that I have a learning disability, all because you think I am being unjustly dismissive . I don't know the extent of his learning or experience nor do you of me. What I have heard here seems to be standard conservative talking points. If I have judged hastily and in error, I apologize.
I don't think that approach of ad hominems is useful. I know you said "don't take offense" and I don't, but simply saying I am having trouble with "thinking" is a poor way of debating. If I have made an erroneous argument, then show me how I am in error. Saying "you probably have a learning disorder" and "you have problems thinking" is a distraction. Whether or not I have trouble "thinking" or have a learning disorder, that has no bearing on the validity of the arguments I have offered.
What plot of land have I stolen? That is a rather ridiculous and incendiary statement to just toss off in a casual fashion.
The division of labor. People homestead previously unowned and unused natural resources and transform them through their labor. Each specializes in what they do best and then they trade the excess of their production with someone else for other needed goods and services. This is how every primitive economy starts. It shouldn't have to be said that this division of labor and mutual trade predates the existence of any State.
Money develops on the market because barter is inefficient. Some people are able to save up a store of money and resources because they abstain from consumption. From these savings, investments can take place. These savers become known as the capitalists. They invest in the creation of a factory or grant a loan to an entrepreneur to start a business. That entrepreneur or capitalist can then trade wages for labor services.
I don't really think I have to continue and describe the entire workings of the market economy, do I? But suffice to say, the market economy emerged prior to the existence of any formal State and will continue to function in much the same way if the State was dissolved.
The transition to a Stateless society is a tricky proposition I concede. I think it is a good discussion to have, but I believe that first we need to resolve whether or not the State can be morally justified, or rather whether aggression can be morally justified. If aggression is immoral, then it must be opposed.
Let us suppose I was an abolitionist in 1850 and you were a defender of slavery. I would be making the moral argument against slavery, that it is a great evil, that a human being's self ownership is being trashed, that his or her labor is being stolen, etc. And being a great atrocity, it must be ended as quickly as humanly possible. You might protest and say "wait a minute. Most of our economy runs on slave labor. I can't support the abolitionist movement until I can be convinced that we can easily transition to an economy without slave labor." This would be an erroneous argument. The "transition", if you could call it that, from a nation that tolerated slavery was indeed a difficult one. But there is no question that it had to be done for moral reasons. I think the same is true in the effort to oppose the initiation of force.
But the question of how to get from here to there is a valid one, so I will indulge you.
The anarchist society would require that all land be privately owned. But how can we ensure that property titles are justly acquired? The theoretical libertarian view of legitimate property rights are those that are homesteaded. Otherwise known as original appropriation, this theory states that since individuals own themselves, then once they mix their labor with previously unowned natural land and resources, that which they transformed becomes their just property. The first user of some scarce resource has a better claim to ownership than anyone else. He or she has the right to determine its use until the scarce resource is either sold to another, given as a gift, or merely abandoned.
That is the principle. Stolen property is obviously not legitimate property. However, the person who feels that a property was stolen from him or her whether recently or generations ago (land stolen from ancestors) would have to provide proof in a court of law. If such proof can be provided, then that property must be taken away from the current user and returned to its rightful owner.
Then there exists the issue of so-called "public" land. Since the State can never legitimately own property and it can be usually impossible to determine who owned the land before the State stole it, another solution has to be devised. Hans Hoppe suggests we use the principle of syndicalism to transfer the "public" property to private ownership. Syndicalism means that those who work on the land have a better claim to just ownership than anyone else. They have "homesteaded" the land in other words. Therefore, the farm to the farmers, the factory to the factory workers, the lakes to the fisherman who fish there, etc. This would only apply to public land.
Land that is not currently owned by anyone, remote mountain peaks, some dense forest areas, etc would simply remain unowned but under libertarian law any person is free to homestead that land.
Now how do we abolish the State? The first recourse in my mind is secession. We need to work to break up large centralized political units, into smaller and more decentralized political units. More local government and more competing jurisdictions of authority would be a great improvement. Over time we need to keep pushing this decentralization until we reach the level of the individual.
Second, we need to change legal tender laws and permit competing currencies, and people should be encouraged to opt out of the paper money system and use private currencies for their transactions. To bring down a government, you must bring down their currency and financial support. Rather than wait for hyperinflation or some catastrophic event, we should preemptively opt out of the system and create economic transactions outside of the purview of the State as much as possible.
Finally, the practice of Agorism is helpful. Agorism is a means where you work to make the State as irrelevant as possible within your own life. That means not voting, avoiding taxes as much as possible, keeping your kids out of public schools, working peacefully to undermine the legitimacy of the State in your local community as much as you possibly can. If the State loses legitimacy and popular support, it will simply be superseded by private alternatives. It will be rendered obsolete.
These are my initial thoughts on how to transition to a market anarchist society.
Way way to windy J, try and not repeat your ideas every other paragraph.
I'll admit, I'm not about to read your book here, but based on your past posts, you tend to explain your position to the point of redundancy.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 07:12:53 PM
I don't know if that is meant as sarcasm, I can be pretty bad at interpreting tone and intent over the internet. I would say the likelihood that you have read this rather obscure collection of Anarcho-Capitalist essays on the market production of defense services is very low, or you are confusing it with another book.
I was a radical libertarian before you were, and you're not the only one who reads Mises.
Quote
Kudos to you if you actually have read this book but I suspect you wouldn't be asking some of these questions if you had.
I read and think. I don't just accept what I read as gospel. Someday you will learn that skill.
Quote
Why would you make that assumption? You think that community would simply vanish without a State?
No. I didn't say that. I said in battle, you need a leader and strategy. I believe very much a community would live and flourish just fine under your system. Battle, to repeat myself, requires strategy and leadership.
Quote
Unity and comradery would still exist.
I agree.
Quote
Why would we all be content to sit back and watch as our neighbors homes are destroyed by an invading army?
What do you mean by "neighbors"? And how were these homes built?
Quote
In my mind, there is nothing wrong with collectivism, "national" purpose, and cooperation in working toward common goals.
I agree.
Quote
Provided such agreements and collective purpose are voluntary, there is nothing to object to.
I agree.
Quote
Let's propose a hypothetical. Let's say we kept the Articles of Confederation and we stayed as a collection of multiple independent colonies or states instead of as one Union. Let's suppose New York was getting invaded by Russia. Why would Maine or Pennsylvania or West Virginia care about what was happening in New York? It wasn't happening to THEIR property after all. The answer obviously is that if New York was taken over by an invading army, then every other independent state would be at much greater risk. Furthermore, the commonality of culture and of peoples who live in New York and in the other States would mean that people would care about the survival of all the independent States.
Maybe. Maybe not. In my mind, I'd be concerned about them invading my state. In my voluntary mind, I'm not going to get killed and have my fellow brothers and soldiers killed because another state is getting invaded. I'll wait until they invade my area. Battle is not pretty, and getting stabbed with a bayonet hurts. Also, the elements. Marching for miles and miles in the cold, hungry, isn't a lot of fun. Conversely, you are correct, if I had the ability to stop them before they invaded, I would. Or, maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I'd want them to invade, so I can attack them and take New York. Who knows. I don't have any loyalty to them. I have loyalty to my state and community. I just don't know.
Quote
If you are the first large example of an anarchist, free society in the modern world, you would have a tremendous emotional investment into the collective survival of free, independent people.
Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't impose my beliefs on others.
Quote
When Patrick Henry famously said "Give me liberty or give me death" do you think he really meant "I prefer liberty for myself, but if my colleagues who also prefer liberty are being slaughtered by an invading army, hey tough shit. At least they aren't yet touching my property!"
Maybe his slaves would help fight. Who knows. But I'm not saying one wouldn't help fight for another's property. I'm saying it depends on the individual. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Maybe it depends on how bloody it could be, and what's in it for me.
Quote
The fact that a society would be more decentralized would not automatically mean they would be more vulnerable. You seem to be making that leap and it is irrational. The anarchist society is merely a few steps more decentralized than a Confederacy of States. I would suspect that the competing defense agencies would quite easily deal with internal threats of street crime and normal policing activities.
Who would be the leader? Who would be in charge?
Quote
The actual threat of attack and invasion by another Nation state would be an extremely unlikely scenario,
You hope, but that is not relevant. Would you spend time manufacturing tanks, 50 cals, fighter jets, etc.? Yes or no?
Quote
especially as such an anarchist society would be minding its own business and not triggering blowback and resentment throughout the world.
Sounds like someone gots some Ron Paul on the brain. There are bad people who want to attack us. If we're resented around the world, why do people want to come here so bad? We're the best, and if some country disagrees, then let me see their space program. Otherwise, they need to crawl back in their hut, or go back to the coffee shop, smoking cigarettes, preaching about our downfall.
Quote
But what would prevent the various defense agencies, the various independent communities and voluntary militias from forming legal contracts and agreements that in the event of a large scale invasion or major threat from another nation state,
Currently, we say "don't attack us, or we'll blow you up". That part is actually pretty effective. Back to my original question when you said "why would we have to get them to go along", how would we get others on board with our system? You did concede it wouldn't be an easy task, but how do we get there? Marx had no strategy with his system. Don't be like Marx. How do we do it?
Quote
they would work together in a coordinated fashion according to a previously agreed upon blueprint designating a chain of command, various duties for different security agencies and so forth?
Over who? Volunteers? Who is this now army made up of, and who is now in charge of them?
Quote
Surely it is in everyone's mutual benefit that we don't get taken over by another government?
Maybe. Maybe not. I don't pretend to know. Maybe it's one I like.
Quote
I'm confused. On the one hand you display genuine curiosity and a willingness to be convinced of the merits of an anarchist, free market society and on the other, you make statements such as this.
I'm curious how we get there and make all this happen. Yes, once Putin hears about us, he'll come over and wipe us all out with his tanks and missiles, while we are running and hiding.
Quote
Solar might be the most brilliant man living, but all I have to go by in my assessment are the handful of posts he has contributed to this thread. It seems odd that you would criticize my ability to think, and postulate that I have a learning disability, all because you think I am being unjustly dismissive .
It's not that, and I appreciate you not taking offense towards it. You just have a lot of faith in a system to be upheld by men, the same men who warped the state.
Quote
I don't know the extent of his learning or experience nor do you of me.
I do. You are young and inexperienced. It's OK.
Quote
What I have heard here seems to be standard conservative talking points. If I have judged hastily and in error, I apologize.
You're trying. No worries.
Quote
I don't think that approach of ad hominems is useful. I know you said "don't take offense" and I don't, but simply saying I am having trouble with "thinking" is a poor way of debating. If I have made an erroneous argument, then show me how I am in error. Saying "you probably have a learning disorder" and "you have problems thinking" is a distraction. Whether or not I have trouble "thinking" or have a learning disorder, that has no bearing on the validity of the arguments I have offered.
When you repeat talking points like "blowback", it shows you're at a particular learning level. Again, not insulting, but I saw through all that stuff when I was your age. I had idiot libertarians telling me the wonders of legalization, telling me it would be great because the state could tax it. Sorry, that is stupid, and my simple, basic thinking allowed me to evolve past their group-think.
Quote
What plot of land have I stolen? That is a rather ridiculous and incendiary statement to just toss off in a casual fashion.
Who says that's yours? Maybe I want it.
Quote
The division of labor. People homestead previously unowned and unused natural resources and transform them through their labor. Each specializes in what they do best and then they trade the excess of their production with someone else for other needed goods and services. This is how every primitive economy starts. It shouldn't have to be said that this division of labor and mutual trade predates the existence of any State.
You are 100% correct. Now, how to we accelerate this so we can catch up to Putin?
Quote
Money develops on the market because barter is inefficient. Some people are able to save up a store of money and resources because they abstain from consumption. From these savings, investments can take place. These savers become known as the capitalists. They invest in the creation of a factory or grant a loan to an entrepreneur to start a business. That entrepreneur or capitalist can then trade wages for labor services.
You are right. What currency are we going to use among all us individuals?
Quote
I don't really think I have to continue and describe the entire workings of the market economy, do I? But suffice to say, the market economy emerged prior to the existence of any formal State and will continue to function in much the same way if the State was dissolved.
You are correct. That isn't in question.
Quote
The transition to a Stateless society is a tricky proposition I concede. I think it is a good discussion to have, but I believe that first we need to resolve whether or not the State can be morally justified, or rather whether aggression can be morally justified. If aggression is immoral, then it must be opposed.
Now think, what aggression is the state bringing out? I know what a few of your answers will be, and I will agree with them, so let's eliminate them. Now, what aggression does the state bring out? I'll start - tax system, gone. We now have a voluntary tax system. We now won't mess with other countries and will only defend and pre-preemptively defend ourselves.
Quote
Let us suppose I was an abolitionist in 1850 and you were a defender of slavery. I would be making the moral argument against slavery, that it is a great evil, that a human being's self ownership is being trashed, that his or her labor is being stolen, etc. And being a great atrocity, it must be ended as quickly as humanly possible. You might protest and say "wait a minute. Most of our economy runs on slave labor. I can't support the abolitionist movement until I can be convinced that we can easily transition to an economy without slave labor." This would be an erroneous argument. The "transition", if you could call it that, from a nation that tolerated slavery was indeed a difficult one. But there is no question that it had to be done for moral reasons. I think the same is true in the effort to oppose the initiation of force.
You make a great point. One I've heard a million times, but a great point nonetheless. And I agree. However, we're not getting lashes and being forced to work in the fields with bloody fingers. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Quote
But the question of how to get from here to there is a valid one, so I will indulge you.
The anarchist society would require that all land be privately owned. But how can we ensure that property titles are justly acquired? The theoretical libertarian view of legitimate property rights are those that are homesteaded. Otherwise known as original appropriation, this theory states that since individuals own themselves, then once they mix their labor with previously unowned natural land and resources, that which they transformed becomes their just property. The first user of some scarce resource has a better claim to ownership than anyone else. He or she has the right to determine its use until the scarce resource is either sold to another, given as a gift, or merely abandoned.
That is the principle. Stolen property is obviously not legitimate property. However, the person who feels that a property was stolen from him or her whether recently or generations ago (land stolen from ancestors) would have to provide proof in a court of law. If such proof can be provided, then that property must be taken away from the current user and returned to its rightful owner.
Then there exists the issue of so-called "public" land. Since the State can never legitimately own property and it can be usually impossible to determine who owned the land before the State stole it, another solution has to be devised. Hans Hoppe suggests we use the principle of syndicalism to transfer the "public" property to private ownership. Syndicalism means that those who work on the land have a better claim to just ownership than anyone else. They have "homesteaded" the land in other words. Therefore, the farm to the farmers, the factory to the factory workers, the lakes to the fisherman who fish there, etc. This would only apply to public land.
Land that is not currently owned by anyone, remote mountain peaks, some dense forest areas, etc would simply remain unowned but under libertarian law any person is free to homestead that land.
Now how do we abolish the State? The first recourse in my mind is secession. We need to work to break up large centralized political units, into smaller and more decentralized political units. More local government and more competing jurisdictions of authority would be a great improvement. Over time we need to keep pushing this decentralization until we reach the level of the individual.
Second, we need to change legal tender laws and permit competing currencies, and people should be encouraged to opt out of the paper money system and use private currencies for their transactions. To bring down a government, you must bring down their currency and financial support. Rather than wait for hyperinflation or some catastrophic event, we should preemptively opt out of the system and create economic transactions outside of the purview of the State as much as possible.
Finally, the practice of Agorism is helpful. Agorism is a means where you work to make the State as irrelevant as possible within your own life. That means not voting, avoiding taxes as much as possible, keeping your kids out of public schools, working peacefully to undermine the legitimacy of the State in your local community as much as you possibly can. If the State loses legitimacy and popular support, it will simply be superseded by private alternatives. It will be rendered obsolete.
These are my initial thoughts on how to transition to a market anarchist society.
Your heart is in the right place. You're coming from a perspective of liberty, which I always appreciate. I need to know how we do this without laws. Contemporarily, maybe we can keep up with defense technology of other countries as they grow. I'm wondering how we do this with the Putins of the world, while we take a huge technology and defense hit.
I'll ask a question in parting, that I asked above: are you going to spend time manufacturing weapons, tanks, and missiles during this non-state world we want?
Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 06:15:54 PM
Son, this is why you fail to understand Conservative Ideals.
Conservatism is not a political party, never was, ever. It's a way of life, family, the golden rule, respect for your fellow man, and defending another with your very own life, it's just who we are.
We believe in country, total independence, tiny govt, yes, we do like govt, just not the monstrosity that's grown in the last 70 years.
We want the govt the Founders planned for us.
It's the fabric of who we are, we lived in a different America than you grew up in, it's why the age group you see at TEA rallies is in their late 50s and up, though there are younger people in it that still remember the qualities Reagan exuded, we remember a better America.
