"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Serious , I don't think you'll find any
Edit: ^nevermind, then again he's not a libertarian. Then again, most of the people I know who oppose the Israeli lobby and zionism in general, are not libertarian.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
(above post is quite ignorant)
*
* 'Liberal' Analysis (as opposed to 'Political Realism' Analysis):
'Zionists' are the closest thing to capitalism that cluster of countries. However, US gives money to Israel then gives money 'to be apparently fair' to whatever mafia chief of bandits 'Palistinian Peoples leader' is in power runs around buying weapons/stealing aid money 'wanting peace and happiness without capitalism'. It also 'slap Israel on the wrist' to 'be fair', since it gives money. This prevents solution of the problem. They should rather get the government not to send money to both sides; Israel would make do, they have a economy; the unproductive persons shooting, however, would get less money and lose 'fair support'. Israel's lobby should rather engage in publishing to sway public opinion to nonintervention (but they're not economists and don't understand this, although quite alot of Israeli's do).
I am not a zionist, I am anti-state so I am against the Israeli state. but 'zionists' and 'israelis' are not 'genocidal' and have not had a policy of genocide even as they have done other ugly and immoral things.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Yes its just inflammatory. 40,000 palestinians over 50 years is pushing it, though not on the same order of magnitude as what we usually complain about...
^nirgraham,
Just to bring out in the open for discussion, Raphael Lemkin defines genocide (because he created the term) in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention as the following:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Personally, I don't see a significant difference between mass murder and genocide to not strongly oppose both.
The word gets thrown around entirely too much. Usually by the hysterical liberal interventionists to create support for starting wars, but we shouldn't sink to their level.
Libertyandlife:or mental harm to members of the group; This. Really?
Libertyandlife:or mental harm to members of the group;
"Yes its just inflammatory. 40,000 palestinians over 50 years is pushing it..........."
Anybody taking sides in Statist conflicts is a statist himself. The discontent with Israeli policies by libertarians is such an hypocrisy, it makes me sick!
If you go and side with Statist palestinians fighting for their alleged "freedom" from Israeli occupation just so that they can set up their own welfare/warfare State and slaughter their own people, then you deserve a medal for Statist of the year.
^Yes to snowflake's comment:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
DD5, pointing out murder is not supporting statism. If anything, statism is the cause of it. Frankly:
Anarchy> A peacefull single state> A successful Palestinian state > apartheid
"DD5, pointing out murder is not supporting statism"
And you're taking sides with murderers so spare me the BS. Same goes for snowflake.
Juice did wtc.
Also,I don't think, that one pointing out a murder is being a statist. Though, it would be the case, if one excluded palestinians. In my opinion.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Anybody taking sides in Statist conflicts is a statist himself. The discontent with Israeli policies by libertarians is such an hypocrisy, it makes me sick! If you go and side with Statist palestinians fighting for their alleged "freedom" from Israeli occupation just so that they can set up their own welfare/warfare State and slaughter their own people, then you deserve a medal for Statist of the year.
The most idiotic thing I heard in months.
DD5 wrote: Anybody taking sides in Statist conflicts is a statist himself.
Anybody taking sides in Statist conflicts is a statist himself.
Can I take the side of innocent civilians?
Are you anti-state or anti-Israel? There are innocent civilians on both sides so who's side are you going to take?
IMO the Israeli lobby cannot be blamed for taking a rational course of action from their point of view. The U.S. government is passing out foreign aid goodies, and Israel, surrounded by sworn enemies, would be stupid not to take advantage of this policy and try to grab a slice if it will improve their chances of national survival.
The blame should fall entirely on the U.S. government and its policy of blowing trillions of taxpayer $'s in an attempt to strengthen its own power overseas, not the lobbyists who are rationally trying to ensure that the nation they represent remains a net gainer rather than a net loser in this exercise.
"The blame should fall entirely on the U.S. government and its policy of blowing trillions of taxpayer $'s in an attempt to strengthen its own power overseas, not the lobbyists who are rationally trying to ensure that the nation they represent remains a net gainer rather than a net loser in this exercise."
Yes, and also the people here ranting about Israeli and Jewish lobbyists should specify the other lobbyists that they do approve off. Do they approve of Palestinian and Arab lobbyists for example?
Am I bothered that Israel-affiliated officials are at the top of the United States government? Am I bothered that defense bureaucrat Lawrence Franklin gladly sold secrets to Israeli spies? Am I bothered that Douglas Feith used his office as a means of serving private interests with Israeli clients? Am I bothered that Richard Perle and David Wumser are virtual spokesmen for Likud Party even as top advisors to US government? Am I bothered that Sibel Edmonds found out that American bureaucrats regularly sell secrets between Saudis and Turkish businessmen through Israeli middlemen?
Hell no.
It's wonderful revenge on an imperial entity to be dismantled from within by outside interests. The American government is a disgusting abominable entity that has the blood of millions of Bosnians, Iraqis, Somalis, Iranis, Germans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Afghanis, Grenadans, and Chileans on its hands.
