Aristophanes, I'm reporting your posts. I just thought I would extend to you the courtesy of letting you know. Sincerely, gotlucky
Aristophanes,
I'm reporting your posts. I just thought I would extend to you the courtesy of letting you know.
Sincerely,
gotlucky
Because you think I am racist? I love anarchists.
"We don't want authority. Oh, I can't wrap my head around others beliefs, get rid of them figure of power!!"
Lots of respect for individualism and breadth of opinions here...
How is State power private?
Humans act in coordination with one another to achieve a goal that consists of compromise between results. It may not be efficient all of the time, but it does happen
If they don't know what "it" is then why are they voting?
Semantically it is. Who is turned away? People without IDs? People who are intimidated on their way to the poles?
Other than the entire political system is predicated on the voting public...this is such a dumb thing to say. The constitution is republican in nature, not democratic. Democracy is what is supposedly less aristocratic (or oligarchic) of the two.
You know I am referring to the proaganda. "We" escaped the programming of the state in school. Frankly, this is a survival of the fittest. Intellect is not universal, I realize this, but I am not going to feel sorry for people in general who vote without thinking.
Just ask yourself, "Since we do have a centrally managed economy, is it better to let people entirely ignorant of economics to run it?" It makes no sense to me to allow ignorant people to vote on economic management. Wjhen they vote for debt, credit, welfare adn warfare, then they deserve to have a toilet bowl economy when interest rates rise. There is an element of reality that is missing in the political system.
Also, it does not necessarily follow that those who respect their culture or heritage "dont have a strong individual identity." That is a rather condescending attitude that you display in this regard. Again, if you actually talk to people about it, you would figure this out.
Aristophanes: Aristophanes, I'm reporting your posts. I just thought I would extend to you the courtesy of letting you know. Sincerely, gotlucky Because you think I am racist? I love anarchists. "We don't want authority. Oh, I can't wrap my head around others beliefs, get rid of them figure of power!!" Lots of respect for individualism and breadth of opinions here...
because it is always exercised by a human agent, who is inherently self-interested. If you put over sight on him, you only put power in the hands of another individual to do something, he will always choose to perform his duties in a self-interested way.
I gues I do not (and probably am not willing to) disassociate the agency of the voter and the facilitation of that position power. The voters are all self-interested.
those events are properly considered as complicated interactions between individuals.
haha, okay. Is that all there is to it?
have you never seen the public service announcements that encourage participation without encouraging the audience to study the issues?
"Vote or Die," yes I am aware of those campaigns. What does it matter?
felons, minors, people who arent registered...there is widespread disenfranchisement because of voter fraud...and the limitation of choices are all seconday arguments compared to the fact that voting collectivises decision-making, which distorts cause/effect and reward/punishment relations. I thought you were a poly sci major?
Okay, yeah I don't count felons...(I know there is not universal justification for their exclusion), or minors as they are still legally the responsibility of the parents. "people who aren't registered? You mean people who don't vote? Or illegals who cannot register? If they are choosing not to vote they they can't be disenfranchised.
"there is widespread disenfranchisement because of voter fraud" - something else that people are keenly aware of, but do nothing about...
I fail to recognize how the rest of this section is releveant in light of your previous statement of "I cant help but think youre implying that suffrage is universal in Israel and the US....surely youre aware thats not the case." Really, how does that relate to, "voting collectivises decision-making, which distorts cause/effect and reward/punishment relations."?
I thought we were talking about the real world here. Of course theres a republican element, the point is that democracy through a two-party system is also oligarchic. Do you contest that assertion?
No, but I add that there is an element of agency in the voter than cannot be dismissed simply because of TPTB.
if someone has taken the time to become an engineer of nuclear physics, or a neurosurgeon, I can hardly understand why you might blame them for not also studying world events for the time it would take to unravel such a well-crafted line of bullshit
I'd question why they are voting? And if they aren't, then I am not talking about them.
Particularly when an individual is well-versed in complicated things that are difficult to explan to laymen and krugman writes for the ny times.
What?
Somewhat ironic, as you have gotten to be the least respectful person on the forums.
First, I doubt that I am the most disrespectful as I only took offense when allegations started being thrown at me (which you, Malachai, started).
I'd rather be sincere in my opinions and not put words in people's mouths (like you)...is that Ironic, Malachai?
Also, "you have got to be" is the correct way to state what I think you were saying. More grammar debates?
It does not necessarily follow that people who respect their culture or heritage would be offended by a methodologically individualistic approach to history, politics, or economics.
The point I was making is that it generally does. And you're right it doesn't necessarily follow (we both made the same error), but the rhetoric and immideate withdraw into subjectivism gets that impession across quite consistently.
Why is libertarianism so unpopular in Europe? Why do people dislike atheism and anarchy? They see it as an affront to them.
Your earlier statement could be read as presumptuous and condescending but unlike yourself, I can have a discussion without ascribing dubious implications to my counterpart every other post or so. You really need to grow up.