The America you are experiencing, only happened in the last 30 years, so to understand what it is we're trying to accomplish, would require to study what is our yesteryear, and now your history.
Hey, I'll admit, I was giving you a really hard time, not because I wanted to fuck with you, but rather make you use your critical thinking gene.
I wanted to challenge you, think through what you are proposing and why it won't work, and hope you would rather take on the task with us in repairing the nation.
Problem with what you're proposing is a guaranteed failure, because there are way too many takers in the current society, they won't give up the gravy train willingly.
Not to mention the fact that internal conflict leaves you wide open for a dictatorship, and yes, it's human nature to do as the majority demands.
As to what "Kind" of Conservative I am? Just look around, Taxed and I started this forum to give other like minded individuals a place to speak freely.
Yes, we are the TEA, and we plan on stealing the GOP for the first time since it's inception, we are the ONLY hope this country has of stopping the communists.
Okay, I get it. Small government, founding fathers, Constitutionalist, and tea party. I admit that I was thinking primarily of politics when assessing your values, but I concede that there is indeed a lot more to conservatism. Believe me, I greatly sympathize with you and I can imagine what it is like to remember better days in this country, when the cost of living was far lower, and the government was relatively restrained. Look at the cost of education now vs fifty years ago. The cost of healthcare now vs fifty years ago. Believe me I understand how the growth of the State, expansionary monetary policy leading to currency debasement, and an increasingly aggressive and interventionist Federal Government has destroyed the wealth and living standards we once enjoyed.
But still, I am curious who you supported in the last election cycle. I ask because I noticed something interesting. I represent the younger millennial who are increasingly libertarian and radical. Most of us supported Ron Paul, if we chose to be involved in politics at all. But the Tea Party people didn't seem to support him. There is some thought that Ron Paul's movement essentially started what eventually became the Tea Party movement back in 2007, but it clearly changed by 2009 and 2010 away from libertarianism and towards social conservatism and GOP orthodoxy.
The tea party crowds were simply far different than the sorts of people that were attracted to Ron Paul's campaign. Ron Paul's rallies were far more diverse, much younger, and held more appeal to people of diverse ideological backgrounds.
If you were one of the Tea Party people who rejected Ron Paul's movement, I am curious as to why. Because Ron Paul does not claim to be an anarchist, though from his writings, and his close friendship with Murray Rothbard, it is clear he is sympathetic to that belief. He called himself a Constitutionalist so I would assume he would have some appeal to you. But, from your remarks, it would seem you would reject his foreign policy as "appeasement" or "isolationism". But I am merely speculating. I would like you to clarify.
Do you have a position on the more "controversial" libertarian positions? For example, I believe we should immediately legalize all drugs and release all non violent drug offenders. I support the legalization of prostitution and gambling. I am fine with gay marriage.
Are you okay with this stuff or are you more of a social conservative?
It's not that I don't agree with you on a number of very important issues. As a younger, far more radical libertarian, I want no State and you want a Constitutional government. Hey, I'm cool working to push back against the State with anyone. Though unlike you, I could care less about the Republican Party. I am not a conservative, I don't share those social values. I travel in more liberal circles but I care about the substance of the issues.
And finally, what are your opinions of Rand Paul? I am not a huge fan, I think he is compromising the libertarianism of his father to pander to the GOP leadership. But he is clearly the best potential GOP candidate in my view, but that doesn't mean I will end up voting for him. I am undecided. But I would expect that he would be appealing to a Tea Party crowd.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 10:10:36 PM
Okay, I get it. Small government, founding fathers, Constitutionalist, and tea party. I admit that I was thinking primarily of politics when assessing your values, but I concede that there is indeed a lot more to conservatism. Believe me, I greatly sympathize with you and I can imagine what it is like to remember better days in this country, when the cost of living was far lower, and the government was relatively restrained. Look at the cost of education now vs fifty years ago. The cost of healthcare now vs fifty years ago. Believe me I understand how the growth of the State, expansionary monetary policy leading to currency debasement, and an increasingly aggressive and interventionist Federal Government has destroyed the wealth and living standards we once enjoyed.
But still, I am curious who you supported in the last election cycle. I ask because I noticed something interesting. I represent the younger millennial who are increasingly libertarian and radical. Most of us supported Ron Paul, if we chose to be involved in politics at all. But the Tea Party people didn't seem to support him. There is some thought that Ron Paul's movement essentially started what eventually became the Tea Party movement back in 2007, but it clearly changed by 2009 and 2010 away from libertarianism and towards social conservatism and GOP orthodoxy.
The tea party crowds were simply far different than the sorts of people that were attracted to Ron Paul's campaign. Ron Paul's rallies were far more diverse, much younger, and held more appeal to people of diverse ideological backgrounds.
If you were one of the Tea Party people who rejected Ron Paul's movement, I am curious as to why. Because Ron Paul does not claim to be an anarchist, though from his writings, and his close friendship with Murray Rothbard, it is clear he is sympathetic to that belief. He called himself a Constitutionalist so I would assume he would have some appeal to you. But, from your remarks, it would seem you would reject his foreign policy as "appeasement" or "isolationism". But I am merely speculating. I would like you to clarify.
Do you have a position on the more "controversial" libertarian positions? For example, I believe we should immediately legalize all drugs and release all non violent drug offenders. I support the legalization of prostitution and gambling. I am fine with gay marriage.
Are you okay with this stuff or are you more of a social conservative?
It's not that I don't agree with you on a number of very important issues. As a younger, far more radical libertarian, I want no State and you want a Constitutional government. Hey, I'm cool working to push back against the State with anyone. Though unlike you, I could care less about the Republican Party. I am not a conservative, I don't share those social values. I travel in more liberal circles but I care about the substance of the issues.
And finally, what are your opinions of Rand Paul? I am not a huge fan, I think he is compromising the libertarianism of his father to pander to the GOP leadership. But he is clearly the best potential GOP candidate in my view, but that doesn't mean I will end up voting for him. I am undecided. But I would expect that he would be appealing to a Tea Party crowd.
OK, I loved Ron Paul, his devotion to the fiscal sanity of the state, wanting to investigate the Fed, etc.
What I don't like and trust was his "Bring the home" mentality of having a standing army on our shores, his ideas of isolationism, was in my mind ignorant of the world around us.
Granted RP is a smart man, I believe his diligence was clouded by emotion, and failed to recognize the consequences of what he proposed.
I carry a different view, a more enlightened view being ex-military.
But because of his resolve and ethics, I trust his son, and believe dad taught him well about the nature of politics.
I don't believe Rand is in cahoots with RINO, I believe he is applying the "Keep your friends close, keep you enemy closer", I know he's smart enough they won't attack him if they think he's on their side, so he chose a smart path politically, he backed McConnel over Cruz a competitor, something Cruz recognized as well.
No, I believe Rand is playing smart in playing both sides, a balancing act that could end badly, but a risk he's willing to take.
I haven't see where he's compromised his values one bit, or did I miss something?
But I have a question, the same one Taxed raised. Who or what gave you right to your plot of land, where is the deed recorded, and who holds authority over it, a govt?
Also where does your army differ from one run by a govt, and what makes it any different?
Welcome,
I am also a Libertarian; but not of the anarchist type. I find the idea appealing ideologically but just as naïve as communism.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:22:48 PM
I believe that aggression cannot ever be justified. And the State, as an institution, necessarily must use aggression. Therefore, the State is illegitimate and immoral.
I disagree with your original premise, after that your argument falls apart.
We have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of independence
We give the government the authority to use force to secure our rights. In doing so we create a dangerous entity; which is why our government is supposed to have limited and enumerated powers to use that force.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine
Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 06:32:38 AM
What I don't like and trust was his "Bring the home" mentality of having a standing army on our shores, his ideas of isolationism, was in my mind ignorant of the world around us.
Granted RP is a smart man, I believe his diligence was clouded by emotion, and failed to recognize the consequences of what he proposed.
I carry a different view, a more enlightened view being ex-military.
So what would be the consequences of what he proposed?
Would Islamist hate us more? (not possible, and who cares anyway)
Would Europe like us better? (Who cares again)
Would Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons? (they are anyway. We could not stop North Korea and we had 60K troops on their border, UN sanctions - bla,bla,bla)
Would Israel go to war? (Probably, but I don't have a problem with Israel wiping out a few million Islamists)
Would terrorists invade Somalia, Yemen ect.. (yes, but they are doing that now)
Would oil prices go up? (probably, all the more reason to develop our own oil and gas)
What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison 1865
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
So what would be the consequences of what he proposed?
Would Islamist hate us more? (not possible, and who cares anyway)
Would Europe like us better? (Who cares again)
Would Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons? (they are anyway. We could not stop North Korea and we had 60K troops on their border, UN sanctions - bla,bla,bla)
Would Israel go to war? (Probably, but I don't have a problem with Israel wiping out a few million Islamists)
Would terrorists invade Somalia, Yemen ect.. (yes, but they are doing that now)
Would oil prices go up? (probably, all the more reason to develop our own oil and gas)
What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison 1865
Sure, what the Hell, lets just play isolationist, bring everyone home, ships included and when China and Russia blockade our trade with the rest of the world, we'll stomp our feet and , and...
You tell me, WTF will we do when?
Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
Sure, what the Hell, lets just play isolationist, bring everyone home, ships included and when China and Russia blockade our trade with the rest of the world, we'll stomp our feet and , and...
You tell me, WTF will we do when?
That's crazy talk. Do you really think that China and Russia would blockade the US if we did not have our troops minding everyone else's business all around the world? If they wanted to do that why would having our troops all over the world stop them? Why don't they do it now?
why don't they do it - for Russia it is because they have no hope of winning. For China it is because we are their number one trade partner, plus we would default on all the money we owe them. I'm sorry but the idea is just silly.
And if they did blockade the US, we would do what we have to; tell them to move or go to war - a war that is our business.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:30:08 PM
That's crazy talk. Do you really think that China and Russia would blockade the US if we did not have our troops minding everyone else's business all around the world? If they wanted to do that why would having our troops all over the world stop them? Why don't they do it now?
They wouldn't dare cross us, because we are still the strongest nation on the planet.
Quotewhy don't they do it - for Russia it is because they have no hope of winning. For China it is because we are their number one trade partner, plus we would default on all the money we owe them. I'm sorry but the idea is just silly.
Yeah. right now we are, but that isn't written in stone now is it?
QuoteAnd if they did blockade the US, we would do what we have to; tell them to move or go to war - a war that is our business.
And who will come to our defense? We told the rest of the world FU when we left them high and dry bay pulling our forces home.*
Let me guess, you too are in yours 20s and have never been in the military, right?
Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 03:32:35 PM
They wouldn't dare cross us, because we are still the strongest nation on the planet.
Yeah. right now we are, but that isn't written in stone now is it?And who will come to our defense? We told the rest of the world FU when we left them high and dry bay pulling our forces home.*
Let me guess, you too are in yours 20s and have never been in the military, right?
Just turned 39.
Retired from the active duty Army a few months ago after 20 years of service.
2 x tours in Iraq - 2 x tours in Afghanistan (I was one of the first troops in Afghanistan after 911, relatively speaking), served in Croatia and many other places.
Left them high and dry?
1. We should strive to be self sufficient enough not to need them. Something we can't do if we expend all our energy fighting their battles for them. They are like our unwanted welfare children.
2. Where the hell do they get the nerve to expect Americans to sacrifice their children's lives and money for another countries interests. Let Europe worry about Europe, Asia for Asia ect... when we have a compelling interest, then it's our issue.
3. Over 20 years doing multi-national ops and I have learned one thing for sure. If the US is not paying the price in blood and gold no one ells wants to fight; and when the going gets tuff - they cut and run anyway. Who needs that kind of friend. They need US, we don't need them - Maybe we should remind all those anti US protesters in Asia and EU by pulling back and letting their continent go to hell in a hand basket (just a thought).
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 04:29:39 PM
Just turned 39.
Retired from the active duty Army a few months ago after 20 years of service.
2 x tours in Iraq - 2 x tours in Afghanistan (I was one of the first troops in Afghanistan after 911, relatively speaking), served in Croatia and many other places.
Left them high and dry?
1. We should strive to be self sufficient enough not to need them. Something we can't do if we expend all our energy fighting their battles for them. They are like our unwanted welfare children.
Who said anything about fighting their wars?
Quote2. Where the hell do they get the nerve to expect Americans to sacrifice their children's lives and money for another countries interests. Let Europe worry about Europe, Asia for Asia ect... when we have a compelling interest, then it's our issue.
Again, this isn't about war, it's about protecting our interests abroad.
Quote3. Over 20 years doing multi-national ops and I have learned one thing for sure. If the US is not paying the price in blood and gold no one ells wants to fight; and when the going gets tuff - they cut and run anyway. Who needs that kind of friend. They need US, we don't need them - Maybe we should remind all those anti US protesters in Asia and EU by pulling back and letting their continent go to hell in a hand basket (just a thought).
Again, we're not looking for war, or at least shouldn't be, but shipping lanes are of vital interest to the US, to simply pull back and tell them to fen for themselves, is only putting our assets in peril.
Why do you think we are scattered around the globe in the first place? Because communism is still a threat, just like it was 70 years ago, nothing has changed.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 04:29:39 PM
Just turned 39.
Retired from the active duty Army a few months ago after 20 years of service.
2 x tours in Iraq - 2 x tours in Afghanistan (I was one of the first troops in Afghanistan after 911, relatively speaking), served in Croatia and many other places.
Left them high and dry?
1. We should strive to be self sufficient enough not to need them. Something we can't do if we expend all our energy fighting their battles for them. They are like our unwanted welfare children.
2. Where the hell do they get the nerve to expect Americans to sacrifice their children's lives and money for another countries interests. Let Europe worry about Europe, Asia for Asia ect... when we have a compelling interest, then it's our issue.
3. Over 20 years doing multi-national ops and I have learned one thing for sure. If the US is not paying the price in blood and gold no one ells wants to fight; and when the going gets tuff - they cut and run anyway. Who needs that kind of friend. They need US, we don't need them - Maybe we should remind all those anti US protesters in Asia and EU by pulling back and letting their continent go to hell in a hand basket (just a thought).
Thank you for your service. Your perspective is welcomed.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.
They did not run out of money because of standing armies, they continually downsized their armies after the start of the 2nd century (the state diverted the funds to luxury trade instead), hired more auxiliaries instead of citizens which meant force equalization with the barbarians, went into a bunker mentality (building walls instead of sieges) and if you have read history you would know that the post Imperial system was built on the foundation of the Republican system, just like this modern liberal economy is feeding off the previous conservative economy, it is only a matter of time before welfare exceeds tax revenue and that is why they ran out of money.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 03:13:57 PM
What do you mean "weaken western society"? Surely you are not so naive as you equate the State with society? I repeat myself but I cannot find any moral or logical justification for the initiation of force. I cannot find any valid ethic that grants certain humans in a society immunity from the ethical rules that govern the rest of us peons. Any valid moral principle must be universalizable. I cannot logically refute the argument in favor of self ownership without contradiction.
Therefore, I must oppose the State since it violates universal moral principles, it MUST initiate coercion to fit the description of a "state", and it necessarily violates the right of self ownership of the citizens who live within its jurisdiction.
And this is to say nothing of the many utilitarian objections to the State, which are quite extensively documented in the literature.
If you feel you can refute any of these statements, you are welcome to make the attempt.
Are you intentionally confusing conservatism and socialism or are you just this radically blind?
You have the option of declaring yourself stateless and renouncing your citizenship thereby voluntarily giving up your obligations to the state, why haven't you?
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
Welcome,
I am also a Libertarian; but not of the anarchist type. I find the idea appealing ideologically but just as naïve as communism.
I disagree with your original premise, after that your argument falls apart.
We have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Declaration of independence
We give the government the authority to use force to secure our rights. In doing so we create a dangerous entity; which is why our government is supposed to have limited and enumerated powers to use that force.
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine
I appreciate your contribution. Let me go over my statement more carefully. First, aggression cannot be justified. If we accept that people own their own bodies (i.e. have the right to exclusive control over their use) and if we accept that justly acquired property is an extension of self ownership (homesteading aka original appropriation), then aggression against the person or property of another cannot be justified. Remember that aggression doesn't mean "violence" or "force". Aggression means the initiation of violence against someone who, by definition, is not violating your rights. If we agree that people have "rights", many libertarians subscribe to the concept of natural rights, then by definition it would be morally unjustifiable to violate those rights.
Now does the State, as I claimed, necessarily commit aggression? Even a limited Republic form of government commits aggression. In the first place, a written Constitution which establishes the supposed legitimacy of a central State cannot ever be valid for people who did not consent to that agreement. Those who personally ratified the Constitution in the late 18th century could be said to have consented to the authority of a central State but those born after, or those who did not personally consent to the ratification, cannot be coerced into accepting a legitimacy of a central authority. A contract can only be valid for those who voluntarily signed it. If you protest this point, can you point to any other legal contract that is enforceable against a person who never agreed to it nor signed it?