If people can inflitrate into a thieving entity for the sake of thieving from the thieving entity - all the better! It's like a situation when a mob boss is unable to leave his house and has to put a hold on his extortionist activities, because other competing mob bosses want to kill him and each other. Let all the bastards finish each other off.
Please infiltrate America further, Israeli businessmen: you can't destroy these despicable liars, murderers, and thieves quickly enough. You are not doing enough.
I would be so glad if all these inflitrating Israelis break apart the framework of the most demonic establishment ever created by preying on its self-serving greed. It serves American politicians right.
The Israeli lobby pisses me off--they control Congress and they're statists; they're driving us into debt and endangering our security. They're irrational and they need to read Walter Block.
No country has an inalienable right to aid from another country.
DD5 wrote: Are you anti-state or anti-Israel? There are innocent civilians on both sides so who's side are you going to take?
I said I take the side of innocent civilians. I don't care what their passport says.
It's hard to 'support' either side. I don't think it's rational to try and claim that you can't support one side or another because of your views on capitalism or anarchism. The simple fact is, Israel has blockaded Gaza to the point where (as the World Bank estimates) 80% of the goods imported into Gaza come in through secretive, underground tunnels. Even then, that's not good enough. 65% of children in the Gaza suffer from anemia. Israel is taking the interventionist tactic of sanctions, and is taking it a step further. How anyone who claims to be a 'libertarian' or support the 'free market' can support such aggressive behavior is really beyond me. I was reading a UN report some months ago that said the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed, and there's a black market for such basic necessities as soap and clean water.
Oh wait, but Israel is the closest thing to a free market, so unless you support Israel, you're a dirty statist! I would hope that people who read Mises and Rothbard would be above such petty thinking...
^Sure there is, side with the civilians. Civilians and governments are not synonymous. I am not my government. I am for whatever is best for Israelis and Palestinians, the government and lobbies get in the way.
"Oh wait, but Israel is the closest thing to a free market, so unless you support Israel, you're a dirty statist!"
Who has claimed this? What are you talking about?
Pointing out the shortcomings of the Isreali state does not mean I endorse the palestinian state, or any other states. Shucks im a bigger anarcho capitalist than all a y'all
i think american would be better off staying neutral within that region and the rest of world like the swiss
Agree, we should tell both the Israeli AND Arab lobbies to **** off and die and we should mind our own damn business.
In fact, we should mind our own business as far as the rest of the world goes as well.
I find it pretty difficult to condemn Israel to be honest.
I just wrote on this in my blog (see signature for lenghtier reading). But to summarise the threat to Jews living in the middle-east is pretty high, and the nature ot the threat is very difficult to defend against in any other way then creating occupied buffer-zones with high military presense all around you.
Israel is a natural product of desperation. If you look at the middle-east alone it is either what we have now or the extermination/forced relocation of all Jews living there that are the only two things that could have happened.
The true sources of the conflict lie far beyond Israel-Palestine with booth sides violence being empowered by outsiders. The main criminals are Islamic fundamentalists but they wouldn't be a threat of note unless the US was meddling with all of the contries they operate in spreadin discontent and basically handing more follwers and more money to people that are set on spreading fanatic hate and dispair for there own twisted gains.
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
I just wrote on this in my blog (see signature for lenghtier reading).
I read it. You are not a libertarian.
No, I am an anarchist...
mental harm?
hkarnoldson:No, I am an anarchist...
[edit] Oh it was early. I thought you said you weren't an anarchist, but you are, and so his he, which is consistent. Consistent means good.
hkarnoldson:But to summarise the threat to Jews living in the middle-east is pretty high
@snowflake
Hamas is very anti-Semitic. The al-Aqsa TV station portrays the Holocaust as something that was planned by Jews, among many other things. Their own charter says that Jews deserve to by destroyed. They believe in ridiculous 'evil Jooooos control the world' conspiracy theories. They are pure anti-Semites and brainwash their own children by implanting anti-Semitic messages in TV programs.
Few weeks back at work someone mentioned Iran (in some pro-USA, anti-Iran sentiment), and he was shocked when I said I didn't really care and I have no problem with Iran. I then continued with asking why should we support Israel and why should we be against Iran, and one of my managers got into it and asked, "What do we have to do with Israel? What's the point of supporting them?". The guy didn't really have a response (because I'm assuming he's conditioned to believe we should be against Iran, and to believe we should support Israel). I think the conversation sprung out of him asking how I feel about taxes going to Iran or doing trade with Iran, something of that sort, it didn't really make sense what he was asking (I should have asked how he feels about the same going for Israel), but the answer wasn't what he expected.
Besides that Israel is a criminal state. I can't remember who said it, but someone on this forum wrote something along the lines of "Israel is some artificially made welfare state on some shoddy piece of real estate", or to that extent.
The Israel lobby is about more than just channelling money to Israel, it is a critical part of the military industrial congressional complex as we know it today. Originally the Israel lobby was hawkish on the Middle East, but dovish on every other region of the world (like Vietnam) which was causing problems for the forces behind the complex (which were hawkish on everything but did not really care about Israel) at the time. This changed in the late 1960s when the old and the new super-interventionists found "middle ground" and resolved to support each others wars. This is when the complex really took off.