No, you cannot. If you could then you wouldn't have put words in my mouth in your first reply to me.
I have been accused of being a racist and a collectivist (neither of which is true).
How can you possibly think that these comments are respectful? How can you possibly think that someone would respond respectfully to those allegations? You are such an insincere hypocrite.
Vote or Die," yes I am aware of those campaigns. What does it matter?
Aristophanes: I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is. Why don't you re-read what you quoted ... "Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get." To whom could "they" POSSIBLY refer to? tbh, that is the kind of idiotic question that makes me want to punch libertarians in the face.
I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is.
"Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get."
To whom could "they" POSSIBLY refer to?
tbh, that is the kind of idiotic question that makes me want to punch libertarians in the face.
Stop whining and answer the question.
youre ignoring the fact that their consent is manufactured.
Not ignoring it. just not giving it them the free ride that you do because of it. As I said, we escaped it, why can't they?
what are they to do? Posit an alternative.
Not vote? Not pay taxes? Hit the streets and protest? Don't allow the GOP to obviously steal the election from you? You seem to say that the only option in light of their total ignorance is to vote. But there is no reason for that. Are you familiar with the concepts at the foundation of philosophy of action outside of Misesian praxeology?
Information is not a nominal prerequisite for voter participation.
That is what TPTB want though isn't it? The simple fact that it is not required to do it doesn't make it okay to do.
"People will state an opinion about an economic issue despite having little or no knowledge of the subject." - My link is gone for this, but you can find the full study online.
what are they to do? (about voter fraud)
Not vote? Not pay taxes? Hit the streets and protest?
I'd refer you to Malcom X or Thoreau again, but I don't want to seem like I am necessarily advocating exactly what they did (someone might report me). Let's say, that kind of thing must be kept in mind if you want the Establishment to take your cause seriously.
to the extent that a given elected representative is the choice of the people, that choice is rarely a good choice because of the many parts of life that are touched by the political sphere.
Huh? This justifies it?
Federalist #10? - If only it were as hypothesized.
For example, it wouldnt matter to you if some district in new hampshire had consistently, year-after-year voted antiwar candidates to office, since they are voting americans they threw their lot in with the warmongers.
How do you figure this? They are doing what I would expect of them.
your disrespect towards others is an ongoing phenomenon
Says you. Almost everyone on here insults someone else eventually. And also, you did not deny that you started this one. So, I don't see how you can possibly call me out on it...it is that hypocrisy peepoing up again.
It is matter of fact that you yourself do employ collective pronouns with regard to nation-states. And sincerity doesnt require personal abuse, I'd rather you matched the sincerity with discretion. I dont need to know that you think I can go $&@; myself, thats out of line and unproductive.
EDIT:
Here are two quick pointers consistent with standard American practice:
1. Treat collective nouns as singular. This usage is more conventional.
2. If you wish to emphasize the individual members of a group, rewrite the sentence so that the collective noun is no longer the subject.
Boom. This I give an example of with the Freanch/France below...
It is only as out of line and unproductive as you putting words in people's mouths. Sometimes sincerity does require untoward language. Every heard a parent tell their kid it is a brat or it should be in jail, etc.?
I didn't refer to a nation state. I referred to a state. I'd think that the anarcho-capitalists here would recognize the difference. I would never say, "I don't like France, they are blah." " 'It' is blah" would be instinctual for me. I would say, "I don't like the French, they are blah."
no because you werent always like this.
What pissed off at you for putting words in my mouth? Or pissed off at the other intellectual wonder that accused me of antisemitism?
When I observe your collectivism, its not an insult, just an observation.
Mis-di-rection.
You make assumptions about beliefs before they have been explicated. You are insincere and a hypocrite. Don't forget that about yourself. I am comfortable with using "curse" words, I use them all the time in real life and people never jump up and say, "He's swearing, teacher ,teacher!" like the tattletales here do.
Who is more immature, those that use profane language or those that attempt to tell on others for using profane language? The eight year olds swear, the five year olds tell. Just saying.
I did. Stop posting this crap and read the posts. I answered in the sinn und bedeutung. How more specific can I get?
"Israel has sabotaged peace agreements just as much as the Arabs. In some cases Israel has said "no" to agreements that the arabs have agreed to with the U.S. (the big deal in the room). Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get. I take offense to your cowardly dismissal of Israel's transgressions. I'm going to the store, Apartheid anyone? EDIT: Oh yeah, didn't Israel sign onto an agreement in oohhhhhh 1967? Whatever happened to that?"
Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get.
I take offense to your cowardly dismissal of Israel's transgressions.
I'm going to the store, Apartheid anyone?
EDIT: Oh yeah, didn't Israel sign onto an agreement in oohhhhhh 1967? Whatever happened to that?"
I see. So if Israel wants lasting peace, they need to agree to whatever agreements are offered, no matter what the consequences of it are. Why didn't we think of that sooner?
The Israeli government is not racist. I can't argue with them being demons; I've suffered at its hands myself, although I hardly see how that makes them different from any other state. The Arabs don't want to just destroy the state though, they want to get rid of the Jewish majority there and create a theocratic Islamic ("Palestinian", as if the term means anything) government.