Second, all governments collect taxes through compulsion and the threat of violence. Even minor sales taxes, import duties and things of that nature involve the introduction of violence into peaceful economic transactions. Who gave them the authority to steal the property of all people living in a territory? You could make an argument that those who personally ratified the Constitution consented but even they did not consent to an income tax. But no one living personally agreed to have their property forcefully stolen from them.
Minimal government advocates such as yourself often claim that a limited government can be constructed such that it doesn't commit aggression and instead it merely protects our natural rights. If such an institution were to be imagined, it would be one that was funded only through voluntary contributions, one that allowed any peaceful competition to its services and one that does not force anyone to submit to its authority against their will. But such an institution would not be a "State" under any historic definition of the term. It would instead be a voluntary market service.
You say that "we have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be.We have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be." I think you are mistaking "aggression" with "force". You have the right to defend your natural rights (self ownership, private property) through defensive violence. But when you start to use vague terms like "happiness" as a right, you run into trouble. This is what happened in the early 20th century when leftists started to "expand" the supposed rights that people were entitled to. Negative rights were replaced by positive rights. Progressives started to argue that people had the right to a house, to healthcare, to material comforts, etc. Conceding that people have the right to "happiness" is moving down that road to Statism and authoritarianism. I understand that the the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" meant that people have the right to be left alone, to act as they see fit and pursue their passions without coercion being used against them. However, the wording is too vague and it has been used to justify expansion of State power. This is another reason I oppose the Constitution. It makes people forget about principles, about ethics, and about self ownership and instead they are conditioned that all our rights come from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If a court can convince people that the wording in some two hundred plus year old document should be interpreted in some way, people don't protest as they should.
I'm glad you concede that by supported the Constitution we are creating a "dangerous force". But for minimal government libertarians and conservatives to be taken seriously, I think they need to explain the utter failure of the Constitution to limit the growth of State power. Human nature being what it is, it seems to be a hopeless fantasy that people can and will elect principled Constitutionalists to Congress most of the time. A few Ron Pauls here and there is not enough. For a limited government to remain limited, you will have to be able to elect a majority of "original intent" people over the course of decades and even centuries.
I think your side of this debate has to offer something much more concrete. You need to rethink the mechanisms that are needed to keep a limited government limited over time. Because what we have has not worked. If you cannot come up with something better, then it's time to go all the way and embrace market anarchism and reject the use of aggression in all cases.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
So what would be the consequences of what he proposed?
Would Islamist hate us more? (not possible, and who cares anyway)
Would Europe like us better? (Who cares again)
Would Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons? (they are anyway. We could not stop North Korea and we had 60K troops on their border, UN sanctions - bla,bla,bla)
Would Israel go to war? (Probably, but I don't have a problem with Israel wiping out a few million Islamists)
Would terrorists invade Somalia, Yemen ect.. (yes, but they are doing that now)
Would oil prices go up? (probably, all the more reason to develop our own oil and gas)
What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison 1865
I agree with most everything you say here but I want to add a couple things that I think are important. First, Israel is able to be so belligerent and aggressive because they have the unconditional backing of the United States government. Recent Snowden documents have exposed that the US military and government have been intimately involved in virtually all of the Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people over the past several decades. I would like a peaceful two State solution to this problem, but we are making matters much worse by supporting Israel in this way. This exposes us to attacks by the enemies of Israel and it makes peace in the region less likely. We should cut of all foreign aid to the region, including to Israel. They should be completely on their own.
Second, it is not true that Iran has been developing a nuclear weapon. It may be true that some in Iran may like to have a nuclear weapon, but there has never been any evidence of any tangible effort to move in that direction. A new book that exposes this myth is called "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407529368&sr=8-1&keywords=gareth+porter&tag=donations09-20 (http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407529368&sr=8-1&keywords=gareth+porter&tag=donations09-20)
Iran has only ever been using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (energy production and medical research). The rest of this story has been fabricated by the warmongers, by Netanyahu and the Neocons.
I agree with everything else you wrote. We should be minding our own business. Why some conservatives conflate military aggression and empire with national security and defense is a mystery. I understand why the profiteers and Israel first Republicans promote this stuff, but why do the rank and file conservatives tolerate this propaganda?
Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
Sure, what the Hell, lets just play isolationist, bring everyone home, ships included and when China and Russia blockade our trade with the rest of the world, we'll stomp our feet and , and...
You tell me, WTF will we do when?
China and Russia are not going to blockade our trade with the rest of the world. They gain far too much from free trade. Haven't you ever heard the expression "if goods cross borders, militaries don't"? There is almost a paranoia among conservatives about perceived threats from the rest of the world that is not consistent with the facts.
If Russia wants to waste a massive amount of money on military boondoggles and imperialist tendencies, let them do it. It will only further weaken their economy. Remember when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s? Overextending their military contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is a reason that Afghanistan is referred to as "the graveyard of empires". We haven't learned much of a lesson from that have we? We've had our own occupation of Afghanistan for 13 years now and in that time our national debt has more than tripled.
We should adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy and invest our money into a free economy, growing businesses, accumulating savings and improving our standard of living. Let these other nations squander their wealth on military hubris and folly. And if any nation actually attacks us or threatens our national security, our level of prosperity will allow us to actually wage a protracted war and emerge victorious.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 01:28:09 PM
I agree with most everything you say here but I want to add a couple things that I think are important. First, Israel is able to be so belligerent and aggressive because they have the unconditional backing of the United States government. Recent Snowden documents have exposed that the US military and government have been intimately involved in virtually all of the Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people over the past several decades. I would like a peaceful two State solution to this problem, but we are making matters much worse by supporting Israel in this way. This exposes us to attacks by the enemies of Israel and it makes peace in the region less likely. We should cut of all foreign aid to the region, including to Israel. They should be completely on their own.
Second, it is not true that Iran has been developing a nuclear weapon. It may be true that some in Iran may like to have a nuclear weapon, but there has never been any evidence of any tangible effort to move in that direction. A new book that exposes this myth is called "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407529368&sr=8-1&keywords=gareth+porter&tag=donations09-20 (http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407529368&sr=8-1&keywords=gareth+porter&tag=donations09-20)
Iran has only ever been using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (energy production and medical research). The rest of this story has been fabricated by the warmongers, by Netanyahu and the Neocons.
I agree with everything else you wrote. We should be minding our own business. Why some conservatives conflate military aggression and empire with national security and defense is a mystery. I understand why the profiteers and Israel first Republicans promote this stuff, but why do the rank and file conservatives tolerate this propaganda?
Please share your shampoo brand. It has to be good to get all of the sand out ofyour hairt with your head stuck so far down. Denial is a wonderful liberal trait to rationalize their wishful beliefs.
Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 05:18:41 PM
Who said anything about fighting their wars?Again, this isn't about war, it's about protecting our interests abroad.
Again, we're not looking for war, or at least shouldn't be, but shipping lanes are of vital interest to the US, to simply pull back and tell them to fen for themselves, is only putting our assets in peril.
Why do you think we are scattered around the globe in the first place? Because communism is still a threat, just like it was 70 years ago, nothing has changed.
Communism is NOT still a threat. Are you kidding me? The fact that we know that communism is a completely failed system should show us that they are not a threat to us. That is not to say that some country might not become communist or adopt communist ideas, but that is a problem that those populations will have to deal with.
Murray Rothbard did great work on this subject. Bill Buckley and other conservatives at the time absolutely hated Rothbard because he didn't go along with their fear mongering cold war hysteria. Communism was never a serious threat to take over the planet. There is an interesting paradox that Rothbard described where the most anti market and totalitarian nations tend to be some of the least imperialistic and aggressive internationally while they are so despotic and oppressive internally. While some of the most free market oriented nations tend to be the most imperialistic and militarily aggressive outside their borders.
Why don't you tell me which communist nations are such a big threat that we need to maintain a military presence around the globe with more than 900 bases in 150 countries? Are you staying up at night worried about an invasion from Cuba? Even China, which remains nominally Communist and oppressive, has made significant moves towards capitalism in recent years.
There are several reasons why communist nations are not a military threat. In the first place, Marx taught that Capitalism would fail of its own accord. He saw capitalism as an inevitable and necessary evolutionary stage which will eventually be replaced by a "workers paradise". There is nothing in Marxist ideology that supports military overthrow of capitalist nations or of maintaining a world empire.
Granted, some communist states may not be orthodox and principled in their application of Marxist ideology. However, another reason why a military threat from communism is unlikely is that such a nation will be unable to economically support any sort of protracted military battle against a more prosperous Capitalist nation. Leaders of Communist nations are not stupid, they don't want to commit suicide by waging war against nations with prosperous free market economies. They spread communism through ideology and education. You don't have to look farther than some of America's universities to see professors who espouse a neo-Marxist belief system. This ideological spread of Marxist ideas can indeed be dangerous, but we don't need an army to resist such indoctrination. We just need to point out the flaws in the Marxist system and thus inoculate people from the allure of economic fallacies.
Conservatives like Bill Buckley successfully convinced an entire generations of conservatives to "temporarily" abandon their attachment to old Right ideas of shrinking government back to pre-New Deal size to support military expansion and an arms race against the great existential threat of Communism. For some thirty years, conservatives dropped the ball on any sort of opposition to the growth of the State and instead, they supported the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. It became such an integral part of the US economy by the time the Soviet system collapsed that there was no possibility of scaling back the empire.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 06, 2014, 01:22:29 AM
They did not run out of money because of standing armies, they continually downsized their armies after the start of the 2nd century (the state diverted the funds to luxury trade instead), hired more auxiliaries instead of citizens which meant force equalization with the barbarians, went into a bunker mentality (building walls instead of sieges) and if you have read history you would know that the post Imperial system was built on the foundation of the Republican system, just like this modern liberal economy is feeding off the previous conservative economy, it is only a matter of time before welfare exceeds tax revenue and that is why they ran out of money.
Are you intentionally confusing conservatism and socialism or are you just this radically blind?
You have the option of declaring yourself stateless and renouncing your citizenship thereby voluntarily giving up your obligations to the state, why haven't you?
I'm not confusing conservatism and socialism. I didn't even mention either in the quote you pulled. I'm clearly opposed to socialism since I oppose the State. Conservatism is not a fixed set of policies but is rather an attitude towards "conserving" some element(s) of the past, whether they be social values, tradition, the Constitution or the status quo.
Your last sentence is absurd. This is a variation on the leftist platitude that "if you choose to live in this territory then that must mean you have implicitly consented to be ruled by others." Could I buy some property, then renounced my citizenship and give up my obligations to the State? If that property happens to lie within the arbitrary lines that the State claims authority over, they WILL use violence against me.
This whole argument of "why don't you just flee to some abandoned island and live there? They you won't have to worry about State violence" is vacuous. I'm not going to leave. I have family and friends here, a job and connections that I cannot leave behind. Even if I could just escape and carve out my own little corner of freedom in some remote part of the planet, my humanitarian instincts would not let me ignore the atrocities committed by States against other people. I'd rather fight against the power of the State and amass a movement to oppose the initiation of force and the legitimacy of "rulers".
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 08, 2014, 02:07:21 PM
Please share your shampoo brand. It has to be good to get all of the sand out ofyour hairt with your head stuck so far down. Denial is a wonderful liberal trait to rationalize their wishful beliefs.
Can you offer evidence to the contrary? Don't hold back. Share any single piece of evidence that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 02:28:24 PM
I'm not confusing conservatism and socialism. I didn't even mention either in the quote you pulled. I'm clearly opposed to socialism since I oppose the State. Conservatism is not a fixed set of policies but is rather an attitude towards "conserving" some element(s) of the past, whether they be social values, tradition, the Constitution or the status quo.
Your last sentence is absurd. This is a variation on the leftist platitude that "if you choose to live in this territory then that must mean you have implicitly consented to be ruled by others." Could I buy some property, then renounced my citizenship and give up my obligations to the State? If that property happens to lie within the arbitrary lines that the State claims authority over, they WILL use violence against me.
This whole argument of "why don't you just flee to some abandoned island and live there? They you won't have to worry about State violence" is vacuous. I'm not going to leave. I have family and friends here, a job and connections that I cannot leave behind. Even if I could just escape and carve out my own little corner of freedom in some remote part of the planet, my humanitarian instincts would not let me ignore the atrocities committed by States against other people. I'd rather fight against the power of the State and amass a movement to oppose the initiation of force and the legitimacy of "rulers".
I didn't ask you to leave the US, I asked you to renounce your citizenship in honor of your anarchist principles, you can still buy and own property in the US as a non-citizen and still be protected by the very system you abhor. But thanks for clarifying my point, you still like to have the extra protection that the state/collective provides you as a citizen.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 02:39:11 PM
Can you offer evidence to the contrary? Don't hold back. Share any single piece of evidence that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
I have no evidence as you have no evidence they are following it to the "T". I draw my conclusions from the history of the mullahs who run Iran. They have a track record of lies and deceit. Also, their involvement in other countries to support terrorists give me enough evidence to not trust a damn word they utter.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 02:16:24 PM
Communism is NOT still a threat. Are you kidding me? The fact that we know that communism is a completely failed system should show us that they are not a threat to us. That is not to say that some country might not become communist or adopt communist ideas, but that is a problem that those populations will have to deal with.
Just so you know, I stopped reading here, beyond that, your shit bores the hell out of me.
I have no interest in being lectured to by some kid that has absolutely no experience outside the opinions of others he's only read about.
As to your communism failed nonsense. Communism comes with many masks, from Progressivism, to Fabian socialism, to open Marxism.
To say it's dead because it's failed, is like claiming evil is dead, just because we don't see rampant murder.
The Dim party of this nation is now being led by communists, so don't tell me it's dead, because it's alive and thriving right under our nose.
FWIW, I see why you keep getting your ass banned from other sites, you bore people to death.
You may not have a life, but most people here have neither the time, nor the interest in what some, long winded ignorant kid thinks about a political system beyond his ability to conceive, let alone change to his vision of Utopia, all the while ignoring human nature.
I suggest you learn the art of compendious. Or run the risk of getting the boot from here as well.
Ya know, your myopic view of this subject exposes much about your lack of intellect in the subject of politics, but also reveals an obsessive flaw in your character.
If you have any real friends, I propose you seek their counsel on the matter.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 07:29:22 AM
Just so you know, I stopped reading here, beyond that, your shit bores the hell out of me.
I have no interest in being lectured to by some kid that has absolutely no experience outside the opinions of others he's only read about.
As to your communism failed nonsense. Communism comes with many masks, from Progressivism, to Fabian socialism, to open Marxism.
To say it's dead because it's failed, is like claiming evil is dead, just because we don't see rampant murder.
The Dim party of this nation is now being led by communists, so don't tell me it's dead, because it's alive and thriving right under our nose.
FWIW, I see why you keep getting your ass banned from other sites, you bore people to death.
You may not have a life, but most people here have neither the time, nor the interest in what some, long winded ignorant kid thinks about a political system beyond his ability to conceive, let alone change to his vision of Utopia, all the while ignoring human nature.
I suggest you learn the art of compendious. Or run the risk of getting the boot from here as well.
Ya know, your myopic view of this subject exposes much about your lack of intellect in the subject of politics, but also reveals an obsessive flaw in your character.
If you have any real friends, I propose you seek their counsel on the matter.
If not, remember there is always b o care under your mom and dad insurance until your 26.
Quote from: walkstall on August 09, 2014, 07:47:27 AM
If not, remember there is always b o care under your mom and dad insurance until your 26.
I think he claimed 28. so that's out.
In truth, his friends if honest, will server him far better than a govt paid shrink.
We all know why these people enter the field in the first place, they're freakin nuts who went in search for answers to their own idiosyncrasies. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 08:19:55 AM
I think he claimed 28. so that's out.
In truth, his friends if honest, will server him far better than a govt paid shrink.
We all know why these people enter the field in the first place, they're freakin nuts who went in search for answers to their own idiosyncrasies. :biggrin:
If 28 then he should have b o care if need, it the law. :lol:
I don't think he would have friends with common sense. But I could be wrong.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 07:29:22 AM
Just so you know, I stopped reading here, beyond that, your shit bores the hell out of me.
I have no interest in being lectured to by some kid that has absolutely no experience outside the opinions of others he's only read about.
As to your communism failed nonsense. Communism comes with many masks, from Progressivism, to Fabian socialism, to open Marxism.
To say it's dead because it's failed, is like claiming evil is dead, just because we don't see rampant murder.
The Dim party of this nation is now being led by communists, so don't tell me it's dead, because it's alive and thriving right under our nose.
FWIW, I see why you keep getting your ass banned from other sites, you bore people to death.
You may not have a life, but most people here have neither the time, nor the interest in what some, long winded ignorant kid thinks about a political system beyond his ability to conceive, let alone change to his vision of Utopia, all the while ignoring human nature.
I suggest you learn the art of compendious. Or run the risk of getting the boot from here as well.
Ya know, your myopic view of this subject exposes much about your lack of intellect in the subject of politics, but also reveals an obsessive flaw in your character.
If you have any real friends, I propose you seek their counsel on the matter.
You are clearly under no obligation to respond to my posts, but why resort to ad hominems and attacks? I have a personal interest in libertarian ideas and so I like to poke my head into different political circles and compare my views with those of others.
I think the tact of saying "I'm older and more experienced, therefore I don't have to listen to some 'kid' who knows nothing" is not only condescending but fallacious. I'm not a kid, I'm 29 years old, a college graduate, and reasonably well educated. I appreciate when flaws in my arguments are pointed out to me because I can rethink my positions and learn something.
But, to recap, you say I am "some kid who has absolutely no experience", I "bore people to death", I "may not have a life", I'm "ignorant", I speak about things "beyond my ability to conceive", my views are "myopic", I have a "lack of intellect on the subject of politics" and I have an "obsessive flaw in my character". Oh and I probably have no real friends.
That is quite a lot of ad hominem attacks for one short post. Maybe this forum is really not hospitable to debate and if this is the case, I don't have to stick around. But that would be a shame because libertarians and Tea Party people have many similar views and concerns. We don't need to let a few disagreements prevent us from communicating productively.
I would like someone to speak to the point that Rothbard made though, about the fact that Communism was never the military threat that it was made out to be. It was, and is, an ideological threat which requires a different weapon to combat it than simply a projection of military might.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 09, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
You are clearly under no obligation to respond to my posts, but why resort to ad hominems and attacks? I have a personal interest in libertarian ideas and so I like to poke my head into different political circles and compare my views with those of others.
I think the tact of saying "I'm older and more experienced, therefore I don't have to listen to some 'kid' who knows nothing" is not only condescending but fallacious. I'm not a kid, I'm 29 years old, a college graduate, and reasonably well educated. I appreciate when flaws in my arguments are pointed out to me because I can rethink my positions and learn something.
But, to recap, you say I am "some kid who has absolutely no experience", I "bore people to death", I "may not have a life", I'm "ignorant", I speak about things "beyond my ability to conceive", my views are "myopic", I have a "lack of intellect on the subject of politics" and I have an "obsessive flaw in my character". Oh and I probably have no real friends.
That is quite a lot of ad hominem attacks for one short post. Maybe this forum is really not hospitable to debate and if this is the case, I don't have to stick around. But that would be a shame because libertarians and Tea Party people have many similar views and concerns. We don't need to let a few disagreements prevent us from communicating productively.
I would like someone to speak to the point that Rothbard made though, about the fact that Communism was never the military threat that it was made out to be. It was, and is, an ideological threat which requires a different weapon to combat it than simply a projection of military might.
Son, that wasn't ad hominem, ad hominem is not based in fact. All of your posts are based on "Feelings", and opinion and never once proven to work throughout history, which is why all the previous descriptive's.
Oh, and when you reach my age, look back and ask yourself, if at 29 you weren't a kid.
I was a kid into my 30s, it's simply a part of life, the path towards maturity, Hell, to someone in their 90s, I'm a kid, by comparison to their wisdom.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Son, that wasn't ad hominem, ad hominem is not based in fact. All of your posts are based on "Feelings", and opinion and never once proven to work throughout history, which is why all the previous descriptive's.
Oh, and when you reach my age, look back and ask yourself, if at 29 you weren't a kid.
I was a kid into my 30s, it's simply a part of life, the path towards maturity, Hell, to someone in their 90s, I'm a kid, by comparison to their wisdom.
:lol: I would say a Young wiper snapper.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Son, that wasn't ad hominem, ad hominem is not based in fact. All of your posts are based on "Feelings", and opinion and never once proven to work throughout history, which is why all the previous descriptive's.
Oh, and when you reach my age, look back and ask yourself, if at 29 you weren't a kid.
I was a kid into my 30s, it's simply a part of life, the path towards maturity, Hell, to someone in their 90s, I'm a kid, by comparison to their wisdom.
Your debate tactic seems to be "I'm older so I win be default". What do you mean my posts are based on feelings? I have referenced several sources which support my views and I have named a few prominent libertarian historians and economists who have done quite a lot of empirical work on these questions. Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win" is one that I think you really ought to read.
I'm not saying it is practical for you to read every source I post but to say that my opinions are all based on feelings rather than any serious research and study is completely inaccurate.
Also, I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. It's not about whether it is based on "fact". An ad hominem fallacy is, according to Wikipedia "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
So when you say I am myopic, or ignorant, or lack intelligence or have a character flaw or any other thing, this is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is correct or not. All these things, as a general matter, could be true. But they would still have no bearing on whether or not my arguments on this post are correct or not.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 09, 2014, 05:45:50 PM
Your debate tactic seems to be "I'm older so I win be default". What do you mean my posts are based on feelings? I have referenced several sources which support my views and I have named a few prominent libertarian historians and economists who have done quite a lot of empirical work on these questions. Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win" is one that I think you really ought to read.
Your posts are based on feelings, because despite historical evidence, you still claim your utopia will work.
Show me one working society as an example.
And yes, age and wisdom has everything to do with it. You can't get practical experience from a book or from the opinion of a professor, you have to get out and experience it for yourself, come to conclusions rooted in personal first hand knowledge..
QuoteI'm not saying it is practical for you to read every source I post but to say that my opinions are all based on feelings rather than any serious research and study is completely inaccurate.
Also, I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. It's not about whether it is based on "fact". An ad hominem fallacy is, according to Wikipedia "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason), that is the dictionary version of ad hom, and yes, I was appealing to fact based on reason from the nonsense you've written.
QuoteSo when you say I am myopic, or ignorant, or lack intelligence or have a character flaw or any other thing, this is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is correct or not. All these things, as a general matter, could be true. But they would still have no bearing on whether or not my arguments on this post are correct or not.
You are myopic, this is the ONLY subject you've posted in, on an entire forum full of topics, so yeah, that is by definition, "Myopic".
Ignorant on the other hand was meant exactly by definition, "lacking knowledge", which brings us full circle, you are young and inexperienced and fail to grasp the consequences of your argument.
My final statement is based on wisdom gleaned over decades of experience in studying human nature, something you fail to recognize.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 09, 2014, 05:45:50 PM
Your debate tactic seems to be "I'm older so I win be default". What do you mean my posts are based on feelings? I have referenced several sources which support my views and I have named a few prominent libertarian historians and economists who have done quite a lot of empirical work on these questions. Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win" is one that I think you really ought to read.
I'm not saying it is practical for you to read every source I post but to say that my opinions are all based on feelings rather than any serious research and study is completely inaccurate.
Also, I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. It's not about whether it is based on "fact". An ad hominem fallacy is, according to Wikipedia "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
So when you say I am myopic, or ignorant, or lack intelligence or have a character flaw or any other thing, this is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is correct or not. All these things, as a general matter, could be true. But they would still have no bearing on whether or not my arguments on this post are correct or not.
jrodefeld, why do muslims hate us so much?
Quote from: taxed on August 09, 2014, 09:27:54 PM
jrodefeld, why do muslims hate us so much?
Because we're capitalists?, ummm, no, were on their claimed land?, nah again, because we're in league with Jooos, nah?
Oh, I know, because they're fools that follow a religion dreamed up by a pedophile that tells them Allah will give them 70 virgins if they kill and die in his name, that all non Arabs are infidels and must be killed or forced into slavery.
Wait, are you saying there are unreasonable people in the world, that not everyone is interested in fair trade with you, that they'd rather just take what you have and kill you?
Hmmm, it would appear that a army beyond ones border would be a necessary evil if you want to survive.
So lets see, what would work better, an army made up of citizens of like minded people willing to fight and die to protect what they've created, or a private security force, one that only owes allegiance to those willing to pay top price.
Gee Taxed, I'm gonna have to stick with an army of my true friends and citizens, because word has it, a mercenary force can easily be bought off by my enemies.
And then there's always the teeny tiny chance that my paid security, might just turn on me because I refused to have my own military, one that would protect my non-govt, govt.
Imagine that, people with self interest over an ideal Utopia. But it would work if everyone was willing to give up human nature, the drive to conquer ones domain, dominate the weak and foolish.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 06, 2014, 01:22:29 AM
They did not run out of money because of standing armies, they continually downsized their armies after the start of the 2nd century (the state diverted the funds to luxury trade instead), hired more auxiliaries instead of citizens which meant force equalization with the barbarians, went into a bunker mentality (building walls instead of sieges) and if you have read history you would know that the post Imperial system was built on the foundation of the Republican system, just like this modern liberal economy is feeding off the previous conservative economy, it is only a matter of time before welfare exceeds tax revenue and that is why they ran out of money.
I actually agree with what you say to some extent. The reasons you sited are at least partly responsible for the fall of Rome. One exception, I have never heard a single historian (or laymen) blame "bunker mentality" for the fall of Rome. I think maybe you are grasping at straws in order to defend U.S. Military adventurism around the globe.
In any case - I am not going to argue the fall of the Roman empire with you. Professional historians can't agree on the causes. Here are the mainstream "8 Reasons Why Rome Fell" according to the History channel website.
Pay attention to number 4 and 8.
1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire
4. Overexpansion and military overspending :blink:
"Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay"
5. Government corruption and political instability
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
8. Weakening of the Roman legions :blink:
"Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies"
Feel free to make "ancient alien" jokes on the History Channels reliability - but I think they got the major causes right on this one.
I am pretty sure the empire was brought down by polices that undermined their internal social coordination.
So we can speak about the inflation policy, price controls, government spending, etc as the ultimate cause.
Once the social organism was weakened and fractured, Rome was an easy target.
Solar, it is my view that the way you treat people who have differing views is arrogant and over the top.
It is not conducive to intellectual debate.
It is conducive to juvenile sniping, insults and trolling.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 09:04:11 AM
Solar, it is my view that the way you treat people who have differing views is arrogant and over the top.
It is not conducive to intellectual debate.
It is conducive to juvenile sniping, insults and trolling.
Just my two cents.
STFU! I honestly don't give a damn what you think. Just my two cents.
But when some arrogant ignorant kid comes in and touts a system that's never worked as the only solution, then ridicule is on the menu.
If you or he can't take it, then move along.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2014, 09:11:41 AM
STFU! I honestly don't give a damn what you think. Just my two cents.
But when some arrogant ignorant kid comes in and touts a system that's never worked as the only solution, then ridicule is on the menu.
If you or he can't take it, then move along.
Oh, I can give it better than just about anyone. You should know that.
The issue is, I get bored by such posturing. It solves nothing and makes you look immature and unable to debate...
It is better to explain what the opposition's argument is wrong about, in detail, than it is to merely assume yourself correct.
But far be it for me to ruin your fun with civility. If you want a circle jerk for a forum, I will not stand in your way!
:cool:
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 10:07:59 AM
Oh, I can give it better than just about anyone. You should know that.
The issue is, I get bored by such posturing. It solves nothing and makes you look immature and unable to debate...
It is better to explain what the opposition's argument is wrong about, in detail, than it is to merely assume yourself correct.
But far be it for me to ruin your fun with civility. If you want a circle jerk for a forum, I will not stand in your way!
:cool:
I tried to explain where he was wrong, but he refused to recognize the HUGE flaw in his plan.
Mainly his stance he could hire a paid security force, in other words, a bunch of mercenaries who always go to the highest bidder.
So pointing out, I just bought his force off and seized his land killed his entire fantasy Utopian dream.
That's reality, his point was not based in the real world.
At that point, he becomes a slave, I own him and everything he holds dear.
Our Founders understood this as well, which is why it was the Only thing the Fed was charged to do.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 10, 2014, 10:51:35 PM
I actually agree with what you say to some extent. The reasons you sited are at least partly responsible for the fall of Rome. One exception, I have never heard a single historian (or laymen) blame "bunker mentality" for the fall of Rome. I think maybe you are grasping at straws in order to defend U.S. Military adventurism around the globe.
In any case - I am not going to argue the fall of the Roman empire with you. Professional historians can't agree on the causes. Here are the mainstream "8 Reasons Why Rome Fell" according to the History channel website.
Pay attention to number 4 and 8.
1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire
4. Overexpansion and military overspending :blink:
"Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay"
5. Government corruption and political instability
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
8. Weakening of the Roman legions :blink:
"Unable to recruit enough soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies"
Feel free to make "ancient alien" jokes on the History Channels reliability - but I think they got the major causes right on this one.
Many of those points are correct, and I loved the history channel. But hey, even their documentary called "Ancient Empires" I think, it also underpinned the fact that the Roman Empire went into bunker/fortress mentality.
Point 8 just underscore my point, I would advice you to read some more then there are hundreds of historians and if none of the books you have read specified the strategical shift from expansion too defense then they don't know what they are talking about as the Romans build walls and garrisons and even changed their armor and shield to suit defensive tactics (scalemail, spears instead of gladius, oval shields etc).
As for point 4 the spending, the Roman legion was
always dependent on loot and pillaging to maintain itself . When the Roman Legions went defensive and manned walls/garrisons instead of laying siege and plundering the Legion became 100% an expense instead of also providing source of revenue. Also take into consideration that the state aka aristocracy/bureaucracy wanted to spend more money on luxury trade than legions
Please read Plutarch a contemporary historian instead of modern revisionist historians.
As for point 6, Romans have always had a hard time dealing with horse archers, just read about Crassus (the richest guy in Rome) failed invasion into Parthia. But they did manage to defeat Parthia under Trajan, and it shows the great flaw of totalitarianism, you are always dependent on the correct person, which are few and far between.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 11, 2014, 11:17:03 AM
Many of those points are correct, and I loved the history channel. But hey, even their documentary called "Ancient Empires" I think, it also underpinned the fact that the Roman Empire went into bunker/fortress mentality.
Point 8 just underscore my point, I would advice you to read some more then there are hundreds of historians and if none of the books you have read specified the strategical shift from expansion too defense then they don't know what they are talking about as the Romans build walls and garrisons and even changed their armor and shield to suit defensive tactics (scalemail, spears instead of gladius, oval shields etc).
As for point 4 the spending, the Roman legion was always dependent on loot and pillaging to maintain itself . When the Roman Legions went defensive and manned walls/garrisons instead of laying siege and plundering the Legion became 100% an expense instead of also providing source of revenue. Also take into consideration that the state aka aristocracy/bureaucracy wanted to spend more money on luxury trade than legions
Please read Plutarch a contemporary historian instead of modern revisionist historians.
As for point 6, Romans have always had a hard time dealing with horse archers, just read about Crassus (the richest guy in Rome) failed invasion into Parthia. But they did manage to defeat Parthia under Trajan, and it shows the great flaw of totalitarianism, you are always dependent on the correct person, which are few and far between.
ok
Thanks
I will check out Plutarch some time soon.
But, my point is that running out of money and people willing to fight for her helped (at least) Rome fall.
The connection being that having troops spread all over the globe minding everyone's beeswax does not help the USA. It wastes money, it's arrogant and most of all it makes many Americans unwilling to fight (political will).
It's not a bunker mentality - I'm fine with using military force when OUR interests are clearly threatened. Not the interests of every sorry ass population around the globe that won't stand up and against despots and religious nut jobs.
Likewise, trying to keep a lid on every hot spot in the world by parking a few thousand troops nearby is a waste of money, men and political will. Any effort to police the world is futile; a more effective strategy in my opinion is to conserve resources, train, equip and be ready for war if and when it is needed. When some one attacks US, crush them completely - scorch the earth they live on - leave nothing standing, make an example to deter aggression. But it only works if we mind our beeswax, if they don't bother US - leave them alone!!
In fact, I advocated nuking Afghanistan in the days following 9/11 - just to make a point to other countries. The points being, 1) if you let terrorists operate in your country, your country is responsible for what they do and 2) If you attack US, we will not hesitate to destroy your country. :scared:
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 10:07:59 AM
Oh, I can give it better than just about anyone. You should know that.
The issue is, I get bored by such posturing. It solves nothing and makes you look immature and unable to debate...
It is better to explain what the opposition's argument is wrong about, in detail, than it is to merely assume yourself correct.
But far be it for me to ruin your fun with civility. If you want a circle jerk for a forum, I will not stand in your way!
:cool:
Maybe this may help you understand my position better.
If you owned a forum and some idiot came in claiming they merely wanted to exchange ideas regarding pedophilia, but you knew good and well they weren't in the least interested in discussion, rather they were looking for a podium from which to spew their warped ideals.