What do you think compromise means? They signed the 1967 agreement and they are not following it. I cannot say the Palastinians are systematically uprooting the Israeli population can I? But I can sure say that Israel is systematically uprooting the Palastinians...and since the Palastinians don't have a state, they get no recognition for the injustices that are wrought upon them.
The suicide bombings don't even begin to compare to the amount of force Israel uses (white phosphorus, missile stations, etc.) What was the casualty comparison in the Lebanon/Israel conflict?
Israeli civilians: 44 dead
Lebanese citizens: 1,191–1,300 dead
The sheer force alone...
The Israeli government is not racist.
The apartheid laws seem to indicate otherwise...
Safundi: Do you think, then, that the term "apartheid" is an accurate term for this situation? Chomsky: Apartheid in South Africa meant something different. Apartheid wasn't [only] Bantustans, apartheid was the arrangement inside South Africa. Bantustans were bad enough, but that was something else, that was caging the population into unviable territories. Like putting Indians in reservations. We don't call that apartheid. We call it something else. Safundi: But the term has been invoked by people within Israel, as well as among scholars. Chomsky: It has been invoked, but for different reasons. Safundi: What are those reasons? Chomsky: Those reasons have to do with Israel itself. Uri Davis-[who] has been involved in civil disobedience since the 1960s, he was the first serious activist in civil disobedience in Israel-in the 1960s, he protested real apartheid, inside Israel. This had been going on for the whole history of the state, but it was particularly dramatic around 1967 or 1968. Israel has a technique for dispossessing Israeli citizens-non-Jewish citizens-that's apartheid. One of the ways of doing it is to declare an area a military zone, so therefore for security reasons people have to get out, and it always turns out that it's never a Jewish area, it's Palestinian, and then after it's declared a security zone, you build settlements afterwards. And that's what's been going on. Palestinian villages had their lands taken away. Safundi: So it's similar to the forced removals that were happening in South Africa. Chomsky: Kind of, yes. And then, after people have forgotten about it, you go in and you build an all-Jewish city. And that's what was happening. Palestinian villages were restricted and they started building an all-Jewish city, Karmiel. This was a closed area, and Uri Davis went in, breaking the law, to protest what was happening. And that was the first serious act of civil disobedience.
Safundi: Do you think, then, that the term "apartheid" is an accurate term for this situation?
Chomsky: Apartheid in South Africa meant something different. Apartheid wasn't [only] Bantustans, apartheid was the arrangement inside South Africa. Bantustans were bad enough, but that was something else, that was caging the population into unviable territories. Like putting Indians in reservations. We don't call that apartheid. We call it something else.
Safundi: But the term has been invoked by people within Israel, as well as among scholars.
Chomsky: It has been invoked, but for different reasons.
Safundi: What are those reasons?
Chomsky: Those reasons have to do with Israel itself. Uri Davis-[who] has been involved in civil disobedience since the 1960s, he was the first serious activist in civil disobedience in Israel-in the 1960s, he protested real apartheid, inside Israel. This had been going on for the whole history of the state, but it was particularly dramatic around 1967 or 1968.
Israel has a technique for dispossessing Israeli citizens-non-Jewish citizens-that's apartheid. One of the ways of doing it is to declare an area a military zone, so therefore for security reasons people have to get out, and it always turns out that it's never a Jewish area, it's Palestinian, and then after it's declared a security zone, you build settlements afterwards. And that's what's been going on. Palestinian villages had their lands taken away.
Safundi: So it's similar to the forced removals that were happening in South Africa.
Chomsky: Kind of, yes. And then, after people have forgotten about it, you go in and you build an all-Jewish city. And that's what was happening. Palestinian villages were restricted and they started building an all-Jewish city, Karmiel. This was a closed area, and Uri Davis went in, breaking the law, to protest what was happening. And that was the first serious act of civil disobedience.
I can't argue with them being demons; I've suffered at its hands myself, although I hardly see how that makes them different from any other state.
True. The U.S. did the same thing Israel is doing to the Palastinians to the Native Americans...
The Arabs don't want to just destroy the state though, they want to get rid of the Jewish majority there and create a theocratic Islamic ("Palestinian", as if the term means anything) government.
As opposed to a theocratic racially pure Jewish state?
"Palestinian" refers to a loose collective of different sects of arabs that never had a state. As most arab tribes are, they were stateless, but run in a church-like manner. Then the Zionists came in formed a state and are now herding the Plastinians into "reserves" (again, just like the US).
The main difference is that the US did this 200 years ago. "We" can stop Israel from doing it today.
Israel is under threat!!!
The fact of the matter is that not only is Israel the region's sole nuclear power, and not only has it on previous occasions all but threatened to use these weapons of mass destruction, but it has since its establishment consistently and steadfastly rejected ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Rabbani said.
Who here can tell me if Iran has or has not signed the NPT!?!?!?!?!