Same goes for communists, I don't give them a soap box either, for the same reason, both slap in the face of human nature.
He never was interested in an exchange of ideas, I've seen it far too often over the decades.
The system he proposed completely neglected human nature, ignored purposefully to recognize the American experiment has been the most successful attempt at limited govt in the history of the world, yet he believes all that's needed to improve upon it is to remove it most integral component, a Republican form of Govt.
Everyone is welcome to exchange ideas, but I take exception when one abuses such a privilege.
In conclusion, I caught a troll and beat the shit out of him, it's that simple. That's why you got the response you received.
Does that clear it up? Whether or not you agree, I'm the final arbiter on who sets the agenda on this forum.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 11, 2014, 08:55:43 AM
I am pretty sure the empire was brought down by polices that undermined their internal social coordination.
So we can speak about the inflation policy, price controls, government spending, etc as the ultimate cause.
Once the social organism was weakened and fractured, Rome was an easy target.
I'm sure those where all contributing factors. On the History channels list I posted I think they would fall under numbers 2, 5 and 7.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 11, 2014, 07:02:23 PM
ok
Thanks
I will check out Plutarch some time soon.
But, my point is that running out of money and people willing to fight for her helped (at least) Rome fall.
The connection being that having troops spread all over the globe minding everyone's beeswax does not help the USA. It wastes money, it's arrogant and most of all it makes many Americans unwilling to fight (political will).
It's not a bunker mentality - I'm fine with using military force when OUR interests are clearly threatened. Not the interests of every sorry ass population around the globe that won't stand up and against despots and religious nut jobs.
Likewise, trying to keep a lid on every hot spot in the world by parking a few thousand troops nearby is a waste of money, men and political will. Any effort to police the world is futile; a more effective strategy in my opinion is to conserve resources, train, equip and be ready for war if and when it is needed. When some one attacks US, crush them completely - scorch the earth they live on - leave nothing standing, make an example to deter aggression. But it only works if we mind our beeswax, if they don't bother US - leave them alone!!
In fact, I advocated nuking Afghanistan in the days following 9/11 - just to make a point to other countries. The points being, 1) if you let terrorists operate in your country, your country is responsible for what they do and 2) If you attack US, we will not hesitate to destroy your country. :scared:
I would agree with that. Just launch a couple of "Rods from God", nuclear warheads or good old carpet bombing down on the islam scum if they try to pull off some attack instead of occupation trying to civilize barbaric people. When the Portuguese first encountered the Japanese they said this is the first time we have a met a culture that rivals our own, can't apply the same strategy for Islam just because it worked with civilized Japan. The Japanese know when to surrender, the Muslims will rather strap bombs on their children.
Would be better for the US to be the policeman of Latin America instead, that worked a lot better until political correctness took over.
Quote from: taxed on August 09, 2014, 09:27:54 PM
jrodefeld, why do muslims hate us so much?
I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim. I don't believe that "muslims" hate us. Some radical muslims choose to use the tactic of terrorism to strike back at us for a variety of reasons. It is true that radical Islamic sects teach that Western culture and society, not to mention Christianity, are evil and degenerate. However, an effective campaign to galvanize popular support for a coordinated network of Al Qaeda terrorists would never be possible based on these reasons alone. As Robert Pape and others have documented, there was a time when radical muslim leaders tried to gain support for a network of coordinated attacks on American allies and embassies based on only these doctrinaire concerns. Such an effort was a consistent failure. People might, in the abstract, object to the rights we grant to women, the freedom we afford our citizens and the fact that we are majority Christian, but they won't risk their lives and devote their time to fight for such abstract principles.
In fact the evidence shows that it was only when people like Osama bin Laden were able to point to occupation, bombing campaigns, the subversion of self determination by installing puppet dictators perpetrated by the United States government that a coordinated and determined Jihadist effort against the United States started to take effect. Our government has provided the ammunition that radical Muslim leaders need to convert otherwise moderate Muslims, people who would be potential friends and allies, to their cause.
We don't need to be sticking our heads into hornets nests and then complain that we keep getting stung. This doesn't excuse the killing of innocent people, but if there is a clear cause and effect to our military action, we need to take that seriously and reassess what we are doing.
Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2014, 05:45:10 AM
Because we're capitalists?, ummm, no, were on their claimed land?, nah again, because we're in league with Jooos, nah?
Oh, I know, because they're fools that follow a religion dreamed up by a pedophile that tells them Allah will give them 70 virgins if they kill and die in his name, that all non Arabs are infidels and must be killed or forced into slavery.
Wait, are you saying there are unreasonable people in the world, that not everyone is interested in fair trade with you, that they'd rather just take what you have and kill you?
Hmmm, it would appear that a army beyond ones border would be a necessary evil if you want to survive.
So lets see, what would work better, an army made up of citizens of like minded people willing to fight and die to protect what they've created, or a private security force, one that only owes allegiance to those willing to pay top price.
Gee Taxed, I'm gonna have to stick with an army of my true friends and citizens, because word has it, a mercenary force can easily be bought off by my enemies.
And then there's always the teeny tiny chance that my paid security, might just turn on me because I refused to have my own military, one that would protect my non-govt, govt.
Imagine that, people with self interest over an ideal Utopia. But it would work if everyone was willing to give up human nature, the drive to conquer ones domain, dominate the weak and foolish.
So what exactly are you willing to sacrifice to deal with the "muslim threat"? Do you want to install democracy? Do you think we need to support Israel militarily and financially, even if it makes us less safe? Do you want to intervene in the middle east through propping up puppet dictators?
And how much money is it worth so you will feel safe?
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2014, 06:36:35 AM
Maybe this may help you understand my position better.
If you owned a forum and some idiot came in claiming they merely wanted to exchange ideas regarding pedophilia, but you knew good and well they weren't in the least interested in discussion, rather they were looking for a podium from which to spew their warped ideals.
Same goes for communists, I don't give them a soap box either, for the same reason, both slap in the face of human nature.
He never was interested in an exchange of ideas, I've seen it far too often over the decades.
The system he proposed completely neglected human nature, ignored purposefully to recognize the American experiment has been the most successful attempt at limited govt in the history of the world, yet he believes all that's needed to improve upon it is to remove it most integral component, a Republican form of Govt.
Everyone is welcome to exchange ideas, but I take exception when one abuses such a privilege.
In conclusion, I caught a troll and beat the shit out of him, it's that simple. That's why you got the response you received.
Does that clear it up? Whether or not you agree, I'm the final arbiter on who sets the agenda on this forum.
Damn, you "beat the shit" out of me? And you compared me to someone advocating pedophilia. As someone who apparently has so much "wisdom" given you are thirty or forty years older than me, I would expect you not to use such juvenile tactics designed to stifle debate.
Just because I am not persuaded by your "arguments" doesn't mean I'm not interested in a discussion in good faith.
I've asked you before without any substantive answer, but given the evident failure of the Constitution to limit the expansion of State power, how do you propose to actually limit the State? If a written Constitution, the best ever drafted I'll concede, has proven to be completely ineffective at limiting the growth of State power, why don't you offer some explanation?
Experiments in anarchy have been successfully tried in history, but it is always a foolish thing to resist innovations and improvements in social organization because something new "has never existed before". Democracy, with total suffrage for the citizens, didn't exist before the early 20th century. A limited Constitutional Republic was never successfully tried before thirteen colonies won a war for independence from Great Britain. And so forth and so on.
Your argument from human nature is unpersuasive. And I agree with TowardLiberty, your tactics are unprofessional and juvenile.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 12:26:43 AM
I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim. I don't believe that "muslims" hate us. Some radical muslims choose to use the tactic of terrorism to strike back at us for a variety of reasons. It is true that radical Islamic sects teach that Western culture and society, not to mention Christianity, are evil and degenerate. However, an effective campaign to galvanize popular support for a coordinated network of Al Qaeda terrorists would never be possible based on these reasons alone. As Robert Pape and others have documented, there was a time when radical muslim leaders tried to gain support for a network of coordinated attacks on American allies and embassies based on only these doctrinaire concerns. Such an effort was a consistent failure. People might, in the abstract, object to the rights we grant to women, the freedom we afford our citizens and the fact that we are majority Christian, but they won't risk their lives and devote their time to fight for such abstract principles.
In fact the evidence shows that it was only when people like Osama bin Laden were able to point to occupation, bombing campaigns, the subversion of self determination by installing puppet dictators perpetrated by the United States government that a coordinated and determined Jihadist effort against the United States started to take effect. Our government has provided the ammunition that radical Muslim leaders need to convert otherwise moderate Muslims, people who would be potential friends and allies, to their cause.
We don't need to be sticking our heads into hornets nests and then complain that we keep getting stung. This doesn't excuse the killing of innocent people, but if there is a clear cause and effect to our military action, we need to take that seriously and reassess what we are doing.
"I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim. I don't believe that "muslims" hate us."
Just what part of "KILL ALL THE INFIDELS" do you not understand?
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 12:30:46 AM
So what exactly are you willing to sacrifice to deal with the "muslim threat"? Do you want to install democracy? Do you think we need to support Israel militarily and financially, even if it makes us less safe? Do you want to intervene in the middle east through propping up puppet dictators?
And how much money is it worth so you will feel safe?
ROFL!!! You think this is about "feelings"? It's about supporting your ally's, especially when our shared enemy has sworn to remove us from the face of the earth.
But, no, we should take your approach, bury our heads deep in the sand and hide behind the Constitution.
Got news for ya son, these animals are the very reason we have a military today.
Did Jefferson say we should mind our own business, or did he attack, was Jefferson wrong, is that what you're saying?
So I'll ask you. How would you deal with an enemy that wants to eradicate you? They've told you to your face they will kill you or make you a slave ?
Come on, give us the words of a 20 something sage.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 12:26:43 AM
I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim. I don't believe that "muslims" hate us. Some radical muslims choose to use the tactic of terrorism to strike back at us for a variety of reasons. It is true that radical Islamic sects teach that Western culture and society, not to mention Christianity, are evil and degenerate. However, an effective campaign to galvanize popular support for a coordinated network of Al Qaeda terrorists would never be possible based on these reasons alone. As Robert Pape and others have documented, there was a time when radical muslim leaders tried to gain support for a network of coordinated attacks on American allies and embassies based on only these doctrinaire concerns. Such an effort was a consistent failure. People might, in the abstract, object to the rights we grant to women, the freedom we afford our citizens and the fact that we are majority Christian, but they won't risk their lives and devote their time to fight for such abstract principles.
In fact the evidence shows that it was only when people like Osama bin Laden were able to point to occupation, bombing campaigns, the subversion of self determination by installing puppet dictators perpetrated by the United States government that a coordinated and determined Jihadist effort against the United States started to take effect. Our government has provided the ammunition that radical Muslim leaders need to convert otherwise moderate Muslims, people who would be potential friends and allies, to their cause.
We don't need to be sticking our heads into hornets nests and then complain that we keep getting stung. This doesn't excuse the killing of innocent people, but if there is a clear cause and effect to our military action, we need to take that seriously and reassess what we are doing.
I didn't realize a culture that stones their women for being victims would otherwise be tolerant of us if we just left them alone. Thanks for showing me the light!
Quote from: taxed on August 15, 2014, 11:32:07 AM
I didn't realize a culture that stones their women for being victims would otherwise be tolerant of us if we just left them alone. Thanks for showing me the light!
I have no idea why anyone would think it's a radical sect teaching kids, when the fact is, Wahhabi are the ones in charge of the school system.
An entire generation has been taught this for the last 40+ years in Egypt and surrounding nations.
This is that ignorance I mentioned earlier. :glare:
QuoteA member of a strictly orthodox Sunni Muslim sect from Saudi Arabia; strives to purify Islamic beliefs and rejects any innovation occurring after the 3rd century of Islam[/li][/list]
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 12:26:43 AM
I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim. I don't believe that "muslims" hate us. Some radical muslims choose to use the tactic of terrorism to strike back at us for a variety of reasons. It is true that radical Islamic sects teach that Western culture and society, not to mention Christianity, are evil and degenerate. However, an effective campaign to galvanize popular support for a coordinated network of Al Qaeda terrorists would never be possible based on these reasons alone. As Robert Pape and others have documented, there was a time when radical muslim leaders tried to gain support for a network of coordinated attacks on American allies and embassies based on only these doctrinaire concerns. Such an effort was a consistent failure. People might, in the abstract, object to the rights we grant to women, the freedom we afford our citizens and the fact that we are majority Christian, but they won't risk their lives and devote their time to fight for such abstract principles.
In fact the evidence shows that it was only when people like Osama bin Laden were able to point to occupation, bombing campaigns, the subversion of self determination by installing puppet dictators perpetrated by the United States government that a coordinated and determined Jihadist effort against the United States started to take effect. Our government has provided the ammunition that radical Muslim leaders need to convert otherwise moderate Muslims, people who would be potential friends and allies, to their cause.
We don't need to be sticking our heads into hornets nests and then complain that we keep getting stung. This doesn't excuse the killing of innocent people, but if there is a clear cause and effect to our military action, we need to take that seriously and reassess what we are doing.
Jrodefeld, let me tell you what I learned about Muslim's and Islam after spending almost 4 years between Iraq and Afghanistan. My views have change significantly over the years. At first, I thought it was only radical Islam that hated us - this is not the case, Islam as a religion is intolerant of anything that is not Islam. Islam is also a political system, their religious leaders are their politicians, sometimes a "secular" politician will be put in charge for appearances only - but the power remains with the religious leadership. There is no separation of church and state to a Muslim - its the same thing to them.
Islam is 600 years younger then Christianity; and 600 years ago Christians where killing each other and every culture they came in contact with. Not surprisingly, Islam is doing the same thing now.
There is not a single (NONE) place in the world where Islam lives side by side with any other dominant religion or political system in peace. Islam fights the Russians in Chechnya, the Philippines fights an Islamist insurgency, Islamists fight in Bosnia, Croatia. Even the Chinese have a problem with Islamists. And in many places where there are only Muslims - they kill each other; Turkey for example.
Here is the bottom line - Muslims want you to live the Muslim way, or they want you to leave, or they want you to live beneath them (as a slave), or they want you to be dead. They are not interested in coexisting with you, being a friend, sharing... because this is what their religion teaches them god wants.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 15, 2014, 04:28:17 AM
"I think that is a pretty unsubstantiated claim. I don't believe that "muslims" hate us."
Just what part of "KILL ALL THE INFIDELS" do you not understand?
Okay, there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims on the planet, okay? Why can't you understand the danger in making blanket statements condemning 23% of the worlds population?
Personally, I am non religious. I think all the worlds organized religions are dangerous. But I see people as individuals, and judge them on their own merits. The overwhelming majority of Muslims don't want to "kill all the infidels". There are 2.6 million Muslims who live in the United States. Why aren't they planning and carrying out acts of terrorism against the "infidels" that surround them?
You may protest and say "oh yeah? But the Quran says..." Well two can play at that game. I could just as easily condemn all Christians by quoting passages from the Old Testament. I could say that all Christians are evil because the Bible says you should kill all homosexuals and murder disobedient children. But that would be an erroneous argument because there are virtually no Christians who actually believe these things.
You may be content to simply ratchet up the hostilities between the Christian west and Muslim middle east by stereotyping and ignoring our common humanity, but I am not. Terrorism is a real problem but your views make it more likely for this extremism to spread.
Are you incapable of empathizing with the innocent people who are killed by our drones? The families of the women and children who starved to death as a result of our sanctions? And the population of Iran who suffered under a brutal dictator, the Shah, who was placed in power by the United States government? Our CIA overthrew a moderate, popularly elected leader in Mohammad Mossadegh to place a brutal tyrant in power.
Any sane person would grow to hate the foreign power who did this to you and your family. By saying "they're all just crazy and they hate us for our freedom" you are compounding the problem by ignoring these very real and legitimate grievances. Like I said before, this doesn't excuse the murder of innocent people but it is easy to see how otherwise reasonable people would be compelled to lash out in any way they could. Otherwise moderate people grow to emotionally support radical Islam and terrorist efforts.
This has all been extensively documented and researched by experts in the field like the aforementioned Michael Scheuer and Robert Pape.
Quote from: Solar on August 15, 2014, 05:58:48 AM
ROFL!!! You think this is about "feelings"? It's about supporting your ally's, especially when our shared enemy has sworn to remove us from the face of the earth.
But, no, we should take your approach, bury our heads deep in the sand and hide behind the Constitution.
Got news for ya son, these animals are the very reason we have a military today.
Did Jefferson say we should mind our own business, or did he attack, was Jefferson wrong, is that what you're saying?
So I'll ask you. How would you deal with an enemy that wants to eradicate you? They've told you to your face they will kill you or make you a slave ?
Come on, give us the words of a 20 something sage.
Whether or not someone "wants" to eradicate you is beside the point. The point is whether they have the capability. And these impoverished third world Muslim nations in the middle east can't possibly touch us. The threat is WAY overblown. 9/11 occurred because we have foolishly built up a bureaucracy in our intelligence agencies and our military. The evidence that some hijackers were planning to fly a plane into the World Trade Center was spelled out quite clearly. The problem was it got buried under the weight of bureaucracy and it never got through to the people who could have done something to prevent it.
I get the feeling you honestly haven't read a thing about this subject. I've already cited some scholarly work authored by experts in the field of counter terrorism, but I've only heard fear mongering and hyperbole that is reminiscent of listening to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity circa 2005. If you have some sources to cite that back up your wild claims, I'd love to see them.
Quote from: taxed on August 15, 2014, 11:32:07 AM
I didn't realize a culture that stones their women for being victims would otherwise be tolerant of us if we just left them alone. Thanks for showing me the light!
Their are moderates in the middle east. I know this must shock you, but not everyone living in that part of the world is a barbarian. The problems in the middle east will become problems for them to deal with. The violence and tribal warfare will become mostly an insular thing. Within a generation the radicals would probably lose any interest in trying to orchestrate attacks against a country that is minding its own business on the other side of the globe. They would again terrorize people within their own borders.
There is a reason we are singled out for attack and other free and non-Muslim nations are left alone.
Free people could spread ideas to the moderates in the Muslim world. I'd love to hand out leaflets and copies of "For a New Liberty". Spread the concepts of classical liberalism, individual self ownership and private property rights to the dissidents in those countries. They need to rise up and overthrow their own tyrannical States and reject Muslim radicalism. Our military can't accomplish this. And it is rather naive to even think that the motivation for our occupation and bombing campaigns is to reduce violence and/or make the middle east into a more westernized place.
Can't you see how support for this sort of militarism undermines your stated support for limited government? It is precisely an expansionary military and constant warfare that has done more than anything else to grow the power of the State and put us into debt over the last half century.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 07:44:53 PM
Okay, there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims on the planet, okay? Why can't you understand the danger in making blanket statements condemning 23% of the worlds population?
I don't condemn anyone. I just call it like I see it.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 07:44:53 PM
Personally, I am non religious. I think all the worlds organized religions are dangerous. But I see people as individuals, and judge them on their own merits. The overwhelming majority of Muslims don't want to "kill all the infidels". There are 2.6 million Muslims who live in the United States. Why aren't they planning and carrying out acts of terrorism against the "infidels" that surround them?
You may be content to simply ratchet up the hostilities between the Christian west and Muslim middle east by stereotyping and ignoring our common humanity, but I am not. Terrorism is a real problem but your views make it more likely for this extremism to spread.
Here is the difference:
Every few decades, some Christian nut job blows up an abortion clinic; Ministers from all denominations of Christianity are falling over each other to be the first to condemn it and say Jesus does not approve. The Christians call the guy crazy.
Every other day, some Muslim blows up a pizzeria, or some other place filled with as many innocent people as possible. The vast majority of Imams will be calling him a martyr during Friday prayers. They will collect money to pay his family, the children will dance in the street throwing candy. In order to please westerners, some Muslim propaganda groups will put out a very carefully worded statements that 1.never condemn the attacker / 2. never directly say that the attack was wrong / and 3. always blames some other group for instigating everything.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 07:44:53 PM
You may protest and say "oh yeah? But the Quran says..." Well two can play at that game. I could just as easily condemn all Christians by quoting passages from the Old Testament. I could say that all Christians are evil because the Bible says you should kill all homosexuals and murder disobedient children. But that would be an erroneous argument because there are virtually no Christians who actually believe these things.
No, I judge based on what they do, not what their books say.
There are Muslims (entire countries of Muslims) that actually DO kill homosexuals.
They don't just preach, they don't protest and harass homosexuals (like some Christians) - they actually kill them.
The Quran says it and they do it.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 07:44:53 PM
Are you incapable of empathizing with the innocent people who are killed by our drones? The families of the women and children who starved to death as a result of our sanctions? And the population of Iran who suffered under a brutal dictator, the Shah, who was placed in power by the United States government? Our CIA overthrew a moderate, popularly elected leader in Mohammad Mossadegh to place a brutal tyrant in power.
Ok, I sympathize.
Now what.
I already support the US butting out of foreign entanglements whenever possible.
Or am I supposed to forgive the poor Muslims for barbaric behavior burning down churches.. blowing up night clubs.. ect.. ect..
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 07:44:53 PM
Any sane person would grow to hate the foreign power who did this to you and your family. By saying "they're all just crazy and they hate us for our freedom" you are compounding the problem by ignoring these very real and legitimate grievances. Like I said before, this doesn't excuse the murder of innocent people but it is easy to see how otherwise reasonable people would be compelled to lash out in any way they could. Otherwise moderate people grow to emotionally support radical Islam and terrorist efforts.
This has all been extensively documented and researched by experts in the field like the aforementioned Michael Scheuer and Robert Pape
Let me be blunt. They don't hate us for our freedom - They hate us because we don't follow Allah.
They don't just hate us for our transgressions against them - They hate EVERYONE that don't do what Allah wants. What did the Russians do to them? how about the Chinese? the Philippines?, the Indians? ...... did all these countries wrong them?
Do you see Christians, Jews and Buddhists populations trying to over through their governments around the world and create religious states (where they will no doubt make homosexuality punishable by death).
I know the poor Muslims have been victimized by everyone. It's not them, it's the rest of the world.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 15, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
Jrodefeld, let me tell you what I learned about Muslim's and Islam after spending almost 4 years between Iraq and Afghanistan. My views have change significantly over the years. At first, I thought it was only radical Islam that hated us - this is not the case, Islam as a religion is intolerant of anything that is not Islam. Islam is also a political system, their religious leaders are their politicians, sometimes a "secular" politician will be put in charge for appearances only - but the power remains with the religious leadership. There is no separation of church and state to a Muslim - its the same thing to them.
Islam is 600 years younger then Christianity; and 600 years ago Christians where killing each other and every culture they came in contact with. Not surprisingly, Islam is doing the same thing now.
There is not a single (NONE) place in the world where Islam lives side by side with any other dominant religion or political system in peace. Islam fights the Russians in Chechnya, the Philippines fights an Islamist insurgency, Islamists fight in Bosnia, Croatia. Even the Chinese have a problem with Islamists. And in many places where there are only Muslims - they kill each other; Turkey for example.
Here is the bottom line - Muslims want you to live the Muslim way, or they want you to leave, or they want you to live beneath them (as a slave), or they want you to be dead. They are not interested in coexisting with you, being a friend, sharing... because this is what their religion teaches them god wants.
I can't speak to your experience in Iraq and Afghanistan but I maintain that it is irresponsible to paint with a broad brush and write off 1.6 billion people. I'm not arguing that Islamic cultures are not, by and large, extremely backwards. But clearly there are places where Muslims assimilate just fine into the cultures that surround them. I've personally known Muslims and they certainly didn't hate me because I was not a member of their religion. The 2.3 million Muslims that live in the United States are not plotting to establish Sharia law.
Yes, many Muslim cultures are extremely behind the evolutionary curve. But what do you want to do about it? Each of us are entitled to our opinions about Muslims and about the middle east. Do you want to go to war to deal with the Muslim "problem"?
I've already stated that a response to 9/11 was of course appropriate. If any radical Muslim group uses violence against us, then we have every right to respond and bring the criminals to justice. But I suspect you would have us intervene a lot more beyond that. My argument is that we should not embolden and empower the most radical elements of Islam. And that is precisely what our foreign policy has done over the last half a century.
They might still not like us, but according to experts like Pape, we should expect the dysfunction and violence to be contained within that part of the world if we don't incite them through an aggressive military presence.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 07:56:35 PM
Whether or not someone "wants" to eradicate you is beside the point. The point is whether they have the capability. And these impoverished third world Muslim nations in the middle east can't possibly touch us. The threat is WAY overblown. 9/11 occurred because we have foolishly built up a bureaucracy in our intelligence agencies and our military. The evidence that some hijackers were planning to fly a plane into the World Trade Center was spelled out quite clearly. The problem was it got buried under the weight of bureaucracy and it never got through to the people who could have done something to prevent it.
I get the feeling you honestly haven't read a thing about this subject. I've already cited some scholarly work authored by experts in the field of counter terrorism, but I've only heard fear mongering and hyperbole that is reminiscent of listening to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity circa 2005. If you have some sources to cite that back up your wild claims, I'd love to see them.
Wow, you really do live in a fantasy world where everyone gets along and all share the idea of world peace.
Well I have news for you, they don't!!!
It's time you learn something...
QuoteOn April 2013, envelopes sent to President Obama and a U.S. Senator tested positive for ricin, a
deadly toxin derived from castor beans. Ricin is often mentioned as a potential bioterror weapon
and has been posed a terrorist and criminal threat. For example, CBS News reported that the
Department of Homeland Security had uncovered a credible threat of attacks using poisons, such
as ricin, in salad bars and buffets,1 and unknown individuals have sent letters and packages
containing ricin to federal officials.2 This report provides general information about ricin,
identifies historical examples of its use, discusses its potential as a bioterror weapon, and
summarizes how its possession is currently regulated.
Look up Project BioShield Act (P.L. 108-276) Congressional act. If there is no threat, then why are we spending billions on the program over the next decade? A program they realize may take longer, and may not even work.
So why now, what happened recently in Syria that would lead them to believe we're at risk?
Yeah, this was just signed this year, so no, we're not protected.
Or try this link. http://cns.miis.edu/cbw/possess.htm (http://cns.miis.edu/cbw/possess.htm)
Or do a search on Ricin. Remember Japan 1995?
Think ISIS, Iraq/Syria.
QuoteExperts believe that terrorist use of chemical agents is an event with low probability, but
potentially high consequences. While terrorist groups may or may not have an increased interest
in chemical agent acquisition and use, the domestic vulnerability of the United States to chemical
attack remains an issue. Both the United States and Russia have signed and ratified the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC), and are reducing, and eventually eliminating, their chemical
weapon stockpiles.1 The possibility that terrorist groups might obtain insecure chemical weapons
led to increased scrutiny of declared Libyan chemical weapon stockpiles following the fall of the
Qadhafi regime. Experts have expressed similar concerns regarding the security of Syrian
chemical weapons, reportedly including stocks of nerve (sarin, VX) and blister (mustard gas)
agents, and their potential use. For analysis of chemical weapons possession and use in Syria, see
CRS Report R42848, Syria's Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Mary Beth
D. Nikitin
Point is, you have an awful lot to learn about human nature. Man is not a very nice animal, never was, never will be.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 09:01:07 PM
...But I suspect you would have us intervene a lot more beyond that.
No - I think I agree with you. I prefer to prepare for war while minding our business.
I just don't want western mentality to blind people to reality. Islam is a religion and a political philosophy that is
extremely intolerant.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 09:01:07 PM
I can't speak to your experience in Iraq and Afghanistan but I maintain that it is irresponsible to paint with a broad brush and write off 1.6 billion people. I'm not arguing that Islamic cultures are not, by and large, extremely backwards. But clearly there are places where Muslims assimilate just fine into the cultures that surround them. I've personally known Muslims and they certainly didn't hate me because I was not a member of their religion. The 2.3 million Muslims that live in the United States are not plotting to establish Sharia law.
Another extremely intolerant political and religious ideology where the Nazi in Germany. I doubt that every single Nazi was in favor of everything Germany did. Some of them could have probably chatted with you at a bar and made friends. They played with and loved their children and families. Yet - the ideology was intolerant to the point of evil.
It's the ideology, the religion that I write off.
I will reconsider when those 2.9 billion Muslims rise up and stop their leaders from:
Killing homosexuals
Treating women like trash
Beheading people that follow other religions
Burning churches, destroying Buddhist monuments ect..
Strapping bombs to their kids backs
Where do Muslims assimilate into the culture that surrounds them?
The United States might just be the closest thing. I would have agreed except that on 9/11 when the towers came down the "assimilated" Muslim community in Sunset park, Brooklyn NY where dancing in the streets throwing candy. That is where I grew up at - You can see the towers and the Manhattan sky line from there. The NYPD arrested the only radio DJ that broadcasted the Muslim celebration was going on (in sighting a riot was the charge). How do I know this, my family still live there.
Ask your Muslim friends some deep questions - you might be surprised at the answers you get.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 15, 2014, 11:04:16 PM
No - I think I agree with you. I prefer to prepare for war while minding our business.
I just don't want western mentality to blind people to reality. Islam is a religion and a political philosophy that is extremely intolerant.
Another extremely intolerant political and religious ideology where the Nazi in Germany. I doubt that every single Nazi was in favor of everything Germany did. Some of them could have probably chatted with you at a bar and made friends. They played with and loved their children and families. Yet - the ideology was intolerant to the point of evil.
It's the ideology, the religion that I write off.
I will reconsider when those 2.9 billion Muslims rise up and stop their leaders from:
Killing homosexuals
Treating women like trash
Beheading people that follow other religions
Burning churches, destroying Buddhist monuments ect..
Strapping bombs to their kids backs
Where do Muslims assimilate into the culture that surrounds them?
The United States might just be the closest thing. I would have agreed except that on 9/11 when the towers came down the "assimilated" Muslim community in Sunset park, Brooklyn NY where dancing in the streets throwing candy. That is where I grew up at - You can see the towers and the Manhattan sky line from there. The NYPD arrested the only radio DJ that broadcasted the Muslim celebration was going on (in sighting a riot was the charge). How do I know this, my family still live there.
Ask your Muslim friends some deep questions - you might be surprised at the answers you get.
I still think you are being rather close minded and intolerant. I stated earlier that I could easily try to smear all Christians by reading every controversial passage from the Bible. You correctly pointed out that Christians, by and large, simply reject the passages in the bible that are inconvenient. They sort of pick and choose the parts of the religion that they like and they ignore the rest. That might make them inconsistent as followers of a doctrinaire religious text, but they are all around decent people. They reinterpret those controversial text in a way that is far less barbaric and more civilized.
Many Muslims do the same. Most people who are religious don't even understand all the teachings of their religion. They were just born into it or they pick and choose a few aspects of that religion that provide them with some value in their lives and ignore the rest. I'll concede that there are more radical Muslims than there are radical (in the sense of inciting and carrying out violence) Christians. And I agree that Muslim leaders should be more outspoken in condemning acts of violence.
We can agree to disagree on the merits of Islam as a religion, and remember that I reject all organized religions. The most important thing is that we don't incite violence. We shouldn't have any right to attack first or intervene in the internal affairs of other nations so long as their dysfunction remains contained to their own corner of the globe.
But I do think that using collectivist language such as "the Muslims are the enemy" and variations on that give aid to those who would have us wage a religious war with Islam. There are strains of radical Christians who view this so called "war on terror" as a religious war of Christians vs Muslims. This sort of language is also dehumanizing because it makes people insensitive to the deaths our government has caused of innocent people in the Muslim world. An innocent human life is inherently valuable and should be considered of equal worth to any other human life.
Remember that if you or I had been raised in Iran, we'd probably be Muslims not through a conscious decision but through cultural osmosis and then someone else could declare us "enemies of humanity" and wage war on us.
I'm glad you seem to agree with me, and with the founding fathers, that our foreign policy should be one of non intervention. Honest friendship and open trade with all willing nations but entangling alliances with none.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 15, 2014, 07:44:53 PM
Okay, there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims on the planet, okay? Why can't you understand the danger in making blanket statements condemning 23% of the worlds population?
Personally, I am non religious. I think all the worlds organized religions are dangerous. But I see people as individuals, and judge them on their own merits. The overwhelming majority of Muslims don't want to "kill all the infidels". There are 2.6 million Muslims who live in the United States. Why aren't they planning and carrying out acts of terrorism against the "infidels" that surround them?
You may protest and say "oh yeah? But the Quran says..." Well two can play at that game. I could just as easily condemn all Christians by quoting passages from the Old Testament. I could say that all Christians are evil because the Bible says you should kill all homosexuals and murder disobedient children. But that would be an erroneous argument because there are virtually no Christians who actually believe these things.
You may be content to simply ratchet up the hostilities between the Christian west and Muslim middle east by stereotyping and ignoring our common humanity, but I am not. Terrorism is a real problem but your views make it more likely for this extremism to spread.
Are you incapable of empathizing with the innocent people who are killed by our drones? The families of the women and children who starved to death as a result of our sanctions? And the population of Iran who suffered under a brutal dictator, the Shah, who was placed in power by the United States government? Our CIA overthrew a moderate, popularly elected leader in Mohammad Mossadegh to place a brutal tyrant in power.
Any sane person would grow to hate the foreign power who did this to you and your family. By saying "they're all just crazy and they hate us for our freedom" you are compounding the problem by ignoring these very real and legitimate grievances. Like I said before, this doesn't excuse the murder of innocent people but it is easy to see how otherwise reasonable people would be compelled to lash out in any way they could. Otherwise moderate people grow to emotionally support radical Islam and terrorist efforts.
This has all been extensively documented and researched by experts in the field like the aforementioned Michael Scheuer and Robert Pape.
It is clear you see the world as you would like it, not as it is. If what you say is true, please share with us all these "moderate" Muslims who are outraged over what ISIS and other terrorist groups are doing.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 15, 2014, 11:04:16 PM
I just don't want western mentality to blind people to reality. Islam is a religion and a political philosophy that is extremely intolerant.
That says it all, it's the mental block many have, mostly because they've never left the sanctuary of the U.S., and two, too young to have a historical reference to grasp the concept evil does exist.
They just lead a too PC and protected life here.
You just as well give it up N, he has no interest in the truth, simply because he can't grasp a context he's never experienced.
Your point is succinct, he's led a protected and blinded life here.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 16, 2014, 02:35:13 AM
Remember that if you or I had been raised in Iran, we'd probably be Muslims not through a conscious decision but through cultural osmosis and then someone else could declare us "enemies of humanity" and wage war on us.
True, but I think we would be Muslim because if not, we would stand a good chance of being killed.
Let me appeal to your intellectual side.
I used to have the same view as you; I believed that "everyone wants to be free." That everyone wants to live in peace. That we could live in peace side by side with Muslims. Then I went to Iraq, and talked with the Iraqis that I worked with over many months.
I realized that they can not live as equals in peace with people of other religions because they can not separate their religion from their politics. They are one and the same - even Sunni and Shia can't live together in peace as equals. One must dominate the other because the government is the religion / the religion is the government - therefore the government (and it's power) must be Sunni or Shia, and can not be both - as that would be an abomination to either religion (and only one can be god's true will).
This is why Muslims in Chechnya, the Filipines, Serbia, China ..... all over, fight for independent Muslim states (once the Muslim population reaches a critical mass in those places)
Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism are religions, separate from the government. Islam is a political system and a religion, the idea of separating the 2 is inconceivable, illogical and alien to Muslims.
Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2014, 06:12:26 AM
That says it all, it's the mental block many have, mostly because they've never left the sanctuary of the U.S., and two, too young to have a historical reference to grasp the concept evil does exist.
They just lead a too PC and protected life here.
You just as well give it up N, he has no interest in the truth, simply because he can't grasp a context he's never experienced.
Your point is succinct, he's led a protected and blinded life here.
Never give up!
I used to have the same views as him - then I went to Iraq and realized how different they are compared to us. It's like landing on another planet (a hot ugly one).
Quote from: Novanglus on August 16, 2014, 02:21:12 PM
Never give up!
I used to have the same views as him - then I went to Iraq and realized how different they are compared to us. It's like landing on another planet (a hot ugly one).
You never know how hot the desert can be until you live in it for a summer. Life is the same way, some have not been in the desert of life yet.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 16, 2014, 02:21:12 PM
Never give up!
I used to have the same views as him - then I went to Iraq and realized how different they are compared to us. It's like landing on another planet (a hot ugly one).
Yeah, he really needs to get out, visit 3rd world countries, see just how well off he really is, Hell, maybe even appreciate our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Too many take it for granted, want to change it, think they have the wisdom to make things better. Problem is, no single individual has that power, it takes a willing populace wanting to make it better, and right now, just a bit more than half are wanting to make it better by removing the commies in power.
Hopefully once purged, the country will come together in sacrifice, like it used to, for the betterment of the nation, not the individual.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 16, 2014, 02:09:03 PM
True, but I think we would be Muslim because if not, we would stand a good chance of being killed.
Let me appeal to your intellectual side.
I used to have the same view as you; I believed that "everyone wants to be free." That everyone wants to live in peace. That we could live in peace side by side with Muslims. Then I went to Iraq, and talked with the Iraqis that I worked with over many months.
I realized that they can not live as equals in peace with people of other religions because they can not separate their religion from their politics. They are one and the same - even Sunni and Shia can't live together in peace as equals. One must dominate the other because the government is the religion / the religion is the government - therefore the government (and it's power) must be Sunni or Shia, and can not be both - as that would be an abomination to either religion (and only one can be god's true will).
This is why Muslims in Chechnya, the Filipines, Serbia, China ..... all over, fight for independent Muslim states (once the Muslim population reaches a critical mass in those places)
Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism are religions, separate from the government. Islam is a political system and a religion, the idea of separating the 2 is inconceivable, illogical and alien to Muslims.
I'm not arguing against what you are saying here. And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace". If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people thought that if we only installed a democracy in the middle east, peace would flourish and we could remake the region in our image. On the contrary, it is quite clear that most Muslims who live in the middle east will vote to elect radical Muslim leaders who do NOT believe in freedom and would gladly oppress women, behead infidels and institute oppressive Sharia law. This irrationality of middle east politics is precisely why libertarians have been arguing that we should stay out of that region and allow their dysfunction and violence to remain a problem for the Muslim world to deal with.
Since you seem to be a non-interventionist, then we have far more in common than we have differences. I just caution that the sort of language you are using to describe Islam is dangerous because it can lead people to devalue the lives of people killed in that part of the world, especially when it is the result of our foreign policy.
Like Ron Paul has said, it is very important that we consider how we would react if some other military superpower did to us what our government has done to nations in the Middle East. To speak about people in the Muslim world as just backwards extremists is dehumanizing. Whatever the merits of the dominant religion, these are people of value and worth.
I don't think I'm being naive about the problems with Islam or its capacity to incite violence. We just shouldn't allow this to permit our government to use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us. I'm concerned that this sort of generalization of Muslims using collectivist language plays right into the hand of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 17, 2014, 02:56:09 AM
I'm not arguing against what you are saying here. And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace". If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people thought that if we only installed a democracy in the middle east, peace would flourish and we could remake the region in our image. On the contrary, it is quite clear that most Muslims who live in the middle east will vote to elect radical Muslim leaders who do NOT believe in freedom and would gladly oppress women, behead infidels and institute oppressive Sharia law. This irrationality of middle east politics is precisely why libertarians have been arguing that we should stay out of that region and allow their dysfunction and violence to remain a problem for the Muslim world to deal with.
Check your history. Both party's put us in Iraq.
QuoteSince you seem to be a non-interventionist, then we have far more in common than we have differences. I just caution that the sort of language you are using to describe Islam is dangerous because it can lead people to devalue the lives of people killed in that part of the world, especially when it is the result of our foreign policy.
Like Ron Paul has said, it is very important that we consider how we would react if some other military superpower did to us what our government has done to nations in the Middle East. To speak about people in the Muslim world as just backwards extremists is dehumanizing. Whatever the merits of the dominant religion, these are people of value and worth.
One of the first rules of war. Know your enemy, and never empathize with them, until they surrender.
QuoteI don't think I'm being naive about the problems with Islam or its capacity to incite violence. We just shouldn't allow this to permit our government to use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us. I'm concerned that this sort of generalization of Muslims using collectivist language plays right into the hand of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Again, check your freakin history!!!
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 17, 2014, 02:56:09 AM
I'm not arguing against what you are saying here. And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace". If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I probably was a "neocon" back then.
Now, I prefer to stay out of foreign entanglements. However, it would be prudent to prepare for war because it may be inevitable.
I always believed that following 9/11 we should have made a stronger statement to deter aggression. On 9/15 Afghanistan should have looked like superman's fathers house on krypton (made of glass) if the Taliban did not turn over all the radicals.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 17, 2014, 02:19:21 PM
I probably was a "neocon" back then.
Now, I prefer to stay out of foreign entanglements. However, it would be prudent to prepare for war because it may be inevitable.
I always believed that following 9/11 we should have made a stronger statement to deter aggression. On 9/15 Afghanistan should have looked like superman's fathers house on krypton (made of glass) if the Taliban did not turn over all the radicals.
It is nice to know that real life experience can open ones eye even in this day and age young man.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 01:46:54 PM
Islam. What do you mean "how does it fit"? If someone initiates violence against us then we have the right to defend ourselves. We have the right to use force to compel restitution or punish those criminals that are proven in a court to have committed an act of aggression. The key is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime committed. If you steal a candy bar, you can be forced to pay the cost of the candy bar but no more. If you destroy someones property you can be forced to pay damages. If you murder someone, your punishment can be anything up to and including death.
I don't know how much of a neo con presence there is on these boards, but I don't think I have to explain that the response of the US government after 9/11 has been horrific. What we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands we have killed or displaced, is a far greater crime than what was done to us.
In a different scenario, a libertarian would have advised that we do the following. In the first place, Osama bin Laden and the dozen or so radical Islamic terrorists that were directly responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks on the World Trade Center should have been formally proven to have committing the crimes in a court of law. The evidence should have been presented to the American people in an open manner. After it was proven conclusively that it was indeed bin Laden and a few others who were responsible, we should have targeted those individuals specifically.
Ron Paul argued that we should have used the Letters of Mark and Reprisal in the Constitution to target a non State threat like a dozen terrorists and then use special forces or a contractor to capture those men who were responsible and bring them to the United States for trial. They should have been tried and then, if found guilty, put to death.
We should have used the opportunity to prove the the Muslim world that we are not the imperialist oppressors that bin Laden made us out to be. We could have proven that we follow the rule of law, we don't needlessly kill Muslim civilians and we grant a fair trial to even the worst criminals.
The entire thing could have been over in six months, no Iraq War, no occupation of Afghanistan, no nation building, no 6000 dead Americans, no 5 trillion dollars in debt to fight needless wars and rebuild a country after we destroyed it.
OBL was proven guilty, just not in a court of law as he was never arrested nor was he a citizen. He was an enemy combatant of a legally declared war. Furthermore, even OBL admitted he was responsible.
As for your statement Libertarians believe in using force to defend the nation or other nations and people who are being attacked only the former is correct. I am a Libertarian and this is one of the issues I take with my own party. Also being as the former is at least correct, 911 was nothing if not an attack on the US and therefore military action was justified and rightfully conducted.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 17, 2014, 02:56:09 AM
I'm not arguing against what you are saying here. And I don't believe that "everyone wants to be free" or that "everyone wants to live in peace". If anything, this was the view of the neocons who got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people thought that if we only installed a democracy in the middle east, peace would flourish and we could remake the region in our image. On the contrary, it is quite clear that most Muslims who live in the middle east will vote to elect radical Muslim leaders who do NOT believe in freedom and would gladly oppress women, behead infidels and institute oppressive Sharia law. This irrationality of middle east politics is precisely why libertarians have been arguing that we should stay out of that region and allow their dysfunction and violence to remain a problem for the Muslim world to deal with.
Since you seem to be a non-interventionist, then we have far more in common than we have differences. I just caution that the sort of language you are using to describe Islam is dangerous because it can lead people to devalue the lives of people killed in that part of the world, especially when it is the result of our foreign policy.
Like Ron Paul has said, it is very important that we consider how we would react if some other military superpower did to us what our government has done to nations in the Middle East. To speak about people in the Muslim world as just backwards extremists is dehumanizing. Whatever the merits of the dominant religion, these are people of value and worth.
I don't think I'm being naive about the problems with Islam or its capacity to incite violence. We just shouldn't allow this to permit our government to use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us. I'm concerned that this sort of generalization of Muslims using collectivist language plays right into the hand of people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Your claim we "use aggression against people who have never done a thing to us" is without merit. To what aggression are you referring? Neither in Afghanistan nor Iraq were innocent people targeted. Far from it. We lost many lives precisely because of our reluctance to even accidently target such people.
Quote from: LibDave on August 18, 2014, 03:51:29 PM
OBL was proven guilty, just not in a court of law as he was never arrested nor was he a citizen. He was an enemy combatant of a legally declared war. Furthermore, even OBL admitted he was responsible.
As for your statement Libertarians believe in using force to defend the nation or other nations and people who are being attacked only the former is correct. I am a Libertarian and this is one of the issues I take with my own party. Also being as the former is at least correct, 911 was nothing if not an attack on the US and therefore military action was justified and rightfully conducted.
I'm also a libertarian,
and I wanted to go Hiroshima on the Taliban on 9/12; at least some carpet bombing.
The Taliban where the official government of Afghanistan at the time. They allowed terrorists to operate from Afghanistan and the way I see it - that makes Afghanistan responsible.
You could argue that the people had nothing to do with it, but I don't see it that way. The people let the Taliban run the show and the Taliban let UBL attack US. Besides, the Japanese got the nuke for attacking a military base (they where not convicted either) - wouldn't we be discriminating if Afghanistan did not get it also? :woot: They attacked civilians.
I think our grand parents would not have hesitated to light it up. Then they would have went back to work.
Quote from: Solar on August 16, 2014, 02:55:37 PMToo many take it for granted, want to change it, think they have the wisdom to make things better. Problem is, no single individual has that power, it takes a willing populace wanting to make it better, and right now, just a bit more than half are wanting to make it better by removing the commies in power.
Until it got to "commie", I thought you were speaking about Iraq, as it would pretty much approach my view of it.
QuoteHopefully once purged, the country will come together in sacrifice, like it used to, for the betterment of the nation, not the individual.
? America was built upon the idea of Rugged-Individualism. It's mantra in the 19th century was "
Self-interest, rightly understood".
Kind of an uphill battle, don't you think?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:10:44 AM
Until it got to "commie", I thought you were speaking about Iraq, as it would pretty much approach my view of it.
? America was built upon the idea of Rugged-Individualism. It's mantra in the 19th century was "Self-interest, rightly understood".
Kind of an uphill battle, don't you think?
If you consider how leftist trash perverted our schoolhouses and demasculinized every boy they could get their sorry hands on, would today's U.S. boys be prepared to defend their nation if required? How do you convince some brain-addled leftist kid that it is in his best self-interest to put down the Game Boy and pick up a weapon to kill the rat bastard communists ruining our nation?
Liberals are a disease. They're the ones telling him it's OK to weigh 300 pounds and declare himself "handicapped," or if he's black he's "disadvantaged." They enable sloth, and sloth enables weak self-defense. They're the ones stealing his future by spending it today, on unworkable harebrained schemes like solar energy or corn-based fuel which drives up food costs because there's a shortage of corn.
EVERY leftist idea has bad consequences. That's why we wound up with a piece of communist trash like Obama and his racist filth attorney-general. They're the ones actively trying to help our enemies win against America.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:10:44 AM
Until it got to "commie", I thought you were speaking about Iraq, as it would pretty much approach my view of it.
? America was built upon the idea of Rugged-Individualism. It's mantra in the 19th century was "Self-interest, rightly understood".
Kind of an uphill battle, don't you think?
Less govt = more liberties, more Liberty, means self sufficiency which would lead us back on the path of Individualism.
The battle is weaning the babes off the govt, hard at first, but when they see their programs being cut and the money coming in is less that that of a minimum wage job, self sufficiency will lead to independence.
Regardless of consequence, it's the right thing to do to free the country.
Quote from: quiller on August 19, 2014, 05:25:38 AMEVERY leftist idea has bad consequences. That's why we wound up with a piece of communist trash like Obama and his racist filth attorney-general. They're the ones actively trying to help our enemies win against America.
Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...
I think I'm going to like it here. B)
Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 05:26:38 AM
Less govt = more liberties, more Liberty, means self sufficiency which would lead us back on the path of Individualism.
The battle is weaning the babes off the govt, hard at first, but when they see their programs being cut and the money coming in is less that that of a minimum wage job, self sufficiency will lead to independence.
Regardless of consequence, it's the right thing to do to free the country.
So how would you apply that logic to Afghanistan, who receive 60-90% of their revenue through us, and who don't have a single accountable ministry in their Government (ergo, money just "disappears" a lot)?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:41:27 AM
So how would you apply that logic to Afghanistan, who receive 60-90% of their revenue through us, and who don't have a single accountable ministry in their Government (ergo, money just "disappears" a lot)?
If you have a point to make, then make it.
Well, Afghanistan's history is like the tides, they've had innumerable nations try to intervene in their affairs to shape them into something else, and they all went back empty handed.
I don't think were in position to succeed where they failed, considering cultural differences, the lack of influence on the people there... and the results we've been getting these last 13 years.
If it's position I'm going to take, it's that of Col. Gentile (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mm4miyM8U4), whose a Professor of History at West Point (my parents alma mater incidentally).
We had narrow policy objective in Afghanistan: take out Bin Laden, and push Al Qaeda out of power.
We've done both of these things, we shouldn't be pushing for an even wider policy objective we cannot be sure we can achieve. If Afghanistan's own history is any indicator, it's not likely to bear fruit, at least, not the kind we're looking for.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:37:36 AM
Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...
I think I'm going to like it here. B)
Welcome to the forum. We are true conservatives here and do not mind expressing our views. PC we are not.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:37:36 AM
Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...
I think I'm going to like it here. B)
I have several reliable observers here who will attest that I am MUCH kinder and gentler than I used to be.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 07:42:42 AM
Well, Afghanistan's history is like the tides, they've had innumerable nations try to intervene in their affairs to shape them into something else, and they all went back empty handed.
I don't think were in position to succeed where they failed, considering cultural differences, the lack of influence on the people there... and the results we've been getting these last 13 years.
If it's position I'm going to take, it's that of Col. Gentile (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mm4miyM8U4), whose a Professor of History at West Point (my parents alma mater incidentally).
We had narrow policy objective in Afghanistan: take out Bin Laden, and push Al Qaeda out of power.
We've done both of these things, we shouldn't be pushing for an even wider policy objective we cannot be sure we can achieve. If Afghanistan's own history is any indicator, it's not likely to bear fruit, at least, not the kind we're looking for.
So you had no point. Now stop wasting my time.
No, I do. We've created a nation that is completely dependent on us, for no real benefit to us.
Afghanistan cannot ever reach enlightenment in this manner, we're simply dragging along a half-nation that is stuck along the way to reaching it.
By supporting Afghanistan like this, we demean them, and deny them the chance of coming into their own, which they desperately need to do.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 01:40:54 PM
No, I do. We've created a nation that is completely dependent on us, for no real benefit to us.
Afghanistan cannot ever reach enlightenment in this manner, we're simply dragging along a half-nation that is stuck along the way to reaching it.
By supporting Afghanistan like this, we demean them, and deny them the chance of coming into their own, which they desperately need to do.
The only benefit we have received from the Afghanistan event is we destroyed the terrorist training ground. It does appear dealing with terrorists is like moving water in a balloon. It goes to somewhere else, but the amount of water remains the same. Bush was naive in believing the USA could provide an environment that the citizens would embrace democratic government. These people are not interested in that and will never be. This is a lesson the US never learns. That being said, what we did in Afghanistan what was necessary to attack Al Qaeda and take the Taliban out of power.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:41:27 AM
So how would you apply that logic to Afghanistan, who receive 60-90% of their revenue through us, and who don't have a single accountable ministry in their Government (ergo, money just "disappears" a lot)?
We tried to help with that, but the democracy experiment appears to have failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So yes, we should stop giving either one jack shit. And attack their various factions as we decide is needed for our security......just as we're doing to ISIS.
Of course we sort of already do ignore Africa......and liberals cry that we don't care about them.
Go figure.
Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:22:48 PM
Hello,
I am a new member here and I am posting because I want to compare and contrast our different political views. I find great value in dialog with those of differing political persuasions. I have spent some time debating leftists on various forums, and I wanted to do the same with a conservative group. I don't mean to "troll" or be rude in any way. I don't exactly know how much we might agree or how much we might disagree. I hope to find that out through discussion.
I'm sure you are aware that libertarianism is a growing political movement in this country, with plenty of influence taking root within the (grassroots) GOP, as well as outside of organized politics. I want to state my views and I look forward to thoughtful critiques.
I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as "anarcho capitalist", though I have some issues with that label. What this means is that I believe in individual self ownership. As a purposeful independent human being of intrinsic worth, I reject the idea that any other individual has the right to commit aggression against me without my permission. And similarly, I don't believe I have any right to use aggression against anyone else. Aggression is the initiation of force. This principle is otherwise known as the non-aggression principle.
I believe that aggression cannot ever be justified. And the State, as an institution, necessarily must use aggression. Therefore, the State is illegitimate and immoral.
As another justification for this view, I understand that any rational ethical principle for human behavior must be universal. If, say, murder is determined to be immoral and unjustified, then it must be immoral and unjustified for all individuals in a society. We cannot have different standards for ethical behavior based on class, wealth, or any other superficial distinction.
By tolerating the existence of the State, you must concede that you do not accept any universal moral principles for human behavior. Because those that hold office in government, or are granted special privileges through the State, necessarily are permitted to commit acts of aggression whereas all those individuals who are outside of the State as expressly forbidden from committing these very same actions.
You are not permitted to steal your neighbors money and property and call it "taxation". You are not permitted to counterfeit money and call it "central banking". You are not permitted to secede and disassociate yourself from the State. You cannot decide to murder people and call it a legitimate "war" or a "targeted drone strike".
Conservatives are supposed to believe in moral absolutes. There are certain actions that are immoral and unjustifiable. To arbitrarily make exceptions to the moral law for politicians is to reject ethics and philosophy outright.
Could you explain to me why aggression is justified? And if you have a broader issue with libertarianism in general, I'd like to hear your best critiques.
jrodefeld, you are not a Libertarian. What you profess is not mainstream Libertarianism. I should know, I am a Libertarian myself.
You state no one has the right to use aggression against you, nor you against others. So if I come up and Byatch slap you, forcibly take liberties with your wife and obfuscate with the fruits of your labor what of it? Are you saying you have no right to respond with aggression? Or is it just that I have no right to do so? What of it? What are you going to do with no government to apply aggression against me in reprisal and as you said you have no right to use aggression against me either. I guess you are SOL. Now right after you frantically run off to establish such an institution to redress your grievances you will need to find a method to fund it, or use aggression against those employed in it's efforts to donate their labor, free of charge as you wouldn't want to give them "counterfeit" money. Your ideologies are ludicrous and they furthermore do not represent Libertarianism.... reality or world geopolitics either for that matter.
Quote from: LibDave on August 19, 2014, 06:32:43 PM
jrodefeld, you are not a Libertarian. What you profess is not mainstream Libertarianism. I should know, I am a Libertarian myself.
You state no one has the right to use aggression against you, nor you against others. So if I come up and Byatch slap you, forcibly take liberties with your wife and obfuscate with the fruits of your labor what of it? Are you saying you have no right to respond with aggression? Or is it just that I have no right to do so? What of it? What are you going to do with no government to apply aggression against me in reprisal and as you said you have no right to use aggression against me either. I guess you are SOL. Now right after you frantically run off to establish such an institution to redress your grievances you will need to find a method to fund it, or use aggression against those employed in it's efforts to donate their labor, free of charge as you wouldn't want to give them "counterfeit" money. Your ideologies are ludicrous and they furthermore do not represent Libertarianism.... reality or world geopolitics either for that matter.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I went round and round with him on that, and he claims they'll hire mercenaries.
Now how stupid is that? I'll simply pay off his mercs and use them to take everything he holds dear.
Does this bizarre clusterfuck of a conversation really belong in the War Forum?
Mods, may I suggest that we move this sad piece of shit somewhere where it can die quietly? Maybe the Pit? Or the Nut House?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:37:36 AM
Hmm, never seen a forum where people spoke quite that openly...
I think I'm going to like it here. B)
Well, that was a little harsh of quiller. He didn't need to insult trash and filth like that.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 01:40:54 PM
By supporting Afghanistan like this, we demean them, and deny them the chance of coming into their own, which they desperately need to do.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I wasn't aware humanity is by some i.e natural law on a continual progress towards enlightenment. Where is the evidence?
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 20, 2014, 04:52:10 AM
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I wasn't aware humanity is by some i.e natural law on a continual progress towards enlightenment. Where is the evidence?
Are you really expecting him to explain his "Feelings"? :biggrin:
Quote from: taxed on August 20, 2014, 01:31:06 AM
Well, that was a little harsh of quiller. He didn't need to insult trash and filth like that.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 06:00:13 AM
Are you really expecting him to explain his "Feelings"? :biggrin:
Lol good point, it just annoys me how many people think humanity
(especially Islam) will naturally "evolve" into a state of enlightenment or have a natural liberal reformation if only left alone.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 20, 2014, 04:52:10 AM
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I wasn't aware humanity is by some i.e natural law on a continual progress towards enlightenment. Where is the evidence?
I'm not saying they will, I'm saying if they ever will they will need to do so on their own, find their own way to it.
We can't force it, we don't have that power, we are up against over a millennia of culture and history, and in addition they don't like us, which means they aren't likely to listen to us if our words and their values are in conflict.
If it turns out they don't find a way, they stay barbarians in the caves, and we or someone else nearby has to "mow the grass" every few decades or so, so be it.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 20, 2014, 08:54:29 AM
Lol good point, it just annoys me how many people think humanity (especially Islam) will naturally "evolve" into a state of enlightenment or have a natural liberal reformation if only left alone.
It's not a foregone conclusion, even with Christian nations that's not a given (Central and South America). But for Islamic cultures we do have precedent.
1. The Kurds. They aren't quite enlightened, but they do embrace plurality, they have both Christians and Muslims among their number. Seems to me that if we gave them their own State, they'd be pretty well behaved.
2. Indonesia. Despite being primarily Muslim, opinion there has turned against the Radical Jihadists. They don't want Sharia law, they don't want to to run roughshod over other religious minorities.
3. The UAE. Probably due to more and more of their population becoming Foreign, but their weak-application of Sharia law continues to degrade.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 01:04:28 PM
It's not a foregone conclusion, even with Christian nations that's not a given (Central and South America). But for Islamic cultures we do have precedent.
1. The Kurds. They aren't quite enlightened, but they do embrace plurality, they have both Christians and Muslims among their number. Seems to me that if we gave them their own State, they'd be pretty well behaved.
2. Indonesia. Despite being primarily Muslim, opinion there has turned against the Radical Jihadists. They don't want Sharia law, they don't want to to run roughshod over other religious minorities.
3. The UAE. Probably due to more and more of their population becoming Foreign, but their weak-application of Sharia law continues to degrade.
What do you mean with Latin America? Except for the Communist countries Latin America is growing economically and they are also some of the most liberty loving countries and free commerce driven societies on earth. Latin America is a great place to live
(except for said communist states).
The Kurds are socialist communists, give them their own state and they will be just another oil-tyranny one party state. They would be well behaved like Venezuela is well behaved, i guess that's better than the Islamic State, but I wouldn't consider it to be enlightened in any way.
As for UAE, the Kurds and even Indonesia, the variables that might indicate cultural liberalization could be easily attributed to western influence on lifestyle and hedonism. Which means that they are dependent on foreign influence to reach what you call "enlightenment" whatever that is.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 21, 2014, 10:13:15 AM
What do you mean with Latin America?
All the places being wracked with violence worse than Iraq in height of the insurgency right now, namely Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
It's not all bad, I agree, Chile has made great gains, and Brazil is now a larger economy than Russia. Shame the latter doesn't grow anymore because their socialist instincts got the better of them, but it could be worse. BP
QuoteThe Kurds are socialist communists,
So were the Israelis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz). I think they'd also grow out of it.
QuoteAs for UAE, the Kurds and even Indonesia, the variables that might indicate cultural liberalization could be easily attributed to western influence on lifestyle and hedonism. Which means that they are dependent on foreign influence to reach what you call "enlightenment" whatever that is.
It's a globalized world, and we got to the mantle of "world culture" first. No once can get there in a vacuum anymore, Japan didn't, Singapore didn't, Hong Kong didn't, and none of them have Christianity as a dominant Religion.
I mean, why re-invent the wheel? They've each etched some personal taste on the matter, but equally they all echo us, or perhaps more accurately, echo Anglo-saxon ideas, and the dialectic on liberty.
I
may also add Turkey, Ataturk did remove Political Islamism, but it couldn't last as the people couldn't relate to it. Nonetheless, his ideas had staying power, especially within the military, so it's not completely gone either.
A Muslim faction within the country, an offshoot of the one Al Assad belongs to in Syria, are strong supporters of those ideas as they help to keep themselves alive.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 01:53:14 AM
All the places being wracked with violence worse than Iraq in height of the insurgency right now, namely Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
It's not all bad, I agree, Chile has made great gains, and Brazil is now a larger economy than Russia. Shame the latter doesn't grow anymore because their socialist instincts got the better of them, but it could be worse. BP
Central America and Latin America two completely different societies, just because they talk Spanish doesn't mean they share the same values. It's true, the communist party of Brazil is the true party that is in control, just watch the current socialist President speech at the latest Brazil communist congress. Chile is good, but a country that is very prosperous, got more liberty than Europe and USA and maybe the happiest country is Colombia, FARC is a issue but the general population hate FARC with a passion.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 01:53:14 AM
So were the Israelis[/url]. I think they'd also grow out of it.
The Israelis have had too out of economic necessity, they do not have the petro-welfare of many other socialist countries and they need a strong military compared to i.e Sweden but they still have many socialist programs that will eventually bankrupt the nation if not cut or revoked. The currents facts are that one party oil-tyrannies states never give up on their communist control.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 01:53:14 AM
It's a globalized world, and we got to the mantle of "world culture" first. No once can get there in a vacuum anymore, Japan didn't, Singapore didn't, Hong Kong didn't, and none of them have Christianity as a dominant Religion.
I lost you, what does Christianity has to do with it? The same conservative values that made Christian countries great can make any country or religion great. I just wanted to correct you on your generalization of Latin America.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 01:53:14 AM
I may also add Turkey, Ataturk did remove Political Islamism, but it couldn't last as the people couldn't relate to it. Nonetheless, his ideas had staying power, especially within the military, so it's not completely gone either.
A Muslim faction within the country, an offshoot of the one Al Assad belongs to in Syria, are strong supporters of those ideas as they help to keep themselves alive.
Have you been to Turkey? The people do not want Sharia, this is why Democracy is a such a corruption and vile form of government, the AKP party can with 49.8% change the entire country into Sharia something the other 50% do not want any part of, people in Turkey for the most part love western lifestyle and freedom which is why you see so many protests against the AKP.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 22, 2014, 02:19:10 AMThe Israelis have had too out of economic necessity, they do not have the petro-welfare of many other socialist countries and they need a strong military compared to i.e Sweden but they still have many socialist programs that will eventually bankrupt the nation if not cut or revoked. The currents facts are that one party oil-tyrannies states never give up on their communist control.
There are other instances of single-resource nations turning out well.
Take the case of Botswana. It is 70% desert and in the 1960s was the third poorest place on earth. Today, they're a middle income nation, and one of the few nations in Africa that doesn't receive aid.
Their nigh exclusive resource is the diamond trade. Their government compiles a surplus from it, to save and use when the diamonds finally run out. They are not taking that fact for granted.
More on them here.
I lost you, what does Christianity has to do with it? The same conservative values that made Christian countries great can make any country or religion great. I just wanted to correct you on your generalization of Latin America.[/quote]
All of these nations were either built upon English common law, or had their own constitutions inspired by it.
English common law is the product of natural law. Natural law, while not exclusively Christian, is heavily correlated with it, and in the 18th century, the only school in town using this to push for liberty was Christian ethics.
QuoteHave you been to Turkey? The people do not want Sharia, this is why Democracy is a such a corruption and vile form of government, the AKP party can with 49.8% change the entire country into Sharia something the other 50% do not want any part of, people in Turkey for the most part love western lifestyle and freedom which is why you see so many protests against the AKP.
Sadly, I have not. I only know that their most recent president was trying yo shift the nation into Islamic conservatism, that's why I hedge my bets.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 22, 2014, 09:55:26 PM
There are other instances of single-resource nations turning out well.
Take the case of Botswana. It is 70% desert and in the 1960s was the third poorest place on earth. Today, they're a middle income nation, and one of the few nations in Africa that doesn't receive aid.
Their nigh exclusive resource is the diamond trade. Their government compiles a surplus from it, to save and use when the diamonds finally run out. They are not taking that fact for granted.
Botswana have never been communist or even socialist, they have had a decentralized tribal system. It seems Botswana is the proof that conservatism works best for all humankind, the BDP is a right-wing conservative party that has boosted the economy for almost a decade in power. Neighboring Zimbabwe shows you the success of socialism however.
A few thoughts:
1. The Kurds - The Kurds are Muslim in the same way that Mormons are Christian (they aren't really); thus the tension with Shia and Sunni alike. The Kurds have all kinds of stuff mixed in with their "Islam". Kurds are tolerant of other religions for 2 reasons, first they are not true "Muslims" IMHO - second, They are constantly under attack from "true Muslims", so they have to stick together regardless of religion (and they have all kinds of religions).
2. Indonesia - The world's most populous Muslim nation, is increasingly the scene of attacks or episodes of intolerance towards minorities, whether they are Christians, Ahmadi Muslims or other faiths
3. The UAE - Not even a legitimate country IMHO. The place is just an oil cartel, and anything that gets in the way of pumping oil is squashed. They don't let the Jihadist act up because it would be disruptive and the rich Muslims would not be able to go to Bahrain (Muslim Disney / freaky sex land) and screw Russian hookers.
4. Afghanistan - I truly wish we would have just nuked the place in 2001 after the Taliban refused to give up UBL.